Slashdot Mirror
Superheroes vs. the Westboro Baptist Church
sv_libertarian writes "They've faced down humans time and time again, but Fred Phelps and his minions from the Westboro Baptist Church were not ready for the cosplay action that awaited them at Comic-Con. After all, who can win against a counter-protest that includes robots, magical anime girls, Trekkies, Jedi, and... kittens?"
I had to actually RTFA. *angry face*
I rather liked the guy dressed as bender with a sign that said kill all humans. Honestly people should get together and do stuff like this more often it makes for some rather amusing pictures. perhaps even the people who are serious protesters will realize how crazy out their they are.
I think there may be hope for the middle east.
Satirical counterprotests of Fred Phelps are getting a bit boring, aren't they? That's basically what everyone does these days when they show up.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I don't understand Americans. Why don't you just beat them up?
os trabalhos e os dias: http://zmoreira.net
He is a retired lawyer, two of his kids are lawyers too. He has this wonderful way of tying the government in knots. For instance his clan/cult have a big house. This is a church. The swimming pool is a baptismal font. All income is tax free due to being a religion. IRS was not pleased, but he beat them.
His views are totally wacko but playing the govt off against itself is just awesome.
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them, like my pastor did with some similar guys protesting outside the Percy Jackson and the Harry Potter Ripoffs movie.
God Hates Haters.
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
Actually, it kind of is. See Occam's Razor. To elaborate, if the universe needed to be created by something, and that something was God, then God also needed to be created by something. If God didn't need to be created by something, then there's no reason why the universe would need to be.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
>>To elaborate, if the universe needed to be created by something, and that something was God, then God also needed to be created by something
Only if it is necessary that both the universe and God be created. The universe with its one-dimensional timeline is pretty clear to have had an origin (with the big bang), it's unclear if it is necessary for an entity existing outside of time to be created.
In other words, it's not an especially compelling analogy between the two.
>>However, we do think you are all delusional.
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evolutionary biology) and into a region he knows nothing about (theology). To be fair, though - he's still not as stupid as the Westborough fuckers.
Funny how you can contradict yourself in two sentences.
It's always simpler to say the universe created itself than to say something else first created itself and later created the universe.
I consider myself a Christian in the sense that I've read the Bible and believe Jesus taught the right lessons in ethics. But I'm perfectly able to separate the Genesis from Jesus. I refuse to accept a Middle Age transcript of a Bronze Age legend as some kind of fundamental truth in the same way I accept "love thy neighbor" as fundamental truth.
I doubt that an anthropomorphic god such as postulated by the Christian churches exist. i even doubt that the man Jesus was someone who actually lived on earth. Call me an Atheist Christian if you wish.
I believe the New Testament was a compilation of teachings by some Jewish scholars somewhere in Israel two thousand years ago but, no matter where those ideas came from, there's good value in them, if you can interpret them right.
Fundamentalists that see non-fundamentalists as deluded; atheists that see non-atheists as deluded. Pick your side and brandish your billboard.
just sayin
I consider myself a Christian in the sense that I've read the Bible and believe Jesus taught the right lessons in ethics.
By that logic I'm a christian. Personally I think this is the worst case of selective doctrine I've ever seen.
How we know is more important than what we know.
As someone's sig says "taxes buy civilisation". Phelps wants it both ways: he wants the Government to let him sue anyone who crosses him, and he doesn't want to pay for it. This, in my book, makes him a leech.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
perhaps even the people who are serious protesters will realize how crazy out their they are.
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/07/14/1235220/Given-Truth-the-Misinformed-Believe-Lies-More
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Yeah sure, reality is simply a matter of personal preference.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Better to be considered an asshat by someone who is clearly delusional, than being delusional yourself - or enabling their delusions at the cost to society as a whole. Religion needs put down, hard. The best single argument for me against faith has been one posited by Hitchens in part 2 of a debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYaQpRZJl18&feature=related (part1) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkHuvErbpd0&NR=1 (part 2). The idea that existence of this sort of god being "compelling" is more absurd than belief in astrology, reading the future in tea-leaves and various other nonsense.
What if there were a single cause for many of the world's ills in both the social and personal spheres, from overpopulation, ecological destruction, ethnic violence and hatred, to addictions, conflicts between the sexes, the breakdown of the family, and even why it feels good to be bad? Sound too simplistic or far-fetched? A core underlying cause of all these problems is hidden authoritarianism.
Buying into, communism, spiritual cults, organized religion, UFO cults, therapy cults, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Hitler or other authority beliefs where there is an unchallengeable book, ideology or leader generates self mistrust. It makes a person feel fundamentally mentally flawed. It causes you to look at evidence, logic, reason and what your mind would say is true, as garbage, you can not trust in, if it doesn't fit, the authority belief you bought into. These authority beliefs are social viruses that, like a computer virus, makes our basic human operating system dysfunctional. Just as a computer operating system controls how the parts work together, they say, moral codes provide the operating system both for self-control and social interaction. When the operating system is faulty, this produces distortions and malfunctions at all levels. As with computers, unmasking and decoding a virus allows one to disempower it. Buying into any religion does away with trust in your own mind and does away with uncorrupted critical thinking. Buying into an authority belief makes you a mental vegetable. The answer is to have courage enough to think for yourself.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9671.htm
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
(Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
All the good ones are.
The rest is just watering down their religion for general acceptance!
This is blinging
I could also have used "lack of evidence for any gods". Or even "you are atheist too, you disbelieve in thousand of gods, I disbelieve in just 1 more than you". Basically the GP had it right. There is no rationality in having faith. None whatsover. Which is fine as a personal choice, as long as it STAYS personal, and don't try to ruin the life of others, or refuse them equal SECULAR rights. Just don't claim to have done a rational choice, it is a terrible lie.
All the good Christians are the ones who dump the violent, prejudiced, intolerant bullshit that infests any religion and concentrate on DOING GOOD. And yes, I'm an atheist, I don't need the threat of punishment to do good.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
>>Believing in invisible men in the sky that will reward you if your good is on par with believing in leprechauns or wish granting genies. Oddly, it is socially acceptable to admit to only one of those things.
Says the Anonymous Coward, posting on a forum where I guarantee you the strong majority will be atheists replying to my post.
There's several levels of irony and hypocrisy there, but it's 4AM and I have yet more Comicon photos to upload...
I should do the same - dream up some ridiculous position to advocate and then see if I can get CNN to cover it. Maybe I'll start a group demanding that gorillas get the right to vote, or that we execute illegal immigrants, or insisting that everyone adopt a strict fruitarian diet like this guy.
I bet I could pull it off. If I didn't have anything productive to do.
"And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)"
Nope. Theists are deluded, what can one expect from them?
"Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evolutionary biology) and into a region he knows nothing about (theology). To be fair, though - he's still not as stupid as the Westborough fuckers."
Hm? How do you measure qualifications in theology? So far, I haven't been able to discern 'good' theologists from 'bad' ones.
>>Yeah sure, reality is simply a matter of personal preference.
Based on the current science, yeah. It seems more likely the universe had a starting point than it being eternally existing. If you have any counter-evidence, I'd love to see it.
Sadly, in the US it's still the other way around. Most atheists here are still in the closet due to peer pressure or simply think of them as agnostics and don't realize or care that the world around them is still controlled by religion. If we banded together to form political groups as Richard Dawkins suggest, we could have a very powerful lobby with many millions of members.
You should realize that atheists bring actual arguments and use logic, not a bunch of stupid excuses that have no chance of being considered logical arguments.
Yes, it's sarcasm. Deal with it!
>>It's always simpler to say the universe created itself than to say something else first created itself and later created the universe.
No, it's really not simpler. Our universe has a one-dimensional timeline, which means there's a definite beginning to it.
It makes absolutely no sense to say that our universe created itself, and does makes sense to say it had an origin in something outside of the universe.
This doesn't imply an anthropomorphic God, but a sort of Deistic Creator... much more plausible than "nothing" (which is the atheists' option of choice).
I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite
Which is the exact description of your delusion. You see, there is not a single argument for the existence of God. Not one. Simply because the "existence of God" idea is not even close to being defined to the level where an argument for or against it can be made.
As someone smart once said - and I am paraphrasing - you are not even wrong.
However, we do think you are all delusional.
Fellow atheist here. Although, I prefer to say "I don't believe in God." instead. Yeah, I'm an atheist but atheism is developing its own dogmatism and I'm not interested, so I'm trying to distance myself from it.
Anyway, getting in people's faces about their religion is as bad as when religious folks get in ours about our lack of belief. If we show more respect for one another,maybe,just maybe most folks will chill.
Sure, there still will be the Phelps crowd and others who will have a problem, but if you'll notice, even folks of the same faith consider them (Phelps' crowd) to be kooks.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
The problem with religion is this.
Let's say that we accept the theory that something needed to jumpstart the universe, and that thing does not necessarily have to follow the same rules the universe does (and thus doesn't need a creator of it's own).
What reason exactly do we have to believe that thing is the biblical god?
Couldn't it just aswell have been Zeus? Odin?
Are the Muslims right? Jews? Christians? Buddhists? Tao?
The only sane position to take is that they're all wrong, and while there might exist an omnipotent entity, it's insane to think he gives a fuck about you following a religion.
> Buying into any religion does away with trust in your own mind and does away with uncorrupted critical thinking.
I would challenge that. It may be true if you buy into the religion blindly which, of course, many do. But a number of intellectuals, by applying critical thinking, have come to the conclusion that the God of the Bible really does exist. CS Lewis is an obvious example.
I believe that is the case for me. I like to think, and my thinking has led me to the conclusion that there must be something behind the universe, and that of all the religions vying the explain that Something, historic Christianity wins by a mile.
When you're convinced that Christianity is true, there is still a lot of room for critical thought. I like to think about theology and debate various theological positions.
Also, I can trust in my mind because I believe I am made in the image of God. It is God's nature to be rational and He has created us with rational minds. On the other hand, if matter is all there is and we are here only because of chance, how can we trust our minds?
fucking cancer, all of it
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
>>You should realize that atheists bring actual arguments and use logic, not a bunch of stupid excuses that have no chance of being considered logical arguments.
There's logic and valid arguments on both sides, as well as a bunch of emotivism and bad arguments. I'd recommend reading Peter Kreeft's list of arguments on both sides. He goes into pretty comprehensive detail breaking down the arguments for and against on both sides.
Islamic thinkers used pure reason to derive the fact that our universe had to have an origin, and thus that the universe tended to show evidence of God, rather than the opposite... back in the middle ages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)
Scientists, especially atheist scientists, used their "faith" that God doesn't exist to try to constantly prove that the universe was eternal. Einstein was guilty of this, and the Big Bang got its name from Hoyle, an atheist scientist, derisively mocking the notion the universe had an origin (because he felt it would strongly imply that God existed).
I'm sure these arguments don't fit into the pretty little preconstructed world you've built for yourself, so please feel free to continue deluding yourself that scientists are the shining beacon of logic in an otherwise inhospitable world.
^scientists are the^atheist scientists are the^
4:24AM is not the best time to be trying to write, sigh...
I am a Christian and I love superheroes. I know a lot of people who do too.
In fact, my church's pastor talked about Superman and Spider-Man in his last Sunday's sermon! http://www.evfreefullerton.com/audio/cel/2010/cel_071810.mp3 for the audio sermon recording.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
>>You see, there is not a single argument for the existence of God. Not one.
I don't think you meant to say that, but I'll flame you anyway.
There's lots of arguments for the existence of God. More than one, in fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God
You probably meant to say that there's no *valid* arguments, because you wrongly think it is impossible to define what God is, but I'd recommend you get reading. The wikipedia articles are okay, but I'd recommend Peter Kreeft's good list of arguments for and against the existence of God. He does an outstanding job breaking them down and analyzing them for validity.
>>Religion has, historically speaking, been the greatest force for good our planet has ever seen.
[citation needed]
>>Hitchens is a frothing moron who doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about - his sole tactic is to sound British and snotty when talking about religion.
Ad hominem isn't a real argument.
>>I've yet to see him put together a single cogent argument.
What's not cogent about the arguments put forth in the videos linked just now?
>>Let's say that we accept the theory that something needed to jumpstart the universe, and that thing does not necessarily have to follow the same rules the universe does (and thus doesn't need a creator of it's own).
Indeed. The First Cause argument is not proof that God exists, merely is a point in favor for God existing. If the universe was eternal, it'd be a point against Christianity (and a point for Buddhism - see how this works?)
Some philosophers have argued that anything powerful enough to create the universe is, at very least, Godlike in power. But I suppose we all just just be a computer simulation running on an Apple 2e in some kid's elementary school lunch break, in a higher dimension. Some people even say that Quantization is evidence of this.
>>Beware of the spaghetti monster. It is coming to get us all real soon now. Repent while you still can and get some tomato sauce with that if you please.
You know that Dawkins made the argument that religion doesn't really change the way we act? Therefore, eating all the pasta I can won't make me fat. I love being a spaghetti monster atheist!
>>Hm? How do you measure qualifications in theology? So far, I haven't been able to discern 'good' theologists from 'bad' ones.
How do you measure qualification in any field of literature analysis - such as Redology, the study of A Dream of Red Mansions (an actual field of study in China)?
Hermeneutics and Exegesis.
You can read more about these topics online.
Yes, but that wasn't the point. Suppose we accept that this entity exists, what makes Christianity in particular correct?
>>Yes, but that wasn't the point. Suppose we accept that this entity exists, what makes Christianity in particular correct?
Nothing. You're absolutely right that it could just as easily be Odin or whoever.
You need different arguments to argue for Christianity in preference to other options. The First Cause argument alone doesn't get you there.
His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evolutionary biology) and into a region he knows nothing about (theology).
You, sir, need to read The Courtier's Reply :
I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.
I don't mind dating a girl that has been with everybody, as long as she had a good shower afterwards.
I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though.
But you don't do enough to stop these fundamentalist hate-mongers, though. So because you're not actively speaking out against them, you are implicitly supporting them.
(Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
Atheists and Christians alike (certainly the more fundamentalist end of atheism and Christianity) think that Muslim == fundamentalist, which is also not true. Yet somehow you hear them clamouring for Muslims to be constantly opposing the extremist fundamentalists. It's got to work both ways.
Me, I'm a militant fundamentalist agnostic.
All we know is that a significant event we call the "Big Bang" occurred and we have no visibility before that. For all we know, the universe could perfectly well have existed before the big bang, it could have existed forever without ever having been created.
This in no way contradict the laws of physics as we know them. It's like a black hole, we have no visibility beyond the event horizon, but we cannot state that nothing exists inside that horizon.
>>But you don't do enough to stop these fundamentalist hate-mongers, though. So because you're not actively speaking out against them, you are implicitly supporting them.
Hmm, going on Slashdot (and opening myself to flames from a thousand and one angry atheists) criticizing them doesn't count?
I already mentioned that if I'd known that these were the Westboro guys, I'd have argued with them in person... the sign I saw just said that Jesus is Lord, and I took an ironic photo with it with some women on stage behind them. Let's see if this works:
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs098.ash2/38217_1513502154929_1155669588_1478801_2568238_n.jpg
If it doesn't, I'll post it some other way. I find it vaguely amusing.
>>It's got to work both ways.
I actually agree with you. I wish that atheists would disown their more nutty and rabid speakers, like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris (I sort of like Dan Dennet, but he can be just as bad sometimes). As a Christian, I actively speak out against fundamentalists, especially the anti-intellectuals. And I do wish Muslims would speak out more disowning the radicals, but to be fair, a lot of them have, but have just been filtered out by Fox News (because it goes against their screed).
His argument is that it has been evolutionary beneficial for humans to be nice to eachother so thus the argument that we need religion to behave is false.
The atheist option of choice is not to -believe- any of the hypothesis about what was before the universe or what started the universe to begin with. It allows us to think about many options about the start of the universe, without actually picking one to believe in.
Depending on how the universe works, we may never be able to know if there is something beyond this universe, that something inside the meta-universe created this one, and how it started. Or if in the meta universe there is a something that influences our universe. For all we know the whole universe including ourselves are a simulation that does not even physically exists in the meta universe. etc.
In any case there is no sense in believing one hypothesis about the start of our universe above another.
Better to be considered an asshat by someone who is clearly delusional, than being delusional yourself - or enabling their delusions at the cost to society as a whole. Religion needs put down, hard.
Ideology is the only thing that is able to keep a human society from imploding upon itself. Be happy that you're able to choose your ideology yourself, and be honest about your ideology if you want to be.
And before you dream of putting down mainstream Christianity (for example), think for a while what is most likely to replace it. I'm pretty sure it won't be as pleasant for you.
Religion will disappear on it's own, if it's to disappear at all, when humanity is ready to collectively replace it with something else. Trying to speed the process directly will lead to rise of ideological fundamentalism.
None of those except the Cosmological argument makes the slightest bit of sense o.O
Most of those are basically "God exists because he exists"
>>Religion has, historically speaking, been the greatest force for good our planet has ever seen.
The one thing religion is good at is getting otherwise good people to do, enable those that do, and believe in, terrible acts. That's it. You don't need to be religious to be charitable, as the existence of secular aid organisations around the world will attest to. But this dick measuring contest between theist vs atheist "good works" is ridiculous and belittles that same work on both sides, so I'll avoid that as much as possible. What I will say to this though is on a different aspect of the same point. You will accept, I hope, that humanity seems naturally predisposed to the belief in a God. And I imagine you will also accept the obvious statement that for a large portion of our history, religion exerted a far greater force on our lives than it does now. So when you say that, historically speaking, religion has been the greatest force of good, you must also accept that historically speaking, religion mandated that it be the only allowable force. The difference between now and then is that now it no longer has the power to enforce that mandate. In the lifetime of human society, it is only last week that you would have to be almost suicidal to admit that you did not believe in a God, when the church of that God had power over the course of your life. It is only last week that Christians were burning the philosophies of ancient Greece in the belief that any morality before Jesus was devoid of value. Religion had a stranglehold as the only acceptable front for morality - so of course, if you look back over history and notice the good things it does, you will see some religious involvement.
Religion does however retard humanity's progress. It does not do it sufficiently that we stall or move backwards, but this is something that the modern world is changing. In history, when religiosity was a problem, it killed people. It burned books. It maybe wiped out a town or village. Started a jihad that ended in the death of a tribe or culture. Maybe even instigated the odd war, leading to the deaths of thousands. Terrible as these things no doubt were, they were not enough to halt human progress. It continued inexorably upwards - I posit, without the need for religion at all. Today, when religion makes a mistake, it can take a mere modern convenience, slam it into another and kill thousands. Imagine for a moment what would happen if religion today got its hands on a real weapon. In the last hour of human history, we gained the capability for mass destruction, the likes of which would only take one more religious mistake, to not just retard human progress - or set it back - but to wipe it out completely. You can of course say, it doesn't have to be a religious mistake that does this. You're right, it doesn't. But having another finger on the trigger is not ideal, and whereas a non religious person will not want to destroy the world - the 3 great monotheisms positively look forward to it.
>>Hitchens is a frothing moron who doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about - his sole tactic is to sound British and snotty when talking about religion. I've watched several dozens of his debates online, especially with Dinesh D'Souza (who doesn't do an especially good job defending Christianity), and I've yet to see him put together a single cogent argument. Other than, I suppose, the fact that he'll sneer at you if you believe.
Ad homimum.
>>I'm sorry, but it *is* offensive to tell others that you believe in a 2000 year old magician who was sent here by god to instruct us how to live.
It's fine if you disagree with my beliefs. But the very fact that I believe that Jesus, who was an amazing pioneer of a lot of really good philosophical ideas, might in fact be divine actively *offends* you?
Cry me a fucking river, bitch.
On the matter of the Bible and "critical thinking" I must point out that, at least for the unbeliever, the two will contradict. It is not with the mind that a person believes, but with the heart. In fact, it is to them foolishness:
I Chorinthians 1:21-23 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
Yes, homosexuals are wrong, as well as everybody else until they accept God's free gift. God loves them. While the church should draw a straight line to show wrong from right, it should only be confrontational against those claiming to be Christians and perverting the Bible. There will be more condemnation toward so-called Christians like these. If more Christians would live what they belive, then perhaps people would be more apt to listen.
Besides, this "persicution" is nothing. When people speak a weak gospel of hate they get laughed at. When people preach the true gospel of Love, they get murdered.
There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
You know what? Religion is a good way for people to feel good about themselves as well as band together and help out those less fortunate. I'm not a religious person but I can see the good that can come from most groups.
It's very possible that some of our core scientific beliefs will be proven wrong in the next 100 years, will your great grandchildren look back and think "wow, the people who believed in nuclear fission were so archaic!"
Live and let live if they aren't harassing me.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
>>You, sir, need to read The Courtier's Reply :
If Dawkins didn't actually make arguments involving theology, I'd be relatively more fine with him turning up his nose at all things "delusional".
But when he enters the field and demonstrates his complete and utter newbishness, and then uses it to bash on other people, I'll take him to task for it.
While I dislike the Dream of Red Mansions immensely, I won't pretend to be a Redologist in order to bash on it. When Dawkins does so, he's being fundamentally dishonest, misportraying others' beliefs.
In America it is one of our core (Heck it is part of the 1st Amendment Right) rights to be Open about our Religion to the public.
It is actually a good thing, sure it doesn't create a perfect world. But for you atheist out there without the freedom of speech and religion, how much are you willing to bet that there would be laws to lock you up. Especially from the bible belt areas. Yes it does have a downside where the Crazies can often put themselves in a public stance, and more can meet up. But I expect that it has protected more people then it has hurt.
As a Christian myself I am very disturbed by the actions of Westboro Baptist Church did they even bother reading the New Testament and actually listen to what Jesus said... Love thy Neighbor was a large ongoing theme, Most of story about his ministering was going to places and treating the societies misfits of the time as actual human beings. And fighting out against the Religious people who try to exclude these people from their faith. A lot of the stuff they are protesting is based on a sentence. While their actions are in conflict with statements said over and over in the bible.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Religion has, historically speaking, been the greatest force for good our planet has ever seen.
And the greatest force for evil our planet has ever seen. Witness all the atrocities being perpetrated in the name of religion, from religious terrorism (9/11, the OK City bombing, the "witch hunts" in Africa) to whole wars (the Crusades and the current conflicts in the Middle East). No amount of "good" can ever outweigh the pain and suffering brought by acts like these.
Religion is a tool created by men to control other men by leveraging mankind's innate fear of the unknown and the different. Anyone who believes otherwise is too wrapped up in one's beliefs to see what is real or to think rationally or objectively -- what could be called "not seeing the forest for the trees".
"How do you measure qualification in any field of literature analysis"
Answer: we don't.
There are no objective criteria to judge the quality of literary analysis, philosophy and theology, they are entirely subjective. Once a text in philosophy/theology passes the basic test of self-consistency and coherency, one can't really judge if it's 'bad' or 'good'.
So PZ Myers text of "The Courtier's Reply" ( http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php ) isn't really better or worse than "Summa Theologica" (yes, I read it - still can't scrub my mind clean).
PS: I've studied hermeneutics as a part of the course on mathematical logic. I suspect, mostly to show that hermeneutics isn't really related to any form of formal logic.
Well, what seems to happen is that the religious ideology is replaced by political ideology.
For instance where an American would reference Christian Morals a Swede would reference Workers Morals because of the great influence the workers movement has had the past 100 years.
What I much prefer about secular ideologies is that they don't do the same extent expect you to take a leap of faith, but rather they try to present rational arguments for why their position is better then the others.
Glad to see another FSM follower. Let's pray:
Our Flying Spaghetti Monster, who art in gravy,
Hallowed be thy Noodly Appendage.
Thy serving come.
Thy will be yum,
On Earth as it is in on the dinner plate.
Give us this day our daily pasta.
And forgive us our pizza tendencies,
As we forgive those who eat tofu.
And lead us not into McDonalds,
But deliver us from starvation.
For thine is the noodle,
and the meatballs, and the sauce,
for ever and ever.
Ramen.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
"Hidden authoritarianism is the secret cause for the battle of the sexes? I must weed this out of my life right this instant, so my wife will never argue with me again!"
Battle of... what?
Hm. Grandparent seems to have hit the core of your problems.
I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them, like my pastor did with some similar guys protesting outside the Percy Jackson and the Harry Potter Ripoffs movie.
Please do not feed the real-life trolls.
And that's what they are. The more of a reaction (of any kind) that they elicit, the more they feel like God is on their side, and the more they'll continue doing stupid protests. I've been in a town that responded to a WBC protest with a large gay pride party, which was all good fun, but really the by far best reaction to them has been the Patriot Guard Riders who ensure that what families of fallen soldiers see at military funerals is a lot of people with American flags rather than "God Hates Fags".
I am officially gone from
"Again, he's completely ignorant of history. You can conduct natural experiments, as it were, by comparing and contrasting the evolution of societies with and without the Abrahamic God, and also how culture change after missionaries enter their culture. It's a fascinating study, and one that is at complete odds with his theory."
Yup. Abrahamic societies generally become more hateful. Just look at Africa.
Or at Renaissance.
You do know that the notion that religious people probably shouldn't kill each other over religion... is a Christian idea, don't you? It is typically attributed to atheism, but is the result of a lot of the ostensibly religious wars we had in Europe back in the day.
>>Imagine for a moment what would happen if religion today got its hands on a real weapon.
As far as I know, all of our presidents have been Christian, and we've yet to turn the rest of the world into a radioactive parking lot. Perhaps you'd like to try a better excuse? When you compare our Christian presidents with, say, Kim Jong Il (who would probably love to nuke South Korea if he could) your argument makes rather the opposite point.
>>Ad homimum.
Not really. Well, except for the frothing moron part, I guess.
As I said, the wikipedia article is okay, but Peter Kreeft has a much better compilation with analysis available. I'm not sure there's a free copy online, but you could probably track one down if you're interested. I've read other books with compilations of arguments for an exist (some even done in debate format, which was very interesting), but the names elude me.
Hmm, going on Slashdot (and opening myself to flames from a thousand and one angry atheists) criticizing them doesn't count?
You probably can't see my tongue in my cheek from way over there ;-)
"Islamic thinkers used pure reason to derive the fact that our universe had to have an origin, and thus that the universe tended to show evidence of God, rather than the opposite... back in the middle ages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)"
Kalam's argument is stupid on many levels.
First, it's applicable to God - it also has to be created by something (a meta-God?). Which in turn must be created by something else, ad infinitum.
If you try to apply an argument that God is infinite and thus has no beginning, then this argument can very well be applied to the Universe itself.
And this is only on a level of philosophical arguments (i.e. within the model postulated by the author).
If we look at the real world, we'll see events happening without cause everywhere (virtual particles, radioactive decay, etc.).
And General Relativity also posits that it's possible to have the 'beginning of time'.
So the Roman/Greek/Persian/Aztek/Chinese empires are just my imagination? Humans seems to historically been very good at cooperating with eachother regardless of their religion.
"Arguments from evolution are nearly as bad as arguments "...because God told me so." You can prove nearly anything using evolution - road rage? Why, that's territorial ape-man behavior!"
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the argument works. The general idea is that over time evolution will favor traits that grants long term success (more offspring etc) since that means the ratio of those genes in the gene-pool will go up.
Dawkins argued extensively that while being mean usually grants short term success, long term the people that play nice reap much greater rewards. This is because once you start misbehaving the social group will eject you making your survival odds abysmal. Now this behavior is not just in humans, but can be seen in almost all animals when you observe their behavior.
If you're actually interested you can hear him explain it himself here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y7ZZB6Mt1o
I'm reluctant to enter this conversation, given its very low standards for mutual respect, but I can't let this common, but to me incorrect, argument pass. How can we know how things would be without religion? That's just an initial logical fillip. But how about all the pain that religion HAS caused? Europe was at war of Catholicism versus Protestantism for several hundred years. Islam and Christianity have been at war for longer than that. Granted, there were side issues of imperialism. But how about the persecution of Mormons? Mormons persecuting gays? What about the various killing sprees over doctrine in the early days of the Catholic church, when various heresies were eliminating by exterminating their adherents like so many cockroaches? Or (despite the Church's whitewash to the contrary) the tacit support or active participation of Catholic bishops in the German Nazi party of the 1930s-40s? (By the way, I qualify it as "German" and by date because I live in a city that will soon see a Nazi rally--one supported by numerous Christian organizations, such as the World Church of the Creator.) There are a myriad of examples, including persecution of Protestants in France in the 18thC, persecution of certain _types_ of Protestants in the United Kingdom at the same time, persecution of Jews, well, pretty much all the time. Most of my examples are of Christian abuses because that's what I know best. I'm sure the Buddhists and Hindis and Taoists and so on have had their hand in the bloodbath too. Here's where religious apologists will say "But all these people were doing it wrong." They certainly were. But they were doing it. And if you say "They weren't Christian," be happy these folks aren't around to mete out the witch-burning, dunking, impaling, gassing, stoning, or what-have-you they'd think you deserve for not doing it right yourself. This is not to say religion is all bad. But I suspect that the sum total of misery the world has received from the religious may well equal, or even exceed, any benefits of religion. By all means, I'm not saying religious people should go away, shut up, or even keep their sweaty Mormon and/or Baptist butts off my front porch (August is too hot for you to show up suggesting that I'm in for the worst fate you can imagine). But I do think liberal Christians should see to their coreligionists and quit worrying about atheists. And they should sure as hell keep their meddling little fingers out my government and schools.
>>There really are none, don't even try: All your possible arguments for a Christian god also apply to the FSM.
Is there a historic FSM? No.
Is there a historic Jesus. Yes.
Sorry, you lose. Try again next week and you get a free Slurpee with your bad philosophical argument!
You don't understand.
Courtier's reply tells that theology isn't really different from the study of invisible dress.
The fact that many people do the similar things doesn't change anything.
XKCD: http://xkcd.com/451/
"Only if it is necessary that both the universe and God be created. The universe with its one-dimensional timeline is pretty clear to have had an origin (with the big bang), it's unclear if it is necessary for an entity existing outside of time to be created."
Fail.
Infinite Universe doesn't need to have an origin, even with 'one dimensional timeline'.
>>Please do not feed the real-life trolls.
Hmm. I'm not sure they see themselves as trolls.
In any event, I really enjoy debating people in real life, so I actually enjoy those sorts of confrontations. I'm not really a fan of the counter-protest things that TFA was talking about.
I've kept door-to-door Jehovah's Witnesses in my house for hours some times, until they give up. It's fun.
Yeah, good point. To our atheist colleagues here, who pride themselves in their thinking prowess, preaching Christ is indeed foolishness. It goes against everything they assume and believe to be true, and against common sense. How *could* it possibly be true?
Yet if it *is* true, then evidence, logic, and reason will ultimately reveal that if you dig deep enough. And I think that is precisely the case with Christ. There is plenty of historical evidence for His existence and crucifixion (virtually every serious scholar will admit that). And there are a number of facts, also nearly universally agreed upon, that strongly argue for the historicity of Christ's resurrection. (These are well documented in Gary Habermas' "The Historical Jesus".)
So that is the mystery of salvation. It is so clear that it is true to me, so how could virtually everyone else here miss it? I think the Bible has answers for that, but I won't go into it here.
"I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess."
Common Christian misconception. Cosmologists do not claim " the universe created itself", they claim that 13.7 billion years ago it was all squeezed into a singularity and they have very strong evidence to back that claim. They will readily amit they haven't got a clue where the point particle came from, in fact they don't even know what the word "where" means in that context.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
>>How can we know how things would be without religion?
As I said elsewhere in the thread, you have to use natural experiments where you can, such as the introduction of Christianity to the Vikings. They stopped being quite such vicious bastards, but they did go and conquer Normandy (Northman-dy) and from there to England in 1066, but I'd say it was overall a change for the better. Unless you were a Saxon, I suppose.
Since Christianity has spread around the world, there's actually quite a lot of evidence to gather and analyze on the subject.
Who would disown them exactly? It's not like they belong to the Roman Atheist Church of Humanity or something.
The closest thing would be the Humanists, but even in a heavily secular nation like Sweden they're mostly ignored. (Something that's rather interesting is that Sweden doesn't really have a strong anti-religious lobby, the population just sorta stopped being interested in religion over time)
You are joking, it fails at step 1: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". How can the universal quantifier be justified in this case, it certainly isn't a necessary truth more like a "more of the same" inductive argument. "Everything we have seen coming into existence has a cause, therefore everything must have a cause. One could also use David Hume's argument on causality to undermine as well. What it certainly isn't is "intuitively obvious", which is just hand waving rhetoric.
The second premiss: "The universe began to exist." is also dubious. Again, it isn't an argument from necessity so how does one justify it? Empirically the best we do is to say that the universe was in existence after the Planck epoch.
Which renders the conclusion: "Therefore, the universe has a cause" unsound.
And even if the argument was sound, it doesn't justify the claim that the cause of the universe was the god of a tribe of cattle sacrificing primitives.
The Aztec empire is not just your imagination, and is a case in point, actually, of a developed society that wasn't based on Judeo-Christian values.
Believe it or not, I'm actually familiar with the evolutionary argument for cooperation. You're missing my point: that you can sort of argue anything from evolution. It's like modern-day magic. You could argue that Religion is just the result of some "God Gene" that we have (I think it was Dawkins who argued this, but Collins did a pretty good job disproving it). Or you could argue that Religion is an evolutionary disadvantage. Or you could argue that Religion is unnecessary. So on and so forth.
Something that can explain everything explains nothing, and I never take much note of those arguments these days unless the evidence is really quite clear. It's very trendy to make such arguments, with evolution more or less substituting for a lot of hand waving.
>>Who would disown them exactly?
We're all just individuals in the end, really. If you disagree with the rhetorical stylings of Dawkins and Hitchens, feel free to do so. If you like them, then feel free to say you like them.
I can't revoke a Westboro Baptist's "Christian Card" either, you know. (Though I wish I could. =)
The wikipedia summary is not very good. The original Kalam argument basically went as thus:
1) Time cannot have started an infinite amount of time ago, because adding a finite amount of time to a negative inifnity will never result in the present day.
2) Therefore the universe cannot be infinitely old
3) Therefore it had a starting moment
4) Therefore it is more likely it was created than not.
The fact that they reasoned this from pure logic what science would confirm hundreds of years later still amazes me, really.
Cheers.
Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
-George Washington
I love it when the fanatics quote that. Read it very closely, he's saying religion is good for stupid people who can't be bothered to reason through things on their own. It's one of the most damning comments on religious believers written by any of the founding fathers.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
There is also no argument against a God who does not wish to have proof of existence in the "universe". Or any proof that the entire universe is not just some kids simulation in some science project in the real universe.
None of these things are scientific questions because they cannot be tested. The only view that reason can lead too, is that we don't can can't know the answer to these questions. In other words... they are a matter of faith, not fact. But anything other than "agnostic" view, is not any more reasonable than the other.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
ou know what? Religion is a good way for people to feel good about themselves as well as band together and help out those less fortunate
Of course it is just as true that religion is a good way for people to feel good about themselves as they band together and harm those less fortunate,
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
>>You do know that the notion that religious people probably shouldn't kill each other over religion... is a Christian idea, don't you? It is typically attributed to atheism, but is the result of a lot of the ostensibly religious wars we had in Europe back in the day.
Right, because the Abrahamic God wasn't a petty, vengeful little dictator who frequently ordered the destruction of races and cultures he didn't like, or who worshipped a stone altar over him. Oh, right, he was! That's some Christian message when the so-called founder of it is basically just saying, don't do as I do, do as I say, apart from when I tell you to ignore what I say and help me do as I do by doing what I now say instead. Kill the infidels over yonder hill, for they worship graven images.
The first 2 commandments are against the worshipping of other gods, in aid of which genocides were enacted. Entire cultures destroyed because they believed in a different spaghetti monster. At least in Christianity's defense, it didn't kill everyone. God did tell them to capture the virgin women and use them as sex slaves. So it's not all bad.
>>As far as I know, all of our presidents have been Christian, and we've yet to turn the rest of the world into a radioactive parking lot. Perhaps you'd like to try a better excuse? When you compare our Christian presidents with, say, Kim Jong Il (who would probably love to nuke South Korea if he could) your argument makes rather the opposite point.
And it's only been very recently that we have as a species had this power. Power in the hands of people who yes, have been religious. No doubt about that. You take what I say out of context however - I don't say that religion always leads people to err, but that it can, and when it does, the results have been horrific. Then to imagine this inevitable error when magnified by the power of modern weaponry.
And far from Kim Jong Il being a representative of a non religious ruler - he's the very definition of one gone wrong. One we should be extremely thankful that went wrong in a culture that isn't capable of destroying the rest of us in their ecstasy.
Atheism cannot be proven.
If you mean to say that "God does not exist," cannot possibly be the conclusion of a sound argument, you're simply wrong. Indeed there are many valid arguments which would serve as candidates (evil, hiddenness, etc.).
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
Hmm, I'm not sure if I've heard a god gene argument but I've heard it argued that religion is a coping mechanism to deal with the unknown and unknowable which would explain why Secularism is becoming so much more popular now when we're exploring more and more of the universe through science. You no longer need to turn to religion to get answers to basic questions like "Where does rain come from? What is that shiny object in the sky?"
Ofcourse science can't help you with questions like "What happens after we die? Why do we exists? What is the meaning of my life?" where the most popular secular answers seems to be either "To further the human race" if you're altruistic or "have fun" if you're not :p (Technically there's also "nothing" though the people that answer that tend to have a short life expectancy, it's interesting that Christians have lower suicide rates because they tell people they go to hell if they do it)
Anyhow, just because some people excessively use hand waving doesn't mean you should throw away the entire evolutionary discipline, it's like throwing away the history discipline as they're also forced to perform a fair bit of hand-waving. If cooperative behavior for instance is not evolutionary favored behavior, why do we see it everywhere in nature?
I don't disagree with Dawkins et all per see, but generally the militant Atheists can seem a bit overly aggressive. Personally I take an agnostic approach where I consider the subject of God to be inherently unknowable and as such it's probably better to put your faith in scientists rather then priests.
It would be interesting if anyone performed a study to see what the effect of the militant atheists is, their objective must be to convert the religious into atheists (otherwise they're just circle jerking away at religion) but I can't remember reading about anyone that's turned away from religion after listening to them, most people I know that stopped being religious just stopped because they had just lost any interests long ago and had just been going to church out of habit anyhow.
Remove the 'idle' subdomain from the URL. i.e., just slashdot.org: http://slashdot.org/story/10/07/25/0121211/Superheroes-vs-the-Westboro-Baptist-Church
1) Time cannot have started an infinite amount of time ago, because adding a finite amount of time to a negative inifnity will never result in the present day.
2) Therefore the universe cannot be infinitely old
3) Therefore it had a starting moment
4) Therefore it is more likely it was created than not.
Sadly, this isn't even valid. At least the modern, three-premise version of the argument (as defended by William Lane Craig) has that going for it. However, something like this is appropriated by Craig as justification for his second premise. Unfortunately, his arguments for the impossibility of an "actual infinite" fail just as badly.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
"If Dawkins didn't actually make arguments involving theology, I'd be relatively more fine with him turning up his nose at all things "delusional"."
Bullshit, Dawkins is not pretending to be a theologists but if he didin't address theology you would dissmiss him as "not serious". And if he is so bad at articulating his theologic arguments then enlighten us all by providing just one youtube link of a religious debate where you think he gets his arse handed to him. The fact is that Dawkins and Hitchens both attack the central teachings of Christianity but since every church has a slightly different take on it, people like you accuse them of dishonesty. What is dishonest is moving the goal posts, and that's exactly what religious people do when confronted with rational arguments. I've shown this to many Christians only to have them basically turn around and deny that Christianity says "Jesus died for our sins".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Thank you, slashdot. I learned a new word today. I had never encountered the word "cosplay" before and had to look it up. I must lead a sheltered life. Get Off My Lawn!
Your "fair share" is NOT in my wallet.
I did in fact mean to say more or less what I said. I had only made a single assumption, that the discussion was rational.
For any current definition of "God" there is no rational argument for existence. This doesn't mean that one should stop believing in God, just that one should stop arguing that it is rational to do so.
>> There's logic and valid arguments on both sides
You do realize that this is logically impossible, right?
There is no truth, there is only perception.
Believe nothing, question everything.
Teach questions, not answers.
Solutions aren't the problem.
re:"historical evidence", "virtually every serious scholar" and "universally"; I think our definitions of these terms are wildly divergent to put it mildly, but I won't go into it here;).
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
As regards to Kreeft, that is basically the Tooth Fairy arguments. No, they are not valid, rational or reasonable. They are infantile and silly.
When you're reasoning about WBC, you've got to take religion out of the equation. They protest *solely* to goad someone into assaulting them, or otherwise doing *something* that gives them someone to sue. They're only using religion because it's effectively non-contestable on factual grounds, so they can't be done for slander.
Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
I agree with what you say, though I myself am not a theist. I think the root objection that I have to Dawkins is that he has merely substituted "rationality" as his ultimate source of authority, on the basis that "rationality" works. However, the constant counter-intuitive discoveries of physics show that rationality is a constantly moving target. Today's rational argument from a priori axioms is tomorrow's misapplication of bad science. We cannot argue against the existence of a prime mover by any rational argument, because any rational argument may be superseded by new discoveries. "Scientific rationalism" cannot go any further than agnosticism, and to try to do so is to resort to blind faith in atheism. On that basis, Dawkins is as delusional (in his terms) as the people he mocks, because he demands more authority for his beliefs that they warrant.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
"much more plausible than "nothing" (which is the atheists' option of choice)."
"Don't know" is the most common option for Atheists who know anything about cosmology. It's much more plausible than either of your options and it's by far the most intellectually honest.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
But anything other than "agnostic" view, is not any more reasonable than the other
Actually, this is incorrect. You are taking the "side" of the theists who claim that atheists deny the existence of God, they do not. An atheist is not someone who says: "I know there is no God", an atheist is someone who says "Huh? That is a stupid question!" when approached about the subject.
An atheist denies the existence of God in the same way he denies the existence of a tiny pink tea pot in orbit around a rock in the Oort cloud that comes into existence only when not looked at. An "Agnostic" is someone who has too little to do and who occasionally engages his tiny brain in silly mind games like "maybe there is a God". It is just childish. Why don't he sit down and ponder whether there are naked wild mermaids living in the core of the moon? That would make more sense.
Atheism is a belief system in the same way that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
No, actually, there isn't. Aside from the bible itself -- which is self-referential, similar to trying to use a Tom Clancy book to prove the existence of his character Jack Ryan -- there is exactly zero contemporaneous evidence that in any way backs up the claim that Christ existed.
There's another problem with the bible, and that is that it contains much that disqualifies it roundly as a historical document. From voices in the sky to people being transmuted into pillars of salt, it is peppered with many telltales of invented fiction. For the bible to be taken seriously, it needs extreme confirmation of the core events; and that confirmation has, so far, been entirely lacking.
Every bit of "historical evidence" is from after 33 AD; every one is a reference to the existence of Christians, not to Christ (and no one is arguing that Christians existed, just to be clear. They annoyed the authorities quite a bit, and that's the context in which they are most often written into history.) But there is not a single contemporaneous word about Christ himself.
The claim that there is contemporaneous proof for the reality of Christ is often floated, and has rarely been countered, and that is why it has persisted. But in fact, there is no such proof, and it is (finally!) no longer certain censure (or worse) to say so. Now, having said that, if you think you know of such proof, by all means put it on the table for everyone to see.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
wait, which side are you campaigning for?
do not read this line twice.
let's do a quick substitution here: in clause 2 i'd like to replace "the universe" with "god". now simply re-read the argument.
do not read this line twice.
"Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite,"
Of course you do, out of faith, not logic. Your faith dictates your life and replaces reason instead of being derived from it. I mention this not to argue you out of your delusion, but to point out its absurdity to spectators.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Does this remind anyone else of a scene in I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/I_Now_Pronounce_You_Chuck_and_Larry (See the first sentence in the third paragraph of the plot summery)
I just find it (the counter protest) funny that something similar happened in real life.
"There's logic and valid arguments on both sides"
Wrong. There are merely assertions based on faith from religionists.
I defy you to pose a valid argument for religion.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Who the f* is going to eliminate religion? Would you recommend the Stalin/Mao approach?
In group behavior: 'because they're evil/morons/sheep/crazy' is not 'insightful' it's 'oversimplified'
Personally I think this is the worst case of selective doctrine I've ever seen.
More like the best case of selective doctrine. A great moral advantage of being atheist is the easy "selective doctrine" of accepting what is right and good from all religions and philosophies.
Once you skip past the invisible-sky-wizard and the magic stuff elsewhere in the Bible, most atheists readily agree that Jesus taught a lot of really good things. In fact Thomas Jefferson published an edition of the Bible doing exactly that. A version of the Bible dedicated solely to Jesus's teachings and deleting deleting all the magical stuff. And as Jefferson put it, a REAL Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. The fake Christians are the people preaching all that other Bible dogma, the stuff which Christ never said nor saw.
A Christian missionary once asked Ghandi "though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?" to which Ghandi replied "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ".
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Here is some stuff from the drivel that you apparently like so much (from the twenty arguments): http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
1: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved... Nothing changes itself ...
I love that argument. It has to be so because PK says so. This dude is a professor? How did that happen? There isn't an ounce of logic in this drivel.
2: suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now
Oh my Pink Unicorn. Really? A "professor" uses an argument that has been utterly refuted for centuries? Please. This is just sad.
3: From nothing nothing comes. So ...
The universe could not have begun
I am slowly starting to get nauseous now.
In other words, we all recognize that
Sigh. Using a sentence like this at my philosophy introductory course at University would probably result in an automatic fail grade. This guy is really a professor of Philosophy? Who on earth hired this retard for such a job? The guys is a danger to his students.
I am unable to read further. I have a nephew and a niece who are at Confirmation age right now, and they are opting out of the religious ritual even though most kids opt in. Both of them, in their early teens, have been able to put together more rational arguments for staying up late watching movies they are not supposed to see than Kreeft is able to put together for the existence of a deity.
>Live and let live if they aren't harassing me.
this particular discussion is about exactly that.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
Your points are just as valid with respect to non-religious causes. For example, Nazi ideology was based on the master race theory, which had nothing to do with any of the major religions, yet killed more people in one year than the inquisition killed in all of history. And lets not forget communism, which killed about 50 million people in Russia alone. While you do have people with insane religious zeal, most religious people have a conscience which keeps them from taking part in mass misery; contrast this with "rational" ideologies which will make arbitrary divisions based on skin color, social class, etc... and disenfranchise a whole class of people.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Not necessarily, we assume in the western world that it's a one dimensional timeline. But even with one dimension, there's no particular reason why it can't be a bent dimension leading back to itself or looking sort of like a mobius strip.
Ditto from your comments.
BTW, nice cussing and I am an ant. :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
(Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
There's a good bit of that around to be sure, but I don't think most of us do. The problem is that both sides are letting themselves be spoken for by the loudest (and therefore generally the most extreme) elements. We have Dawkins and Harris, Christians have Phelps and Robertson. What the world really, really needs is for moderates on both sides to stand up and tell these guys to shut the hell up and let the rest of us go about our business of getting along with mutual respect.
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
More logical? Maybe not. But certainly not less so, either. Either way, you have the same issue, one of origination. If you say "God did it", then you've just pushed it back a level. (Just like if you say, "Something in a previous universe triggered our Big Bang", that just pushes it back.)
Link #1: http://kanewj.com/wbc/
"Phelps does not believe what he is doing. This is a scam." If you believe this guy (and he makes some telling observations), Phelps is in the business of pushing people's buttons so he can sue them for violating his rights. That's his and his family's living.
Link #2: http://www.robertslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/phelps/bl_phelpscourt.htm
Addicted to Hate: The Fred Phelps Story is an exposé written by Jon Bell for the Topeka Capital-Journal that was suppressed by the paper because they were too chickenshit to take on Phelps. Bell sued the paper to either publish it or, if they refused, let him have the rights to his work, but he got neither. Instead, the full text was entered in the court record so it is now a public document that anyone can read whether Phelps likes it or not. So it's kinda long, but if you want a portrait of what a twisted gruesome mofo Phelps really is, here's your chance. I pity his children -- they never really had a chance.
"The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
I can't believe people still admit to being Swedish in public. That's like telling everyone you're a meatball. FYI: I am from Switzerland.
I find it somewhat amusing that you're talking about how being nice to everyone is a Christian value, yet in the same breath, you're admitting you really like admitting people.
You don't see the contradiction?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The only sane position to take is that they're all wrong, and while there might exist an omnipotent entity, it's insane to think he gives a fuck about you following a religion.
Your argument doesn't quite work. It argues eloquently for the non-uniqueness of a particular religion and therefore for, in the very least, non-obviousness of the "right" choice. (This last "obviousness" is what a lot of the more obnoxious religious folks seem to argue from, so that's not a trivial thing to demolish.)
But sometimes the universe does seem to choose one solution over another. Why was I born in the US rather than any of the roughly 200 other, equally valid, places I could have came into existence? Why is the mass of the electron what it is, rather than the nearly infinite array of other options? Clearly, the fact that there is no unique, a priori solution to these questions doesn't mean that no choice/value/option is possible. Similarly, just because there are many possible religions doesn't prove that none of them can be right (or sane world-views).
If we look at the real world, we'll see events happening without cause everywhere (virtual particles, radioactive decay, etc.).
And there's idea that very concept of "causality" is a property of our universe and thus not necessarily applicable before the Big Bang.
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
You don't need religion to band together. Why not do it without the dogmatic baggage?
And if you look at the history of science, you find two things: First, it is one of the most reliable ways we have of discovering reality. And second, it tends to get refined, not wholly overturned. Newton wasn't wrong, just inaccurate.
Certainly, we'll be in a far better place to embrace new scientific discoveries if we don't have dogma blocking the way.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
However since there does not appear to exist any objective way to discern which religion is correct (in fact many theologians consider this imperative, if you know that God exists, then it's not faith now is it?) then it appears to be a bad bet to devote a significant part of your life that at best might only have a 1/1000 chance of being correct.
"Unless you were a Saxon, I suppose." And they don't count, right? And spare the condescending "Northman-dy," especially when you're giving a version of history one could get from reading Asterix channeled through an Archie comic. It is in fact arguable, and has been argued by those more informed than me, that the decrease in violence by the "Vikings" was a product of being able to settle in York, Normandy, and so on. In essence, once they'd gotten what they wanted (and the climate improved back home), they stopped waging war to get what they wanted.
A lot of things will have been proven wrong in the next century. But that is the greatness of science, the ability to self-examine and change theories to fit and better emulate the natural world. Science will still exist, and it will be in a greater form. Fairytales will also still exist due to the fact that is impossible to prove or disprove them. But due to the simple fact that most religious belief is not self-coherent, it's impossible to examine it as you would science. Therefore, religion is neither true nor false, merely immaterial to our discussions of reality.
For best results, avoid doing stupid things.
Oh, wow...
I'd recommend reading Peter Kreeft's list of arguments on both sides.
I saw him live. It was pretty fantastically disappointing. He's a philosopher, but he brings up Pascal? Really?
Islamic thinkers used pure reason to derive the fact that our universe had to have an origin, and thus that the universe tended to show evidence of God...
You know, I could provide a trivial refutation of Kalam, as so many here has, and as even part of that Wikipedia page does, but I think I'm going to have to stop you right here, because you have done something fairly stupid right off the bat.
It's a syllogism with two premises and a conclusion. Here are the two premises:
Whatever began to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
So I'm sorry, you cannot use that as "pure reason to derive the fact that our universe had to have an origin" -- it uses that as a premise. If it sought to establish that, it'd be inherently circular.
Scientists, especially atheist scientists, used their "faith" that God doesn't exist...
Do you even know what it is you're arguing against?
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the positive belief that there is no God. I have no "faith" in this, and indeed, if you can show me evidence, I will believe, to the extent warranted by that evidence.
But be aware that Kalam, even if it were true, says nothing about the cause, only that there had to be one. And read the article you linked -- even William Lane Craig admits that the first premise is mere intuition, and our intuitions tend to break down at cosmological time scales. Is it intuitively obvious that even time should be relative to the speed of light?
I'm sure these arguments don't fit into the pretty little preconstructed world you've built for yourself,
You mean the one I discovered by examining what was actually out there? There was a "preconstructed world" handed to me by my parents, and I rejected that.
That is blatant projection.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Phelps and his band of nut jobs *ARE NOT CHRISTIAN*!!! I'm sorry, but nowhere in the Bible does "God hate" anyone! I believe the message(s) within the Bible preach love, faith and hope; not hate. Christ did not say, "Hate thy neighbor." Christ did not call for the death or the destruction of others. These people are hate mongers and evil. PERIOD!
even you have incorrect stereotype, a "fundamentalist" in a religion is merely someone who follows (or at least believes they are following) the basic teachings of a religion without the usual additions and evolutions religions get over time.
There are Christian "fundamentalists" who hold different or the exact opposite views of groups such as this Westboro Baptist Church. Just as there are fundamentalist Muslims who don't believe in killing and violence.
Atheism is the same way, though. We're betting our afterlives against stuff here and now on our being right. And a religious person would argue that the only way to win, even at long odds, is to play. (A version of Pascal's Wager, basically.)
And in the end, religion has more to it than salvation and being right. There's something to be said for the philosophy, particularly the moral part. We can argue all day about whether people should need god to do the right thing, but you know? If that helps, then I'm OK with it.
I love fundamentalist atheists. They reassure me that hatred and intolerance of others' beliefs are found in all humans, not just those who believe in one or more deities.
Though it doesn't appear that religious people on average are any more moral then the secular. Most of us learn right and wrong from our parents and society in general and those that don't want to be moral seem to have no problem finding justifications for whatever they want by selective readings of their favorite books and religious and secular alike are just as good at saying "Oh, those people aren't like us, they don't deserve to be treated good"
If you look at the history of science you'll find that it couldn't have been done without using classically "religious" framework.
Yep. A good way to describe a singularity at the beginning of space-time.
A more formal way to do this is with the help of light cones and spacetime-diagrams.
And how do you know that this god is outside of time? If it's outside of time and outside of causality, how would it initiate a causal event?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I've got to ask...
What do you mean by "agnostic"? And what do you think "fundamentalist atheism" looks like?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The problem with religion is this.
Let's say that we accept the theory that something needed to jumpstart the universe, and that thing does not necessarily have to follow the same rules the universe does (and thus doesn't need a creator of it's own).
What reason exactly do we have to believe that thing is the biblical god?
Couldn't it just aswell have been Zeus? Odin?
Are the Muslims right? Jews? Christians? Buddhists? Tao?
Well, the Muslims, Jews, and Christians all believe in the same God (it's the whole "who's the messenger" and "did he write a sequel" thing they differ on).
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone,
Occam's razor: If your universe needs a creator, so does its creator. He created himself? He's superfluous.
There, now you're sure: The one without the superfluous anthropomorphism is more logical.
You can't take the sky from me...
As much as I think the claim that religion is responsible for all evil is wrong, I think claiming it's responsible for most good is equally wrong.
Religion is, at its core, a tribal marker, giving a society a common set of myths, rituals, beliefs and values. It certainly can be attributed to some good, attributed to some bad, but in general, it's just an arm of society, as moral or immoral as the law, government and entertainment.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
1) Science never says that the universe created itself. It does say that something like the big bang theory best explains (so far) some evidence we have of things that have happened. It doesn't claim to know what, if anything, led to that.
The great things about science are that it's flexible and that it's not afraid to say "I don't know, yet." As we learn more, we refine previous theories -- they're not dogma.
This seems much more adaptive and reasonable than trying to live up to the latest translation of a very old book -- which revises itself along the same mechanisms somewhat oddly and imperfectly, e.g. Mormons.
2) Any argument you apply to the universe works little better if you try to apply it to the idea of god. If the universe had to come from somewhere, why doesn't god have to come from somewhere? If god is eternal and infinite, why can't the universe be?
Nazi ideology was based on the master race theory, which had nothing to do with any of the major religions
God's chosen people, complete with tales of racial cleansing right in the bible. "God with us", the Nazis used to say.
You can't take the sky from me...
Poor AC.... I see you're still trying to get that stick out of your ass.
<sig> </sig>
The universe with its one-dimensional timeline is pretty clear to have had an origin (with the big bang)
Is that an origin point, or just the point before which we are no longer able to see?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Though it doesn't appear that religious people on average are any more moral then the secular.
That doesn't actually argue against my point, though. If you want to argue against my point, you have to show that people who are well-disposed toward believing in higher powers would be just as moral without that belief as with it. Otherwise, you're comparing two different populations.
(Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
As an atheist and a skeptic, I doubt that.
I have many Christian friends, and they aren't fundamentalist. However, I've noticed two things:
First, even the "non-fundamentalist" ones, when they're willing to talk about religion, tend to range from not being able to put forward a coherent opinion, to outright insulting. You've been a great example of both.
Second, the more liberal Christians just strike me as less true to their religion. I can understand the Bible being partly metaphor, but then, where do you draw the line? How do you know what's metaphor and what's not? Even if something is metaphor, under what context is Detueronomy 22:23-29 moral, and exactly what is 2 Kings 2:23-24 supposed to be a metaphor of? If you're going to just selectively pick out the parts you like and agree with, why not be more honest about it and do what Jefferson did?
Of course, you dropped a strawman right here...
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
False dichotomy, too. I don't know that anyone claims the universe created itself, and your only alternative is "someone"? Not even just "something", but "someone"?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
nowhere in the Bible does "God hate" anyone!
How the hell do you suggest someone should be put to death (best example Lev 20:13, but there are myriad others) without hating him??
<sig> </sig>
"Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true"
Except liberal christianity is not christianity at all, without sin there is no death, and no purpose to christianity. Therefore atheists never take non-fundamentalists seriously since they are essentially non christians by the bibles own standards.
Romans 5:12 -- Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
In an evolutionary world, sin doesn't exist, hence christ has no purpose hence Christianity is false. Period
Not all religions are about trying to please a deity in order to get rewarded.
I'm more and more convinced that the Westboro Baptist Church people are either a hate group or a bunch of nutcases.
I think its a bit of both. And if you look at their behavior, it is very much like the KKK and Neo-Nazis at their own rallies. They use intimidation (some of them really are), yelling and a one-world view to convince the masses they are right.
When there's one person to challenge them, they still try to make their message strong. When there's more people walking up to them and challenging their views, the one-world view of these hate groups quickly dissipates. They know they are wrong and share a limited world view. They know they tried, they know its a futile fight but they hope they can sucker in a few more with these protests.
IMO, life is too short to be so hateful. These people at Westboro are truly demented if they decide to protest loud and proud at people's funerals.
Don't get so uptight about being called "delusional".
You're a Christian, so you are convinced the Christian religion is right, correct? Therefore, you must think that all the other, conflicting religions are wrong, meaning that the people firmly believing in those other religions are "delusional".
Atheism just takes it one step further and says that ALL religions are wrong, not just "all religions except mine".
In other words, everybody not in your religion thinks you're delusional on some level, so why focus on the atheists? This especially confuses me when coming from Christians, who have umpteen-billion different versions of the religion, all of which claim the others have got it wrong.
Yes, but each of them seem to believe the other two will go to hell as heathens.
And far from Kim Jong Il being a representative of a non religious ruler - he's the very definition of one gone wrong.
How many non-religious leaders are/were corrupt, sadistic heads of communist states? That would tend to skew the pool a little. I've not heard of any beneficent ethical-humanist heads of state.
I have news for you - even in a fundamentalist Christian world, sin doesn't exist.
Sin is, by definition, behavior that God does not want. But if God is the omnipotent, omniscient creator, he must have known that humans would sin and yet he created them anyway.
It's a logical impossibility for such a God to create a world that he does not want.
Theologians do a lot of handwaving to avoid this conundrum, but nobody has successfully solved it. If sin exists, it's because God wanted it to be so, and blames us for being how he made us.
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
"While you do have people with insane religious zeal, most religious people have a conscience which keeps them from taking part in mass misery; contrast this with "rational" ideologies which will make arbitrary divisions based on skin color, social class, etc... and disenfranchise a whole class of people."
Bullshit. Conscience is adjustable, note religionists in Germany went along with the program (a Niemoller or several don't matter much) and the Vatican even went so far as to rescue Nazis after WWII. (Operation Ratline, etc.)
You've grown up in a world where religion is weak, tame, and has been beaten back by the Enlightenment. It wasn't always thus (the Crusades come to mind) and without vigilance religion would return to its savage past. The price of freedom FROM religion is aggressive vigilance.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Religion is like believing in Santa Claus. The only difference is that at around age 6 we pull the beard off of santa but we keep spilling the religious poison into the ears of impressionable children who will one day grow up to do the same to their own.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
it's unclear if it is necessary for an entity existing outside of time to be created.
You don't understand the Big Bang. If any event precipitated it, it must have happened — by definition — outside of our time. So your same argument, that whatever spawned out universe might exist outside of our notion of time, works in both cases.
I'm Fred Phelps, you insensitive clod!
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
"All we know is that a significant event we call the "Big Bang" occurred and we have no visibility before that."
We don't even know that. It's a theory.
Ahhh yes... Religion needs to be put down hard because it's the root of so much evil.
Atheist regimes, on the other hand, have been proven over and over again to be the very framework of some of the grandest utopias ever seen on this earth.
Take the perfect equality forged by Lenin and Stalin for instance. With no God and no wacky religion in their mix they were able to construct a society filled with peace, respect and equality. Everyone was happy and free of the tyranny of churches and religious folk. Oh yes, and the great Mao Zedong who purified his people of the evils of religion and faith and built a new order that...
Religion, like everything else in the hands of humans is as good or as bad as an individual or group of individuals chooses to make it. I know plenty of soup kitchens and charity organizations built purely as a matter of faith. There's no denying the good impact of that. I've seen religion help rebuild people at rock bottom and I've seen it trap them in a prison of narrow-minded hatred. It is what it is. I knife can be used to prepare a meal or it can be used to murder something.
The arrogance of atheists on this site is laughable. You people act as if you're the be all end all of enlightenment and that people who share your beliefs have never caused ill to this planet. And who cares what people believe? After all, if you atheists are right then yes, a belief in astrology or reading tea leaves or God or whatever is delusional and absurd. So is a belief in anything because existence as a whole for us is absurd. It is meaningless and on a long enough time line nothing that happens will be remembered or recorded so why deny people their indulgences here that give them happiness—even if those indulgences are absurd?
Well, with all due respect, go fuck yourself. (And citing Christopher Hitchens only demonstrates that you're a douche.)
And how about the pain the stomping our religion has caused? Or how much suffering has resulting from a society without religion firmly rooted?
I need to look no further than such fine 20th century atheist leaders as Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. Can we people give the religion bashing a break because it's old and tiresome.
Good old lust for power and greed cause most of these problems. It's that simple. Religion merely because of a vehicle for our baboon-like behaviors when particularly clever monkeys learn to utilize it. Wiping out the native Americans was not religiously motivated, for instance. It was motivated by the fact that one group wanted another group's land. Even the Spanish Inquisition was rooted in stealing the property Jews and others not favorable to the Catholics.
PEOPLE have caused this pain and they manage to do it just fine with or without religion.
"And they should sure as hell keep their meddling little fingers out my government and schools."
YOUR government and YOUR schools? Oh that's right, religious people don't pay any of the taxes or participate in any way. Yeah, those fuckers need to keep out and just chill with their congregations.
Mind you, I'm not making a case for religion either. However, I find that atheists are entirely too comfortable in turning religion into a scapegoat for the natural evils of our species and think themselves blissfully immune to vile acts perpetrated by their religious cousins. History makes is very clear then no religion or lack thereof is free of atrocity.
But those are the laws. He uses them to his advantage. That he succeeds at the expense of others just magnifies the hypocrisy of it all.
Not really sure if he is seriously believes his wacked shit, or just taking the piss.. Either way, buy some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show! :)
You must admit he has some large diamond hard balls..
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
The only sane position to take is that they're all wrong, and while there might exist an omnipotent entity, it's insane to think he gives a fuck about you following a religion.
Look at it differently. God is a being who exists outside of time, who created earth as kind of a training ground (something like this). He doesn't care so much if people are suffering, or believing in strange things, as long as they are learning something. Death doesn't matter to him because that is just leaving the 'training grounds.' So he spreads some of his word across the earth as needed to various peoples, and over time it becomes embedded in traditions and strange beliefs, but if you look at the core of each religion, the best parts are still there.
Seriously, try it sometime: compare various religions (not creation myths, which so many university classes tend to focus on. Very few religious groups focus on creation myths in day to day studies, unlike many outside observers. Tendencies like this are why causal observers tend to utterly misunderstand what religion is about), and look at their core. You will find the commonalities surprising.
Of course, there are other non-supernatural reasons why there would be commonalities among religions, but obviously there are more sane positions than the one you uncreatively presented as the only one.
Qxe4
Fred's got entirely no interest in being martyred for his cause, because his cause is "people paying attention to Fred Phelps" and "suing people who harass him". It's not the kind of cause you can be a martyr for - he's just a fake who wants attention, and is very good at getting it. If one of his followers got killed, he might be okay with that, because he could get a *big* lawsuit out of it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If we look at the real world, we'll see events happening without cause everywhere (virtual particles, radioactive decay, etc.).
This is really the most powerful argument, and I wish people would use it more. It's one of those facts that almost nobody actually knows, but yet it's incredibly revealing about how our Universe works.
Our beliefs that everything has a cause come from observation, not philosophy. The philosophy comes later. If observation says some things don't have a cause, the idea that everything must have a cause goes out the window and all you have left is simply sophistry.
AccountKiller
Though even if your theory is correct, then it's inconsequential if you follow the religions or not since the main point of most religions is just to tell you to behave decently and you can do that just fine without going to church one a week or praying 5 times a day (Probably because in most ancient civilizations Law and Religion were one and the same)
Sounds like rather a good example of evolution in action.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Theology is the study of how quite intelligent people can make incisive and compelling logical arguments, but still never settle anything except the logical inconsistencies of their opponents position.
May the Maths Be with you!
You didn't read my answer properly. I have not the slightest expectation of influencing Fred Phelps - and I don't think your proposals would either. He and his few fellow fanatics are completely immune to reason. It is the rest of the world I am trying to influence. If Phelps is the only protester seen, his ideas will gradually gain weight and become regarded as more mainstream by ordinary people. Whereas if, wherever he is seen, larger numbers of more interesting and witty counter protesters are seen, his views will be seen as the extremist positions that they are. The need is that, whenever Phelps appears in the media, anti-Phelps appears larger.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Free speech is the core of Fred Phelps's Troll business. Governments aren't allowed to harass him, and he can sue them if they do. If individuals harass him to an extent that's illegal, he can sue them, or sue the governments that failed to protect him. If individuals harass him in ways that aren't quite enough for a lawsuit, that's still good for publicity as long as the press spells his name correctly or close enough. You can't shut them up, because what they believe in isn't a set of religious beliefs they could doubt, it's that publicity is profitable, and shouting them down is publicity.
The way to get rid of him is for everybody to stop paying attention and the press to stop publishing his activities. The press is unlikely to do that, because he's offensive and makes good trashy news, and if he's not getting enough press, he'll find more ways to be more offensive and trashy. There needs to be a thorough enough and long enough boycott for him to stop making money, but it's not like he's got anything else to do for fun.
The real question is whether his daughter will continue with the trade after he dies. He's 80, and could live another decade or two.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
the main point of most religions is just to tell you to behave decently
This is kind of wrong; it is true that is part of religions, but it is kind of the base. Ultimately they have deeper goals, like enlightenment, or to change who you are and why you do things. The purpose of going to church and praying 5 times a day and other ceremonies is to help you along in that goal. So technically yeah, you are right, you could reach enlightenment etc without going to church or raking rocks and chanting a zen mantra. These things are just there to help you along the way.
Qxe4
They don't even care about that - because Phelps and his gang aren't True Believers who want other people to agree with them, they're sociopaths and professional trolls who want attention, and negative attention is the best kind because it might give them another lawsuit. The best case they can get is a town trying to ban them, but if they can't get that, then having somebody punch them when there's a cop around means they can sue the guy who did it and also sue the cops for not protecting them would work.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I doubt he does that.
He'd be much likelier to make arguments against theology. Essentially, to an atheist, the whole subject is about as relevant to the real world as literary criticism.
Indeed, the only difference is the books it's based on.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
citation required. Please back up your statements with facts that are verifiable.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
No he hasn't. He has many objections to religion, but these are well-founded and well-argued. He is also polite to people who don't share his opinion.
Don't complain about people being "dickwads" when your own arguments are nothing but hand waving and ad hominem.
Religion is more of a mental illness than a physical sickness. And part of the illness is feeling the need to tell everyone about it. We hope that someday a means of treating it will be found.
Support SETI@home
Some do, some don't. Christianity for instance has never pushed enlightenment, it's core message has always been "As long as you perform well in this life you'll be rewarded in the next" which is similar to Hindu (Though I haven't really studied that religion extensively).
The pagan religions were similar although the virtues can be different, for instance the best fate for a viking would be dying in battle. Enlightenment has not really struck me as the common thread in my religious studies.
Citation? Explanation? Topologically speaking, circles (without boundary, but limited in extent), lines (a "circle with infinite radius," if you like, without boundary and unlimited in extent), rays (unlimited in extent, but "bounded below"), and line segments ("bounded above and below") are all quite "one-dimensional" (we can describe our position with a single number). Which is not to say the OP can't define things such that his statement is true.
Moreover, in some sense, his definitions need only be consistent with logic to be possible. Generally, and with good reason, science prefers theories to be consistent with empirical evidence, as well, but there's no logical reason God might not be Descartes' evil demon, crafting dinosaur bones to deceive us into disbelieving Genesis.
This is of course why science looks for the simplest theory that is sufficient to explain the evidence, and leaves claims of necessity to philosophers and divines. No one claims the insufficiency of the "God hypothesis," which is sufficient to "explain" everything, if we're only willing to accept that "the best explanation" amounts to "shut up and get back to work, you'll understand when you're older."
These are just words. If we define "universe," loosely, as "everything that is the case," then your God would be part of the "universe," no? To put it in a more Slashdot-friendly idiom, you define "universe" as userland, I claim the universe includes code running in kernel mode. Neither is "wrong," we're just using the word "universe" in different senses. You claim processes can't create themselves, so something outside the "universe" must exist, which you call the "kernel." I don't necessarily disagree — I'm just saying we can look at the kernel as "just another process," and that any explanation that purports to explain "how the universe was created" needs to explain how the origin of all processes, not just those running in user mode.
Again, we're just playing with words. Athiesm is simply not holding a certain belief, namely, the traditional belief in "some sort of supernatural being," itself not now, nor never, really, particularly well defined. The only way your assertion that athiests believe "nothing" created the universe makes any sense is if you mean that there is no general consensus among atheists as to why the universe exists, which, while true, is no less true of "theists" taken as a group. "Devoutly religious folk," on the other hand, tend to claim God not only exists, but that He's actually given them His telephone number.
Phelps, on the other hand, believes God not only exists, but that He's an asshole. A viewpoint which is, sadly, perfectly consistent with the Hebrew scriptures. If you ask me, I think he's taking the bit about man being made in God's image rather personally.
["Funny"]
I've thought of several funny semi-violent responses...
Get five or ten street-boys to jizz in a squirt gun, use said squirt gun to "anoint" WBC while holding "WBC shows gay spunk as Phred hoped" sign.
Get geek to factor wind biases and then use "Bear Spray" suitably up-wind.
[Serious]
But in truth, if WBC ever showed up in my region I would file a "reckless child endangerment" complaint against them with the department of child and family services. They are clearly trying to incite violence with "fighting words", to the degree that the cops have to show up to protect them. They are also using their children basically as "human shields" by bringing them, and putting them in harm's way, without regard to the safety of the minor children.
If they _don't_ think that the children would be in danger, why do they pre-arrange police protection?
I think WBC needs to be dragged through family court whenever they show up with kids and make them hold signs that inspire people to punch people in the face.
If the adults want to do it, then fine. But not the kids.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
A field of historical and literary analysis called "textual criticism" addresses these questions. The primary mechanism to understanding a text is to ask how its primary intended audience interpreted it.
how to invest, a novice's guide
No doubt about it, my real point is that human beings don't care about logical inconsistencies in their views. The human mind is pathetically bad at being clear in it's own thinking at all levels everyday. It takes effort to bring clarity to the murkiness of ones own thoughts.
When one speaks of the concept of god one is speaking of specific instances of that particular concept defined by human beings.
I already know about the omnipotence and failure paradox, if you are omnipotent you cannot fail by definition in your intent.
You need to read your cosmology books more carefully. There is no indication of an 'end' to the current universe just eventual evolution to an essentially empty void (which could be very similar to the void that preceded it). Given enough time (a hella-hubble-time or more) there will independent quantum fluctuations within that void resulting in big-bang like events.
The rest of your argument is just garbage. Not to mention that it's wrong in the extreme. People have been making such "proofs" for thousands of years and most rely on the same flawed assumptions like "everything has a cause." We'll its the modern world and we know more about physics. The main thing of interest here is "events do not need causes". And the event that formed the universe fits neatly into that category of event, especially when recent data is considered.
If you want to start with some arguments that weren't discredited 400 years ago, we can start over.
Support SETI@home
Are you going for a funny mod with that one?
Support SETI@home
Eh? The Vikins had religion, not sure what it was but they had it. There was also some woman worshipping religion some 70 000 years ago so religion isn't anything new. It's been with use since before civilization.
Now the Christian religion might have been better than religions it replaced, but there's little truly reliable data on that subject.
Is it just me or does "Fred Phelps" sound like one of the evil old guys on scooby doo that's always wearing a ghost costume?
Oh well, now you want to talk about enlightenment in christianity, but that is a different topic. In christianity, the vocabulary is different (and you are right, a lot of Christians focus on the 'perform well in this life' stage), but the idea is still there. It can be seen in popular culture with books like Les Miserables, where the main character (Jean Valjean) turns away from evil near the beginning (is saved), but isn't fully made pure until near the end (enlightenment!).
A lot of strains of christianity represent these two events as justification and sanctification. Justification is roughly when you begin your way down the path, and God forgives you of your sin. Sanctification is later, and somewhat more mysterious, and corresponds roughly to the eastern idea of enlightenment. The word itself denotes the idea of being made pure. It is typically found at the end of a journey (or granted as a gift from God).
There is definitely the idea of continued learning in the bible, and that once you begin that is not the end, you must continue on learning more. Jesus himself said, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." Finding 'rest unto your souls' is a lot like the buddhist idea of enlightenment.
Qxe4
I agree that authoritarianism is a root cause of many of society's ills. I'm an anarchist, and thus opposed to many of the forms of "authority" that are most widely and unquestioningly accepted by people worldwide, both religious and otherwise. But I base this and all of my other beliefs on the explicit teachings of Jesus Christ, who taught that our relationships with others (and Himself) ought to be based not on authority or coercion or violence, but love. "Religion" certainly can be abused by authoritarians, but it is not inherently authoritarian, and in my view at least (which I believe and hope to be Jesus' view as well), it is actually as profoundly contrary to the whole notion of authoritarianism as anything can be. Yes, God is the ultimate Authority, but He chooses to rule the world through love and persuasion, not violence. And asks us to do likewise. In my view, faith in God is not the cause of the world's ills; it would be the antidote, if people would just listen enough to understand.
Nonaggression works!
Always with the Stalin and Mao. Neither Stalin nor Mao was an atheist. However, they both felt the need to force atheism on the populace because they didn't want the churches to have a power structure that competed with the state.
But you knew that and lied anyway. Because your religion commands you to lie in the service of your God.
Support SETI@home
The Vikings would have had the Norse gods... (Odin, Thor, Loki, ...)
Support SETI@home
If I understood Hawking's "Brief History of Time" correctly, which I certainly won't guarantee, and if I'm remembering it correctly N years later, which is also dubious, having a one-dimensional timeline doesn't guarantee having a beginning. Spacetime might be a closed set, including Time 0, or might be an open set, including all times above 0 but not actually including Time 0 itself. So there might not have been a beginning, even if there's asymptotically close to having been one.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I think they know very well that they're trolls - just because they're sociopaths doesn't mean they don't have some insight into what they're doing. It's possible that they're trolls who actually do hate gay people, as opposed to merely finding them convenient targets, but they're in the Professional Trolling Business, making money by having towns ban them and people assault them and suing.
Remember a few years back when the KKK held a rally in Simi Valley? A friend of mine was on the city council at the time. The Klansters weren't locals, they were from out of town, and they were *very* disappointed that the town didn't forbid them to march, and didn't let the counter-protesters try to beat them up, because their real objective was to get banned and have a lawsuit they could easily win.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You're still treating them as if they mean what they say. They don't really care - they're just looking for the most offensive positions they can find, because that gets them the most publicity and the most antagonism they can use to generate lawsuits.
This kind of gig works a lot better when there's a First Amendment protecting free speech; in the Old Days they would have had to actually lead mobs of followers so they could steal the houses of the witches/Jews/blacks/gypsies/etc.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Not true. The Jews believe that as long as non-Jews abide by the Noahide laws (laws given to Noah after the flood), then they're all good in the eyes of G-d. In fact, it is Jewish doctrine that one should not formally convert to Judaism if they think that they may not be able to abide by the Mitzvah, since it's better to be a righteous Gentile than a non-righteous Jew (righteous in the original sense of the word, that is). Also, the Jews don't exactly believe in Hell, at all, or in Heaven, in the sense that the Christians and Muslims do.
I don't think they seriously believe what they say, though they may very well hate gays and enjoy antagonizing whoever's fun to offend. I think they're deliberate trolls, doing this because they like the attention and get to sue anybody who interferes with their freedom of speech. It doesn't take any dissociation from reality; they're just effective sociopaths who've got a profitable gig going.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You do know that the notion that religious people probably shouldn't kill each other over religion... is a Christian idea, don't you?
"Since we have fallen, my brethren, into this sin of blasphemy, I conjure you, in the name of our Lord, to rebuke openly these blasphemers. When you meet with such who publicly sin in this respect, correct them by word of mouth, and, if necessary, by your strong arm. Let these shameless swearers be covered with confusion. You could not employ your hand to a holier work. And if you are given into custody, go boldly before the magistrate, and say in your defense that you have avenged a blasphemy.
For if a person is punished for speaking contemptuously of a prince, is it not reasonable to suppose that a person who speaks irreverently of God should be sentenced to a severer punishment? It is a public crime, a common injury which all the world ought to condemn.
Let the Jews and infidels see that our magistrates are Christians, and that they will not allow those to go unpunished who insult and outrage their Master."
- Saint John Chrysostom
I have to admit I don't really know terribly much at all about the specifics of Judaism.
Pioneer? Really? More like plagiarist.
All right, we'll start with Josephus. He's a good example of just what I'm trying to tell you.
First of all, Josephus, AKA Yosef Ben Matityahu, A.D. (37 ~100+), had not been born when Christ was supposed to be walking around. So he is not contemporaneous - he literally "came after", and he never saw, or heard, Jesus or any of his claimed works; he didn't see the crucifixion; everything he has to say is second hand, or worse.
Secondly, considering he was born in AD 37, we can safely assume he didn't write anything scholarly for, oh, let's totally give him the benefit of the doubt, let's call it sixteen years later. We'll assume he was a prodigy. And we're also going to ignore that a large number of scholars -- Christian scholars, at that -- consider that Josephus' writings about Christ were partially or completely sourced elsewhere. See wikipedia for starter studies on that -- there is of course much more than you'll find there, but you'll get the gist. In any case, so we have Josephus, reporting on the doings of Christ, who is the hero of the Christian cult, whom he has never met, never seen an act done by, and for which reports he is at least twenty years late to the party.
This makes it very clear that while Josephus, if we take him seriously and stipulate to the authenticity of his writings, can be assigned directly to those who believe there was, in fact, a person named Christ, what we cannot do is take him as direct evidence there was a Christ, because he cannot have ever seen the man or his works -- what he knew of, again only if indeed his writings are actually his, is the Christian cult's reporting of Christ. He presents no evidence; he simply parrots the Christian line (which is one reason his words are doubted by many... the presumption is his writings have been corrupted in the copying by biased parties. Again, read Wikipedia for starters.) I would also point out that Jospehus never claims to have seen Christ, so it's more than a little disingenuous -- or simply misinformed -- to try to claim him as evidence for Christ's actual existence.
Finally, Jospehus actually says very little. He mentions James, a brother of Jesus in one passage; and in another, he delivers about a paragraph of vagueness, no notable details or dates other than mentioning Pilate -- who, we note, as fifth prefect of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26–36, also didn't do anything in front of Josephus. Pilate, too, was long gone by the time Jospehus had learned to speak, much less write scholarly treatises.
None of this stands even weakly as evidence for the actual existence of Jesus. What it does show, even if taken completely at face value, scholarly doubts aside, is that Christians were around, and telling the story as of AD 53 (probably much later... remember, we're giving Josephus the honor of assuming he wrote all this when he was 16.)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
a Swede would reference Workers Morals because of the great influence the workers movement has had the past 100 years.
Sounds like another religion to me.
isms are schisms. All of them.
lol?
Jesus sometimes talks about hell, even in a threatening manner.
That's good (bad) enough for me.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
This "rebuttal" to atheism is getting tiresome. You cannot call them atheist regimes with a hope of retaining any scrap of honesty. They were anti-religious, yes, but only because they desired the power of the church for themselves. They wanted to fill that religion shaped hole in people's lives with an image of themselves and their ideology. The so-called atheist regimes of today are not an example of secular societies, but of modern re-enactment of far more primitive tribalism with modern technology at their disposal.
I won't touch the second half of your post, the childish nature of it is sickening.
I recently happened upon the work of Robert Conquest, an eminent historian of the modern era, who does a good job of presenting an explanation for ideological zealotry.
Here are a few paragraphs from his book 'Reflections on a Ravaged Century'
Neither Stalin nor Mao eliminated religion though. Religionists like to say it did, because they don't recognise the reflection of themselves in what these regimes replaced religion with. For them, it is enough that there was a non-belief. From the perspective of faith as a psychological trojan horse, and religion as a command centre of the resulting botnet, they were little more than beheadings of the current authority to impose another. The difference being instead of necessarily pushing a religious ideology, it pushed a social or political one instead.
The final cure to religiosity, in all its forms, is to have this fundamental weakness in our psychology addressed by the mental preparation for the inevitable attack.
Who the f* is going to eliminate religion? Would you recommend the Stalin/Mao approach?
Stalin and Mao were both theists who demanded that their subjects become atheists in order to prevent existing religions from threatening their power. Educating people to the fact that religion is false, stupid and damaging to humanity is an entirely different thing.
Support SETI@home
I wanted to go to Comic-Con this year but didn't have the funds at the right time. Had I known Westboro would be in my city then I'd have gone anyway just to watch the hilarity.
The most dangerous people in history have proven to be those who have figured out for themselves some 'core underlying cause' for all social ills.
It is always THEY who have it all figured out, and the rest of us who just need to obey.
I'm reluctant to enter this conversation, given its very low standards for mutual respect, but I can't let this common, but to me incorrect, argument pass. How can we know how things would be without religion? That's just an initial logical fillip. But how about all the pain that religion HAS caused?
Ok, let's see that.
Europe was at war of Catholicism versus Protestantism for several hundred years.
No, Europe was at war because various nations wanted other nations stuff. Look at the sides for things like the 30-year war in Germany. It was purportedly a religious war - and yet, Catholic France supported Protestant Sweden against Catholic Spain, while Protestant Denmark opposed it. You find alliances drawn up along geopolitical lines, not religious. You can do the same for most other conflicts of the time, including the Reformation, and the Inquisition - by questioning the Pope's interpretation of scripture, the reformers questioned his authority, which impacted the basis of his political authority. These things were all conflicts over political power, not religion.
Islam and Christianity have been at war for longer than that. Granted, there were side issues of imperialism.
Yes, there were. I wouldn't say they were exactly side-issues though. The First Crusade was launched by the appeal of an Emperor for help in holding back Muslim expansion into his frontiers. He appealed on the basis of their common religion, but the primary goals were political. Even then, look at the results of the Fourth Crusade - the sack of a Christian city by Christian crusaders. How would that have happened if the crusades were primarily religious wars, instead of the same old power+land grabs we've seen from time immemorial?
But how about the persecution of Mormons?
See above re: Pope and challenge to political power. This is what often happens when a group with a new idea (religious or otherwise - see also Communism, Feminism) arises. They're persecuted by the majority, because the majority is secure in the status quo, and don't want things to change.
Mormons persecuting gays
Persecution of people for being different. If it was truly religiously motivated, you'd expect a similar persecution of people who'd committed adultery, or had premarital sex. While the Mormons (and most Christians) would say that these are wrong, they don't get demonized the same way homosexuals do, despite being given an equal weight on sinfulness in the Bible.
What about the various killing sprees over doctrine in the early days of the Catholic church, when various heresies were eliminating by exterminating their adherents like so many cockroaches?
Hard to argue against, given a lack of specificity (which heretics, and how "early"). As a general response, I'd point again to "challenge to political power", when that political power is based on religion. It's a continuing theme through most of post-Roman history. It's also why I think that the American concept of the separation of church and state is one of the most valuable tenets of the political system, despite being a Christian - not because religion interferes with politics, but because giving religious authorities secular power attracts people who want secular power to leadership of religions.
Or (despite the Church's whitewash to the contrary) the tacit support or active participation of Catholic bishops in the German Nazi party of the 1930s-40s?
So now because some religious people supported the Nazis, Nazi Germany is an example of religious causing pain? I'm pretty sure there were atheists and agnostics supporting it too.
Protestants in France in the 18thC, persecution of certain _types_ of Protestants in the United Kingdom at the same time
Look again to the separation of church and s
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I still love the idea someone on Kotaku had when they saw the Team Fortress 2 spy cosplayer with the 'GOD HATES SENTRIES' sign: He should have been standing in the midst of the WBC crazies, with one of THEIR signs, wearing 'a moron mask'.
The whole thing is just absolutely hilarious though. Good on them for mounting the counter-protest! Those WBC people are assholes.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
Hatred? Yup? Intolerance? Yup. But importantly, not without justification. And it's the justification that makes the difference.
Mine is the knowledge that the 3 major monotheisms are all looking forward to the destruction of the world. And each of them now has the power to take that destruction into their own hands. These are facts. Someone disavowed of the notion of an afterlife in paradise will do all that they can to avoid an unnatural end to themselves and those they care for. The same cannot be universally said for the religious. Convinced of the worthlessness of this life in comparison to the next, they can be dangerous like no other to themselves and anyone in the blast radius of the weapon they get their hands on. A hypothetical atheist - not necessarily a fundamentalist one, as you put it - thinks of religion as widespread delusion. But how can they, in the face of that belief, reconcile that and it's extremely dangerous tendencies with a laissez faire approach to it? "As long as it leaves me alone, I'll leave it alone." is another dangerous policy of appeasement that will bite us in the ass one day.
Nazi ideology was based on the master race theory, which had nothing to do with any of the major religions
So a Catholic person picks up some pagan ideas, expands on the Bible-based blood-libel, leads an army of Catholics and Lutherans under an ancient symbol that was adopted as a modified Christian cross, and takes "God is with us" as a motto for one of its elite units - and it has nothing to do with religion?
communism, which killed about 50 million people in Russia alone
Being non-religious doesn't automatically make you a good person.
most religious people have a conscience which keeps them from taking part in mass misery
And I'd say exactly the opposite. People are born with an innate human morality, and you have to do something to suppress that in order to get atrocities. One way to do that is to replace that innate morality with the psudo-morality of religion.
contrast this with "rational" ideologies which will make arbitrary divisions based on skin color, social class, etc
That has to be the worst defense of religious morality I ever heard. The right to keep the cursed "Hammites" in bondage, the divine right of kings, as well as slavery, tribalism, and mindless submission to authority in general were all based on religion. The "rational ideologies" picked up all those bad habits from religion, not the other way around.
Contrast this with countries that did not develop with a Christian heritage, and see how far your civil rights go there.
Civil rights, along with most human progress, has been in spite of religion, not because of it.
The notion of Universal Charity was really Jesus' revolutionary message, and it really did transform the world, causing more good as a result of it than any other single idea.
That's just your assertion.
Hitchens, by contrast, think that it is the worst thing that has ever happened to the world.
No, he thinks that it's just superstition. But he does believe that religion was our first (and worst) attempt at philosophy, and that we'd be better off with more modern systems of morals, government, and explanations for natural phenomena.
If you look at the history of science you'll find that it couldn't have been done without using classically "religious" framework.
And I assume you can back up that claim with...?
Religion merely [becomes?] a vehicle for our baboon-like behaviors...
Exactly. Religion gives tyrants, in addition to all of the tools that they already have, the threat of eternal damnation, the faux-moral divine right of kings, and a reason for the opressed to ignore their oppression (all will be set right in the afterlife). Think of how much more horrid Stalin an Mao could have been if they had not just modern technology and their own evil intent, but the cloak of religion as well.
I find that atheists are entirely too comfortable in turning religion into a scapegoat
Religion might not be the source of all evil, but it does make an exceptionally good place for evil to hide. Look at the Catholic Church's scandals - just by being priests child molesters could put themselves above suspicion, and if discovered have a whole hierarchy of people ready to hide their crimes. The crimes themselves might have come from human nature, but that good a disguise for it could only come from religion.
Would you recommend the Stalin/Mao approach?
No, we have secularism.
It doesn't seem to matter if your government suppresses the heretical non-Christians, non-Muslims, non-Atheists, non-Hindus, or non-Pagans - when the government forces a religious viewpoint on people it's all bad.
On the other hand, when people are allowed to practice their various faiths (or none) in peace, it doesn't seem to matter whether it's the Greek Gods (500 BCE Athens), the Muslim God (1000 CE Baghdad), the Christian God (1900 CE West), or no god (2000 CE Sweden) that's popular - things tend to be all right.
So we each have our own beliefs, and can make fun of the other person's, but no matter what just please don't fuck up the only type of society with a proven track record of improving the human condition.
Who the f* is going to eliminate religion?
We'll just grow out of it. :)
I saw this title and the first thing that came to my mind was two guys dressed up as the ambiguously gay duo joining them in protest....
If criticism equates to "hatred and intolerance", then you are hateful and intolerant for your own comment. But that's nonsense. Written criticism in an on-topic discussion just does not compare to unwanted physical confrontation, intimidation and bullying, housing and job discrimination, or the codifying of unequal treatment into the law.
Religion is false superstitious nonsense, and people die because of it. People waste their lives because of it. Decision making is garbage in, garbage out. When you base decisions on falsehoods, you make bad choices. These are all a factual claims, not opinion. You can argue that the claims are false, but to say that they are offensive in any way is to say that the truth itself might be offensive to you, and you therefore admit having a motivation to be in denial of the truth.
All you accomplish by calling a claim hateful and intolerant instead of disputing it is imply that you can't come up with a counter-argument.
All this geek-fu and their website still stands? OK, it's built on Centos, but surely we can do better than that!
Server Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS) X-Powered-By PHP/5.1.6 Vary Accept-Encoding,User-Agent Content-Encoding gzip Content-Length 6960 Keep-Alive timeout=5, max=500 Connection Keep-Alive
Do as you would be done to.
Bravo. Best post I've seen in a long while.
This space intentionally left blank.
I can't believe people still are religious in public.
Not only do I worship in public, I did so today with 200 other like-minded souls. We've even got (hold on to your hat) an entire building dedicated to it. With a sign telling _everyone_ what's going on inside.
I am from Sweden.
Well I'm sorry for that but do you think you should admit that in public?
Display some adaptability.
Exactly. And why is this? Because admitting atheism, even at the heights secularism has reached, is a death sentence to any politicians hope to get into office. If the populous are passengers, then religion may not be driving the bus anymore, but only because it has reached a higher level of management: vetting the new bus drivers for acceptability.
Fine... and you'd still have been writing about someone you'd never met, about whose existence -- and magical acts, and birth, and resurrection -- you didn't witness, and which were of little import to you because there were very few Christians, and you weren't one of them (one of the reasons scholars doubt his remarks about Christ... they resonate as if written by a Christian, and use forms of language found nowhere else in his writing.)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Christians are atheists about most gods that we have dreamed up.
Atheists are just one god ahead of them.
We tend to think that getting up early to go to church every Sunday just to apologise for being human as ridiculous as worshipping Set.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Louis Theroux, a BBC documentary presenter, produced a very inside look at these "people."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOrz5k0jWdU
Worth a watch of the whole thing if you can find a torrent.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
>>No he's saying if god could have existed all along without being created then the universe could have existed all along without needing to be created.
Right. I understand the structure of his argument - except it's wrong.
Our universe has a one-dimensional timeline (as far as we can tell). God is hypothesized to exist outside of time. The universe needs an origin. God does not.
To put it another way, it is impossible to get to the present from an infinitely distant past.
>>Christians are atheists about most gods that we have dreamed up.
Common Hitchensism, and is a good example of his nonsense that people apparently believe in.
At a certain level, we all are forced to pick a religion for ourselves. Refusing to choose any (i.e. atheism) is a very distinct difference than choosing one.
The only sane position to take is that they're all wrong
What does it benefit you to take the position that they are all wrong. If you take that position and it turns out that any one of them is right, then you are screwed. With that in mind the only really sane position to take is that they are all potentially right, and then act in the way that you think is right for you. There just is no possible benefit from declaring someone else wrong on something that is ultimately unprovable.
More importantly your statement is a logical fallacy. To sum it up, you are saying the only right belief is to believe all belief is wrong. Or more simply, the only thing that is true is false. Yes it's a common atheist argument, but then again it's really just atheists saying that there belief is the right one and all others are wrong.
What reason exactly do we have to believe...
Reason and belief are two separate things, and they are not mutually exclusive. I for one have reason and belief, but I do not profess to have reason to believe.
And for the record, I am of a belief that is indistinguishable from atheism except that I accept it is a faith none the less.
>>Therefore, you must think that all the other, conflicting religions are wrong, meaning that the people firmly believing in those other religions are "delusional".
Hardly. I think there's something to a lot of different religions, though some are indeed a lot more nonsensical than others. While I disagree to a greater or lesser extent with all religions/denominations (I'm including Christian ones here, as well - no denomination really matches my thinking), I wouldn't call, say, a Buddhist delusional, because I think several of their points about attachment to material things to be valid ones. The stuff about the universe being eternal though, I do disagree with.
>>Atheism just takes it one step further and says that ALL religions are wrong, not just "all religions except mine".
In other words, "We don't know the ultimate nature of reality, but we're absolutely convinced that everyone else is wrong."
Indeed. Something had to exist outside of time that spawned the creation of the universe.
That's all the First Cause argument says conclusively.
Moving from there and saying whether or not you find it more plausible the universe sort of popped out of nowhere or was created involves your thoughts on things like the Anthropic Principle and the various other issues on the topic. I find it more plausible that God exists; you might disagree.
But the atheist who says there's no logical reason to believe in God is simply wrong (or more likely uninformed of the various debates on the issue).
>>Theology is the study of how quite intelligent people can make incisive and compelling logical arguments, but still never settle anything except the logical inconsistencies of their opponents position.
As an Obsessive Maths Freak, it can be quite annoying not being able to get an adequate proof, is it not?
But real life is rarely like that. Literature studies, law, theology, philosophy (except the purely logical arguments), ethics etc., all produce logical arguments which the listener weighs based on the preponderance of the evidence.
The issue with Dawkins is that he doesn't have the necessary background to enter the arena, and as a result sounds like a guy who read a website this one time trying to argue why he doesn't need to pay income taxes before the Supreme Court.
Please define "outside of time". To me that is a meaningless statement. Time is how we measure change, if an entity does anything then it is inside of time.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
>>He is also polite to people who don't share his opinion.
You've obviously never seen him speak. Or, you know, read his entirely polite and respectful book, "The God Delusion".
>>Please define "outside of time". To me that is a meaningless statement.
Yikes, there's no easy way to summarize that whole debate. Try this thought on for size: God is immanent in every moment at every place and views everything as an eternal present.
And if that doesn't make sense, I apologize. If you want to stretch your brain, try reading through this:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/
I also have some good physics books on space and time if you're interested.
>>Eh? The Vikins had religion, not sure what it was but they had it.
That's what I get for writing at 4AM.
I'm talking about the Christian religion in particular, not religion in general. Sorry about that.
>>Now the Christian religion might have been better than religions it replaced, but there's little truly reliable data on that subject.
There's actually extensive data in the Vatican (the last time I looked at the subject) on the missions to the vikings. (Fun fact: based on the Northmen's reports of elves and giants in the wilds there, they actually posed the question to the Pope if they could be baptized and converted. Answer: sure, why not?)
If I remember the story correctly, the Vikings butchered wave after wave of missionaries to them until they began to suspect that if all these people were willing to die for their faith, there might be something to it.
Cut down on depredations greatly.
Quoting the patriarchs, eh?
The development I'm talking about was an evolution of Christian thought in the Enlightenment Era. Just like how slavery came to be seen as antithetical to Christian values, so did killing each other over religion.
Nowadays you have a very atheistic Europe filled with people who pride themselves on being tolerant, and able to act according to the Judeo-Christian code of ethics, while not believing in God. It's very strange if you think about it. Why would you be proud to follow an ethical code of a God you mock?
Unless there is indeed something to those ethics, I suppose, eh?
>>Civil rights, along with most human progress, has been in spite of religion, not because of it.
Incorrect. This statement is more or less an urban legend generated by the modern atheist movement.
>>That's just your assertion.
Backed up by my study of history.
Based on your above statement, you've never really made a study of it.
The development I'm talking about was an evolution of Christian thought in the Enlightenment Era. Just like how slavery came to be seen as antithetical to Christian values, so did killing each other over religion.
But it wasn't really evolution of Christian thought so much so as fairly rapid secularization, stripping those values down to their core of what became known as "rational humanism". The Church lagged far behind - suffice to look at the attitude of the Rome towards various socially progressive movements up until mid-20th century.
Nowadays you have a very atheistic Europe filled with people who pride themselves on being tolerant, and able to act according to the Judeo-Christian code of ethics, while not believing in God. It's very strange if you think about it. Why would you be proud to follow an ethical code of a God you mock?
Your mistake is in labeling it "Judeo-Christian code of ethics". It's not. It has certain things in common - all the "do not kill" etc stuff, which generally boils down to "no unnecessary violence, try to be cooperative", and is an evolved trait in social animals such as humans. There's no surprise that all religions have captured it in some form, it's just basic common sense.
A real Judeo-Christian code of ethics includes things such as prohibition of adultery (what's the number of single mothers and divorce rate in Europe today, again?), intolerance towards other religions ("And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death") and nontypical sexual preferences ("If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable"). Thankfully, we've got a long way from there. And, yes, Christians were dragged along, though some of them resent it (we call them "fundamentalists") - but the credit for the most part of it isn't theirs.
If I remember the story correctly, the Vikings butchered wave after wave of missionaries to them until they began to suspect that if all these people were willing to die for their faith, there might be something to it.
I'm weary of stories that have a "romantic flair" to them. I did actually have Norwegian history in elementary school (being Norwegian and all) and from what little I remember some crazed king spread Christianity by the sword, with taxmen close behind. I recall someone asking the teacher what happened to those who didn't convert, and he answered simply with "he cut their heads off" - which was thoughtless of him come to think of it, now remember why I don't like that king. LOL.
There was some sort of tradition called "blood revenge" that got shot by Christianity, that may be the reduction in depredations you're talking about.
I've always found Norwegian history dreadfully boring. Much more fun to read about Greek, Roman, Spanish, etc. histories, so don't take my word for anything.
>>And, yes, Christians were dragged along, though some of them resent it
You got it backwards.
Secularism is a very recent phenomenon - all this ethical flowering from Christianity took place, hmm, starting around the 1300s or so, but really kicking off as the result of the 80 years war, if I'm remembering it correctly. There was a philosophical reaction to the pointless slaughter of Christian on Christian - and there was no secular movement to talk of back then, so it's very hard to ascribe credit to it for anything other than the expansion of Christian ethics.
>>Your mistake is in labeling it "Judeo-Christian code of ethics". It's not. It has certain things in common - all the "do not kill" etc stuff, which generally boils down to "no unnecessary violence, try to be cooperative", and is an evolved trait in social animals such as humans. There's no surprise that all religions have captured it in some form, it's just basic common sense.
The lower levels of morality are certainly seen worldwide. I'm dubious as to how much of higher ethical behavior you can claim is evolutionarily derived, especially given the rather wide codes of conduct seen in indigenous peoples around the world, and would certainly argue that only religious people generally demonstrate higher ethical behaviors, such as Loving Thy Enemy, or the rather similar Mother Doctrine of Buddhism (all people were once your mother, so you should love everyone).
It's easy to not hit someone with a rock so that they don't hit you back (ethical level 1) or because you don't want to break a law (ethical level 2), but it's very rare to see anyone outside of religious circles loving the person beating them with a rock (ethical level 3).
Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stiklestad
Politics, alliances and swords pawed the way for Christianity, with the dead king becoming "a saint" and miracles occurring around his corpse. Same old, same old in other words. Remember now that this took up a good chunk of our history classes, with a lot of fuzz being made about the miracles and them being presented as factual happenings. I'm actually a little appalled right now, ho hum, but with the school system being reformed almost every four years (yes I'm serious, drives the poor teachers up the wall and makes our schools rank as the worst of northern Europe) I can't say what they are teaching right now.
Yes, but at the same time, Hitler famously disliked the christian religion. He would often say how it made the people weak, because priests taught compassion and empathy, something he thought should not belong in the Reich, and certainly not on the battlefield. It is clear he much preferred the Norse ideology, as you can see in many of the symbols he used, from the Swastika (looks like a Norse Sun wheel), the wolf's hook, the 'sig' rune (used as the SS symbol), the life rune, the odal rune, etc.
Whether this was just because he also idolised the race of people descended from the Norsemen, or if he truly believed this "religion" or ideology to be superior, is another matter.
I have. Of course some people are offended merely because someone else dares to disagree with them, it's easy to lose perspective in that way. But sticking to your guns is not the same as being impolite. Why don't you just link to something which supports your point? There is lots of stuff from him on youtube, so it shouldn't be hard.
We don't disagree I think. The point is that it's a waste of effort to dedicate yourself to a religion when you have no real basis to assume it's correct, as far as anyone knows you might go to heaven aslong as you're just a decent person.
Fascinating.
How would you combine "There is no greater authority than yourself" http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&v=0XRPgLZU12g&gl=US, a basic tenet of my brand of anarchism, and say "I am born free and no man is my Lord", with "Yes, God is the ultimate Authority" and sheepishly kneeling to an invisible master?
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
God was pushed into those gaps by science. Older religions don't have such concepts of God as omniscient and "outside time." Most of them depicted gods as basically human but immortal, with control over some force of nature, or embodying some abstract principle (as in the Greek pantheon).
This is just my own speculation, but I think the concept of gods came about because we are intentional and empathetic beings, and ascribed intentionality to the natural world because it was easy to project purpose onto blind, indifferent natural forces.
Because we do things for a reason, it's perfectly natural to believe that when something beyond our control happens by chance, there is actually some reason behind it.
Ergo, with the discovery of more natural laws and seeing their blind indifference, God necessarily had to become more powerful, ineffable, and remote.
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
But there is one thing that is a common touchstone across all religions: misogyny. The proof is their equally vehement denial of the fact.
But the atheist who says there's no logical reason to believe in God is simply wrong (or more likely uninformed of the various debates on the issue).
There isn't. That's sort of the point of faith, though: to carry you where logic can't go.
And the First Cause argument doesn't work identically for science and religion, at least not indefinitely. Right now, we don't know any reason why we'd ever be able to study and test the pre-universe universe, in which case everything before the Big Bang is no different from religion. But if we ever do come up with a way to make testable predictions, science has something of an upper hand.
I acknowledge exactly One (exactly One and only One) Authority higher than myself. I am born free, as are all people, because of having been created in His image. Like many people, though by no means all, I choose to use that freedom to try my best to serve Him. I don't do a particularly great job, perhaps because He also has the freedom to choose me as His servant or not to, and I strongly suspect the latter.
Nonaggression works!
Phelps and his crerw got punked by TREKKIES and FURRIES. That has the be the greatest laugh I've had all year. All glory to the hypno-toad!!!
>>Civil rights, along with most human progress, has been in spite of religion, not because of it.
Incorrect. This statement is more or less an urban legend generated by the modern atheist movement.
How many female Catholic priests are there?
Why were we directed by the organisers of a local Muslim Youth Assocition debate to sit in male/female segregated seating? (We told them to fuck off).
Ho yus, civil rights is TOP of major religion's agenda ...
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
I've not heard of any beneficent ethical-humanist heads of state.
If you consider that a humanist worthy of the name is intrinsically secular, then look at the number of secular states in the world, it's not insignificant.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Call me an Atheist Christian if you wish.
I think the proper term is "Unitarian".
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The only sane position to take is that they're all wrong, and while there might exist an omnipotent entity, it's insane to think he gives a fuck about you following a religion.
I prefer to think that any deity would have no way of knowing whether or not it is a puppet of some higher deity. A truly omnipotent and omniscient being would have no problem causing someone else to think they are omnipotent and omnicient.
It's Gods all the way up.
Yes... and no!
Freedom of speech does means the ability to state your views (freely, without fear of punishment for holding or expressing those views).
Freedom of speech as it is implemented in the [USA's] constitution refers to the government's inability to restrict you from expressing your views (as well as to related concepts like the ability to compel speech in certain circumstances).
But in real life there is more to freedom of speech than what the US (or any) government may do. Arguably corporations have even more power.
Once again, there is a bit of both. Humans are inherently deserving of some respect, and a certain dignity of treatment, by virtue of their humanity. Beyond that, respect can and should be earned, or may be lost.
But however heinous someone's views, they are still worthy of a certain dignity - to accord them less is to diminish yourself.
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
I am born free, as are all people, because of having been created in His image.
I don't get this "image" thing. Does his image have a penis, or a vagina? Either way, half of humanity is going to hell over that discrepency.
Maybe you'll say he has both - in which case only hermaphrodites get a free pass to the afterlife. Or maybe he has no reproductive organs at all, in which case your weiner makes you a sinner.
Any other weasel answer along the lines of "I don't know" or "he moves in mysterious ways" is an admission that you are not really born in his image at all. (Is his image caucasian, negro, Indian?) What about people born with extreme physical disfigurements? Are they in his image?
Maybe you mean his image is all about the "soul", in which case how do you know that cats or dolphins do not have that as well?
Seriously, I really do not get the "in his image" thing at all. It's as though you don't believe in evolution ...
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Just imagine how much less national debt we would have if corporations had to pay taxes.
Impossible. Any government imposed fee placed upon a corporation will simply be transferred to those that purchase the services they render as a "cost of doing business". Corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do.
> What does it benefit you to take the position that they are all wrong. If you take that position and it turns out that any one of them is right, then you are screwed.
Since most religions claim that worshiping a different god is a worse transgression than not worshiping any got at all, and since there you haven't proposed any test to determine which religion is more likely to be right than others, the prudent course of action is atheism(*).
(*) In it's original meaning (the prefix "a-" means "without").
How about Clement Attlee, Father of the welfare State. regarded in a recent Poll as the greatest prime minister of the 20th Century.
When interviewed on the subject of his belief, he declared himself to be "incapable of religious feeling"
he's just the first I thought of by the way, I'm fairly sure there are a large number of other european heads of state who would fit the bill just fine...
Yes, but at the same time, Hitler famously disliked the christian religion. He would often say how it made the people weak, because priests taught compassion and empathy, something he thought should not belong in the Reich, and certainly not on the battlefield. It is clear he much preferred the Norse ideology, as you can see in many of the symbols he used, from the Swastika (looks like a Norse Sun wheel), the wolf's hook, the 'sig' rune (used as the SS symbol), the life rune, the odal rune, etc.
Whether this was just because he also idolised the race of people descended from the Norsemen, or if he truly believed this "religion" or ideology to be superior, is another matter.
He was just a manipulative opportunist, he used the parts of religions that fit his purposes, and ignored the rest.
You can't take the sky from me...
Secularism is a very recent phenomenon - all this ethical flowering from Christianity took place, hmm, starting around the 1300s or so, but really kicking off as the result of the 80 years war, if I'm remembering it correctly. There was a philosophical reaction to the pointless slaughter of Christian on Christian - and there was no secular movement to talk of back then, so it's very hard to ascribe credit to it for anything other than the expansion of Christian ethics.
There have been processes within Christianity that made it easier for Enlightenment to get kickstarted, but Enlightenment, as a historical period, is clearly defined by rejection of many of existing Christian dogmas and embrace of rationalism and humanism. It's patently obvious when you look at the people whose names that are most prominently associated with that period. Yes, it wasn't atheist heaven still, but it got deism growing as an alternative, and even though the majority called themselves Christians, their wholesale rejection of numerous doctrines makes their claim weak (and the Church at the time strongly agreed, judging by all the persecutions).
but it's very rare to see anyone outside of religious circles loving the person beating them with a rock (ethical level 3).
It's very rare to see it inside religious circles, as well. And that is because it is simply not rational behavior, so its labeling as "higher ethical level" is extremely dubious. If you do it as an individual, you will die very soon. If you do it as a group united by common ideology, your group will be wiped out relatively quickly.
Which, by the way, is precisely what happened to early - real! - Christians. Once those were fed to the lions, only the ones which discarded the whole "turn the other cheek" thing - like Chrysostom - survived to build their way to domination.
Sin is, by definition, behavior that God does not want. But if God is the omnipotent, omniscient creator, he must have known that humans would sin and yet he created them anyway.
It's a logical impossibility for such a God to create a world that he does not want.
Theologians do a lot of handwaving to avoid this conundrum, but nobody has successfully solved it.
Actually thats not true, it was quite sucessfully solved by the Cathars,by the premise of two equally powerful gods, one good the other evil
The World of matter we are living in was held to be a creation of the evil god btw, this is why it is so obviously full of suffering and sin. the goal of the cathar's was to transend this evil physical world and enter the good spiritual one.
This is of course utterly heretical, and is why the catholic church saw fit to help the cathar's escape the physical world by setting them on fire...
That's really excellently put. I've always assumed that the whole "God" thing was human nature to find order in chaos and to find correlation in obscure stimulii taken to an extreme... Sort of: "things in the world grow from simple to complex, and things in the world grow from less sentient to more sentient... therefore there must be something infinitely complex and infinitely sentient... therefore there must be a God" It ignores the fact that not all patterns continue into infinity.
The fact that he said "But to each his own" shows he isn't fundamentalist.... In fact, he showed that while he has his own believes he accepts the beliefs of others. Almost the opposite of fundamentalism.
First off I want to make apparent the number one logical inconsistency of this argument. The glaringly obvious error is that postulate 4 (it is more likely that the universe was created) does not follow from the previous three postulates. Even if the previous three postulates held true (which they do not by necessity), then number 4 would not necessarily follow. Supposing that the universe does have a starting moment, this starting moment could easily have been a stochastic event, rather than a probabilistic one. In other words, the universe could have "just happened" just like how radioactive decay "just happens." There is no necessity for it to be created.
However, suppose you want to ignore that logical hole, let's move on. The first postulate, that adding a finite amount of time to a negative infinity betrays the arguments ignorance of limit theorems in mathematics. When taking Calc 3 in college, we learned that various infinite limits certainly could result in finite sums. In fact, this is the basis for the modeling of all trig functions if I remember correctly. That is to say, given the appropriate function, one can look at the limit as a variable approaches infinity and mathematically determine the result to be a finite number. This also holds true for negative infinity. Thus, if we suppose that reality, as we describe it, is modeled by a function of similar nature to those I just described, one could see how time could, in fact, approach negative infinity but still result in a finite value (that finite value could be the necessary number to equal present day). Thus, time very well could be negatively infinite and still result in a finite universe given the appropriate underlying mathematical engine.
So, your first postulate is an unwarranted one at best. As such, the second and third postulates do not necessarily follow and the leap to postulate four is unnecessary. In other words, your entire argument is a logical failure at postulate one as I have successfully demonstrated one system that disproves its truth. Therefore, even if the Kalam Argument somehow justified creationism in the first place, the fact that it is flawed leaves the theory of creationism in the realm of fantasy.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
>>Civil rights, along with most human progress, has been in spite of religion, not because of it.
>Incorrect. This statement is more or less an urban legend generated by the modern atheist movement.
What? The Christian Bible alone has lists of rules about how one should practice slavery, insists upon the death penalty for things we don't even consider crimes anymore, places women in a clearly secondary role in social life, and advocates the idea that moral responsibility can be transmitted from one thing to another (passed down generations, pushed onto a scapegoat). Many times when people fought against slavery, sexism, racism, and tribalism of all sorts they had an additional obstacle to overcome in the form of religious dogma. And that's just stuff that's directly from the holy texts of one religion, leaving out Islam and Confucianism, and all the 'extras' from Christianity, like the divine right of kings, using the threat of excommunication to maintain power, etc.
>>That's just your assertion.
>Backed up by my study of history.
No, it's "backed up" by the narrative that practitioners of your religion have invented in order to make themselves feel good, and uncritically accepting a story that one culture has about its own superiority doesn't count as "study". Since you claim that one idea really was the best, I have to ask exactly what you mean by "Universal Charity", what metric you used to judge its goodness, and what other ideas you have compared it to. Or, much more likely, you've just been told this, and accept it because it makes you feel good.
>Based on your above statement, you've never really made a study of it.
Wow, an insult from a guy on the internet, backed up by nothing at all! My feelings are so hurt!
Well, I guess my stated source was "the history of science", and you could look at it yourself and see. The idea isn't mine though. I got it from some History of Science lectures I attended that put it forward.
There are two ways in which it's true. One is the very "practical" way in which "the churches" were (obviously) very involved with education, knowledge, communities etc. back then. There is, however, a much more interesting level on which it is true. That is that the idea of having an external, universal truth that you're searching for as a team; having a "canon" of accepted material documenting that truth; having institutionally-recognised experts who will teach students - these all come from monotheism.
All Glory To the HYPNO-TOAD!
Sorry, but you're wrong. Maybe you should re-read your science books. Pay particular attention to a few basic laws.
Here's one for you. I'll put it in old style English for you.
Thou shallt not create nor destroy energy.
In other words you don't get to dream up some new kind of energy to make a new Big Bang.
Please read up on:
a) the Big Bang
b) the Big Rip
c) Hartle-Hawkin no boundary condition
d) brane cosmology
e) chaotic inflation
f) Lambda-Cold Dark Matter model
g) Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric
In any event, this Universe has a clear and distinct beginning. None of the existing accepted theories of the Universe offer any escape for an argument of creation by something, and that that "something" could not have been initiated by "some one". I am simply using pure logic, which seems to be a bit hard for you to grasp.
"I fail to see the problem. This is a very likely possibility. We deal quite regularly with infinite series in mathematics, where the correct outcome relies on the infinite nature of the series."
It's more like infinite number of cardinals. Which poses a problem, because there's going to be the strict hierarchy of gods.
"Will there ever be an "end of time" or "end of existence"? What comes after that? Nothing? Anything? Was there ever a "beginning of time" or "beginning of existence"? What came before that? Nothing? Anything?"
Now think about it some more. How do you define the word "before"? Does it make sense to say "before the beginning of time"?
To actually define this you need to embed our Universe inside of a larger Universe which should still provide an arrow of time for your question to be valid.
"What with the law of conservation of energy and all, it certainly seems that everything we can observe is infinite. Not infinitely stuck in the present state, but infinite nonetheless."
So far, our Universe seems to be finite (albeit very big).
"You can't create or destroy matter or energy; you can only change its state. They are infinite."
Sorry, this statement has no sense.
"So why not an infinite chain of gods? An infinite chain of creators. We create things all the time. We're figuring out how to create more and more things as time goes on, in fact."
Occam's razor. Why do we need gods if we simply can have infinite Universe? Also, that obviates the problems with low-probability events - in an infinite Universe any event is bound to happen.
"You yourself argued that Kalam's argument requires an infinite chain "ad infinitum". This would mean that our creator could potentially be involved in creating other creators, since the chain before our creator is infinite, so why stop with ours."
Wrong. That means that our creator must be created by some other creator which is created by some other creator, etc. It's not logically inconsistent, but fails Occam's razor.
On the next level, why not think about possibility of continuum (aleph-1 set!) of Universes/creators? :)
Apparently you need to reread some of that stuff. The current best measurements for the total energy of the universe is zero. You can get as much energy as you want as long as you create equal parts positive and negative. In empty space, if you wait long enough, a universe is just going to happen on its own. It could happen in non-empty space as well, it's just pretty damn unlikely to happen in a few thousand hubble times.
The properties of that universe might not be like ours, but once again, if you wait long enough, you'll eventually get one like this one.
But in a possible multiverse, with each parent universe having a different direction of the time-like dimension, it's hard to figure out "how long" that might have been.
Support SETI@home
Doesn't take much effort to find him being a prick.
First hit on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UwcLienBNs
Heh
I'm talking about the atheist urban myths surrounding Galileo v. the Pope, for example, and the notion that Christianity is somehow antithetical to science. Which is almost entirely false, except in the cases where science arguably steps outside of ethical norms.
Modern atheism has rewritten history to make it sound like a battle between the forces of ignorance and the forces of enlightenment, which is more or less bullshit.
The evolution of civil rights and increased freedom for citizenry stems directly from Christian thought.
I don't wish to make an argument promoting any particular faith, but by your logic it is possible that the most prudent course of action would be Pantheism. Again since I'm not interested in promoting faith here, simply voicing a philosophical possibility, I'll leave it up to the read to learn about pantheism themselves.
One is the very "practical" way in which "the churches" were (obviously) very involved with education, knowledge, communities etc. back then.
True, religion played a much more central role in society in the old days. Of course, when societies separate religion from the rest of society, that's when things tend to progress the most. Look at the peak of Greek, Roman, Middle Eastern, and modern Western civilization - they all occurred when religion was less central to public life than normal, either because multiple religions coexisted, or because other institutions became more clearly separate from religious ones.
these all come from monotheism :)
Well, monotheists like to take credit for them.
the idea of having an external, universal truth that you're searching for as a team
Which would surprise to all of those pagan churches studying astronomy. Plus there's a big difference between searching for the truth and merely defending existing dogma.
having a "canon" of accepted material documenting that truth
Which would surprise all of those Greek and Egyptian authors writing medical texts. Plus having a fixed, unquestionable cannon probably hinders the search for knowledge as much as it helps.
having institutionally-recognised experts who will teach students
Which would surprise the ancient Hindus and several of the Oriental cultures. Plus using vetted experts isn't very useful if their purpose is to indoctrinate rather than educate.
Would those "urban myths" be the ones the Pope pardoned Galileo for in 1992? As a force of ignorance goes, that pretty much tops the pile don't you think?
And as for rights, you still have not addressed the disparity between the sexes in the three abrahamic religions. In all places one would call enlightened there's this civil right calling for the equality of the sexes - yet major religion (especially Christianity) is still hung up on not allowing women to take certain positions within the church. Tell me that's enlightened or an evolved civil right.
Face it, the facts are against your claims.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
I unfortunately muddled up bits in my response that came from monotheism and bits that came from religious movements in general.
Religious thought has the genesis of the idea that there are things worth searching for that are objective, independent of human regard (man is NOT the measure of all things). That you might sacrifice base hedonism for a lifestyle that works towards some sort of external goal. That idea is put forward very well at the end of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals.
The monotheistic bit is the organising under a shared set of values - and spreading them imperially. It (forcibly) focused society into a machine.
RE: Medical Texts - They're unusual in that medicine is a very "basic" need that people have, and texts in those areas are what allowed people to do their jobs and keep people alive. The drive is different from the "search for knowledge".
RE: Fixed Canon - The Bible was pretty fixed, but it would be a mistake to think that there weren't MANY other texts that were studied in religious contexts. The Bible wasn't really *enough* for the scholars in the church (even going back to St. Thomas), they wanted something more intellectual. They read and interpereted many other texts (including the Greek philosophers), and these other texts caused various revolutions within the churches (some with "scientific" elements, it's harder to seperate these things back then).
>>Face it, the facts are against your claims.
Read up, Judah Ben Hur -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
>>yet major religion (especially Christianity) is still hung up on not allowing women to take certain positions within the church.
My church has female pastors, so I'm not sure I need to defend that.
Meh, I started out questioning your statement that religion furthers civil rights, and you've dragged me into a different topic, that of science v religion. I freely admit that some of history's greatest scientists have been religious, and we owe a huge debt to Arabic scholars from centuries past.
As for female pastors, you're obviously not Catholic. Or Mormon. Or Jehovas Witness. Which leaves some flavour of Anglican Protestant. Hmm, how about defending the first female Bishop being only four years ago. As a beacon of civil rights where equality of the sexes is concerned, Christianity's light is quite, quite dim.
Do I need to introduce the equality of sexual orientation into the debate? Religion seems to be the first thing people turn to when arguing that homosexuals should not be treated as equals. Let's here you argue that civil right from a religious standpoint.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Lawsuits are a lot cheaper if you're doing the work yourself and not paying a lawyer. They could fly somewhere if they're in a hurry, but driving a camper is probably cheaper and gives you a place to stay, and for the most part they can pick and choose targets for convenience.
And they can keep winning lawsuits because they keep annoying towns or cops into violating their civil rights or people into punching them or whatever. And if people wise up and stop doing that, the Phelpsies just think of new ways to piss people off.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Christianity is responsible for the concept of natural rights, i.e. rights which are unalienable due to being endowed by a creator God. This is a slightly different concept than civil rights, which are rights granted for being part of a nation, and therefore can be revoked by a state. France, for example, doesn't believe in natural rights, only civil rights, and therefore does things like revoke freedom of religion (students cannot wear crucifixes to school, for example) on a whim.
The development of natural rights influenced thinking on civil rights (we've always had civil rights, so to speak - Roman Citizens were quite proud of it, for example) leading to greater freedom than we'd seen before in human history. Christianity was responsible for the ending of slavery, for example, as our ethical policies flowered from the root concept of Universal Charity to determine that it was antithetical to their natural rights as a human to be enslaved from birth.
I unfortunately muddled up bits in my response that came from monotheism and bits that came from religious movements in general.
Well, you've gone from "... [science] couldn't have been done without using classically "religious" framework" and "[external truth, cannons, experts] all come from monotheism" to "religion might have helped science along in some vague ways that can't be verified". I'll just consider your original claims retracted.
the idea of having an external, universal truth that you're searching for as a team; having a "canon" of accepted material documenting that truth; having institutionally-recognised experts who will teach students - these all come from monotheism.
What? Really? Please, cite sources if you can, because that'd be really interesting -- because this seems to fall apart with armchair analysis:
external, universal truth
That's hardly a new idea -- indeed, that's how humans function, whatever religion they have or don't. Please explain what worldview existed before monotheism in which there was no such truth -- in which there might be many truths. In particular...
external, universal truth that you're searching for as a team
The Greek philosophers definitely did that.
having a "canon" of accepted material documenting that truth
Here, you're wrong on both counts -- the Greeks had the Iliad and the Odyssey, but science actually doesn't have any sort of "canon" in the sense you describe. For example, the Discovery Institute has their own "peer-reviewed" journal, it's just that the vast majority of scientists know better than to give it any credibility -- but there's nothing top-down about that decision.
There's no one central committee that decides what is and is not science, there's as many as there are peer-reviewed journals (legitimate or not), and likely a good deal more, each with their own ideas about what is and is not good science.
You could still draw a line between this and the fact that there are thousands of individual denominations of Christianity, each with their own idea of what is and is not true -- except that peer-review isn't about deciding any sort of absolute truth. Instead, it's all about ensuring that a paper is consistent, well-supported by evidence, that the evidence was collected properly (with proper controls), and so on -- and any conclusion is subject to further evidence.
having institutionally-recognised experts who will teach students
I think the Platonic Academy is an example of this, and it's hardly the first. I assume that these institutions of higher learning would have, by definition, "institutionally-recognized experts."
Oh, and you're doing it wrong:
Well, I guess my stated source was "the history of science", and you could look at it yourself and see.
I did. Do you have any actual sources?
Now, I don't mean to say that religious institutions never had a role in any kind of science, but every singular thing you mentioned, I've found either a secular or, at best, polytheistic origin. So again, I'd be really curious where you're drawing the connection.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Religious thought has the genesis of the idea that there are things worth searching for that are objective, independent of human regard...
I would guess it's quite the other way around -- religious thought is a reaction to thoughts about things worth searching for which are objective and independent of human regard.
But I don't know that, so if you have some evidence for this, I'd love to hear it...
That you might sacrifice base hedonism for a lifestyle that works towards some sort of external goal.
This, too, doesn't seem to need or much benefit from religion. While I don't know if I agree that it was a good cause, this movie presents a story of several people, some opposed, all intensely passionate about their cause. The true story highlights some of the same themes...
While there is a mention of "heaven", the "all under heaven" is just a literal reading, which could be translated as "our land." And again, I don't know if I agree with the cause, and I don't particularly like the result, but none of those people were working either out of a religious motivation, or out of "pure hedonism." You don't build an empire because you personally want to live in comfort and debauchery, you build an empire because, for whatever reason, you care about what happens after you die.
Beowulf is probably a better example, though as far as we know, entirely fictional -- the entire purpose of Beowulf's quest was to become a legend -- to do so much good, or at least kill so many monsters, that people would be singing songs of him for generations. And while I don't know if there was a real Beowulf, it's kind of interesting that we still study his story -- so, real or not, he won.
The monotheistic bit is the organising under a shared set of values - and spreading them imperially. It (forcibly) focused society into a machine.
Not a particularly well-functioning one, though -- there's a reason we call it "The Dark Ages." And the people who led the way out of that were very often people who didn't fit the machine at all -- Newton was the original absentminded professor.
And again, you can force society into a machine without the dogmatic baggage, if you really think it's a good idea -- see the King of Qin above.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Based on the current science, yeah
I'd say that was based on your personal preference of interpreting the scientific method.
It seems more likely the universe had a starting point than it being eternally existing. If you have any counter-evidence, I'd love to see it.
Pardon? Did you provide any evidence to prove your opinion?
France, for example, doesn't believe in natural rights, only civil rights, and therefore does things like revoke freedom of religion (students cannot wear crucifixes to school, for example) on a whim.
France never banned crucifixes. It was Italy. It's also not about wearing them, but about having them on the school walls.
>>France never banned crucifixes. It was Italy. It's also not about wearing them, but about having them on the school walls.
Get your facts straight.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_franc2.htm
Not at all, I don't see how you could think that without deliberately misreading what I wrote either.
I think you replied after I clarified that I'd mixed some non-monotheistic stuff in with the other religious stances that informed those things. Anyway, I'm just going to respond to a few of your points here:
1. The Greek philosophers were not team players, they were each pretty self-centred.
2. Polytheism means that with many Gods you can have many truths and many ideal ways of living. You might choose to worship a particular God because their domain fits in with your lifestyle. There's also the idea of competition between the Gods etc.
3. Your argument that there is not a scientific "canon" seems pretty shallow to me. At the simplest level, there are journals that a university/RI wants you to publish in and those that they don't. That creates a canon.
4. "Sources" - I'm not sure what you're really expecting here. I can't link to a paper or set of statistics to support it because it's not that kind of information. As much as a "source" in that sense is required, this is it. I'm just a guy on the internet who has done a fair bit of reading and sees these things as coming out of it. If you want an authority to tell you that these opinions are respectable then by all means check out Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals (particularly the end) where he frames the ideological bit of what I was saying.
Not at all, I don't see how you could think that without deliberately misreading what I wrote either.
Your original post was:
If you look at the history of science you'll find that it couldn't have been done without using classically "religious" framework.
and now you're saying:
Religious thought has the genesis of the idea that there are things worth searching for that are objective, independent of human regard (man is NOT the measure of all things). That you might sacrifice base hedonism for a lifestyle that works towards some sort of external goal.
So either you're claiming that the idea of objective truth and non-hedonistic lifestyles couldn't exist without religion, and that at least on was required for science to develop, or you've moved from an "absolutely impossible without religion" claim to one of "religion helped out". If it's the first, then you need to show some evidence, and all I need to do is list some of the philosophies of Classical Greece. If it's the second, then we aren't really discussing the same subject we were at the start, and I'm willing to just let it drop.
The Greek philosophers were not team players, they were each pretty self-centred.
Is that why Plato's Republic is all about improving society as a whole? I'll grant that the "team" of Pythagoras did cut themselves off from society, but that's another team.
Polytheism means that with many Gods you can have many truths
Nope, sorry. There might be many opinions about Aphrodite and Ares, but the "truth" that they had an affair is not up for debate.
All polytheism does is suggest that truth is ultimately independent of the gods -- or at least, of these gods.
Your argument that there is not a scientific "canon" seems pretty shallow to me. At the simplest level, there are journals that a university/RI wants you to publish in and those that they don't. That creates a canon.
No, that creates a university policy. There are other universities, if you really want to publish something in a questionable journal.
What you seem to be missing is that science is, fundamentally, not what we've discovered, but how we go about discovering things.
I can't link to a paper or set of statistics to support it because it's not that kind of information.
Not that kind of source, no. More like...
I'm just a guy on the internet who has done a fair bit of reading and sees these things as coming out of it.
You're asserting this:
That is that the idea of having an external, universal truth that you're searching for as a team; having a "canon" of accepted material documenting that truth; having institutionally-recognised experts who will teach students...
So, if you have any more examples like this -- and you can show that they actually came from religion, and not (as I think I've shown) that they predate monotheism, at the very least -- that would be a lot more interesting than "If you look at the history, you'll find..."
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Are we intentionally ignoring the source I DID provide?
I haven't read Nietzche, so I was avoiding this...
I just looked it up -- I have to preface this with, I don't have time to read the entire thing today, but glancing through, I honestly can't find what you're talking about. The closest seems to be the relationship he describes -- that science "still" cares about truth, and the relationship between science and the ascetic ideal.
He never claims Christianity is the origin of these ideas about truth. He also refers me to other texts to explain what he means by this "ascetic ideal."
And he doesn't explain how he knows these things. He has citations, but he doesn't seem to tie his assertions in the text at all.
Ultimately, it boils down to this: I wasn't asking for a source that agrees with you, no matter how respected. I was asking why they agree with you -- how do you know this, what facts in history are you referring to when you say "The History of Science"?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!