During the last season of "West Wing," reporters tried to pin down candidate Arnie Vinnick (Alan Alda) on the subject of his religious beliefs. Vinnick--who wanted to keep the fact that he'd lost faith in God under wraps--stated that his personal views on God were off limits, he'd never discuss them, that they weren't relevant to the job he was to do as president, and that as far as he was concerned that was the end of it. To all intents and purposes it was. It never came up again in the series.
I commented at the time that in the real world, that would never happen. That such an assertion would only be the beginning of the story, not the end of it.
Now it seems that we're seeing the scenario played out in real life as Rudy Giuliani asserts that his personal religious beliefs are just that--personal--and should have no bearing on his campaign.
This promptly became front page news on "Newsday" and now we'll see just how fast the question goes away. I suspect it won't anytime soon.
The ironic thing is that Giuliani is both right and wrong. The fact is that his personal beliefs *shouldn't* be a factor. If he doesn't want to discuss them, he should be entitled to that. The problem becomes that the automatic assumption is that he is either agnostic or atheist, and in a society where the vast majority of people assert a belief in SOME sort of divine spirit, that's not going to go over very well.
On the other hand it really IS a relevant question because look who we've got running the country now: A man who believes that he's operating at the personal behest of God. Bush doesn't simply believe in God; he KNOWS there's a God and that he and God are tight. If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, too much "knowledge" can be a lethal thing.
If Giuliani is an atheist and doesn't want to discuss that beause he figures it's nobody's business and that it might cost him votes, I can understand both viewpoints. Still, knowing that a candidate will not run this country and world affairs under the belief that he's taking his marching orders from God might not be such a bad thing.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at June 6, 2007 08:58 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingHowever it is bad business for the religious right that has taken over the Republican party and turned it into nearly a modern version of the KKK based not on your skin color but your religious beliefs. Actually strike that, did anyone see McCain on O'Riley's show, "the white man is under attack"...
I seriously hope that Ruddy pulls out the nomination, it'd serve the religious idiots right to get saddled with a moderate social.
Oh man, I hope this doesn't cost Giuliani the nomination. I was really looking forward to the first election where I would vote FOR somebody rather than against somebody.
This is probably going to be another issue for Mayor Rudy that just get blown out of proportion. I agree with PAD on this one, his personal religious view is personal, but the Religious Right 'could' begin having seizures because of this. (At this point I think the Religious Right is waiting for either Senator Thompson or Representative Gingrich to get into the race. And as rumors are getting more rampant that Fred is getting in around July 4th, I think that Rudy is in trouble unless he finds 'religion' fast.
did anyone see McCain on O'Riley's show, "the white man is under attack"...
Actually what was said, by both McCain & O'Reilly was "The white Christian power structure"
It'll be interesting to see how the right explains how that isn't racist.
I think in Bush's case he's always yapping about his close personal (working) relationship with God because he's a nutjob and a fanatic.
I cant imagine him ever saying that his religious beliefs are no one's business because people like that believe HIS beliefs SHOULD BE everyone's business.
The fact that Rudy is telling people his beliefs are irrelevant is a point in the plus column in my book.
Half the time I think that Bush isn't really all that religious, he just plays one on TV. The other half I think that maybe he really is just like he appears. I don't know which is really right, just like I don't really know anything about anyone outside my house. Heck, outside my HEAD. But, in the times when I think Bush really is as religious as he claims, it seems that he doesn't think his beliefs should be everyone's business. He thinks that everyone's beliefs should be HIS business.
Sorry about the dingoes.
Unfortunately, America has spent many years indoctrinating people into thinking that "Godless Atheism" was the ultimate evil, a symbol of communism, socialism, and other evil -ism's that didn't gel with the American way.
There's no such thing as "personal" or "off-limits" when you're talking about the most important job interview on the planet. We all have a period of time to pick this person who will for four years have a HUGE impact on our lives... his or her opinions and beliefs on every facet of our world gives us insight as to whether he or she deserves the job or not.
I just watched "American President" again over the weekend, and am reminded of the Michael J Fox blow-up in the Oval Office...
"A. J. MacInerney: The President doesn't answer to you Louis!
Lewis Rothschild: Oh, yes he does A.J. I'm a citizen, this is my President. And in this country it is not only permissible to question our leaders it's our responsibility! "
We're supposed to ask about everything that might at all be relevant... and our current administration is a great example of why it's relevant. In 1959, the fact that JFK was a Catholic, and thus in some way had some degree of fealty to the Pope, was a cause of great concern... he got asked about it, answered it to the satisfaction of the American people, and got elected. It wasn't off-limits then, it's not off-limits now, to understand the belief system of the person running for office.
However it is bad business for the religious right that has taken over the Republican party and turned it into nearly a modern version of the KKK based not on your skin color but your religious beliefs. Actually strike that, did anyone see McCain on O'Riley's show, "the white man is under attack"...
I seriously hope that Ruddy pulls out the nomination, it'd serve the religious idiots right to get saddled with a moderate social.
If the religious right has taken over the Republican party yadda yadda, how is it possible that Rudy is the front runner?
Meanwhile, the Democratic candidtes are being very very explicit in talking about their faith. I have no real problem with that but I can imagine some of my friends on the left having a hard time swallowing Hillary talking about her "prayer warriors" which is a phrase I usually associate with Frank E. Peretti novels.
My take on it (and it's only my opinion and therefore worth about as much as anything else offered for free) is that Rudy's the frontrunner solely due to his noteriety/name rocognition. The only onther Repub currently in the race who matches him is McCain, who much of the Right has spent years smearing, and who isn't helping himself by shredding his credibility in an attempt to win over the hardcore Right.
It's also why Fred Thompson has such buzz without even entering the race, despite his history of being a quite mediocre senator. He's been on TV, people recognize him, etc. And he's also positioning himself as the actual conservative in the race, which helps with those for whom support for Rudy comes with a 'holding thier nose' quality to it.
Where did all these "christians" decide that "thou shalt not kill" was just a suggestion in the bible? Of course, I guess if you pick and choose what you like about the Constitution, it's hard to draw lines where to stop. As we've learned in this age of fast as light media, there are many out there who wave the banner of God, while serving their own interests. I think in Bush's case, it's that he has no conscience. It's not his fault he must have been born that way. He really believes that people should die (so long as not his family members) to put "his people" in power (it may not be the office, but we all know what large sums of money can do for you). In case any of you missed it, for a good look on the world today check out Kurt Vonnegut's A Man Without a Country...great, fast, reading!
I'm gonna disagree with you on one minor point, PAD. I don't think that Bush would be any better if he was an atheist.
Bush believes that he's right and God is simply his justification for it. Atheists are just as capable of feeling a moral imperative, they'll just use different buzzwords to justify it.
Did you see the Micheal Bolton interview on the Daily Show? He took the attitude that because Bush was elected president, he not only had the right to do whatever he wanted, he had an *obligation* to ignore everyone else's opinion and do exactly what he wanted. That was an "I'm always right" justification that had nothing to do with religion.
Bush's actions aren't about God and they never were. He's just an egotist who uses God as a justification.
Living in an area where there are homemade yard signs "FRED T in 08", I can see the groundswell first-hand for Thompson.
Meanwhile (to digress wildly) did anyone else hear Sen Reid refer to "illegal aliens" under the newly minted euphemism, "undocumented Americans?" Why not just say "yet-to-be-registered voters for me?"
I always loved the "Undocumented workers" line--in my experience, they have documents out the wazoo. My wife worked at an insurance place for a bit and the law required them to provide insurance to anyone with an id, obviously fake or not. With that they could get a license. Our immigration policy is nuts; with one hand we push them away, with the other we beckon them in. And then we blame them! "Don't come here but if you do and have a kid everyone can stay!" "Don't come here but if you do you can make lots of money and we almost never check!"
When my uncle ran a speakeasy during prohibition the cops would tell them when they were going to "raid" the bar. That way they could make sure that the relatives of the Governor would not be caught in an embarrassing situation delivering the booze. Everyone knew it, everyone was in on it. I used to wonder how things could get that way but it's much the same now. The immigration laws should be abandoned, changed or enforced. This current "policy" is doing nobody any good.
If the religious right has taken over the Republican party yadda yadda, how is it possible that Rudy is the front runner?
He hasn't won the nomination yet.
The idea of anybody being a 'front runner' when the election is well over a year away is an invention of the media so people will pay attention to the media as well as the attention-craving candidates.
I always loved the "Undocumented workers" line
I always loved the whole "they haven't broken any laws" bs more.
Where did all these "christians" decide that "thou shalt not kill" was just a suggestion in the bible
Actually it's "Thou shalt not murder "
It's okay to kill in defense of self, family, &/or country. So if you can justify killing in one of these 3 categories then everything is honky-dory.
It's sad that the Republican party has determined a lockstep, "you must tow the party line" policy in so many areas. You had to support the Presidentr on Iraq (except once public opinion became overwhelming negative). You have to support the war on terror (even if this means government intrusion into the lives of citizens is greater than ever). And now you not only have to be religious, you have to have the *same* interpretation of religion: no abortion rights, no gay rights (how many candidates were fine with an employer firing an employee just for being gay?), and now you have to go to church every Sunday. (But executing people is still fine.)
Giuliani's stance on abortion seems perfectly rational: He personally opposes abortion but recognizes that the law supports it. This is like the status of free speech: You don't have to agree with what someone is saying to support their right to say it.
Yes, but the problem with a rational position is that one cannot get the votes of the irrational while holding it...
The idea of anybody being a 'front runner' when the election is well over a year away is an invention of the media so people will pay attention to the media as well as the attention-craving candidates.
Well, perhaps, but there is no denying that some folks have way more support than others. It's hard to argue that among the announced candidates (and two others--Gore and Thompson) we are looking at the next president of the United States. Polls may not mean everything but they mean something and right now Rudy is in a good position.
It's sad that the Republican party has determined a lockstep, "you must tow the party line" policy in so many areas.
As opposed to the free for all that is the Democratic Party, where 100 flowers bloom? That's the way parties are--you have to expect a certain level of agreement on certain principles. Actually, I'd say a party that can have Romney, Guilliani and McCaine as frontrunners has a certain tolerance for difference. There is certainly more difference on, say, abortion, among the Republicans than among the Democratic candidates.
NOt that the Democratic candidates are always in lockstep either. Hillary has certainly established herself as considerably more hawkish than Edwards. Obama is still the biggest question mark in the race--it remans to be seen if he can keep his so far impressive momentum going or if his inexperience will begin to tell. I have to say, so far he has been amazing on the stump but less so in the debates (Hillary won the last one handily). But then again, the "winner" is in the eye of the voter; some folks will cntinue to insist that their candidate "won" a debate even when their support drops after it's over. A strange definition of victory...
End of the day, if you want to keep things 'personal', don't run for 'public' office.
The problem with conspicuously saying nothing is that it usually leads people to suspect things infinitely worse than anything you could have said...
That's not to say that there shouldn't be some degree of "OK, he's answered, let's move on now" in the mix somewhere.
Or am I making the mistake of trying to bring common sense into the equation again?
Cheers.
"There's no such thing as "personal" or "off-limits" when you're talking about the most important job interview on the planet."
Here's the thing: However one phrases the question about faith, the answer tells you jack-all in terms of determining what one can expect. If the choice is--for instance--between an atheist and someone who speaks of their deep faith in the Almighty, the majority of people in this country will instantly hew to the latter. But if the choice is presented between voting for someone who is careful with the lives of our young soldiers because he believes in personal responsibility as opposed to someone who sends thousands of people to their deaths because he firmly believes that God told him to, he's doing God's work, and it's his responsibility to spread his religious ideals to the world...
You see the problem.
PAD
>He's been on TV, people recognize him, etc.
I'm selfish. I hope he loses because it otherwise would mean he's off the show. And he's one of the best things in it.
Jason M. Bryant: Bush believes that he's right and God is simply his justification for it. Atheists are just as capable of feeling a moral imperative, they'll just use different buzzwords to justify it.
Luigi Novi: In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it's derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that's the derivation of one's actions, atheists can't compare. Not by far.
I'm sure Mit Romney also wishes people would stop asking the "faith" question. (At least he came out on top in the attack from Sharpton after Glenn Beck -- also Mormon -- pursued the matter.)
Luigi Novi: In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it's derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that's the derivation of one's actions, atheists can't compare. Not by far.
Which sums up Islamo-facism as much as it does Bush's "been to the mountaintop" attitude.
I'm selfish. I hope he loses because it otherwise would mean he's off the show. And he's one of the best things in it.
I believe that he's already off the show. He would pretty much have to have quit by now to let NBC find a new person in time to start filming. They may have been the first people to know for sure that he's running.
"In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it's derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that's the derivation of one's actions, atheists can't compare. Not by far."
Not if you ignore that atheist governments killed more people through genocide in the 20th century alone than Christian governments did in 2000 years.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 6, 2007 02:33 PM
Not if you ignore that atheist governments killed more people through genocide in the 20th century alone than Christian governments did in 2000 years.
You are aware of a little thing called the Crusades, are you not?
Also, what do you mean by "atheistic" government? I ask because many people abuse the term. The official doctrine of the Soviet Union was atheism, and therefore that was truly an atheistic government. On the other hand, many people wrongly refer to any secular government as "atheistic." For instance, many religionists have complained bitterly about attempts to bring our government into line with the wording of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and referred to that as a movement towards "atheistic government." But there is a world of difference between prohibiting the government from respecting an establishment of religion and restricting the establishment of same (both of which are actually prohibited by the Consitution, something that is ignored by a vocal and intellectually dishonest segment of religionists).
Hank Driskill wrote:
We're supposed to ask about everything that might at all be relevant... and our current administration is a great example of why it's relevant. In 1959, the fact that JFK was a Catholic, and thus in some way had some degree of fealty to the Pope, was a cause of great concern... he got asked about it, answered it to the satisfaction of the American people, and got elected. It wasn't off-limits then, it's not off-limits now, to understand the belief system of the person running for office.
Except that Kennedy essentially denied any belief system in his speech in Houston. It was easy for him to assuage any concerns because he had no fealty to the Pope. He went throught the motions of attending Mass but he was a very poor Catholic. And of course, abortion wasn't even legal then. Does anyone consider Edward Kennedy to be a Catholic?
"Luigi Novi: In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it's derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that's the derivation of one's actions, atheists can't compare. Not by far."
To some degree I agree with that. I think that atheists look at personal responsibility differently than religious people.
But I don't think that religion is the cause of Bush's beliefs, not even in the slightest. I think he's a very broken person looking for justification for his actions. So I think he does what he wants and then says that "God made me do it." I believe he has used religion to fire up his people in this country, so he's used it as a tool to achieve what he wants.
But I don't believe that he actually got his values from what he learned about religion in his life. I think he's just a bigger version of the guy who tries to con me by saying that his car broke down on the side of the road but Jesus made me drive by him so I could loan him money.
Regarding the argument made that atheistic governments have killed more people than Christian, I would like to argue that most of these governments were not killing people in the name of atheism (Convert to atheism or I will kill you!). I think that in most cases, atheism was merely a means of undermining the belief systems of the people they wished to subjugate to make that task easier. I might also opine that Communism, Maoism, Kim Jong Il-ism, etc. have most of the attributes of a religion, the only difference being that the Godhead is an actual person.
Keep up the comments, guys. I still come to this site for my daily mental stimulation.
Regards, the Rev.
But you could also argue that many, if not most of the "religious" wars were actually fought over something other than religion--land grabs for the most part.
Neither of the extreme factions in Northern Ireland, for example, could possibly believe they are going to heaven for killing innocents.
I believe that he's already off the show. He would pretty much have to have quit by now to let NBC find a new person in time to start filming. They may have been the first people to know for sure that he's running.
As I understand it, he has indeed asked to be released from his contract (and the request has been granted). Meanwhile, CNN.com had a story earlier today that Sam Waterston is negotiating to have Jack McCoy bumped up to the position of DA for next season.
(We now end this portion of thread drift, and return to the real discussion already in progress.)
I would have more regard for Giuliani on this matter if he actually had a history of keeping his religious background out of public matters. Anyone who remembers the flap over Ofili's "The Holy Virgin Mary" back in '99 should be aware that's not the case (or at least that Giuliani isn't above using public power to score points with a specific religious community).
(Looking for information on the controversy using Google, I was struck by an interesting pattern: In general, those who'd actually seen the painting in person said it was beautiful and not disrespectful, while those who hadn't seen it but were against it anyway said it was a travesty (and often used highly-charge but inaccurate terms to describe it). Guess which category Giuliani fell into?)
Bill, don't patronize me. Of course I am aware of the Crusades. I could point out that I said Christian GOVERNMENTS not Christian ARMIES, many operating free of governments. But that doesn't matter because I am more than willing to throw them in the mix. The death toll of all the crusades is supposed to total about one million. Stalin or Mao killed more people in the average year. Both were atheist governments.
Bill Mulligan already answered the reverend's first point. Although regarding his second I might add that atheism itself had those same attributes (dogmatism, etc.) that communism and religion share in common. Agnosticism is a different matter.
Bush is an arrogant SOB who probably has never admitted to an mistake in his life, even before he found religion. That's just his current justification for being always right.
Here's the deal the American people are a religious people. 80% of the country self-identifies as Christian and over 90% believe in some form of higher power. However, the religious right has worked steadily over the past 30 years to equate being a religious people with having a religious government.
The founding fathers knew that Americans were a religious people, but they also knew that we were a diversely religious people (and we're even moreso today that we were 220 years ago). They knew that only a secular government could be truly neutral in regards to all faiths. But that isn't what the far religious right, hence why people like Bill O'Reilly are soiling their pants over the fear of the "white Christian power structure" losing their influence.
The religious right wants government to be a religious conservative only club and thanks to minions of Pat Robertson like Monica Goodling, they're well on their way. Now even the Democrats are convinced they can't win unles they fall over themselves to proclaim how religious they are.
Didn't some longhair guy say something about not being like the hypocrites who loudly proclaim their faith in the streets.
Ben Lesar: Not if you ignore that atheist governments killed more people through genocide in the 20th century alone than Christian governments did in 2000 years.
Luigi Novi: No, even taking that into account they still don't compare.
The problem with this analogy is that in atheist societies like the Soviet Union, atheism was incidental. Those pogroms were not carried out in the name of atheism. By contrast, things like the Crusades, the Holocaust, jihads, fatwas, etc. were indeed carried out in the name of religion, in whole or in part.
Stalin and Pol Pot didn't murder people because they were atheists. They murdered people because they were dictators. As such, they did not possess the sentiments of empathy, due process, or civil rights that those in free societies do. That they happened to be atheists is completely irrelevant to that point, and indeed, the religious persuasion of their victims was not the reason why they were targeted; they were targeted for reasons of nationalism/ethnicity, culture, and politics. While Stalin did ban religions and raze churches, again, this was because of the dictator mentality: He wanted to make over the country according to his personal tastes and worldview. There was no atheist "doctrine" that he claimed to follow, since atheism is not a belief or theory, but simply a lack of a belief in gods, and does not prescribe any action. This does not hold true with things like jihads or the Crusades, which are a direct fulfillment of the instructions given to followers by their holy texts.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 6, 2007 06:58 PM
Bill, don't patronize me.
No one was patronizing you. Don't be so sensitive.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 6, 2007 06:58 PM
Of course I am aware of the Crusades. I could point out that I said Christian GOVERNMENTS not Christian ARMIES, many operating free of governments. But that doesn't matter because I am more than willing to throw them in the mix. The death toll of all the crusades is supposed to total about one million. Stalin or Mao killed more people in the average year. Both were atheist governments.
Your argument is nevertheless fatally flawed. First, its very premise presupposes a false dilemma: that Christianity and atheism are the only alternatives. Christianity is but one of many religions upon which governments have been founded and in the name of which armies have spilled blood.
Second, it bears mentioning that there has been an historical trend towards secular governments since the birth of Christianity. Theocracies governed the minority of the globe's population at the time that Mao and Stalin went on their rampages.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 6, 2007 06:58 PM
Bill Mulligan already answered the reverend's first point.
Yes, yes, the actions of theocratic governments are sometimes motivated by things other than religious fervor. At the same time, religion also informs secular governments' decisions. Anyone remember that famous cry of "Godless commies!" from the Cold War days? Or how about President Bush, who believes his ascendancy to the presidency was part of God's Plan? Or how about the Republican party, whose presidential candidates must bow and scrape before the Religious Right if they are to have any hope of winning the nomination?
(Bill Mulligan, put your torch and pitchfork down. I'm well aware that the Democratic party has an extreme liberal base to which its presidential candidates must pander. But the influence exerted by the Religious Right over the Republican party is undeniable and shows how religion can be a factor even in an ostensibly secular government.)
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 6, 2007 06:58 PM
Although regarding his second I might add that atheism itself had those same attributes (dogmatism, etc.) that communism and religion share in common.
Communism is a relatively recent historical phenomenon, though. And it is ironic that Christianity and Communism are so at odds. Atheism aside, communism as an economic system is far more compatible with the teachings of the New Testament than is capitalism, yet Christianity has nevertheless embraced capitalism. Strange freakin' planet we live on.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 6, 2007 07:51 PM
There was no atheist "doctrine" that he claimed to follow, since atheism is not a belief or theory, but simply a lack of a belief in gods, and does not prescribe any action.
Not so. Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, said the following about religion: "Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class."
That Marxist/Leninist doctrine informed the actions of the Soviet government for decades; the official stance of the Soviet Union was atheism, and it actively worked to stamp out religion through propagandizing, indoctrinating, and using force. Mao was equally suppressive of religion, which he blamed for China's "backwardness." Atheism can indeed be a foundation for, or component of, doctrine.
"Ben Lesar: Not if you ignore that atheist governments killed more people through genocide in the 20th century alone than Christian governments did in 2000 years."
1) Neither the belief or the lack of belief in religion has prevented people from killing and brutalizing each other in very large numbers in the name of ideology and/or the persuit of power. Christianity is one ideology that has been used to justify brutality or has been held by people and governments that brutalized others. Communism is another. We can discuss the ideologies, we can discuss the people who followed or used these ideologies, but there is no point in pretending that religious or non-religious governments and organizations are somehow more or less responsible than the others for brutality.
2) The mathematical claim that the governments that held atheistic ideologies were responsible for more deaths than the totality of governments that held Christian ideologies is probably not true, especially if we take into consideration to movements of colonialism and imperialism in the last 500 years.
3) This argument also fails to take into acount the historical context of the rise of communism in an era where more people lived with more governmental power, with more powerful weapons (and other ways of causing death) than before.
4) All this discussion is simply a multiplication of the basic misconception at the heart of this thread: that atheists are somehow moraly deficient compared to religious (or vise versa).
Atheism itself is not an ideology. Communism, which is a very dogmatic ideology, contains atheism, but it hasn't been to the best of my knowledge one of the major rallying cries of Communism compared to others.
Posted by: Micha at June 6, 2007 09:24 PM
All this discussion is simply a multiplication of the basic misconception at the heart of this thread: that atheists are somehow moraly deficient compared to religious (or vise versa).
Bingo. Atheists can be just as capable of extremism as religionists -- and both can be just as capable of living with their "opponents" harmoniously. It's like a hammer: you can use it to build a house, or to hit one over the head. It all depends on who is using it.
Posted by: Micha at June 6, 2007 09:24 PM
Atheism itself is not an ideology. Communism, which is a very dogmatic ideology, contains atheism, but it hasn't been to the best of my knowledge one of the major rallying cries of Communism compared to others.
Well, given how the Soviets and the Maoists did their level best to squelch religion, I'd have to disagree. Atheism was a component of their doctrine, and both feared it as a threat to their hegemony.
Bill Mulligan, put your torch and pitchfork down.
I prefer those rake-like things the villagers are always carrying...what the hell were they? And what were they going to do with them? Groom the monster's lawn?
Seems to me, in my vast experience of, well, nothing, that most people are all for diversity until they find out that there's someone with some authority that (GASP!) thinks something besides what THEY think. "If yer gonna be in charge of ME and my Life, yer gonna have ta think just like I do. Or at least claim you are. Yer a Repub/ocrat? Yer okay with me. Who are you, now?" Now, this also translates badly for anyone who thinks differently. "You are DIFFERENT, you must be vanquished!" Hence, something that shouldn't be Mount Crashyourcampaigninto is built by several really energetic moles. BUt, have you guys noticed that some of these extremists don't want to talk about any problem other than the small one they're focusing on?
Oh, and before I forget--
Simple, Bill, the answer is simple.
They were going to tell him to--
Wait for it---
Fork off.
“By contrast, things like the Crusades, the Holocaust, jihads, fatwas, etc. were indeed carried out in the name of religion, in whole or in part.”
There is no real evidence to suggest the Holocaust was religiously motivated.
“That they happened to be atheists is completely irrelevant to that point”
Considering that it just so happens that the governments that killed the most (by far) in the twentieth century were atheist, I am going to have to disagree. Either this is a startling coincidence or you have to admit that there is a connection of some sort between atheistic governments and genocide.
“This does not hold true with things like jihads or the Crusades, which are a direct fulfillment of the instructions given to followers by their holy texts.”
Show me where in the Bible where Christians are told to go on crusades.
“Christianity is but one of many religions upon which governments have been founded and in the name of which armies have spilled blood.”
So is it fair to group all religions together? Christians governments existed for far longer than atheist ones and yet killed far fewer. Yet you think you need to bring more religions into this in an attempt to even the odds. Yet even including all religions atheist governments killed significantly more in the 20th century than did religious ones.
“Second, it bears mentioning that there has been an historical trend towards secular governments since the birth of Christianity. Theocracies governed the minority of the globe's population at the time that Mao and Stalin went on their rampages.”
When I say Christian governments I do mean governments were Christianity is the official religion, such as England. When I say atheist governments I do not mean merely secular ones, such as the United States, but officially atheist governments such as the Soviet Union. There were no fewer Christian governments than atheist ones during that period.
“Or how about the Republican party, whose presidential candidates must bow and scrape before the Religious Right if they are to have any hope of winning the nomination?”
And how many genocides is the Religious Right responsible for?
“Atheism aside, communism as an economic system is far more compatible with the teachings of the New Testament than is capitalism, yet Christianity has nevertheless embraced capitalism.”
Not in the least. The Bible teaches free will, self-determination, and Charity; not coercive government redistribution of wealth and property.
Does it strike anyone else as a bit odd that there seems to be a debate to the effect that theism is better/worse than atheism because fewer millions were killed in its name? Humanity is immensely effective at killing other members of humanity in great quantities. Is it really better that we commit such slaughter in the name of (fill in deity of your choice) than in the name of (fill in atheist/atheistic philosophy of your choice)? Perhaps the question should be: How do we stop the damn killing?
Regards, The Rev
By-the-way, Bill Mulligan, you are quite right about the basis of the Irish situation. I believe someone once opined that the problem with Ireland was too much religion and not enough Christianity.
“By contrast, things like the Crusades, the Holocaust, jihads, fatwas, etc. were indeed carried out in the name of religion, in whole or in part.”
There is no real evidence to suggest the Holocaust was religiously motivated."
Well, German Jews were targeted as convenient scapegoats to distract from Hitler's spiralling economy, and since they were already despised as the alleged killers of Christ, that made them easy targets. So there's that aspect.
And not for nothing, but it should be pointed out that Hitler was, to the best of my knowledge, a practicing Roman Catholic, which kind of goes back to the whole notion of how dubious it is to ascribe importance to a leader being someone of faith.
PAD
PAD
So is it fair to group all religions together? Christians governments existed for far longer than atheist ones and yet killed far fewer.
Well, you clearly don't mind grouping all atheists together. Leaving aside the gross generalizations, I should also point out that genocide figures are a lot higher in the 20th century because a) the population is a lot higher, so there are more people to kill and they're easier to find, and b) technology made it a lot more efficient. This has nothing to do with ideology, just opportunity.
Ah, that's one thing I love about Canadian politics. Except for some mostly fringe candidates (like the christian family party, who have no chance of ever electing someone), most candidates don't talk about religion. Gay sex was decriminalized in the sixties by a catholic justice minister (later prime minister Trudeau), and gay marriage was legalized under a catholic prime minister (Jean Chretien). If anything, a lot of voters *distrust* candidates that insist on bringning their religion into things.
And, as an additional point, Canada has *no* laws about separation of church and state; it just isn't an issue.
And not for nothing, but it should be pointed out that Hitler was, to the best of my knowledge, a practicing Roman Catholic, which kind of goes back to the whole notion of how dubious it is to ascribe importance to a leader being someone of faith.
There's always been some controversy on Hitler's beliefs, actual and professed.
Publically at least he calimed to be Catholic "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." but privately he was contemptuous of Christianity in general and Catholisism in particular. Speer and others who knew him said he never attended church and his only admiration for the Catholic church was in it's use of pomp and spectacle. He blamed Christianity for the fall of the Roman empire and expressed the wish that Germany had been fortunate enough to have developed a more militaristic religion like Islam or the Shinto of Japan. “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
While it's of little use in trying to make rational sense of a madman's thoughts, his hatred of Jews seems also to have been more of a racial thing than of a religious one. The Nazi laws regarding Jewish heritage did not seem to have any apartheid laws; they were based on how much "Jewish blood" one had. A devout Jew who had just one Jewish grandparent might be safer than an atheist who had two Jewish granparents, that sort of insanity.
What amazes me is not that Hitler used Jews as scapegoats but that he actually seemed to believe in what he was doing which is what helps elevate Hitler from just another corrupt politician into the true evil.
If I were taking orders from a voice speaking directly to me, which no one else can hear, I'd wind up in the looney bin. Unless I were President.
But how do we know for sure that he's not taking his orders from God?
He does work in mysterious ways, just ask Gideon.
>If I were taking orders from a voice speaking directly to me, which no one else can hear, I'd wind up in the looney bin. Unless I were President.
Or Pope?
"But how do we know for sure that he's not taking his orders from God?
He does work in mysterious ways, just ask Gideon."
The 'God' of the Bible was likely the nastiest character in all of literature. From telling Abraham to kill his son to wiping basically everyone out in a flood because we displeased him (the first religious terrorist and most successful). Then you get to the New Testament and he finds a way to torture us after we die. What a nice guy.
So if you do read the Bible, yeah the stuff Bush does could easily fall under 'orders from God', but then a god that acts like that I wouldn't want to follow.
That Marxist/Leninist doctrine informed the actions of the Soviet government for decades; the official stance of the Soviet Union was atheism, and it actively worked to stamp out religion through propagandizing, indoctrinating, and using force. Mao was equally suppressive of religion, which he blamed for China's "backwardness." Atheism can indeed be a foundation for, or component of, doctrine.
I notice though that real religious suppression (and the mass killings) came during the early years of the Russian and Chinese communist regimes, but lightened up somewhat afterwards. The corallation I see is at the time, the societies were ruled by dictators who actively developed a personality cult (Stalinism, Maoism).
No god wants competition for worship.
It's not so much that atheist governments have killed so many people as it is a single atheist who decides to play God.
I have to disagree with many here who seem to want to automatically equate the concept of an atheist government with mass murders, genocide and tyranny. There have been more tyrannies throughout history that were lead by religious leaders then by atheist leaders. The fact that modern technology has allowed modern tyrants running atheist governments to kill more people then they could have a few centuries ago says more about mankind's ever growing capacity to kill each other then it does anything else.
It's also not the atheistic beliefs that make the tyrant. Most tyrants have seen forced atheism as a tool, and then only one of many tools, to try and break the spirit of the masses. If a decent person who was an atheist with the intention of doing the best for the people were to ascend to the leadership of a country it would be nothing like a genocidal dictatorship.
Beyond that, the number of deaths being attributed to "Christian" governments may be slightly undercounted by some here. Most people are discussing the obvious characters in history while passing over the multitude of less flashy forms of religious tyranny. How many kings and queens of olden day Europe outlawed at pain of death any religion other then their own? How many deaths were caused by starvation and/or poverty when the Church and the Crown was a little overly oppressive about what the peopled "owed" them? How many died when the Church and the Crown sanctioned exploration to expand the Empire to fulfill God's chosen destiny for "his" people and then sanctioned the "peaceful" conversion of the locals?
I'd also question placing Hitler in the "atheist government" category. Hitler invoked God and God's greater plans for "his" people (the Germans) in a number of speeches as he rose to power. Hitler used religion as a tool to empower and then control the German people in a number of areas of his overall power structure and plans. There were evn references to this in Mein Kampf if I remember correctly (it's been a while since I read it.) The "fact" that his was an atheistic government and that he squashed religious practices under his rule is more a result of people being taught the wartime propaganda as fact.
“And not for nothing, but it should be pointed out that Hitler was, to the best of my knowledge, a practicing Roman Catholic, which kind of goes back to the whole notion of how dubious it is to ascribe importance to a leader being someone of faith.”
He was RAISED a Roman Catholic. He was also, however, a fan of Nietzsche, Teutonic paganism, and at times replaced the Bible with Mein Kampf. Not to mention that several of his top ministers, such as Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann were all atheists. He also didn’t treat the pope very well. Some say he planned to have him killed...
“There have been more tyrannies throughout history that were lead by religious leaders then by atheist leaders.”
I doubt this, but even if so one should take into account the number of Christian governments and the length of their existence versus atheist ones.
“I'd also question placing Hitler in the "atheist government" category.”
No one that I am aware of did so. Luigi Novi said the opposite though.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
So is it fair to group all religions together?
Insofar as you are trying to create a comparison with atheism, which is an extremely broad category, then, yes, it is logical to look at religion as an equally broad category.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
Yet you think you need to bring more religions into this in an attempt to even the odds.
It's not about "evening the odds" or what I "need," it's about the dictates of logic. If you are going to compare atheism to its alternative, that alternative is the broad category of religion. Christianity is not the only alternative to atheism.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
Yet even including all religions atheist governments killed significantly more in the 20th century than did religious ones.
The 20th century is only a narrow slice of human history, and it has already been pointed out by another poster that the "atheistic" governments of that era possessed weaponry far more potent than that possessed by, say, the Holy Roman Empire. So it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
I'm afraid you'll find that history rarely accommodates a desire to put everything into neat little boxes.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
When I say Christian governments I do mean governments were Christianity is the official religion, such as England. When I say atheist governments I do not mean merely secular ones, such as the United States, but officially atheist governments such as the Soviet Union. There were no fewer Christian governments than atheist ones during that period.
Great Britain has been responsible for quite a few deaths in the last two millenia. Of course, not all of those killings were in the name of "Christianity," but then again most of the killings at the hands of the Nazi, Soviet, and Maoist armies weren't in the name of "atheism" either.
Again, reality is not kind to those who need to put everything in neat little boxes.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
And how many genocides is the Religious Right responsible for?
Oh, settle down. I was simply trying to point out how difficult it is to separate "Christian" governments from atheistic governments. Ours is ostensibly a secular government and yet we were founded largely by Christians and have had a predominantly Christian-oriented culture. So which are we? A Christian government? An atheistic government? Unforunately, there's often no way to draw a neat little dividing line between the two.
And if you're going to keep bringing up genocide perpetrated by atheistic governments, then you must also consider that predominantly Christian nations like the U.S. and Great Britain participated in the slave trade, another societal evil. If you're going to link genocide with atheism, then you must also link slavery with Christianity. Or you could view things more logically, and recognize that slavery and genocide are practices that cross religious and ideological boundaries.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
The Bible teaches free will, self-determination, and Charity; not coercive government redistribution of wealth and property.
The Bible teaches a lot of things, including the teaching that the apostles lived a very communist lifestyle, abandoning the idea of "personal property" when they chose to follow Jesus. That's not dissimilar to one of the core tenets of Marxism: "to each one according to his need, from each one according to his ability."
Marxist theory, by the by, held that government control should soon be ceded to the people, who would run things in the form of collectives. Obviously, it didn't work out: governments don't like to give up power once they have it. But the fact remains that communism and Christianity have much in common.
I have no truck with atheist-bashers, and I have no truck with Christian-bashers. Atheism, Christianity, and all other religious and ideological movements have inspired people to do great things and have also been the inspiration for great evils. Anyone can hide behind a symbol and claim that they embody all that that symbol represents. But as we've seen throughout history, deeds often contradict words.
Circling back to Peter's initial point: history has indeed shown that it is foolish to vote for individuals based on the labels they choose to hide behind. Religion is no more an accurate predictor of an individual's moral fiber than any other outward characteristic. Individuals can only be judged by their actions.
Sasha -- good point about the correlation between the "cult of personality" and religious suppression in China and the Soviet Union. Don't forget, however, that Marxist theory explicitly included atheism.
Posted by: The Rev. Mr. Black at June 7, 2007 01:36 AM
Perhaps the question should be: How do we stop the damn killing?
Rev., while I've been going on at length, you hit the nail on the head in just a few words. Well said.
Not that long ago you told us you post infrequently because you feel that a certain group of posters, myself included, express ourselves more eloquently than you could. You know what I say? Bullshit. Post more often, Rev. People like me -- who tend to drown in the details -- often need the life preserver that can only be offered by clearer thinkers like yourself.
I was just at the supermarket. Saw people buying lots and lots of stuff. Looked at the cold medicine I was buying. Saw the ingredients, the symptoms it treats, the dosage. Then it hit me in the side of the head. People want to have supermarket politicians. They want aestethically pleasing packages that'll do most of what they say they will. That box of Cocoa Puffs start your day right. That soda quench your thirst. That polical candidate supports only the things you want him/her/it to, and nothing that the nasty other side doesn't like. And without any artificial sweeteners. Unfortunately, that's the atmosphere these candidates find themselves in, akin to juggling chainsaws on ice skates going down the frozen stairs. Because they have to have Wide Appeal, they have to cater to groups, even when the groups are miniscule.
I think I'll go with the Cap'n Crunch/Dig 'Em ticket.
Is it possible to use zombies as foot soldiers in a fantasy setting?
Someone once told me that life is like a box of chocolates, with a color-coded chart on the back telling you exactly what's inside each one. I think that's kinda how politics work too.
The fact is, the public wants to know what a candidates religion is simply because they want the easy drawn out picture of what he's like. We want to be able to vote down party lines and know where the people who's names we don't know stand on issues like abortion or stem cell research or environmental protection simply because of their political party. And that's why the Repubs have it, or did, so strong. We know what they're about. The Dems? A good portion of their votes came from running as "not a Republican".
So although personally I feel like religion amounts to a hill of beans in one's personality, of course the public wants to know what his faith is, it's so much easier than actually researching his stance on hot button issues.
How do we stop the damn killing?
You don't, until people are willing to get informed and start questioning authority! The average person most of the times abdicates their right to think for themselves and follows a heard mentality. We have witnessed this ourselves quite painfully since 9/11. Most of the population quit thinking for themselves and let George Bush lead us down the path of utter stupidity. Congress abdicated their right of oversight of a war mongering prick and the general populace abdicated their ability to think for themselves over the fears of mushroom clouds and airplanes flying out of sky.
As long as the majority is willing to abdicate their thought processes and allow a third party to decide for them the killing will continue in any name.
Is it possible to use zombies as foot soldiers in a fantasy setting?
Micha, it's way too early in the thread to bring up zombies. We do that when the grownups have moved and we are more or less left on our own.
I think a lot of the commentary in this thread has been defensive and it's pointless. It isn't the sane believers or non-believers who should be duking it out. The fanatics of all persuasions are the enemy of us all.
There has been a belief among many atheists I know that goes something like "if only there were no religion there would be peace and the world would be as one". Well, they're kidding themselves. And it only pisses off decent folks who are religious, to the point where, amazingly, more people would vote for a gay candidate than for an atheist one.
Which is ridiculous. I can sort of see where someone might get the idea that it is a good thing for a person not to be given the power of life and death over the world if they don't believe in God since you have then made them literally the most powerful being in the known universe, at least in their mind. But it just as equally likely that a carelessly chosen believer will see himself as under God's protection, able to throw the missiles without fear, protected by His Mighty Hand (some of what has come out of Iran sounds like this--the idea that Israel would not be able to respond due to the intervention of Allah. Which amazes me since the history of the last 60 years or so indicates that Allah has chosen sides and...it ain't Iran's.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 06:33 PM
Is it possible to use zombies as foot soldiers in a fantasy setting?
"Micha, it's way too early in the thread to bring up zombies."
Sorry, I posted this in the wrong thread. Or maybe not. This is the political thread isn't it?
Anyway, I would appreciate a reply on the other thread.
-----------------------
"I think a lot of the commentary in this thread has been defensive and it's pointless. It isn't the sane believers or non-believers who should be duking it out. The fanatics of all persuasions are the enemy of us all.
There has been a belief among many atheists I know that goes something like "if only there were no religion there would be peace and the world would be as one". Well, they're kidding themselves."
Very true. Fanatic atheists caricaturize al religion as hate mongering and intolerant, while the fanatic religious caricature all atheism as immoral and untrustworthy. Both are wrong. I'm so sick of fanatics. We have a bumpersticker that says: 'Death to the Zealots.'
-----------------------
On the relation between the Holocaust and Christianity:
Racism in general and Antisemitism in particular go through different permutations at different times and different places. There are different strains, if you will. During the 18 to 20th centuries the good old Christianity based antisemitism was joined by other strains, including a 'scientific' one based on race, which was the one adopted by the Nazi ideology. Nevertheless, there is no use pretending that this strain is not related to the antisemitism that derived from Christian ideology. So it doesn't really matter if one Nazi hated Jews because of what he heard in Church, another because Jews were the wrong race, a third because they were capitalists, a fourth because they were communists, or because they kept to themselves, or assimilated to much, or were too rich, or too poor, or too traditionalists, or too modern and liberal, or all of above. Christianity made its contribution to the mix, as did other ideologies.
-------------------
"Show me where in the Bible where Christians are told to go on crusades."
Show me where communism calls for Genocide.
The article in wikipedia on Genocides in history presents an interesting and complex picture. And this list doesn't seem to include the religious wars of the reformation as well as massive killings at earlier times. In any case, Christian government seem to have had a nice share in genocides and other acts of brutality over the years.
-----------------
"The Bible teaches a lot of things, including the teaching that the apostles lived a very communist lifestyle, abandoning the idea of "personal property" when they chose to follow Jesus. That's not dissimilar to one of the core tenets of Marxism: "to each one according to his need, from each one according to his ability.""
"And distribution was made to every man according as he had need" (Acts 4:35).
I think there is a better quotation somewhere in the Rule of St. Benedict. Something that sounds positively communist. I wrote it down once and wanted to show it to my commie aquiaintances. But I can't find it now.
-----------------------
Posted by: Sean Scullion at June 7, 2007 03:05 PM
"People want to have supermarket politicians. They want aestethically pleasing packages that'll do most of what they say they will. That box of Cocoa Puffs start your day right. That soda quench your thirst. That polical candidate supports only the things you want him/her/it to, and nothing that the nasty other side doesn't like. And without any artificial sweeteners. Unfortunately, that's the atmosphere these candidates find themselves in, akin to juggling chainsaws on ice skates going down the frozen stairs. Because they have to have Wide Appeal, they have to cater to groups, even when the groups are miniscule."
Very good point. Maybe part of the reason for the leadership crisis I see in several countries today is also, among other things, the result of this attitude.
"Which amazes me since the history of the last 60 years or so indicates that Allah has chosen sides and...it ain't Iran's."
The whole point of Islamic fundamentalism (and too a certain degree other fundementalisms) is that Muslims are in bad shape because they moved away from Islam, and that only return to Islam will fix their problems. 'Islam is the Answer.'
Soviet-style Communism had many (if not most) of the characteristics of a crusading religion. They had their dogma, they had their prophet (Marx), they had their Chosen People (the Proletariat), they had their infidels (the Bourgeois Capitalists), they had their martyrs and saints (Che Guevara), they had their Bible (Das Kapital), they had their paradise (the Workers' Ideal Society), they had their schisms (Lenin x Stalin, China x USSR), above all they had the belief in the historical inevitability of their victory in exactly the same way many Christians and Islamists just know that they're right and all the rest of us decadent Secularist Liberals are wrong.
It seems to me that if you want to recreate the world using fire and blood, you need to have a powerful ideology with which to rally people. Such an ideology must be of the sort that will fire-up your followers and appeal to emotion instead of reason, even though you can use the outer trappings of reason.
You can call it Christianism or you can call it Communism, but it's mostly the same thing, it has always been. It's all about Us x Them, it's about Salvation, and the Only Right Way, and about how you should "just read this one book and every answer you need is in there".
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 06:33 PM
I think a lot of the commentary in this thread has been defensive and it's pointless.
Bill, we've had far worse here. And it's never pointless to air out points of view so that they can be examined.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 06:33 PM
It isn't the sane believers or non-believers who should be duking it out. The fanatics of all persuasions are the enemy of us all.
I wish it were that simple, Bill, but it's not. Intolerance doesn't always wear a white hood.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 06:33 PM
There has been a belief among many atheists I know that goes something like "if only there were no religion there would be peace and the world would be as one". Well, they're kidding themselves.
And I think you're kidding yourself if you believe you're being any more objective than the rest of us. We all tend to read the worst into the views of those with whom we disagree, while unconsciously turning a blind eye to the gaps in our own logic. My guess is that you can, at times, be as tone-deaf to the finer points of atheism as I can be to the finer points of Catholicism, or any other religion for that matter.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 06:33 PM
And it only pisses off decent folks who are religious, to the point where, amazingly, more people would vote for a gay candidate than for an atheist one.
Okay, bear with me because at first it's going to seem like I've gone off the deep end. But there's a point to what follows, and I beg your indulgence for a moment:
Political correctness has gotten out of control in this country. There are groups who wear their victimhood on their sleeve, who use claims of oppression as a weapon, who want special treatment under the law merely because of their affiliation with a particular group.
They're called Christians.
I'm constantly hearing Christians complain about how their holidays aren't officially recognized anymore. I'm constantly hearing Christians complain because their values are no longer enshrined into law as they once were. I'm constantly hearing Christians complain because our government has the temerity to contemplate taking "God" out of the pledge (he wasn't there originally, by the way). I haven't yet met a Christian who doesn't feel as though their values are "under attack" -- in a nation that is predominantly Christian!!!
Are you pissed off yet, Bill? Is your blood pressure rising? If so, then welcome to my world. I believe in God but reject religion in a world where most people consider atheism and religion to be an either-or proposition. People who would raise a stink if I dare to question their beliefs have no problem ostentatiously saying Christian grace before meals IN MY HOUSE -- and expect me to STAND THERE AND SMILE because, well, they're Christian and that excuses anything. And these aren't fanatics, Bill! These are your everyday, garden-variety folk. LIKE MY OWN PARENTS, who won't come over to my house because I'm "living in sin" with my girlfriend.
Christians aren't actually under attack, by the way. No, it's just that the playing field that was tilted in your favor has now been leveled, and y'all don't like it. Suddenly Christianity is just one amongst many valid belief systems and sometimes you get drowned out in the same way that you used to drown others out. Well, if Christianity is all that, then quit your whining and SHOW me that your belief system is as good as you SAY it is.
Blood boiling yet? Thinking that the above is just a diatribe, an irrational screed, nothing but raw, primitive emotion vomited onto the computer screen?
If so, then you and I are in complete agreement.
Have no doubt, what I've written here reflects how I sometimes feel about Christians. Because I've been pushed and pushed and PUSHED by people who, according to their own rhetoric, are supposed to be charitable and tolerant!
Then again, I often fall short of my own ideals. I often preach civility here but frequently engage in uncivil behavior. In my calmer moments, I realize I have no right to condemn Christians for having the exact failings that I myself possess.
Bill, I'm sure I have prejudices toward religion that I don't even recognize. By the same token, I'm asking you to consider that you may have prejudices towards the non-religious that you may not recognize.
You are correct that atheism is not the cure-all for the world's ills, nor is religion the cause of them all. By the same token, the reverse is true: atheists are not the devil and religionists are not always angels. That's all I'm trying to say. To paraphrase the Bible, we need to stop criticizing the speck in the other guy's eye and start paying attention to the plank in our own. If we can do that, we might be able to drop some of our barriers down and start understanding each other.
Thus endeth my sermon. 'Night all!
A couple of people have touched on it, but I'd like to chime in with something that should irk a couple folks. The problem with arguing Christian governments vs. Atheist governments is that, when it comes right down to socio-political brass tacks, there's no appreciable difference between the two once religion becomes merely a tool used to control thought and justify the worst excesses of a government, which it almost inevitably does in cases of official state religions.
The danger is not Christianity, or Atheism. The danger is any state sponsored or enforced religion, period.
-Rex Hondo-
I guess I came off as harsher against atheists than I intended. The point I was trying to make was that it was pointless arguing over whether or not atheist nutcases or religious nutcases have killed more people in history because no matter what the truth is it would tell us little about the value of religion or non-religion.
My only gripe about some--some!--atheists is that they have learned the wrong lessons from fanatical believers and have fought back by being just as unpleasant, intolerant, and irrational. That isn't going to win any hearts and minds but I think a lot of what passes for "argument" on the internet these days is nothing more than a pissing contest with no real goal intended other than pissing.
This board is usually a very happy exception, despite occasional lapses. I know being here has made me more considerate about other people's point of view, not that I'm not capable of occasional insensitivity. But I'm getting better and at least ya'll get some insightful zombie knowledge which may pay off big one day.
Sasha -- good point about the correlation between the "cult of personality" and religious suppression in China and the Soviet Union. Don't forget, however, that Marxist theory explicitly included atheism.
Oh, I haven't forgotten. But I believe it is important to realize that communism's genocides has less to do with the theory's basis in atheism and more with individuals' attempts at playing divinity.
Oh, I haven't forgotten. But I believe it is important to realize that communism's genocides has less to do with the theory's basis in atheism and more with individuals' attempts at playing divinity.
It's worth remembering that atheism and nihilism rearely, if ever, occur in a vacuum when it comes to a basis of government. They just don't make for very good rallying cries. "Nothing matters, because we're all going to die, and that's it! But yay me, anyway!"
State enforced atheism merely "pulls down" the old god or gods in order to set the stage for the elevation of a new God-King or messianic figure, usually the leader of whichever political movement. Some of the creepiest footage I've ever seen was of German schoolchildren, in the early 40, praying to Hitler.
-Rex Hondo-
The Starwolf's comment
"I'm selfish. I hope he loses because it otherwise would mean he's off the show. And he's one of the best things in it."
leads me to ask---
When is Fox going to open the phone lines so we can start voting off the candidates on the Reality Debate Show?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 11:04 PM
The point I was trying to make was that it was pointless arguing over whether or not atheist nutcases or religious nutcases have killed more people in history because no matter what the truth is it would tell us little about the value of religion or non-religion.
I wholeheartedly, unreservedly, and completely agree.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 11:04 PM
My only gripe about some--some!--atheists is that they have learned the wrong lessons from fanatical believers and have fought back by being just as unpleasant, intolerant, and irrational.
Yep. "Battle not with monsters..." and all that.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 11:04 PM
That isn't going to win any hearts and minds but I think a lot of what passes for "argument" on the internet these days is nothing more than a pissing contest with no real goal intended other than pissing.
I'm sorry, Bill, but I drank a whole damned bottle of water before writing my last post! When you've gotta go, you've gotta GO!
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 11:04 PM
This board is usually a very happy exception, despite occasional lapses.
Go screw yourself.
Wait, that was me being a lapse, wasn't it?
That isn't going to win any hearts and minds but I think a lot of what passes for "argument" on the internet these days is nothing more than a pissing contest with no real goal intended other than pissing.
But, I like to pee.
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by: Rex Hondo at June 7, 2007 11:19 PM
It's worth remembering that atheism and nihilism rearely, if ever, occur in a vacuum when it comes to a basis of government. They just don't make for very good rallying cries. "Nothing matters, because we're all going to die, and that's it! But yay me, anyway!"
Thanks a LOT for ruining my rallying cry, you dumb jerk.
Wait, that was me being a lapse yet again, wasn't it? Crap. I totally suck.
Luigi Novi: There was no atheist "doctrine" that he claimed to follow, since atheism is not a belief or theory, but simply a lack of a belief in gods, and does not prescribe any action.
Bill Myers: Not so. Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, said the following about religion:…That Marxist/Leninist doctrine informed the actions…
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about the Marxist or Leninist doctrines. We’re talking about atheism. Atheism doesn’t have a doctrine. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god(s). It is not a movement, organization, theory, or philosophy that was “founded”, it has not holy scriptures, books, rules, doctrines or dogmas, and there are no “authorities” that govern it. By bringing up Lenin or Marx, you’re underlying this very point. Again, crusades, holocausts, inquisitions, fatwas, jihads, forced circumcisions, etc., are not merely committed by theists. They’re derived directly from the holy texts and/or authorities that explicit instruct the followers of those religions. There is no such thing in atheism. There are no holy texts, priests, rabbis, or imams, or for that matter, any “followers”. Thus, if an atheist murders people, whether it be one or one million, and it is known that that murderer is an atheist, it isn’t atheism that “told” him to murder. The decision stemmed entirely from his own personality, and not any adherence to a doctrine that explicitly instructed him to do this. In this way, atheism’s relationship to the genocides committed by dictators that just so happened to be atheists is the same as the relationship between sexual criminals and pornography, which is anything but causal, and in turn, equivalent to the relationship between say, sexual criminals and the owning and driving of a motor vehicle. The same does not hold true for crimes against humanity committed in the name of religion, because in those cases, those crimes were carried out on the explicit instruction of those religions.
Bill Myers: Well, given how the Soviets and the Maoists did their level best to squelch religion, I'd have to disagree. Atheism was a component of their doctrine.
Luigi Novi: But not a doctrine itself. It is simply the lack of a doctrine. Lack of a doctrine is not a doctrine, any more than not eating ice cream because you’re allergic to it or lactose intolerant means that your favorite flavor of ice cream is “allergic” or “lactose intolerant”. Whether someone incorporates a point of view into a doctrine or ideology is the responsibility of that someone, and in no way means that therefore, ipso facto, that viewpoint is itself a “doctrine”. This holds true for atheism in the same way that it does for natural selection, which has also been accused of being a doctrine, or the basis of certain doctrines. The fact that some have used natural selection to justify every doctrine from Marxism to capitalism to Fascism does not mean that therefore, natural selection is a “doctrine”. It remains that if I am unconvinced of something because I accept the validity of and try to adhere to the Scientific Method, testability, falsification, the Peer Review Process, and in general, empirical methods of testing knowledge, whether that something be astrology, phrenology, chiropractic, psychic powers, alien abduction, feng shui, homeopathy, government conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination, the moon landing and 9/11, or for that matter, gods, that is not a “doctrine”. Not being convinced of something is not a “doctrine”.
Ben Lesar: There is no real evidence to suggest the Holocaust was religiously motivated.
Luigi Novi: First of all, there is the historic Anti-Semitism that Peter mentioned. But if you want something more explicit:
“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..” –Mein Kempf
Granted, Hitler also killed Gypsies, Poles, POW’s, homosexuals, the handicapped, etc., but since 6 million of the 10-12 million killed in the Holocaust were Jews, the above quote shows that religion accounted quite a bit of it.
Luigi Novi: That they happened to be atheists is completely irrelevant to that point.
Ben Lesar: Considering that it just so happens that the governments that killed the most (by far) in the twentieth century were atheist, I am going to have to disagree.
Luigi Novi: And your disagreement is completely irrelevant to the point, because the point is whether atheism is a causal factor or incidental to it, which is in no way determined by the number of people killed. Are you saying that if they killed few people, then you would agree that atheism was incidental, but because they killed a lot of people, then it’s causal? This is a non-sequitur. What does the amount of people killed have to do with whether the murders were derived from atheism? If you want to refute my point, then you have to show not that more people were killed by atheists, but that these acts were the direct result of atheism. If we were to take your theory to one logical permutation, it might look like this:
Atheist detonates a nuclear weapon that kills 1 million people.
Spectator: “Wow, it looks like atheism kills a lot of people.”
Theist detonate a nuclear weapon that kills 5 million people.
Spectator: “Whoa! It looks like theism is deadlier!”
Atheist detonates a nuclear weapon that kills 10 million people.
Spectator: “Oh shit! Atheism kills more people!”
Theist detonates a nuclear weapon that kills 20 million people.
Spectator: “Oh wait, no! It’s THEISM that kills more!”
Atheist kills 40 million people.
Spectator: “Whoops! Looks like I spoke too soon. Atheism has killed more!”
Thus, you’re basing your entire conclusion regarding causal effects on nothing more than numbers, which is arbitrary, subject to change within the contingencies of history, and logically flawed. The issue is not whose viewpoint’s adherents have killed more. The issue whether that viewpoint can be viewed as the causal basis of these acts. The fact remains that people like Stalin or Pol Pot murdered people because they were (gasp!) murderers. Not because they were atheists. Atheism does not cause people to murder people, nor is it even cited by those murderers as the source of instruction or inspiration for it, for they developed their own doctrines that merely incorporated it, as Bill Myers touched upon. The same does not hold true for religion, as I explained above.
Luigi Novi: This does not hold true with things like jihads or the Crusades, which are a direct fulfillment of the instructions given to followers by their holy texts.
Ben Lesar: Show me where in the Bible where Christians are told to go on crusades.
Luigi Novi: Two points:
First, the above quote by me says “religion”. It doesn’t say “Bible.” Holy texts are one source of religious instruction, but they’re not the only one. The instructions by the authorities that govern those religions are another. The Crusades, for example, were sanctioned by the Pope. Even within the context of holy texts, the Bible is not the only one, so I don’t know why you single that one out.
But if you want examples of a Biblical passage that instructs persecution and genocide, here’s one in which Jesus speaks:
“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.” –Mark 19:27
Ben Lesar: And how many genocides is the Religious Right responsible for?
Luigi Novi: Depends. How do we categorize “the Religious Right”? Are we talking, for example, of the Americans who were organized in the last decades of the 20th century, or do we group in their ideological ancestors and counterparts? And what counts as a “genocide”? How many deaths? Do deaths from back alley abortions count? Murders of doctors who perform abortions? How about a President sending our sons and brothers off to die in a war because he felt God told him to? How about a prominent religious public figure calling for the State Department to be bombed? And for that matter, why does genocide even have to be the sole criteria? Any attempt to inculcate religion by any form of coercion is despicable, and the Religious Right are certainly guilty of that.
Ben Lesar: Not in the least. The Bible teaches free will, self-determination, and Charity; not coercive government redistribution of wealth and property.
Luigi Novi: First of all, I do not know of where in the Bible it teaches free will or self-determination. It teaches that having any other gods other than the Judeo-Christian god is a sin, that saying his name in vain is a sin, and prescribes the death penalty for working on the Sabbath, not being a virgin on one’s wedding night (if you’re female), being a rebellious child, wearing clothing made from two different threads, planting different crops side by side, being homosexual, etc. Where is the self-determination or free will in that? Can you tell me where in the Bible it preaches these things?
Second, the tenth commandment (of the set I was taught, at least), preaches against coveting, and Jesus preached against personal wealth. These are far more in line with communism than capitalism.
Posted by: Rex Hondo at June 7, 2007 11:54 PM
But, I like to pee.
God damn it, your pee-pee joke was funnier than my pee-pee joke, you pee-pee head!
Oops, lapsed again. I methinks I have gotten too punchy to be allowed to post for the rest of the night. I shall retire before I am dismevowelled.
Rex Hondo: It's worth remembering that atheism and nihilism rearely, if ever, occur in a vacuum when it comes to a basis of government. They just don't make for very good rallying cries. "Nothing matters, because we're all going to die, and that's it! But yay me, anyway!"
Luigi Novi: Atheists do not believe that "nothing matters". That's simply a bigoted statement.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 8, 2007 12:01 AM
Atheists do not believe that "nothing matters". That's simply a bigoted statement.
Luigi -- take a deep breath, okay? I'm pretty sure Rex made that "nothing matters" remark with tongue in cheek.
For someone who is carrying the banner of rationalism and logic, your posts seem to be carrying a much harder edge than usual. And frankly, as a former devout Catholic who left the faith because I believed it flew in the face of logic and reason, I can tell you that you are nevertheless distorting religion as badly as religionists distort the concept of atheism. Time to calm down and realize that we are not your enemies, okay? You're making some excellent, very well-reasoned points as you usually do, but they're getting at least partially obscured by an undercurrent of condescension that just isn't necessary.
Bill Myers: I'm pretty sure Rex made that "nothing matters" remark with tongue in cheek.
Luigi Novi: Sorry.
Bill Myers: For someone who is carrying the banner of rationalism and logic, your posts seem to be carrying a much harder edge than usual.
Luigi Novi: I will say what I said to you back when you told me that my MySpace posts seemed to be written in a totally different style from the posts I make in debates. When I debate on matters of fact, evidence, logic or reason, that is what I employ. It's always been that way, and you can look through some old threads on this blog to see this. I can even point them out to you. More and more over the years, I've strived to pare down my arguments/counterarguments so that they're free of sarcasm, reciprocated, insults, etc, so that they only thing that others can respond to is the quality of the reasoning I employ. When I post something personal on my blog, it tends to have more of a personal POV, and may be characterized, depending on the subject matter, by more humor, light-heartedness, stream of consciousness, etc. Since this is Peter's blog, I try not to treat it as my own.
Bill Myers: I can tell you that you are nevertheless distorting religion as badly as religionists distort the concept of atheism. Time to calm down and realize that we are not your enemies, okay? You're making some excellent, very well-reasoned points as you usually do, but they're getting at least partially obscured by an undercurrent of condescension that just isn't necessary.
Luigi Novi: Can you point out some that illustrate this? I went over my last post and couldn't find this.
In actuality, the "nothing matters" line was in reference to nihilism, which I mentioned alongside atheism, harkening back to a previous post which I hadn't taken the time to find and quote, and since the two do often go hand-in-hand.
-Rex Hondo-
Well, you don't see a whole lot of people who believe existence to be utterly devoid of meaning embracing the concept of a supreme being. Which is not to say, it should be noted, that it automatically works the other way around. There are still many, as you said, who don't necessarily believe in a higher being, but still find meaning. One often leads to the other, just not necessarily the way you may have thought I was saying.
From the socio-political, building a despotic empire angle, if one is going to impose one's own "religion" and purpose on a people one must first tear down the old gods (enforced atheism) then use that to remove their old sense of purpose (at least a pseudo-nihilism) before introducing new divine figures and purpose.
-Rex Hondo-
It should be pointed out that there are and were people who were religious and socialists.
"Bill Myers: I can tell you that you are nevertheless distorting religion as badly as religionists distort the concept of atheism. Time to calm down and realize that we are not your enemies, okay? You're making some excellent, very well-reasoned points as you usually do, but they're getting at least partially obscured by an undercurrent of condescension that just isn't necessary.
Luigi Novi: Can you point out some that illustrate this? I went over my last post and couldn't find this."
Micha: Yes.
Luigi Novi: "The same does not hold true for crimes against humanity committed in the name of religion, because in those cases, those crimes were carried out on the explicit instruction of those religions."
It should be noted that we are talking about a specific interpretation of religions. Religions are not necessarily promoting crimes against humanity, just certain interpretations of them. Which is also true of variations of socialism.
"Granted, Hitler also killed Gypsies, Poles, POW’s, homosexuals, the handicapped, etc., but since 6 million of the 10-12 million killed in the Holocaust were Jews, the above quote shows that religion accounted quite a bit of it."
The Nazi's killed many people. But the important thing is that they set out to eradicate the Jews, this was an key element of their ideology, and they built an industrial process to accomplish that. The targeting of Jews is derived from a tradition that is essentially Christian, even if it had aquired some secular aspects. (I am not discounting the gypsies, poles and homosexuals, but there story is slightly different).
It should be pointed out that there are and were people who were religious and socialists.
It was and is a very popular stance here in Latin America, by the way.
It's just in the US and parts of Europe that religion is mostly associated with the political right, maybe.
Here in Brazil, many times the socialists and the Christians have made common cause to (in their own words) defend the poor from Imperialist exploitation. And it is, rather, Capitalism that sometimes is painted as associated with "godless hedonism".
Do you guys know that Hugo Chavez sometimes uses Christian imagery in his speeches? The guy has said that Jesus is a role-model for Socialists, while Judas and his 30 coins of silver represents the Satan that is Capitalism...
Here's a statement that Rudy can have, free: "My religious beliefs are between me and my God."
Luigi, so you are one of the many people who prefer to believe what a politician (Hitler, no less) says rather than what he does? Certainly one should at least have his private words take precedence over his public ones.
“Thus, you’re basing your entire conclusion regarding causal effects on nothing more than numbers, which is arbitrary, subject to change within the contingencies of history, and logically flawed."
No, I am basing my argument on the fact that atheist governments CONSISTANTLY killed millions of people, and still do, whereas Christian ones did/do not.
“First, the above quote by me says “religion”. It doesn’t say “Bible.” Holy texts are one source of religious instruction, but they’re not the only one”
You said “(Crusades) which are a direct fulfillment of the instructions given to followers by their holy texts.”
“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
First, that is Luke 19:27. Second, you are being deceptive; it is part of a parable Jesus told and not to be taken literally.
Bill Myers: You're making some excellent, very well-reasoned points as you usually do, but they're getting at least partially obscured by an undercurrent of condescension that just isn't necessary.
Luigi Novi: Can you point out some that illustrate this? I went over my last post and couldn't find this.
Micha: Yes.
Luigi Novi: “The same does not hold true for crimes against humanity committed in the name of religion, because in those cases, those crimes were carried out on the explicit instruction of those religions."
It should be noted that we are talking about a specific interpretation of religions. Religions are not necessarily promoting crimes against humanity, just certain interpretations of them.
Luigi Novi: How can you have an “interpretation of religion”? A religion is an organized belief system. How can you have an interpretation of a belief a system? Do you mean to say an interpretation of a holy text? Yes, religions have promoted certain interpretations of their holy texts and doctrines, and as a result, we’ve had inquisitions, crusades, fatwas, jihads, terrorism, mass genocide, civil wars, hatred, various crimes against humanity, and so forth. If the holy texts of those religions promote violence, and those religions claim to follow the teachings of those texts, then yes, those religions are promoting crimes against humanity.
And how exactly does this answer my question about condescension? Where in that passage by me that you quoted is there condescension? That passage is a portion of a paragraph in which I pointed out the difference between genocide committed by atheist regimes and those committed by theist regimes, and I confined myself to using reason to make that explanation? Where in that is there condescension?
Micha: The Nazi's killed many people. But the important thing is that they set out to eradicate the Jews, this was an key element of their ideology, and they built an industrial process to accomplish that. The targeting of Jews is derived from a tradition that is essentially Christian, even if it had aquired some secular aspects. (I am not discounting the gypsies, poles and homosexuals, but there story is slightly different).
Luigi Novi: That’s what I said: That it was derived from religion, in response to Ben Lesar’s claim that there was no evidence to suggest the Holocaust was religiously motivated.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 7, 2007 11:58 PM
Atheism doesn’t have a doctrine. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god(s).
Okay, I know I'm going to piss off Micha by going to the dictionary again, but...
The Microsoft Encarta Dictionary defines "doctrine" as:
1. a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief, theory, or policy
2. a body of ideas, particularly in religion, taught to people as truthful or correct
3. something taught to people
It seems to me that the Soviet Union's adoption of atheism as its official government stance; and its attempt to spread atheism through classroom "education," propagandizing, and use of force; meets the definition of "doctrine." So, yeah, atheism can be a doctrine.
I'm sorry if this upsets you, but atheism and theism have this in common: neither of them are doctrines in and of themselves, but both can form the basis of doctrines. That said, I don't think atheism and communism are inextricably linked.
By the way, a friend of mine is an atheist, and his perspective is much the same as yours. He rejects faith in favor of science. I understand your point-of-view better than you seem to believe.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 7, 2007 11:58 PM
Again, crusades, holocausts, inquisitions, fatwas, jihads, forced circumcisions, etc., are not merely committed by theists. They’re derived directly from the holy texts and/or authorities that explicit instruct the followers of those religions.
Actually, the Bible is rife with contradictions and open to wildly differing interpretations, as is the Koran. As Micha has pointed out, these acts are derived in some cases from specific interpretations of these dense and often confusing texts.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 7, 2007 11:58 PM
There is no such thing in atheism.
When Soviet police arrested and/or killed people in order to suppress religion, those actions were clearly derived from an atheistic doctrine.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 7, 2007 11:58 PM
[The Bible] teaches that... wearing clothing made from two different threads, planting different crops side by side, being homosexual, etc. [is a sin]."
Yes and no. In the new Testament, Jesus reportedly said that the "purity codes" in Leviticus were null and void, but that the laws against immorality were still in effect. He listed a number of offenses in that vein, including what is often translated as "lasciviousness." There is some disagreement about whether or not this applies to homosexuality.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 7, 2007 11:58 PM
Where is the self-determination or free will in that? Can you tell me where in the Bible it preaches these things?
Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
P.S. Luigi, I'm not a Christian. I'm not pushing religion. In fact, I don't even push theism, even though I am a theist. I don't believe atheism is inherently evil, or that atheists are prone to be less moral than theists. At the same time, I do not believe the reverse is true. I believe you are being as unfair to religionists as you believe they are to atheists. As Bill Mulligan pointed out, there is just no sense in that.
Luigi Novi: Atheism doesn’t have a doctrine. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god(s).
Bill Myers: Okay, I know I'm going to piss off Micha by going to the dictionary again, but...
The Microsoft Encarta Dictionary defines "doctrine" as:
1. a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief, theory, or policy
2. a body of ideas, particularly in religion, taught to people as truthful or correct
3. something taught to people
Luigi Novi: Again, these definitions prove my point, not yours, because atheism is not a rule or principle, it is not a body of ideas, and it is not “taught”. If we are generous, we could say that if you grow up in an atheist family, you would probably have an atheist viewpoint as a result of that through familial osmosis, but to my knowledge, atheists do not “teach” atheism. Atheists do not send their kids off to atheist school. They don’t go to atheist church every Sunday. They don’t make sure to observe the atheist high holidays. They don’t make sure they read from the atheist Bible. Even if some kid in an atheist family wanted to decide to follow a religion, his atheist parents, though possibly disappointed or troubled, would likely do nothing to stop him. To extend this hypothetical generosity, one can say that you can teach skepticism and critical thinking, and that a consistent adherence to those things might lead to atheism, as it did with me (though I learned those things on my own; they were not “taught” to me), but even then, that’s not a certainty, for there are skeptic believers. Martin Gardner, who is considered the founder of the modern skeptical movement, in fact, is a believer in God.
Bill Myers: It seems to me that the Soviet Union's adoption of atheism as its official government stance; and its attempt to spread atheism through classroom "education," propagandizing, and use of force; meets the definition of "doctrine." So, yeah, atheism can be a doctrine.
Luigi Novi: Again, adopting an idea or point of view as part of a doctrine does not mean therefore, ipso facto, that idea is a doctrine itself. Again, can you please explain to me how not believing in something is a “doctrine”? All you keep saying is that oh, the Soviet Union incorporated this as a basis into that, and so forth, but what I keep pointing out to you is that the only doctrine in question here is a government/political one. It remains that lack of belief in gods is not a doctrine. I’m sorry if this upsets you, but I explained this in detail above, and rather than refute it, you’re just repeating the same fallacy, deliberately ignoring the distinction between a doctrine and a mutually exclusive idea incorporated into one, instead of refuting it.
Bill Myers: I'm sorry if this upsets you, but atheism and theism have this in common: neither of them are doctrines in and of themselves, but both can form the basis of doctrines.
Luigi Novi: Which means that everything is a “doctrine”, because everything can be made the “basis” of one. Say some dictator comes to power (y’know, as opposed to those dictators that don’t come to power). One of his little pet hobbies/interests/whatever is botany. He LOVES botany. I mean, we’re talking a major league hard-on for the chlorophyll. So he institutes a policy requiring ten live plants in everyone’s homes. He rewrites the science curriculum to put emphasis on botany instead of biology and chemistry. Major monuments are made to seminal botanists. A giant greenhouse park in every city. His views have a major effect on industrial development, because he is loathe to clear rural areas in favor of building cities, towns, factories, etc. Thus, he has used botany as a basis of a doctrine.
Is botany a doctrine, Bill?
Or, in your words, Bill, can it be the basis of one?
And if that dictator murders millions of people, do you mention botany in the same breath as fundamentalist Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or whatever, by connoting botany to be just as culpable for instructing murder? The difference between the two is that the hypothetical botanist dictator did something with botany, because by itself, botany says nothing about killing its opponents. But genocides carried out by theist murderers does not require them to do anything with their religions, because their religions already prescribe those actions, and thus, these crimes are a faithful fulfillment of them, often without any “interpretation”, or the fulfillment of orders from those religions’ authorities.
I also used the non-hypothetical example of natural selection above, and you didn’t respond to that. Why is this?
The conclusion remains that whether something is the “basis” of a doctrine is irrelevant to the genocides committed by atheist dictators, because those crimes stem solely from the personality of the dictator. The crimes carried out in the name of religion, on the other hand, stem from the holy texts and religious authorities of those religions, which instruct those crimes. Atheism “instructs” nothing.
Bill Myers: Actually, the Bible is rife with contradictions and open to wildly differing interpretations, as is the Koran. As Micha has pointed out, these acts are derived in some cases from specific interpretations of these dense and often confusing texts.
Luigi Novi: This does not change the original point, which is that crimes committed by atheist regimes were not carried out in the name of atheism. The same does not hold true for theist regimes. Points of interpretation do not change this. The bottom line is that comparing that genocides of Stalin to those of say, the Crusades or Inquisition is a false analogy.
Bill Myers: When Soviet police arrested and/or killed people in order to suppress religion, those actions were clearly derived from an atheistic doctrine.
Luigi Novi: But atheism itself does not prescribe these things. It is the murdering dictators who did. The same does not hold true for crimes committed by religious dictators, for their holy texts do prescribe bigotry, violence, and genocide for those who do not believe.
Can you show me an example of an ancient atheist holy text? Or an authority on atheism that outlines its “rules”? Can you show me where, in the book of atheism, it says “Commandment #1: Destroy religion”? You can’t, because there’s no such thing.
Bill Myers: Yes and no. In the new Testament, Jesus reportedly said that the "purity codes" in Leviticus were null and void, but that the laws against immorality were still in effect. He listed a number of offenses in that vein, including what is often translated as "lasciviousness." There is some disagreement about whether or not this applies to homosexuality.
Luigi Novi: Where did Jesus say that they were null and void?
Throughout the New Testament, the reader is instructed to follow “scripture”, which means the Old Testament. Jesus said to follow the scripture, and that he and his father were one and the same, so it makes no sense for an omnipotent, omniscient, timeless being to change his mind over the course of a couple of thousand years on what rules are right and what rules are “null and void” (one of many proofs that the various books of the Bible originated in the minds of various different human authors, and not a god).
Bill Myers: Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Luigi Novi: And how does this square with all the other aspects of the Bible that are clearly against self-determination and free will? The Bible is a document of in-group love and out-group hostility. The passages that seem to preach love and freedom are not intended as universals, but only for God’s chosen. Those outside of this group are not given this consideration. Chapter 21 of Exodus, for example, gives explicit instructions on how to conduct slavery. How does this jibe with this passage about “freedom”? Even Jesus endorsed slavery, in Luke 12:47-48, rather than condemning it.
Bill Myers: P.S. Luigi, I'm not a Christian. I'm not pushing religion. In fact, I don't even push theism, even though I am a theist. I don't believe atheism is inherently evil, or that atheists are prone to be less moral than theists. At the same time, I do not believe the reverse is true.
Luigi Novi: Ditto.
Bill Myers: I believe you are being as unfair to religionists as you believe they are to atheists. As Bill Mulligan pointed out, there is just no sense in that.
Luigi Novi: Where have I been unfair to religionists? Can you point out a passage? I asked you to do this when you accused me of “condescension”, and you never responded to that point either. Can you illustrate these accusations?
Ben Lesar: Luigi, so you are one of the many people who prefer to believe what a politician (Hitler, no less) says rather than what he does?
Luigi Novi: What Hitler did was kill lots of people, including 6 million Jews. What he said was that he did it for religious reasons. I see no contradiction there, nor any reason to force an “Either/Or” question, as if the two are mutually exclusive.
Ben Lesar: Certainly one should at least have his private words take precedence over his public ones.
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. There can reasons for the discrepancies that do not require one to take precedence over the other. There is much controversy on Hitler’s religiosity, and I see no reason to take his criticism of religion or Christianity to mean that he himself wasn’t religious or a believer in God. Many Christians, for example, criticize Christianity, and the Vatican. I did when I was a Christian. Bottom line: Was Hitler or was he not an anti-Semite? The answer is yes. And where does that anti-Semitism originate from? Simple. Religion. Whether he adheres to all the dogmas of that religion, or has respect for any particular denomination is beside the point. He hated entire swaths of people and murdered them, a viewpoint and act that originated with religious belief. But if you can show me how his anti-Semitism did not originate with religion, please let me know.
Luigi Novi: Thus, you’re basing your entire conclusion regarding causal effects on nothing more than numbers, which is arbitrary, subject to change within the contingencies of history, and logically flawed.
Ben Lesar: No, I am basing my argument on the fact that atheist governments CONSISTANTLY killed millions of people, and still do, whereas Christian ones did/do not.
Luigi Novi: You’re basing your argument on that now . But in your prior statement you said:
“…the governments that killed the most (by far) in the twentieth century were atheist…”
Thus, you were appealing to numerical, or quantitative considerations to argue that there was some relevance that some murdering dictators like Stalin have been atheists. I correctly pointed out that this was non-sequitur, because the issue of whether atheism itself prescribed those actions is completely unrelated to how many were killed by adherents to each worldview. The issue I brought up is whether the actions in question are the direct fulfillment of instructions explicitly made by those religions’ doctrines, and the distinction that atheism has no such doctrine or instruction. You failed to refute this point.
The fact that you’ve leap-frogged onto a new concept—consistency—not only does not change the fact that you indeed made this appeal to numbers (and makes your “No, I’m not” response a transparent falsehood), but is itself just another kind of appeal to numbers itself: In what way is “consistency” at all pertinent? Are you saying that if crimes committed in the name of religion are sporadic, uneven, intermittent, or inconsistent, then somehow, that means that they were not committed in the name of religion? Or that they only were if these events occurred on some type of schedule? This is not simply untrue; it’s completely nonsensical gibberish.
Whether the crimes in question were “consistent” is irrelevant. The issue is whether the crimes were derived from a specific doctrine or authority on the doctrine that instructed it. Crimes committed for religion’s sake were committed according to such doctrines and their priests, rabbis, imams, etc. By contrast, atheism does not call for any such thing.
Nor am I interested in your narrow definition of “government”, which like much else in your responses to my statements, has been deliberately selective. The Vatican, after, is a government, and the Crusades were carried out with a papal blessing, and thus, it was carried out in the name of the Christian Church, which is also a government. When you see whole streets burned out by sectarian warfare in Belfast, and people kidnapped, tortured and killed by rival religious death squads, and when you consider that for years, the Protestant and Catholic establishments both wanted segregated and suppression of the other side, who cares if it’s a “government”? So your statement that Christians (or Christian governments, if you prefer) have not done this is false, as such crimes have indeed been committed in the name of Christianity just of other religions. No such thing was carried out in the name of atheism.
Moreover, even if no official government is involved, how is this a relevant criteria? By this reasoning of yours, Al Quaeda is not committing their crimes in the name of religion, because they are not the official government of any country.
Luigi Novi: This does not hold true with things like jihads or the Crusades, which are a direct fulfillment of the instructions given to followers by their holy texts.
Ben Lesar: Show me where in the Bible where Christians are told to go on crusades.
Luigi Novi: Two points: First, the above quote by me says “religion”. It doesn’t say “Bible.” Holy texts are one source of religious instruction, but they’re not the only one.
Ben Lesar: You said “(Crusades) which are a direct fulfillment of the instructions given to followers by their holy texts.”
Luigi Novi: No, I did not. You selectively edited the quote by me (even putting parenthesis around it for some reason) to make it seem that I was singling out Christianity. But in fact, the actual, more contextualized quote (which I have reproduced right above), shows no such thing, as it actually says “things like jihads or the Crusades.” So in other words, I was speaking of such crimes in general. (Readers can scroll up look at my June 6, 7:51pm post to verify this.) I further clarified this by including things like “circumcision” and “fatwas” in my statements, to make it clear that I am not singling out any one religion, and by pointing out that explicit instructions of holy texts are once source of instruction, but the authorities of those religions are another. Thus, the Crusades apply because they were blessed by the Pope.
Ben Lesar: First, that is Luke 19:27.
Luigi Novi: Yes, thanks for the correction.
Ben Lesar: Second, you are being deceptive; it is part of a parable Jesus told and not to be taken literally…
Luigi Novi: You have not established any deception. The fact that it is a parable is irrelevant to the issue, because in that parable, the person speaking is a man who was trying to impose himself as king, and he was speaking of those who resisted this. That Jesus speaks of this man in a positive light means that Jesus endorses the act of a man forcing himself as a ruler on people who don’t want him. The moral bankruptcy that Jesus reveals in himself, therefore, is clear, and pointing out that it is a parable does nothing to change my point. You asked for a Biblical passage that instructs persecution and genocide, and I gave you one. If the parable condemned that would-be king, then that would be untenable.
Even if what you’re saying about that parable is true, how do you know that it was deception on my part, and not say, a genuine mistake, as with which book it was from? Why do you assume the more sinister motive?
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 8, 2007 03:26 PM
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 8, 2007 03:26 PM
Can you illustrate these accusations?
Luigi, it wasn't my intent to "accuse" you of anything but merely to offer my observations (you'll note that I also acknowledged you made some good points, as you usually do). It seems you regard me now as an adversary because I disagree with you, and are determined to "win" this "fight" at all costs. I have lost my apetite for such fare and therefore see no reason for this exchange to continue.
Take care.
Bill, I do not see you as an "adversary", nor do I mind that you disagreed with me, any more than I'll wager Peter considers me an adversary for the times I've disagreed with him. I do not see these exchanges as something to "win", any more than I did with those exchanges with other persons wherein you took my side and cheered me on. I simply don't play favorites, as I try to be consistent in my viewpoints and the expressions thereof, and to that end, I've tried to conduct myself with dispassion in this thread, and nothing resembling bitterness, anger, or vitriol.
You said that was condescending and unfair to religionists. All I'm asking is for you to point out where I did this. I ask this partially because I don't believe I did this, but at the same time, because I acknowledge the possibility that I did, and I expect my friends to point these things out when they offer legitimate criticism. The fact that you split hairs by calling them "observations" instead of "accusations" is unimportant. The point is, you have offered a criticism, and I think I have the right to ask you to back it up, just I think that you have the right to offer it. Nothing more. If you don't do that, then you'll only reinforce my original impression that these statements by you originated within your mind, and not in anything I said or did. This of course does not obligate you to answer, but I can't consider your criticism if you don't.
Take care yourself, buddy. :-)
Posted by: Bill Myers at June 8, 2007 01:02 PM
"It seems to me that the Soviet Union's adoption of atheism as its official government stance; and its attempt to spread atheism through classroom "education," propagandizing, and use of force; meets the definition of "doctrine." So, yeah, atheism can be a doctrine."
Nyet comrade Myers. The soviet Union promoted communism, and the party line as decided in a given time, not atheism. Communism is a doctrine, it has a body of writing and interpretation to which it looks for guidance. As do Christianity and other doctrines. But atheism is not like that -- it is not a systematic school of thought that is taught anywhere as dogma. There are atheist philosophers, but atheists don't specifically look to them for guidance unless they follow other principles of their philosophy, as is the case with communism or surealism, or Nietche. As you yourself say: "atheism and theism have this in common: neither of them are doctrines in and of themselves, but both can form the basis of doctrines." Only atheism is not the basis of communism, it is not even a necessary part of it, which is how you can have religious communists. Theism is at the basis of Christianity, but the truth is that Christianity and theism are two very different things. Only one of them is a doctrine.
"When Soviet police arrested and/or killed people in order to suppress religion, those actions were clearly derived from an atheistic doctrine."
Nyet again Comrade. The soviet suppression of religion was not motivated by atheism. Atheism is only the belief that there is no god. Communists supressed religion either because of their interpretation of communist doctrine (namely that religion is a reactionary tool of the bourgoise to atupify the proleteriat and so forth), or because of specific political interests at specific time (such as the connection between Budhism and Tibetan national identity). In any case, Communists did not supress religion constantly, only when it served their interests. At other times they tolerated it.
"Okay, I know I'm going to piss off Micha by going to the dictionary again."
Not at all. In this case we are talking semantics. I don't think there is a real disagreement, only a need to fine tune certain distinctions.
------------------------
Luigi Novi: "How can you have an “interpretation of religion”? A religion is an organized belief system. How can you have an interpretation of a belief a system? Do you mean to say an interpretation of a holy text?"
Because religion's are belief systems they are subject to different interpretations and different opinions, which sometimes result in a schism inside the religion, and sometimes not. The different interpretations are not only of the sacred text. Religions develop over time layers upon layers of interpretation, and interpretation of the interpretation, and doctrine, and rituals, and folk belliefs, and legends, and policy, all of which go through changes over time, as they are interpreted to fit the times.
"Yes, religions have promoted certain interpretations of their holy texts and doctrines, and as a result, we’ve had inquisitions, crusades, fatwas, jihads, terrorism, mass genocide, civil wars, hatred, various crimes against humanity, and so forth."
It is also a change in interpretation that had made it possible for different Christians to support and oppose racism, slavery, antisemitism, communism, science, modernism, and humanism. It is a fact that he same Christianity that has promoted antisemitism for years seems to have changed its mind at modern times.
"If the holy texts of those religions promote violence, and those religions claim to follow the teachings of those texts, then yes, those religions are promoting crimes against humanity."
But that's the point. while certain interpreters read in the texts a call for violence, others find there a call for peace; where some find a support for capitalism others find communist ideals. It is not the holy texts that promote violence as much as their contemporary interpreters. (Which is not to say that their original meaning was not violent in itself, these religions were first developed in quite brutal times, but our problems are with the modern interpreters who wish to promote violence, not with the texts themselves. And our allies are those who prefer less violent interpretations, even if their readings may not be correct in a historical sense).
Luigi Novi: "And how exactly does this answer my question about condescension? Where in that passage by me that you quoted is there condescension? That passage is a portion of a paragraph in which I pointed out the difference between genocide committed by atheist regimes and those committed by theist regimes, and I confined myself to using reason to make that explanation? Where in that is there condescension?"
It seems to me that to treat genocidal violence as an inherent aspect of religion is similar to attributing it inherently to atheism. It seems to me a condescending attitude toward religious people, as others have a condescending attitude toward atheists. However, I have no desire to attribute condescension to you if it is not there. I am more interested in the issue of the discussion.
Micha: "The Nazi's killed many people. But the important thing is that they set out to eradicate the Jews, this was an key element of their ideology, and they built an industrial process to accomplish that. The targeting of Jews is derived from a tradition that is essentially Christian, even if it had aquired some secular aspects. (I am not discounting the gypsies, poles and homosexuals, but there story is slightly different)."
Luigi Novi: "That’s what I said: That it was derived from religion, in response to Ben Lesar’s claim that there was no evidence to suggest the Holocaust was religiously motivated."
It was not my intention to contradict you on this point as much as to add to what you said a point I felt is important.
-----------------------
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 8, 2007 12:45 PM:
Luigi, so you are one of the many people who prefer to believe what a politician (Hitler, no less) says rather than what he does? Certainly one should at least have his private words take precedence over his public ones.
The issue of this or that statement of Hitler about Christianity is irrelevant. Hitler was the leader, but he was not alone, and the antisemitism promoted and then practiced by his party, his country, and his country's allies was closely and undeniably related to the antisemitism promoted for centuries by Christianity, even if it has aquired some new layers in the modern era. Hitler took racism and antisemitism to the extreme, but he did not invent either, he inherited them from a European culture that was essentialy Christian.
"No, I am basing my argument on the fact that atheist governments CONSISTANTLY killed millions of people, and still do, whereas Christian ones did/do not."
Yet it is a false argument. You are taking the fact that in a specific moments in modern times three atheist regimes (USSR, China, Cambodia) killed large numbers of people, to create two false impressions:
1) That Christians were somehow more hesitant about killing large numbers of people. that they were somehow more gentle and pacific in nature. This argument would be false even if accepted the numerical claim that Stalin and Mao killed more than all Christian governments (an assumption I am not certain of, but cannot verify); because even if it were true, history clearly shows that Christians were not shy about kiling many fellow Christians, Christians of other denominations, Jews, Muslims, pagans, African, amerindians and indians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
"But while introduced disease devastated native populations, colonial brutality and economic dislocation also played significant roles. Rummel, for example, estimates a total of approximately 13.7 million democides (deliberate killings) of native Americans in the colonial and post-colonial eras.[5] The population reduction, sometimes by government policy and sometimes not, of the Natives of South and North America by Europeans is estimated to be one of the largest and longest in history.[6] (See also cultural genocide)."
And this is only genocides starting in 1500. There are also many wars by Christians that are not considered genocide but were quite brutal nevertheless. And there are also certain eastern European peoples that seem to have vanished somehow during the early middle ages, and of course slavery.
2) The second false assumption tis hat the acts of brutality by Stalin and Mao are somehow a reflection of their atheism. Atheism was not that important an aspect in their ideology, and although it caused the persecution of the religious establishments, it was not the motivation behind the massive killings they perpetuated. They killed because of different aspects of their personality and ideology, most specifically the desire to social engineer their societies in a wide scale and the lack of compunction about how it is to be done. This has little to do with atheism as such.
Also, the acts of Stalin and Mao were specific events in the history of their countries, and not a constant pattern in the behavior of the communist regimes in Russia or China.
"“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
First, that is Luke 19:27. Second, you are being deceptive;
it is part of a parable Jesus told and not to be taken literally."
Yet are you certain no Christians have ever taken it literally?
Luigi Novi: How can you have an “interpretation of religion”?
Luigi, hope you don't mind me horning in on the discussion, but this question of yours ia something that I've said for a long time. Religion is nothing BUT interpretation. Whether it's the interpretation of the head speaker, be it priest, minister, rabbi, high priest, or whatever or just the individual reading a text, that information is being interpreted by the listener/reader's frame of reference. Each person is unique, so each person's experience with religion or spirituality is unique. Case in point, I had the HARDEST time understanding the whole Prodigal Son bit since my own father would let me try my own way, find my own path, and if it differed from his, well, okay as long as it wasn't TOO extreme. Any success I had was shared, any failure, he was always there to help, with only the occasional friendly jibe sent my way. Since I lack the experience of the type of father in the story, I couldn't understand it. I always just said, why didn't the father just say, "Okay, don't do it again, dummy, and come eat dinner." I got lucky, only later did I find THAT out. Without the personal interpretation, without the connection nothing in any religion would have any meaning, from the Eucharist to the Bar/Bat Mitzvah to the Calling of the Corners. Without your own personal knowledge of the ritual and it's connections in your head, they'd be pointless.
Thanks for letting me butt in.
I'm currently working on a project about a hotel fire here in Fort Wayne, the centennial of which will be next year. One of the most interesting things to happen in the hotel's history was in 1884, when James G. Blaine, the Republican candidate for President (against Grover Cleveland) was to speak from one of the hotel's balconies. He arrived after much advance publicity and during much hoopla. He had just barely begun to deliver his speech when local Democrats shouted him down. He left the hotel and was driven by carriage to the city's Catholic hall. But, he chose to deliver his speech from the back of his carriage, not wanting to even appear to mix politics and religion by going into the hall.
What a difference 123 years can make.
“Even if what you’re saying about that parable is true, how do you know that it was deception on my part, and not say, a genuine mistake, as with which book it was from? Why do you assume the more sinister motive?”
Because you quoted it without giving the context that was obviously needed. Anyone who knows what a parable is understands that it is not to be taken literally. When, for instance, Jesus speaks of things in parables he is speaking of things spiritual –“my kingdom is not of this world”—not physical. Any death will be as well.
Speaking of taking things out of context; I did not do so. I made no claim that you were singling out Christianity, my quoting you was in response to your claiming that you did not specify holy texts as the source of those instructions to go on crusades, jihads, and such.
“The issue of this or that statement of Hitler about Christianity is irrelevant. Hitler was the leader, but he was not alone, and the antisemitism promoted and then practiced by his party, his country, and his country's allies was closely and undeniably related to the antisemitism promoted for centuries by Christianity, even if it has aquired some new layers in the modern era. Hitler took racism and antisemitism to the extreme, but he did not invent either, he inherited them from a European culture that was essentialy Christian.”
Christianity was never the source of anti-Semitism. Almost every nation which has had a significant Jewish population has suffered from it. (Anti-Semitism, not having the significant Jewish population.) Gandhi was an anti-Semitist. Post-Christian Europe is still a hotbed of anti-Semitism. The fact is that may people all over the world don’t like Jews. One possible reason is that races and cultures of one kind don’t tolerate those of others coming to their nation and not assimilating. But to me the reason is spiritual. I believe that since the Jews are God’s chosen people those under sinister influence direct anger towards them without even knowing why.
“That Christians were somehow more hesitant about killing large numbers of people. that they were somehow more gentle and pacific in nature. This argument would be false even if accepted the numerical claim that Stalin and Mao killed more than all Christian governments (an assumption I am not certain of, but cannot verify); because even if it were true, history clearly shows that Christians were not shy about kiling many fellow Christians, Christians of other denominations, Jews, Muslims, pagans, African, amerindians and indians.”
North Korea, Laos, China is still doing it… and more. I would like to see someone point out an officially Christian government in the 20th century that killed more than a few thousand.
Speaking of which, Luigi, the numbers do matter. Why? Because in the case of the Christian governments most of the deaths were isolated incidents. The huge figures in atheist genocides indicate that they were, in fact, genocides.
“And this is only genocides starting in 1500. There are also many wars by Christians that are not considered genocide but were quite brutal nevertheless. And there are also certain eastern European peoples that seem to have vanished somehow during the early middle ages, and of course slavery.”
Most of the deaths of Native Americans were accidental, caused by disease. Of course some of it was spread on purpose, but very little really. Also, people like to point to slavery and blame Christians when, to my knowledge, the first nation to not only ban it but work against it, was an officially Christian one. The man who wrote “Amazing Grace” was a slave trader… until he converted to Christianity. On the other hand, slavery has finally returned to Europe now that it is post-Christian.
“Yet are you certain no Christians have ever taken it literally?”
No, I am saying that Luigi shouldn’t though. How many atheists have taken nihilism seriously, by the way? Nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism. Genocide is a logical working of nihilism. There is a connection, albeit indirect, between atheism and genocide.
Nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism. Genocide is a logical working of nihilism. There is a connection, albeit indirect, between atheism and genocide.
I disagree with that. While most nihilists may be atheists it odes not follow that most atheists are nihilists. Even if one rejects all religion one can accept concepts of morality and thus not be a believer in nihilism.
One could just as well argue that fanaticism is a logical outworking of religious belief and that genocide is a logical working of fanaticism.
the problem with both arguments, I think, is a misuse of the word "logical".
Micha: Because religion’s are belief systems they are subject to different interpretations and different opinions, which sometimes result in a schism inside the religion, and sometimes not.
Luigi Novi: Micha, I think maybe I ended up splitting a hair on this point, so I apologize. I think what I meant to express was that the texts that form the bases of those belief systems are subject to interpretation, rather than the religion, but I think this was a trivial point. Sorry about that. :-)
Micha: It is also a change in interpretation that had made it possible for different Christians to support and oppose racism, slavery, antisemitism, communism, science, modernism, and humanism. It is a fact that he same Christianity that has promoted antisemitism for years seems to have changed its mind at modern times.
Luigi Novi: Ironically, these changes were brought about via secularism.
Micha: But that’s the point. while certain interpreters read in the texts a call for violence, others find there a call for peace; where some find a support for capitalism others find communist ideals. It is not the holy texts that promote violence as much as their contemporary interpreters.
Luigi Novi: In some cases. In others, the texts are explicit in their instructions. And in the cases where it’s the authority (priest, rabbi, imam, whatever) interpreting it, my point is the same: Atheism doesn’t have the same phenomenon.
Micha: It seems to me that to treat genocidal violence as an inherent aspect of religion is similar to attributing it inherently to atheism.
Luigi Novi: I don’t treat it as inherent. Most of my friends and family members are theists. They’re not inherently genocidal, I can assure you. :-)
And since I have not stated nor implied this, I think I can safely assert that I haven’t been condescending towards theists. I respect people’s right to believe what they want.
Micha: It was not my intention to contradict you on this point as much as to add to what you said a point I felt is important.
Luigi Novi: Gotcha. :-)
Sean Scullion: Luigi, hope you don’t mind me horning in on the discussion, but this question of yours ia something that I’ve said for a long time. Religion is nothing BUT interpretation.
Luigi Novi: Sean, thank you for your thoughts. No, I do not mind your participating, for I welcome it, nor do I think it’s my place to “let” you or “not let” you butt in. A couple of years ago, Nitcentral experienced a troll who, when I jumped in to defend one of his targets, indicated that he didn’t think it my place to do so. Allow me to make clear that I’m not of this persuasion, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with me during the discussion. This is Peter’s blog, and if a site owner makes such a site public, as Peter has, then it’s fair game for everyone, unless he notes otherwise. :-)
Yes, religion is subject to interpretations (to one degree or another, depending on the religion, the text, the interpreter, etc.) My point was only the one I made in the third quote-and-response exchange with Micha above.
Ben Lesar: Because you quoted it without giving the context that was obviously needed.
Luigi Novi: Which does not require deception. Genuine error or a good faith belief that it was not necessary are also explanations that can also account for this decision (in my case, it was the latter), and you did not eliminate those as possibilities.
Ben Lesar: Anyone who knows what a parable is understands that it is not to be taken literally.
Luigi Novi: No.
Some people might. Some might not. Not everyone is going to subscribe to your interpretation.
And you did not refute the reasoning I offered about Jesus’ position on the character in question, and how his presentation of that character’s actions as positive informed Jesus’ own moral center.
Ben Lesar: Speaking of taking things out of context; I did not do so. I made no claim that you were singling out Christianity, my quoting you was in response to your claiming that you did not specify holy texts as the source of those instructions to go on crusades, jihads, and such.
Luigi Novi: And yet, you asked me where in the Bible where Christians are told to go on crusades, and then left out the word “jihads” in the statement of mine that you quoted, and even put parenthesis around the word “Crusades”, when they did not appear in the original post as written.
Ben Lesar: Christianity was never the source of anti-Semitism. Almost every nation which has had a significant Jewish population has suffered from it. (Anti-Semitism, not having the significant Jewish population.) Gandhi was an anti-Semitist. Post-Christian Europe is still a hotbed of anti-Semitism. The fact is that may people all over the world don’t like Jews. One possible reason is that races and cultures of one kind don’t tolerate those of others coming to their nation and not assimilating.
Luigi Novi: But the derivation of anti-Semitism is clearly Christianity. History shows this. It’s not about assimilation, because Jews assimilate wherever they go, and still encounter anti-Semitism.
Ben Lesar: Speaking of which, Luigi, the numbers do matter.
Luigi Novi: So first you adamantly denied appealing to numerical considerations, and now you’ve decided that you are? Ooooookay.
Ben Lesar: Why? Because in the case of the Christian governments most of the deaths were isolated incidents. The huge figures in atheist genocides indicate that they were, in fact, genocides.
Luigi Novi: Which is irrelevant to the point I made—repeatedly—about the distinction between crimes committed in the name of religion, and the complete lack of any crimes that were committed in the name of atheism. Rather than refute this point, or even respond to it, you continue to promote this same child’s argument over and over (“He killed more!” “No, HE killed more!”), perhaps under the impression that no one will notice that you’re deliberately evading the point I made about its flaws.
Guess what?
I’ve noticed.
And my response is the same: Crimes committed by atheists were not committed in the name of atheism, on the instruction of atheist authorities, or from atheist holy texts or dogmas. The same does not hold true for theism, which is why comparing the crimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to the crimes of the Crusades, Inquisitions, religious genocides, fatwas, jihads, infant circumcisions, terrorist plots and bombings, etc. fails as an analogy. If you can refute this distinction, then do so. But merely repeating a flawed argument or fallacy over and over and over does not lend it more credence.
Ben Lesar: Nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism.
Luigi Novi: No it is not. Nihilism is the belief that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Atheism is just the lack of a belief in being whose existence is unsupported by empirical, scientific evidence. The two have nothing to do with one another, nor is nihilism an logical outworking of atheism. I’ve been an agnostic atheist for about three years or so, and I do not believe, nor will I ever, that there is no value, knowledge, or worth in anything.
But thank you for revealing yourself to be a religious bigot who spreads stereotypical lies about entire swaths of people.
It makes it easier to keep track of you people when we know where you are.
Damn, I think I'll just stick to body function jokes from now on... :P
-Rex Hondo-
“And yet, you asked me where in the Bible where Christians are told to go on crusades, and then left out the word “jihads” in the statement of mine that you quoted, and even put parenthesis around the word “Crusades”, when they did not appear in the original post as written.”
The word “jihads” was not necessary as you were talking about both of them. I chose only to focus on crusades in regards to your claim that you had not specified the Bible as the source of instructions to do so when you had. I should have used square brackets though.
“But the derivation of anti-Semitism is clearly Christianity. History shows this. It’s not about assimilation, because Jews assimilate wherever they go, and still encounter anti-Semitism.”
Jews, assimilate? They would cease to be Jews if they did so. Unless one is speaking from a merely ethnic standpoint. Besides, you yourself have just admitted that they encounter anti-Semitism wherever they go. Unless you think the entire world is Christian I would take that to mean either that you don’t actually think Christianity is responsible, or you were being loose with the English language. The latter being something unwise to do in something you yourself have referred to as a “debate.”
“So first you adamantly denied appealing to numerical considerations, and now you’ve decided that you are? Ooooookay.”
One can use more than one argument.
“Which is irrelevant to the point I made—repeatedly—about the distinction between crimes committed in the name of religion, and the complete lack of any crimes that were committed in the name of atheism. Rather than refute this point, or even respond to it, you continue to promote this same child’s argument over and over (“He killed more!” “No, HE killed more!”), perhaps under the impression that no one will notice that you’re deliberately evading the point I made about its flaws.”
I don’t care if it is irrelevant to the point you made. That point is irrelevant to the discussion. Don’t you remember why the discussion started? I’ll refresh your memory. It started when you made an erroneous claim that the Religious were responsible for more deaths than any one else, by far. This is when I joined the discussion. I pointed out that you were wrong despite the fact that atheists have not been in power nearly as long. Not to mention that Bill Myers already refuted it.
“I’ve been an agnostic atheist for about three years or so, and I do not believe, nor will I ever, that there is no value, knowledge, or worth in anything.”
You and Bill Mulligan seem to commit the same mistake in thinking that when I say that nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism that I am saying that all atheists are nihilists. This would require that all atheists be logical. If the universe came into being by chance and for no purpose --because purpose requires a will, an intent—then there is no reason to believe there is meaning to life. Similarly, without a God there is no reason to believe in objective moral values. We become merely chemicals wrapped in fleshy bags. Why would a universe created by chance have somehow been prepared with a set of moral laws for a species that didn’t even exist yet? Please go ahead and prove me wrong on either morals or purpose. Show me how in a world without a God we would have purpose or objective morals. I have never encountered an atheist capable of doing either. They generally end up saying morals are a matter of personal opinion, which means what Stalin did was OK for him. “I disapprove” is a much weaker stance than “that’s evil.”
“But thank you for revealing yourself to be a religious bigot who spreads stereotypical lies about entire swaths of people.”
Thank you for being a foaming at the mouth loony who spreads death and chaos with a magic glow wand he found in a Cheerios box. Oh, you mean we weren’t thanking people for things they didn’t actually do? Oops. My bad.
“It makes it easier to keep track of you people when we know where you are.”
You know, when you don’t want people to think all atheists are genocidal maniacs (something I never claimed, BTW) you probably shouldn’t talk about your desire to monitor people you don’t like as good ol’ Uncle Joe and friends did. Just saying.
Ben Lesar: Jews, assimilate? They would cease to be Jews if they did so.
Luigi Novi: Oh really? So which would you say about the owner of this site? That he isn’t a Jew? Or that he hasn’t assimilated? Or perhaps that his grandparents didn’t when they came to this country?
I’m guessing here that you’re applying yet another selectively and arbitrarily narrow definition, in this case, assimilation. If a person immigrates to another country, learns to the speak the language, follows the laws, and becomes a part of that community, then they’re assimilated. Why you think this is mutually exclusive from maintaining your religion, I don’t know, but it remains that anti-Semitism is indeed derived from religion. Your statement that it is not flies in the face of the historical evidence that shows that it does.
Ben Lesar: Unless one is speaking from a merely ethnic standpoint. Besides, you yourself have just admitted that they encounter anti-Semitism wherever they go. Unless you think the entire world is Christian I would take that to mean either that you don’t actually think Christianity is responsible, or you were being loose with the English language.
Luigi Novi: I don’t see how encountering anti-Semitism wherever they go means that it isn’t religiously derived. This is just another non-sequitur.
Ben Lesar: One can use more than one argument.
Luigi Novi: You just love trying to sidestep the point, don’t you? The point was not how many arguments you used, and indeed, scrolling through my posts will show that I often use multiple lines of reasoning myself. The point was that you insisted that you were not appealing to numerical or quantitative considerations on the issue comparing crimes committed by atheist leaders and crimes committed by theist leaders, and then suddenly, you admitted you were. The problem, therefore, is not how many arguments you use. It’s that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Ben Lesar: I don’t care if it is irrelevant to the point you made. That point is irrelevant to the discussion. Don’t you remember why the discussion started? I’ll refresh your memory. It started when you made an erroneous claim that the Religious were responsible for more deaths than any one else, by far.
Luigi Novi: Nope. I never said that. Go ahead and scroll up.
Do I remember how the discussion started? Yeah. And I can go further than that. I can click on that little thing on the right side of my browser, scroll up, and do a bit of research (you know, that thing that paralogists, trolls, and bigots like you hate to do), and show you how it started. If you go to my June 6, 2:10pm and 7:51pm posts, you’ll see that my point, in particular in the latter of the two, in which I first responded to you, was that comparing the two was false, for the reasons I explained (and in greater detail and elaboration in subsequent posts). And you kept offering this anemic and thoughtless numbers argument, not merely to those here who did emphasize that notion, but to me, when I never did so.
But hey, if you can point out where I ever said that religion was responsible for more deaths, feel free to point it out to me.
I’ll be waiting here listening to the crickets.
Ben Lesar: You and Bill Mulligan seem to commit the same mistake in thinking that when I say that nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism that I am saying that all atheists are nihilists.
Luigi Novi: No. I did no such thing.
You said that nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism. That’s false. And I said it was false.
While I did not accuse you of saying all atheists are nihilists, it is reasonable to infer from your statement, at least as an implication, and to respond to that by asserting that I have no proclivities toward nihilism. I wonder if anyone does. But whether you said that or not, what you said in itself is false, merely by virtue of the definitions of those two words.
Ben Lesar: This would require that all atheists be logical. If the universe came into being by chance and for no purpose --because purpose requires a will, an intent—then there is no reason to believe there is meaning to life.
Luigi Novi: In your opinion. Meaning in life is subjective, and those who believe that there is no God or intelligent design to the universe most certainly see meaning in it, as I certainly do.
Ben Lesar: Similarly, without a God there is no reason to believe in objective moral values.
Luigi Novi: In your opinion. In the opinion of atheists, there’s plenty of reason to do so. The fact that your limited imagination prevents you from conceiving of this does not mean that such reasons do not exist. Morality, like all other behaviors, was not “prepared”, but evolved naturally in our species, and indeed, pre-moral behavior can be observed in non-human animals to this day. Morality prolongs not only individual organisms, but also the species. That’s why we have it. If you want a good book on this subject, read The Science of Good & Evil by Michael Shermer.
Ben Lesar: Show me how in a world without a God we would have purpose or objective morals. I have never encountered an atheist capable of doing either.
Luigi Novi: Bigots generally don’t encounter people who would break the mold of their provincial imaginations and perceptions precisely because they don’t want to. That’s why they’re bigots. Like the bigot who says he never encountered a smart black man or a smart Jew because he likely never sat down and had a conversation with such people of any meaningful length or depth, and without having decided at the outset that he was going to continue hating these people no matter what, so too can you not conceive of an atheist explaining to you how morality can exist in a world without God, because you don’t want one to. Since, however, I just explained to you above how morality exists in a Godless universe (which it does), it would be interesting to see what your response to that will be. If you respond positively, then you might show that you are not that typical bigot, in which case, I will offer an apology and my hand in friendship to you. If you dismiss it without investigating it, or ignore it completely as you’ve done so much of what I’ve said, then perhaps you’ll show that my initial impression formed upon your statement about nihilism was right after all.
Ball’s in your court, Ben.
Ben Lesar: They generally end up saying morals are a matter of personal opinion, which means what Stalin did was OK for him. “I disapprove” is a much weaker stance than “that’s evil.”
Luigi Novi: Strictly speaking, without qualification, morals are subjective, and not objective. They can only be objective if you first establish fundamental criteria as a reference point. Those of us in Western society, for example, mostly believe in freedom, equality, self-determination, individuality, self-government, individual rights, and that one should maximize one’s happiness while causing the least amount of unhappiness to others. Thus, the morality of an idea can be assessed with some degree of objectivity in reference to those criteria. But someone living in an indigenous tribe in the Amazon, Africa, or in a fundamentalist Islamic nation might not have those criteria. In that way, the differing moralities are subjective, because each morality is a result of the experience and biases accumulated in the culture in which one grew up. Objectivity refers to the ability to look at things without being affected by one’s biases or preconceptions. But the Western Christian and the Eastern fundamentalist Muslim will always form and express their conclusions through the prism of those biases, and thus, they will be subjective. Such things can only be objective when they are in reference to a set of criteria to which they can be fitted.
Ben Lesar: Thank you for being a foaming at the mouth loony who spreads death and chaos with a magic glow wand he found in a Cheerios box. Oh, you mean we weren’t thanking people for things they didn’t actually do? Oops. My bad.
Luigi Novi: You claim that a logical extension of lacking a belief in gods is believing that all morals, truths and values don’t exist, but I’m the foaming-at-the-mouth loony, even though for my part, I’ve never judged entire swaths of people merely for their religious persuasion or lack thereof, or any other superficial aspect of their personhood. Sure. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.
Ben Lesar: You know, when you don’t want people to think all atheists are genocidal maniacs (something I never claimed, BTW) you probably shouldn’t talk about your desire to monitor people you don’t like as good ol’ Uncle Joe and friends did. Just saying.
Luigi Novi: So believing that bigotry is best combated when you can expose it out in the open (“Sunlight is the best disinfectant”, as Louis Brandeis said) is akin to police state monitoring and genocide?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
I’ll spread that nugget of wisdom over to the ADL and Klanwatch, since they pretty much do exactly this. I’m sure that it’ll amuse them to hear that monitoring bigots in a manner within the law is akin to a police state.
You and Bill Mulligan seem to commit the same mistake in thinking that when I say that nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism that I am saying that all atheists are nihilists.This would require that all atheists be logical.
No, I object to calling nihilism a logical outgrowth of atheism. Nihilism is destructive and pointless; not believing in God would not make that any more appealing.
Show me how in a world without a God we would have purpose or objective morals. I have never encountered an atheist capable of doing either. They generally end up saying morals are a matter of personal opinion, which means what Stalin did was OK for him. “I disapprove” is a much weaker stance than “that’s evil.”
For starters, and I know this will sound bad to you, it is true that morals are a matter of opinion and of their times. What is evil now--slavery, for example--was considered perfectly normal in earlier times. Hell, one might argue that slavery, of the type used by the Romans in Christ's time, was a more humane solution to the problem of conquered people than later solutions proved to be. Many great men and women of history were products of their time and tolerated and considered moral things that we would find evil today.
Morality has evolved. Even in the Bible, which is why we aren't forced to live by some of the Old Testament codes.
I'm not an atheist. But could you tell me which of our moral rules is so illogical, so counter-intuitive that it could only have been forced on us by God? What is the moral rule that you must fight against breaking every day, stopped only by the thought that God would be displeased?
Also, if atheists have no reason to be moral and no basis on which to even know what morality is, why are there so many moral atheists?
If I'm running for president, it's no one's business what religious beliefs (if any) I subscribe to. You should be more concerned with whether I'd preserve, protect and defend the Constitution than whether I worship a god or goddess that requires virgins be sacrificed to cannibals; or cannibals sacrificed to virgins; or cannibal virgins sacrificed to zombies.
O.K., maybe under those circumstances, I might need to explain my belief systems, but anyone who subscribes to a religion that doesn't require human sacrifice (which is pretty much all of them) doesn't need to go into a detailed explanation of his or her religious beliefs or lack thereof.
But what about PAD's contention that it is a relevant question because our current president, "believes that he's operating at the personal behest of God."? Isn't it a fair question to ask whether a candidate believes he or she has a close working relationship with God?
Yes, it is. But there's a subtle difference between asking that question and demanding detailed information about one's religious beliefs. That second question should only come up if the answer to the first is "yes." After all, if a candidate does not have a personal working relationship with God, it doesn't matter whether he or she believes in God or not.
Could a candidate lie about his or her answer? Yes, but he or she could lie about anything. Jason M. Bryant calls Bush "an egotist who uses God as a justification." If that's true, then Bush simply said what he knew a key segment of his political base wanted to hear about his religious beliefs.
The way a candidate will say what he or she thinks people want to hear about the war, taxes, gas prices, NAFTA, the environment, poverty, and numerous other subjects.
If I say I've been a practicing Catholic since birth; that I attend mass every Sunday (and on every Catholic holy day as well); that I was an altar boy as a child and am a lay minister as an adult; does that tell you what sort of president I'll be?
What if I say I was raised Catholic, but have since left the church? That I don't believe Jesus was divine, but that he did have important things to say about how we should live our lives and relate to other people- a viewpoint echoed by both Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? What if I say I try to live my life according to such principles, to the best of my ability; but that I don't believe membership in an organized religion is required to do so? Does that tell you what sort of president I'd be?
And in the former example, how much would my showing up for mass every Sunday show and tell you what I believe? I could just be going through the motions.
On the other hand, if I claim to have lived a life that has put the needs of others before my own, then presumably my actions would either verify or refute my words.
On another note, Hitman said, "The average person most of the times abdicates their right to think for themselves and follows a herd mentality."
Sad to say, that's very true. The Detroit Free Press used to have a feature called "sound off", in which people would call in and leave their comments regarding whether they agree or disagree with a specific issue. Hitman's statement reminds me of a "sound off" answer from the early to mid 1980s (I forget the actual topic): "I let Reagan do my thinking for me."
Let's hope that person was making a sarcastic comment. You should never let anyone do your thinking for you. But most people do it; probably because it requires less effort.
Back to religion, Bill Myers said, "I haven't yet met a Christian who doesn't feel as though their values are "under attack" -- in a nation that is predominantly Christian!!!"
Crap! I must be doing something wrong. I've never felt that way. Granted I'm no longer a practicing Catholic, but I was raised in a Christian belief system, and haven't since converted to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism or any other ism.
Actually, Bill, I can't consider people like that to be true Christians. If Jesus were alive today, I'm guessing he wouldn't, either.
Rick
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 8, 2007 05:37 PM
The point is, you have offered a criticism, and I think I have the right to ask you to back it up, just I think that you have the right to offer it.
Luigi, rather than offering a justification of my criticisms, instead I'm going to offer you some insight into why I'm choosing to walk away from this conversation...
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 8, 2007 03:26 PM
I also used the non-hypothetical example of natural selection above, and you didn’t respond to that. Why is this?
Because there are only so many hours in a day, and only so many days in a lifetime. Because this isn't a court of law or a doctoral dissertation. Because I'm not as concerned with arriving at definitive answers to certain questions as I once was.
By the way, I cracked open my big-ass Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, and one of the definitions it offers for atheism is, "The doctrine or belief that there is no God." Apparently, someone besides myself believes that atheism can indeed be a doctrine. Whoo-hoo! I win!
Just kidding. :P
Some online research reveals that some dictionaries include the word "doctrine" in the definition of "atheism" and some don't. I've decided that the issue is worth exploring -- at my own pace, in my own way, without worrying about refuting this or that or determining who is right and who is wrong or arriving at a definitive answer.
That is why I'm walking away from this particular conversation, Luigi. If this leads you to conclude that my "criticisms" of you amount to so much "verbal flatulence," so be it. I've got bigger fish to fry and I'm certain you do as well. So let's mix our metaphors and call this water under the bridge. :-)
Posted by: Rick Keating at June 9, 2007 01:45 PM
Back to religion, Bill Myers said, "I haven't yet met a Christian who doesn't feel as though their values are "under attack" -- in a nation that is predominantly Christian!!!"
Crap! I must be doing something wrong. I've never felt that way. Granted I'm no longer a practicing Catholic, but I was raised in a Christian belief system, and haven't since converted to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism or any other ism.
Rick, apparently I did a poor job of making myself clear and I'm sorry about that. The passage you quoted was part of my response to Bill Mulligan's post about how decent Christians often feel pissed off when lumped in with the less decent ones. I was simply trying to illustrate the other side of that coin by sharing some of the thoughts and feelings I have in reaction to having my own spiritual views belittled and willfully misconstrued by some of the very mainstream Christians that I know.
My point (which I apparently did a poor job of making) was to demonstrate the futility of playing "dueling stereotypes." Because just as you can always find an example of someone on "the other side" who acts like an asshole, "the other side" can always find someone on "your side" who does the same.
And as I said, in my more rational moments I've come to recognize that I possess some of the same flaws I see in many of the Christians that I know. I'm not quite as different from them as I'd like to believe.
Mr. Lesar has done some convenient rewriting of history so it would fit his thesis. I am hesitant to continue this discussion, since I'm not sure we share the same plane of reality. Still, some issues do need addressing:
1) Re: antisemitism.
According to Mr. Lesar, antisemitism just happens everywhere there are Jews, and there's no connection to Christianity whatsoever.
Conveniently for him, there is some evidence of antisemitism prior to Christianity among Greek and Romans (and one biblical story in Persia). Of course these too were religion related. The Jews were certainly odd with their monotheistic religion in the polytheistic sincratic greco-roman world. I don't know of any signs of antisemitism among germanic or celtic barbarians. You also have to remember that some of the friction between Jews and Romans was political, since the Jews rebeled. And also that the greeks and the Romans assumed that everybody but themselves, including the Jews, were barbarians.
However all this does not change the fact that the situation of the Jews took a turn to the worst with Christianity and Islam. There were Jews who lived in parts of the world that were neither Christian nor Muslim, and I don't know if any of them suffered anti-semitism, but the vast majority of the Jews have lived in a world dominated by two religions that emerged from and sought to replace Judaism. And in both cases this resulted in centuries of theologically justified antisemitism that only came to an end with the emergence of secularism in the modern era (when it gained new secular layers of antisemitism). No historical rewriting by Mr. Lesar can change the fact that it was Christian theology, Christian beliefs and Christian governments that were the source of antisemitism in Europe and the New World for hundreds of years.
Mr. Lesar talks about antisemitism in post-Christian Europe. It should be noted that Europe is not as non-Christian nor as antisemitic as he thinks. Hundreds of years of christian history are not erased in one generation. In any case, the sources for European antisemitism today are (a) the continuation of the old antisemitism that has most of its roots in Christianity;
(b) antisemitism by Muslim immigrants, the sources of which are a religion Islam, and antisemitic ideas imported from Europe, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by the very Christian government of Czarist Russia. (c) antisemitic Soviet attitudes which are also decendants of the Christian ideas.
Even in parts of the world that are mostly not Christian, like Japan, antisemitic or philosemitic attitudes seem to have been imported from Europe. A quick research on Gahndi suggests that he was not antisemitic but antizionist, and very naive or unweilding in his pacificism. I dislike these attitudes too, but they are not antisemitism. And even if Gahndi may have harbored deep down some prejudices toward Jews, it is wrong to mention him in the same scale as Hitler, and it is most likely that he got these notions from the western Christian world (if they existed), they did not emerge on their own.
2) Re: Jewish assimilation.
as long as Jews existed they had, and they stil have to find a way to keep their unique identity while interacting with the non-Jewish world, and assimilation has always been an issue. In a sense, the rules of Orthodox Judaism are designed to help isolate the Jews. However, their is a large specturm of ways in which Jews try to balance between complete assimilation and complete isolation, starting from those who live in isolated communities dressed in their unique clothing with their unique laws, to those who converted completely to Christianity or Islam, with a lot of different ways in between picked by the majority of Jews. All of these ways have their problems.
In any case, jews suffered antisemitism both for isolating themselves too much and for assimilating too much. In the pre-modern Christian and Muslim world they did not have an option but to either assimilate completely by conversion or to be legally segregated. In the modern secularized world Jews had the option, in principle, to pick their own balance between assimilation and keeping their identity. although, as you know, this principle did not always work in practice, and it did not solve the problem of antisemitism, although it seems to have lessened it.
3) Re: kiling by christian governments throughout history.
In Mr. Lesar's adapted version of history there is no connection between the deaths of indians and Christian government. it was an accident. Accidents happen. I doubt anybody with even basic knowledge of history wil buy that. The peoples of America (and Ausrralia) were the victims of more than an unfortunate accident. Mr. Lesar chooses to ignore the link and quote I provided: "But while introduced disease devastated native populations, colonial brutality and economic dislocation also played significant roles. Rummel, for example, estimates a total of approximately 13.7 million democides (deliberate killings) of native Americans in the colonial and post-colonial eras.[5] The population reduction, sometimes by government policy and sometimes not, of the Natives of South and North America by Europeans is estimated to be one of the largest and longest in history.[6] (See also cultural genocide)."
Mr. Lesar also says avoids the unpleasantness of slavery by saying that Christian countries were the first to abolish it. But to abolish it they needed to have practiced it, which they certainly had, for centuries.
And he completely ignores all the wars, religious wars and crusades (not only against Muslims) that are part and parcel of the history of the Christian world.
4) Re: Atheism, nihilism, and genocide
Luigi and Bill Mulligan already answered it very well. It is only in the mind of a fanatically religious person that the removal of belief in god must result in nihilism and genocide, because for such a person, without this external source of morality all you have is nothing. aside from my personal disllike to the idea that you need the fear of an external force to behave moraly, this assumption ignores two important facts:
(a) That the morality of the religious world is just as dependant of subjectivity and shifting human attitudes as that of atheists.
(b) That atheists were and are capable of forming moral systems without god. These systems are based on moral principles that are connected to human life rather than falling down on us from the sky, but they are as real as Christian morality. Communism, ironically, is such a system, and just like Christian morality, it could result in some ugly consequences.
“So which would you say about the owner of this site? That he isn’t a Jew?”
My understanding has always been that PAD is not a religious Jew. He practices Hanukah to be sure, but I believe he has said before that he holds an agnostic position regarding the existence of God. Until the last one hundred years or so most Jews did not do so. We were speaking of historical anti-Semitism so I was referring to what the majority of Jews historically were (religious) that led them not to assimilate. That I was speaking in the present tense does not matter because I was using a historical definition. I specified that I was not refering merely to ethnicity earlier, so don't claim I am making this up after the fact.
“I don’t see how encountering anti-Semitism wherever they go means that it isn’t religiously derived. This is just another non-sequitur.”
You said it was derived from Christianity specifically, not just religion. Christianity is not responsible for Gandhi’s anti-Semitism; ergo Christianity cannot be the cause of anti-Semitism.
“The point was that you insisted that you were not appealing to numerical or quantitative considerations on the issue comparing crimes committed by atheist leaders and crimes committed by theist leaders, and then suddenly, you admitted you were. The problem, therefore, is not how many arguments you use. It’s that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.”
I never admitted to doing such a thing. I raised a new argument. I never said, “This is what I have been saying all along.” I said, “Speaking of which, Luigi, numbers do matter.”
“Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 6, 2007 02:10 PM
Jason M. Bryant: Bush believes that he's right and God is simply his justification for it. Atheists are just as capable of feeling a moral imperative; they'll just use different buzzwords to justify it.
Luigi Novi: In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it's derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that's the derivation of one's actions, atheists can't compare. Not by far.”
Ok, my memory is faulty. This was the post I was thinking of. Although my response was proper in proving the claim wrong it is true that the claim was not specifically related to genocide… even if all evils are implicit in your claim. Mea culpa. All the same, I was right that the discussion was never about whether the respective philosophies (atheism and Christianity) justified the actions, but that it seemed to have started on the basis of "who does more evil."
“Meaning in life is subjective, and those who believe that there is no God or intelligent design to the universe most certainly see meaning in it, as I certainly do.”
By definition being subjective renders meaning a matter of opinion… and not a fact. That means you don’t believe meaning is something that exists, but something that you make up. That is no meaning at all.
“Since, however, I just explained to you above how morality exists in a Godless universe (which it does), it would be interesting to see what your response to that will be. If you respond positively, then you might show that you are not that typical bigot, in which case, I will offer an apology and my hand in friendship to you. If you dismiss it without investigating it, or ignore it completely as you’ve done so much of what I’ve said, then perhaps you’ll show that my initial impression formed upon your statement about nihilism was right after all.”
You ignored my use of the world “objective.” This means that something is right or wrong regardless of what people approve or disapprove of. To say that what is best for the species is a universal law is completely unfounded. I might also point out that using what is best for the species as a guide it is a moral imperative to kill “undesirables” who are a waste of resources and pollute the gene pool. They must be eliminated for the betterment of mankind! Sound familiar?
“I’ve never judged entire swaths of people merely for their religious persuasion or lack thereof, or any other superficial aspect of their personhood.”
I would like to know when I have done so.
“I'm not an atheist. But could you tell me which of our moral rules is so illogical, so counter-intuitive that it could only have been forced on us by God? What is the moral rule that you must fight against breaking every day, stopped only by the thought that God would be displeased?”
You are not getting the point. If morality is subjective that means taking little children up on to a stage and cutting them up with chainsaws for sport is not evil, but merely something many people happen to disapprove of. That means that if enough people happened to think it was ok –or in Luigi’s case, if it was best for the species—than it would be. If you can believe in such a world that is your choice.
“Also, if atheists have no reason to be moral and no basis on which to even know what morality is, why are there so many moral atheists?”
To the first part, most atheists don’t realize what their philosophy logically entails. To the second, they have a Christian cultural tradition to emulate. They are moral parasites, leeching off morals that suit them and discarding just a few that don’t.
“That atheists were and are capable of forming moral systems without god. These systems are based on moral principles that are connected to human life rather than falling down on us from the sky, but they are as real as Christian morality. Communism, ironically, is such a system, and just like Christian morality, it could result in some ugly consequences.“
This is another thing I have never seen atheists actually formulate. An original moral system. Communism is not a moral system, but rather a philosophy of government that always has led to ugly consequences.
"By definition being subjective renders meaning a matter of opinion… and not a fact. That means you don’t believe meaning is something that exists, but something that you make up. That is no meaning at all."
No. When person X loves person y, that love is subjective, but it is also an undeiable fact.
The meaning of the word 'love' is subjective. Their is nothing objective about this combination of symbols that makes their meaning love. It is just a social norm accepted by english speakers. Yet it is an undeniable fact that the word 'love' means love, and all the meanings associated with this word. Although love is a psychological, sociological, biological, linguistic, literary entity, without any 'objective' existence, nevertheless it exists, and is very real and very meaningful. So it is with morality.
Communism is a system of ethics, politics, history, and economy. It is completely meaningless without its moral component.
"they have a Christian cultural tradition to emulate. They are moral parasites, leeching off morals that suit them and discarding just a few that don’t."
Maybe Christianity is the parasite leeching on Judaism and/or the Greco-Roman traditions and/or the germanic traditions? and what about Mao. China has little Christian tradition, who are they leeching on, Confucius, Budha, the Tao? Or maybe everybody is leeching on everybody else and it all goes down to moral principles that are deeply embedded in humanity as a whole?
"Christianity is not responsible for Gandhi’s anti-Semitism; ergo Christianity cannot be the cause of anti-Semitism."
1) Gahndi was not anti-semite.
2) even if he were, he could have aquired his anti-semitism from his contact with western Christian culture.
3) Christianity is not the cause of anti-semitism. Antisemitism has many causes and has been growing and developing over time. But neither is Christianity completely innocent of antisemitism. It did its share to promote it for its own reasons.
4) You were not only talking about Christianity in the abstract, but Christian governments. And Christian governments did promote antisemitism. And they did so much more than Indian or Chinese governments.
"You are not getting the point. If morality is subjective that means taking little children up on to a stage and cutting them up with chainsaws for sport is not evil, but merely something many people happen to disapprove of. That means that if enough people happened to think it was ok –or in Luigi’s case, if it was best for the species—than it would be. If you can believe in such a world that is your choice."
The world we live in is a world in which humans create morality. This is true even if the promoters of the morality slap on it the label of god sanctioned morality. Yet I think it is in humans to know that it is immoral to kill children even without that label, based solely on their humanity.
You are not getting the point. If morality is subjective that means taking little children up on to a stage and cutting them up with chainsaws for sport is not evil, but merely something many people happen to disapprove of. That means that if enough people happened to think it was ok –or in Luigi’s case, if it was best for the species—than it would be. If you can believe in such a world that is your choice.
Whereas if morality is objective, then even if everyone thinks it's not okay to kill children of another culture by dashing them against stones, it has to be morally right as long as the text that's the basis of that objective morality says it is. (Not a hypothetical example, BTW.) That's the logical consequence of your position, no matter how much you try to deny the connection.
Also, if there is one objectively correct moral system, how is someone supposed to know which one it is? There are a lot of moral systems out there, many of them claiming to be the only true one. How do people generally choose? A combination of a) happenstance (either the prevailing system of the culture they're born into or of their family), b) which one they like best, and/or c) faith. None of these are inherently objective methods. Viewed objectively, any moral system could be the correct one; maybe the ancient Aztecs were right all along, and we've been getting it wrong every since. To make the jump from "one [theistic] system must be objectively correct" to add "and I think it's this one" has no objective component.
You are not getting the point. If morality is subjective that means taking little children up on to a stage and cutting them up with chainsaws for sport is not evil, but merely something many people happen to disapprove of. That means that if enough people happened to think it was ok –or in Luigi’s case, if it was best for the species—than it would be. If you can believe in such a world that is your choice.
I don't know what depresses me more. The atheist's view of a world lacking any extrinsic meaning or you Christian guys believing we humans are so deeply flawed and fallen that the only thing stopping us all from killing babies is a stern God threatening us with eternal burning.
I think I might become a Wiccan. Or something.
Other then my one brief post above that was written before my morning coffee, I've stayed away from this thread. I figured it would take no time at all for some corners to devolve the discussion into "my religion is good and those that don't subscribe to it are bad" in some way, shape or form.
And on the other side of the spectrum are the guys that seem just as ready to bash the concept of religion at a moments notice. Someone will eventually be throwing the rhetorical feces of the "without religion, we wouldn't have these problems" argument into the mix to counter the other extreme.
Religious debates of that nature just get so old so fast. Mostly because idiots on all sides want to wave their huge belief system around at others as bigger and better in order to compensate for other deficiencies.
Here's the deal in two parts.
Part 1: Religion doesn't matter one damn bit in the grand scheme of things. Not at all. Not one stinking little bit.
You think Bush is a nutter who does damned foolish things because he believes that he and God are on buddy-buddy terms and that god wants him doing these things? Fine. Do you really believe that Bush would act the least bit different today if he weren't using religion as his personal crutch? No, he wouldn't. He'd do exactly what he's doing now, but the stated rational would be different. His excuse for why he's right would be different, but he would be the same.
Would Stalin have been all peace and good will to his people had he been sitting in the pews every Sunday with a Bible in his hand? No, he wouldn't have been. If anything had changed at all, he would likely have just been a religious fanatic who used faith to kill, murder and oppress.
Would Mother Teresa or any of the various affectionately revered figures in religious history acted differently if they were removed from the Church? Likely not. They may not have started their journeys in the same way or as early, but they would have likely ended up doing with their lives just what they did before.
Religion means exactly jack-all. The person and who and what they are at their core is what matters.
Part 2: Religion means absolutely everything to a human being. Religion is what allows people to make sense of their lives and the world around them.
I know people who have hit frightening lows in their lives and the only thing that kept them going was their faith. My mother talked to me a few times about what she went through when my father was in Korea and Vietnam and what went in to her being able to deal with that. It was pure faith. I've met people on the street who have absolutely nothing but the cloths on their backs and their faith and they refuse to give in to despair or turn to crime. Why? They believe that this time in their lives is just a trial to get through and that things will get better down the road. All they heave is their faith and they won't give it up or betray it.
But, going back to Part 1, I know several atheists who have been through just as much and came out just as well in the end.
It aint the belief that matters as much as it is the person who holds it.
Yeah, you can keep screaming "STALIN" and "EVIL ATHEIST GOVERNMENTS IN HISTORY all thread long, but I can do the reverse. I can point out The Inquisitions (note the plural as there were quite a few of them under the banner of God's name), The Crusades, The many cases of the Church spreading its reach in medieval times by joining with the crown and outlawing by pain of death the practice of any but the approved religion, the many historical cases of expansion that involved "converting" the locals at sword point and killing some of those that refused to convert or even those case too stupid to believe at first glance.
The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 proclaimed the doctrine of transubstantiation: that the host wafer miraculously turns into the body of Jesus during the mass. Soon rumors spread that Jews were stealing the sacred wafers and stabbing or driving nails through them to crucify Jesus again. Reports said that the pierced host bled, cried out, or emitted spirits. On this charge, Jews were burned at the stake in 1243 in Belitz, Germany -- the first of many killings that continued into the 1800s. To avenge the tortured host, the German knight Rindfliesch led a brigade in 1298 that exterminated 146 defenseless Jewish communities in six months
Oliver Cromwell was deemed a moderate because he massacred only Catholics and Anglicans, not other Protestants. After decimating an Anglican army, Cromwell said, "God made them as stubble to our swords." He demanded the beheading of the defeated King Charles I, and made himself the holy dictator of England during the 1650s. When his army crushed the hated Irish Catholics, he ordered the execution of the surrendered defenders of Drogheda and their priests, calling it "a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches."
When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.
In 1209, Pope Innocent III launched an armed crusade against Albigenses Christians in southern France. When the besieged city of Beziers fell, soldiers reportedly asked their papal adviser how to distinguish the faithful from the infidel among the captives. He commanded: "Kill them all. God will know his own." This was a misunderstood reference to 2 Tim. 2:19 which in part reads, "The Lord knoweth them that are his" Nearly 20,000 were slaughtered. Many were first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses, or used for target practice.
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared in launching the Second Crusade: "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."
Pope Pius II wrote Historia de duobus amantibus, a hugely popular and largely pornographic novel just before becoming Pope.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 9, 2007 03:34 AM
If the universe came into being by chance and for no purpose --because purpose requires a will, an intent—then there is no reason to believe there is meaning to life.
Really? How about just life itself. I don"t know about you, but I enjoy learning new things, experiencing new things, being with friends, testing the limits of what I can do physically and mentally, being creative, spending time with my wife, thinking about my soon to be born poop generator, watching schlock horror, etc. It never crosses my mind whether or not anything I'm doing at any time that I'm doing it is the God chosen purpose of my life so that I can feel as though it has meaning. Just because you cannot in any way fathom that someone can enjoy life just for what it is and not have to believe that their life is being guided by a divine hand or rulebook doesn't mean that others cannot do it. I simply enjoy life for what it is 90% of the time . Atheists do the same thing, they just do it 100% of the time.
Similarly, without a God there is no reason to believe in objective moral values. We become merely chemicals wrapped in fleshy bags. Why would a universe created by chance have somehow been prepared with a set of moral laws for a species that didn’t even exist yet? Please go ahead and prove me wrong on either morals or purpose. Show me how in a world without a God we would have purpose or objective morals. I have never encountered an atheist capable of doing either.
Easy. In the words of an atheist friend of mine, it's just simple human kindness.
He was an atheist raised by a set of atheist parents. He was also one of the most honest and decent people I've ever known. He would explain his foundation for his core moral beliefs like this:
Do you feel bed when someone steals something from you?
Do you like the feeling you get when you learn that someone has lied to you and damaged the trust you had in them?
Do you like the feeling that rips at your gut when someone you love cheats on you or betrays you in some manner along those lines?
If someone you know dies from natural causes, an accident or by the hand of another, does it hurt and do you miss them.
Then why on earth would you believe that any sane, healthy, normal person would feel the opposite of you? Why would it be right to try and hurt someone else if you yourself don't like to be hurt. If you don't like people doing that stuff to you then you damn sure know that others don't like it being done to them either.
A good person, even one without religion, knows that treating others in a manner that you yourself want to be treated is a pretty good thing while doing to other the exact opposite of what you feel good about having done to you makes you, at best, a world class jerk.
He even had one point that I was always hard pressed to come up with a good argument for. His contention was that moral atheists were actually more moral then their religious counterparts. Why? Well, an atheist believes that he's going to die in the end and that it is the end. They don't believe that they're going anywhere else after death other then maybe haunting the Playboy Mansion. They don't believe that their is a reward given for living a good life once you die.
In other words, they're not being bribed into being a good person. They're not being a good person or trying to live a good life because they believe that they'll get something for it in the end.
They're also not working from a perspective of fear. They don't believe that they have to be good or else they face eternal damnation and punishment. If they're a good person and living a good life, then it's because they believe in being a good person and nothing else. No bribes and no intimidation needed in order to be a "good" person.
They generally end up saying morals are a matter of personal opinion, which means what Stalin did was OK for him. “I disapprove” is a much weaker stance than “that’s evil.”
No, sorry, but that's mostly crap.
For one thing, saying that atheism=moral relativism is only as true as the person you're with. I can point out entire loads of bloviating and hypocritical religious people who engage in moral relativism all the time. Some of them even do it from a pulpit. I can also point out a whole lot of atheists who will tell you point blank that murder is wrong no matter where it's done or by who.
And guess what? You believe that morals are a matter of personal opinion. You believe that your morals are right for you. I'm sure you wish some others in the world believes as you do. Some people do things that you just flat know is wrong and you say as much. Murder seems to be your favorite example. But what about other things that are less extreme then murder?
Do you condemn those who hold the religious belief that their life should be devoid of modern sciences and technology? What about people who refuse to partake of certain foods during certain times of the year or on certain days? What about people who just plain refuse to shave their beards off? Are they evil for believing as you do not? Would you like it if they pointed out your "moral relativism" as a sign of being soft on evil?
How about redemption by faith? Not even all of the various forms of the Christian faith hold to that one in the exact same manner. How about Catholics and the crucifix? The worship of idols or graven images is idolatry. Isn't there a thing about that kind of sinning in one of those commandment thingees? Something about not doing it if I recall correctly.
Do you commit idolatry, Ben? does your personal moral relativism excuse you from not committing idolatry? And if you don't worship in such a manner, do you frequently condemn the Catholics and others you know who do with the equal vigor that you condemn atheist for non-belief or Stalin for murder? Hey, God's rules are God's rules.
There isn't one person on the face of this earth, atheist or devoutly religious, who isn't guilty of moral relativism. Some are just worse about it then others. But, again, it's got nothing to do with the faith and everything to do with the person.
Both sides are wrong here. The one is not inherently better or worse then the other. Both have been used by bad people to do bad things throughout history. Both have members of their respective belief systems that are truly extraordinarily good people.
To be massively redundant here: (Sing it with me one more time!) It's not the belief that makes a person good or bad, it's the person.
You are not getting the point. If morality is subjective that means taking little children up on to a stage and cutting them up with chainsaws for sport is not evil, but merely something many people happen to disapprove of. That means that if enough people happened to think it was ok –or in Luigi’s case, if it was best for the species—than it would be. If you can believe in such a world that is your choice.
Wow, I spent all that time typing and this is what you come up with in the meantime? I'm sorry, but I just don't see the majority of humans out there as that flawed. If you do, and it's what makes you happy about your faith and able to feel smugly superior to others, then fine. But it's not really worth attempting debate with you and your rather silly extremes anymore then it would be if an idiot came here and went on about how all of life's evils and woes were the fault of religion and if only we could get rid of that hateful, evil thing...
Yeah, you're not too far off of being the other side of the same coin. Anything fun going on at the zombie thread? Damn. Back to the real world for a while then.
Ben Lesar, I had begun to formulate a response to you, but realized that doing so would be like talking to the north end of a southbound donkey. You're not making any sense and you're not smart enough to realize it.
If you really care about Christianity, you'll stop making the religion look bad by trying to be one of its standard-bearers and let more intelligent Christians do the representing.
If you really care about Christianity, you'll stop making the religion look bad by trying to be one of its standard-bearers and let more intelligent Christians do the representing.
Hey, I got a better idea. How about not representing at all? And I don't just mean Ben here or just those of a religious bent.
Seriously, who the hell really gives a damn, outside of the massively annoying and anal, what the hell somebody else believes. If the person next door isn't sacrificing babies under the moonlight, killing virgins and drinking their blood or some other crazy extreme that some here could throw out and they're actually a pretty good, honest and decent person... THEN WHO THE F**K CARES IF THEY BELIEVE IN GOD, VISHNU, OBATALA, NOTHING AT ALL OR LITTLE GREEN MEN FROM MARS?
Then again, Tars Tarkas was from Mars and he wasn't so little. But I digress...
Religion ain't the problem. It never really has been. The problem has almost always been with people having to prove just how great their religion is and just how false/poor/crappy/wrong/evil/etc. somebody else's is just because they can't fathom that somewhere along the line someone made a personal choice about their most sacred belief that that they won't approve of and just can't abide.
Get over it. I have a huge group of friends that covers just about every group but Satanists, Caininites and Scientologists. You know why we're all friends and we can get along? Because we're fine and dandy with not trying to convert each other to "the one true" way to live and believe. We can respect each others views without being insulting towards each others beliefs and still somehow manage to live with ourselves.
I know it's harder for some out there and maybe even impossible for a few, but in the end it's likely what whatever creator that may or may not have created us will likely look upon with greater pleasure then the pinheads who have to shovel their crap onto others while invoking his/her/its will as the excuse for ill manners and bad company.
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at June 9, 2007 08:49 PM
Hey, I got a better idea. How about not representing at all? And I don't just mean Ben here or just those of a religious bent.
Jerry, please understand, I too have friends of different faiths and friends who have no spiritual faiths. I was trying -- and apparently failing -- to make it clear that my problem is not with Christians in general but with Ben in particular, and that my problem with him is not his Christianity but his stupidity.
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, Cult of the Fifth-Dimensional Cyborg Monkey Space Aliens... in my eyes it's all good as long as you don't murder people or take a whiz on my garage door or anything like that.
Bill, I understood. That wasn't pointed in your direction. It was more a generalized expression of fed-uppyness that was just playing off of your statement. My fault for not being a wee bit more clear.
I have no problem with theological discussions. I love 'em. I love getting into the thick of it and discussing the differences and similarities that all religions have. I love looking at the, sometimes comical, ways that modern texts went a little astray from what was originally written or meant. Hell, there are old copies of Christian scripture where the first writers or the later monks who worked on them have written side notes that threaten others over taking creative license to "fix" a passage here or there. Great stuff.
What I go off on is the stupidity of Bible thumpers and trumpet blasters. I take issue with anyone taking something as profoundly beautiful as faith and turning it into a bludgeoning tool. And it's not only here that I'm a little short about it. I've got family that are on my "block sender" list on my email because of it. I'll only request that you don't send me a cut-and-paste of the weekly AFA, Robertson, Fallwel or whatever crap to save my soul or to get me to Take action against Mighty Mouse, Ozzy or that "Stealth Muslim" Obama.
I've got a few holy rollers in my family that are in about the same doghouse with me that I keep for my drug ridden, con-artist uncle. I think that religion is a great and wonderful thing. I like faith a lot better, but you get take what you can get out of life. I just can't stand the pinheads who, rather then simply discuss why they're faith is good, have to attack others' faith or lack of same.
You, Micha, His High Lordship of the Zombie Kingdom and several others here were in no way, shape or form that target of that remark. You guys have been defending the one positions without attacking or slandering the other position. I tend to think from you alls' remarks that you can in some way be said to be in agreement with my boiled down point of it being waaaaaayyyy more about the person or people then about the faith (or lack thereof) that they claim to represent.
There should be..
"..so many times before I get fed up with asking you."
up there after "Obama."
Sorry 'bout that.
Geez, I'm just fill of mustakes and tipos tonyght.
Time to cut back the overtime this month and work on getting more sleep. My mild dyslexia is kicking back in.
Posted by: Bill Myers at June 9, 2007 09:39 PM
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, Cult of the Fifth-Dimensional Cyborg Monkey Space Aliens... in my eyes it's all good as long as you don't murder people or take a whiz on my garage door or anything like that.
But, I... Well... You know...
-Rex Hondo-
His High Lordship of the Zombie Kingdom
I hope that was directed at me. I'm getting a t-shirt made.
Rex, just be glad that he hasn't yet worked out what really killed his rose bushes...
But, I... Well... You know...
Told ya to stop doing that to people's doors, Hondo, but does anyone around here listen to me? MY, those crickets are loud.
And now Mulligan's got a title. I'll use it, BUT I WON'T BOW DOWN!
If Mulligan actually managed to get those necromancers from Micha's living room motivatedenough to command a zombie army for him, perhaps he would make a sufficient ruler, after all.
-Rex Hondo-
I said, "Back to religion, Bill Myers said, "I haven't yet met a Christian who doesn't feel as though their values are "under attack" -- in a nation that is predominantly Christian!!!"
"Crap! I must be doing something wrong. I've never felt that way. Granted I'm no longer a practicing Catholic, but I was raised in a Christian belief system, and haven't since converted to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism or any other ism."
Bill Myers replied: "Rick, apparently I did a poor job of making myself clear and I'm sorry about that."
Bill, maybe you didn't make yourself clear; but then again, maybe you did and I didn't make myself clear. In quoting me, you overlooked that last- and I think key- paragraph on the subject: "Actually, Bill, I can't consider people like that to be true Christians. If Jesus were alive today, I'm guessing he wouldn't, either."
I know you were illustrating a point to Bill Mulligan with your "diatribe", but some of your comments- such as the point that "people who would raise a stink if I dare to question their beliefs have no problem ostentatiously saying Christian grace before meals IN MY HOUSE..."- gave me the impression that you don't consider such hypocrites to be true Christians. And that was one reason you were calling them on their hypocrisy (even as you illustrated a point to Bill Mulligan). My last paragraph was meant as agreement with that assessment.
In short: I get the impression that you're saying certain people who call themselves Christian but don't act in a very Christian manner aren't Christian. They're hypocrites.
I'm saying that viewpoint is correct.
Granted, we're all hypocrites at one time or another, but some of these so-called Christians seem to embrace their hypocrisy. Though, to be fair, some of them may not even be aware that they're being hypocritical.
You mentioned your parents. I'm going to assume that like the majority of the country, they're decent, law-abiding citizens who try to live their lives as best they can, and don't set out to cause deliberate harm to anyone. They just disagree with a certain aspect of your personal life. The thing is, I can't imagine Jesus would be bothered by the fact that you live "in sin" with your girlfriend. At least not to the point where he'd refuse to come to your house.
He hung out with "sinners" all the time, even (horrors!) tax collectors. If Jesus wouldn't be bothered by your "sinning", why should your parents be? Perhaps they've lost sight of what Christianity is really about. If that's the case, then their level of hypocrisy isn't, um... as hypocritical as certain members of the televangelist community. Like I said, they might not even be aware of their hypocrisy.
If so, they deserve your sympathy and/or pity. Perhaps you can get through to them one day.
On the other hand, those who knowingly and willingly embrace their hypocrisy- and go so far as to attack and belittle people of other faiths (or no faith, as the case may be)- deserve little more than disdain.
Again, if I read you right, I think we're in general agreement about the difference between Christians and those who call themselves that.
If I read you wrong (and/or I did a poor job of expressing myself in this message), then the lack of clarity continues, and we'll probably end up wandering (metaphorically) through a thick fog, bumping into things.
Rick
In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it's derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that's the derivation of one's actions, atheists can't compare. Not by far.
How is any attempt to employ language (which we depend on to form rationalizations) to represent experience (our observations are not rational -- they simply are) not rationalizing the irrational?
The death toll of all the crusades is supposed to total about one million. Stalin or Mao killed more people in the average year. Both were atheist governments.
That doesn't automatically mean the resolve to kill is tied to the disbelief in god. Darwin misapplied the phrase coined by Herbert Spencer, "survival of the fittest," as a chapter title in Origin of Species. Because natural selection has been used to portray dominance as a virtue, examples of the kind of ideological purges you are refering to can be made regardless of a belief in a creator.
Gandhi was an anti-Semitist....
Christianity is not responsible for Gandhi's anti-Semitism...
Not that I believe that a man who famously said "Yes I am [Hindu], I am also a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew" was incapable of an inconsistency, but is there a quote you can refer to to back this up?
Show me how in a world without a God we would have purpose or objective morals. I have never encountered an atheist capable of doing either.
Where god leaves no evidence of Himself, how does religion make available an objective morality?
As for purpose, do you not devote time to listening to music, or have you removed that purposeless activity from your lifestyle? What great art isn't justified primarily as something that hogs as much of your time as it can get away with?
If morality is subjective that means taking little children up on to a stage and cutting them up with chainsaws for sport is not evil...
...and your genetic line would die out, with the genetic line of people who instinctively protect their children or -- even better -- families who socialize together to do so would fill in to consume the resources that sustain us all. Morality is not needed to justify something that can be justified by a little reproductive self-interest.
“Maybe Christianity is the parasite leeching on Judaism and/or the Greco-Roman traditions and/or the germanic traditions? and what about Mao. China has little Christian tradition, who are they leeching on, Confucius, Budha, the Tao? Or maybe everybody is leeching on everybody else and it all goes down to moral principles that are deeply embedded in humanity as a whole?”
If atheists are not moral parasites, then why do they adopt the morality of their host culture? I don’t see atheists in the West denying most of Christian morality, only a very few things that don’t suit them.
“Christianity is not the cause of anti-semitism. Antisemitism has many causes and has been growing and developing over time. But neither is Christianity completely innocent of antisemitism. It did its share to promote it for its own reasons.”
You can say that people claiming to be Christians (whether they were or weren’t isn’t mine to judge) shared in promoting it, but not that Christianity is responsible. How could it be when the Bible says that Jews are God’s chosen people. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity is not in any way responsible.
“The world we live in is a world in which humans create morality. This is true even if the promoters of the morality slap on it the label of god sanctioned morality. Yet I think it is in humans to know that it is immoral to kill children even without that label, based solely on their humanity.”
That is contradictory. If humans know it is immoral to kill children then it has nothing to do with what they create.
“I don't know what depresses me more. The atheist's view of a world lacking any extrinsic meaning or you Christian guys believing we humans are so deeply flawed and fallen that the only thing stopping us all from killing babies is a stern God threatening us with eternal burning.”
I’m glad you agree that under the atheist worldview there is no intrinsic meaning, but I never said that the only things stopping us from killing babies is fear of God.
“Really? How about just life itself. I don"t know about you, but I enjoy learning new things, experiencing new things, being with friends, testing the limits of what I can do physically and mentally, being creative, spending time with my wife, thinking about my soon to be born poop generator, watching schlock horror, etc. It never crosses my mind whether or not anything I'm doing at any time that I'm doing it is the God chosen purpose of my life so that I can feel as though it has meaning. Just because you cannot in any way fathom that someone can enjoy life just for what it is and not have to believe that their life is being guided by a divine hand or rulebook doesn't mean that others cannot do it. I simply enjoy life for what it is 90% of the time. Atheists do the same thing, they just do it 100% of the time.”
I never said atheists couldn’t enjoy life. I did say, however, that under an atheist worldview there is no purpose to life.
“Wow, I spent all that time typing and this is what you come up with in the meantime? I'm sorry, but I just don't see the majority of humans out there as that flawed. If you do, and it's what makes you happy about your faith and able to feel smugly superior to others, then fine. But it's not really worth attempting debate with you and your rather silly extremes anymore then it would be if an idiot came here and went on about how all of life's evils and woes were the fault of religion and if only we could get rid of that hateful, evil thing...”
WHY… does everyone assume I am talking about people? I am talking about philosophy. That you cannot separate the two is not my problem.
“Ben Lesar, I had begun to formulate a response to you, but realized that doing so would be like talking to the north end of a southbound donkey. You're not making any sense and you're not smart enough to realize it.
If you really care about Christianity, you'll stop making the religion look bad by trying to be one of its standard-bearers and let more intelligent Christians do the representing.”
Responding by saying “you’re not worth giving an argument to” is a classic way of avoiding giving an argument. For your own sake I would advise you don’t do so in formal settings.
“Jerry, please understand, I too have friends of different faiths and friends who have no spiritual faiths. I was trying -- and apparently failing -- to make it clear that my problem is not with Christians in general but with Ben in particular, and that my problem with him is not his Christianity but his stupidity.”
Claiming someone is stupid on the basis that they disagree with you or that they have a strong belief of some sort in an area where you evidently do not is pretty pathetic. If you actually have some evidence that I am stupid I would love to hear it.
“...and your genetic line would die out, with the genetic line of people who instinctively protect their children or -- even better -- families who socialize together to do so would fill in to consume the resources that sustain us all. Morality is not needed to justify something that can be justified by a little reproductive self-interest.”
That is a non sequitur. The point is that there is nothing in the moral code of survival that prevents evil. The specific example was given in regards to majority opinion, that the Darwinist morality doesn’t apply is irrelevant. Although I could point out that the Romans and Spartans as well as many other cultures left feeble babies to die. The morality of survival at its finest…
"If atheists are not moral parasites, then why do they adopt the morality of their host culture? I don’t see atheists in the West denying most of Christian morality, only a very few things that don’t suit them."
Why should they rejects aspects of traditional morality that they do not find offensive? The whole point of atheism is examining and choosing your morality according to your own judgement rather than the authority of scripture or priests. That's how atheists can agree with Christians that killing children is wrong but disagree that homosexuality is evil. Atheism is not about throwing away every traditional thing, it is about not recognizing the absolute authority or religious tradition. That's the difference between it and nihilism, which about erasing completely everything.
"You can say that people claiming to be Christians (whether they were or weren’t isn’t mine to judge) shared in promoting it, but not that Christianity is responsible. How could it be when the Bible says that Jews are God’s chosen people. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity is not in any way responsible."
We can start talking about whether the essence of Chrstianity in essence is antisemitic, or whether antisemitism was introduced into Christian society and writing later. We could go over passages in the new testament that are considered to indicate animosity toward Judaism and Jews. But remember, in the beginning of this conversation you talked about Christian governments in past history, not the pure essence of Christianity. And the fact is that past Christian governments and societies and organized reigion and theologians, until recently, believed in and promoted antisemitism. Now happily, they do not. As a Jew I'm just happy over this positive shift in the attitude of Christians. I don't really care which attitude was more faithful to the true core of Christianity. However, I do object to you trying to rewrite Christian history about this issue. I don't blame Christianity itself for antisemitism anymore than I blame Islam itself for terrorism. I blame the Christians or Muslims involved. And the fact is that for centuries the majority of Christians believed in antisemitism.
"That is contradictory. If humans know it is immoral to kill children then it has nothing to do with what they create."
Not really. A stop sign is human made symbol deriving all its meaning from human society, yet peope know to stop. Or ratther, they have the capacity to understand both on therational and the emotional level why stoping is the right thing to do. They make a moral choice to stop independant of god, based on their own mind and their own society. It is not necessary to add a 'thou shall not kill' passage to the sign. Although, even if you do, that would just be another human made sign -- the actual moral decision will still be a completely human one.
(I made a similar argument to two Muslims that tried to convert me in San Francisco. I of course didn't tell them where I'm from).
"I never said atheists couldn’t enjoy life. I did say, however, that under an atheist worldview there is no purpose to life."
That's not true. In atheism life is not given purpose by an external diety (or rather the internal belief in such a diety). Atheist have to find purpose in terms of this world alone, which is tough, but in no way impossible.
"WHY… does everyone assume I am talking about people? I am talking about philosophy. That you cannot separate the two is not my problem."
You did not talk about philosophy in the anstract. You said that atheist governments, by virtue of being atheist, necessarily become genocidal, while Christian governments, by virtue of being Christian, do not. Governments and states are made of people who hold philosophical and ideological views. In your view a government formed by atheists will necessarily be genocidal. That's people, not philosophy. If that was not what you meant, I suggest softening and clarifying your words.
"that the Darwinist morality doesn’t apply is irrelevant."
There is no such thing as Darwinist morality in the sense of morality in Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory is a technical description of the process by which diverse biological life develops, it has nothing to do with morality. There are humans who tried to create moral systems based on the application, or rather the misapllication, of Darwin's theory in the realm of human morality. But this is a misuse of science. It is also possible, since humans are biological entities, that Darwin's theory can offer a scientific explanation of why morality developed in the human species. But that's not Darwinian morality, but a Darwinian explanation of morality in human societies, such as a Christian society. It is naive to think that morality exists in humans just because a guy named Jesus or Muhammad spoke some charismatic words.
"Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, Cult of the Fifth-Dimensional Cyborg Monkey Space Aliens... in my eyes it's all good as long as you don't murder people or take a whiz on my garage door or anything like that."
When I was in SF I took a tour of the murals there. Apparently the doorway of one of the houses in an alley suffered from people using it as a bathroom. So a muralist drew a picture of a stern looking Virgin Mary, and the problem was solved.
WHY… does everyone assume I am talking about people? I am talking about philosophy. That you cannot separate the two is not my problem.
I dunno, maybe it's statements like this:
To the first part, most atheists don’t realize what their philosophy logically entails. To the second, they have a Christian cultural tradition to emulate. They are moral parasites, leeching off morals that suit them and discarding just a few that don’t.
Would you care to explain how this statement is about philosophy, not people?
I never said atheists couldn’t enjoy life. I did say, however, that under an atheist worldview there is no purpose to life.
You miss the point, Ben. Enjoying life and living life to the fullest is the meaning of life. Take all of what I mentioned away from a population and most of the people would be miserable. Take religion away from that population and only a handful would be miserable. If you can find meaning and joy in life itself, then life has meaning.
WHY… does everyone assume I am talking about people? I am talking about philosophy. That you cannot separate the two is not my problem.
Because you keep shifting your stance from moment to moment. You sight very specific examples of people and what they did and then you want it to be about the philosophy and not the people. Well, news flash, you can't really separate the two here. Your argument has been about how the philosophy, or lack thereof, causes the people to act. I believe your point to be mistaken. If the best you can do is wrongly sight historical facts, attribute things to one philosophy that weren't part of that philosophy, dodge parts of posts that you find inconvenient to deal with and throw out extreme examples of fictitious atheist actions... Well, I and others will continue to view your point as mistaken.
If atheists are not moral parasites, then why do they adopt the morality of their host culture? I don’t see atheists in the West denying most of Christian morality, only a very few things that don’t suit them.
First, you're wrongly putting forward the idea that the morals being adopted are in some way exclusively Christian. A number of cultures and faiths all around the world developed with a number of moral codes that mirror some of those in Christianity. The simple fact that some many have developed prohibitions against murder, theft, etc. should go toward showing that man does have an innate set of moral values that he will develop even if he has to ascribe some sort of mystic meaning to them.
Second, you wrongly put forward the popular but widely debunked idea that western culture and law is based on Christianity. It's not.
Third, have you ever heard of this fun little thing called "the law" before? Even atheists, although this may be a huge surprise to you, don't enjoy the idea of spending time in the stocks or locked up behind bars.
Forth, I point out again the ideas that my friend grew up with about how to act in a moral nature that were taught to him by his parents. And his parents learned them from others.
Good people will act as good people and there are far more good people out there then bad people.
Christianity is not in any way responsible.
Christianity, particularly once it went through the filter of Rome, sought to replace Judaism. Part of how some groups did this was to demonize the Jews and promote the idea of the Jews being the killers of Christ. There are countless examples in Church history of Christianity using just that justification to murder Jews.
To deny this or to deny its part in the perpetration of anti-Semitism is both historically inaccurate and foolish.
That is contradictory. If humans know it is immoral to kill children then it has nothing to do with what they create.
That's not the least bit contradictory. Humans know that some things are wrong and create laws saying so all the time. It's called covering your bases so that the slow, stupid or just uncaring don't come along and get away with murder (literally or figuratively) in your society. It's not just with things tied to religion either. Ever heard of laws covering driving, flying, boating or hunting? Take driving laws as an example. Most sensible people know that driving through a crowded neighborhood area at 125 mph isn't really a good thing to do. For the less sensible among us, we have speed limit laws and tag your butt if you do more the 25 or 35 mph.
Not contradictory at all.
That one line should be...
"Second, you wrongly put forward the popular but widely debunked idea that western culture and law is based just on Christianity. It's not."
If atheists are not moral parasites, then why do they adopt the morality of their host culture?
Saying atheism adopts the morality of their host culture in no proof atheism is intolerant of morality.
Just as no one is in the business of doing good, instead the good we do coming out of the way we do business, the resolve of any religion is not to do good -- it is merely a model for the universe -- and the good we do comes from the roles we adopt according to our worldview.
I don't see atheists in the West denying most of Christian morality, only a very few things that don't suit them.
Well, then, what's your problem with atheism?
If morality is subjective that means taking little children up on to a stage and cutting them up with chainsaws for sport is not evil...
...and your genetic line would die out, with the genetic line of people who instinctively protect their children or -- even better -- families who socialize together to do so would fill in to consume the resources that sustain us all. Morality is not needed to justify something that can be justified by a little reproductive self-interest.That is a non sequitur.
As opposed to strawmen about kinder morder?
The point is that there is nothing in the moral code of survival that prevents evil.
Speaking of non-sequiturs, what is the relevance of good and evil in the administration of government?
Are you living the Lifestyle of Doing Good?™
The specific example [the child-murder strawman] was given in regards to majority opinion, that the Darwinist morality doesn't apply is irrelevant. Although I could point out that the Romans and Spartans as well as many other cultures left feeble babies to die. The morality of survival at its finest...
As Micha, said Darwin did not present evolution as a morality, but since what you wrote is in reply to my post, I'm presuming you are refering to any morality inherent only in natural selection.
Did your strawman establish the killing children as fulfilling any particular agenda? As far as the portrayal of dominance-as-a-virtue has justified the murders and child-killings you cite, as well as genocides by theistic governments, your denial this portrayal of dominance-as-a-virtue is relevant seems nurtured by self-service on your part rather than an integrity that can nurture a morality of any substance.
And now Mulligan's got a title. I'll use it, BUT I WON'T BOW DOWN!
Oh, you will bow down before me, Scullion! Both you and one day...your heir!
Darwin misapplied the phrase coined by Herbert Spencer, "survival of the fittest," as a chapter title in Origin of Species. Because natural selection has been used to portray dominance as a virtue, examples of the kind of ideological purges you are refering to can be made regardless of a belief in a creator.
How is "survival of the fittest" not a fairly accurate (if simple) description of natural selection? It's true that the term has been misused to describe things that have nothing to do with evolution but that isn't Darwin's fault. (Using survival of the fittest to justify genocide isn't even logical--the Nazi's killed millions of Jews but their regime only lasted a few years and Jews now have an army that is one of the most powerful on Earth...so it would seem that the Nazis were not the most fit.)
But it's actually a bit pointless to apply much of Darwinian theory to humanity--we have largely taken ourselves out of the natural selection loop. With our technology and, soon, ability to speed up and choose genetic changes, we are operating under an entirely different set of rules.
Gandhi was an anti-Semitist
I'm not sure that is accurate. Gandhi was, as Micha said, very anti-zionist. He was anti-partition in general (although he had, in the end, to accept the creation of Pakistan). His belief that the Jews in Germany should have stayed in Germany even if it meant extermination seems insane to most of us. I guess it is a logical extension of his belief in non-violence but in this case I think Gandhi was wrong. It's hard to imagine nonviolence achieving anything in Nazi Germany other than a good hearty laugh.
If atheists are not moral parasites, then why do they adopt the morality of their host culture? I don’t see atheists in the West denying most of Christian morality, only a very few things that don’t suit them.
Most of Christian morality would be considered decent behavior even in countries that are not Christian. Concepts of kindness, love, etc existed even before the New Testament.
The point is that there is nothing in the moral code of survival that prevents evil.
I don't see anything in ANY moral code that "prevents" evil. Free will and all that.
Micah took care of the "Darwinian morality" bit better than I could. You could just as rationally argue about the morality of Boyle's Gas Law.
How is "survival of the fittest" not a fairly accurate (if simple) description of natural selection? It's true that the term has been misused to describe things that have nothing to do with evolution but that isn't Darwin's fault. (Using survival of the fittest to justify genocide isn't even logical--the Nazi's killed millions of Jews but their regime only lasted a few years and Jews now have an army that is one of the most powerful on Earth...so it would seem that the Nazis were not the most fit.)
But it's actually a bit pointless to apply much of Darwinian theory to humanity--we have largely taken ourselves out of the natural selection loop. With our technology and, soon, ability to speed up and choose genetic changes, we are operating under an entirely different set of rules.
Gould summarized natural selection as Darwin presented it as "nature intends diversity." An intent of conformity in nature can be reasonably inferred from the use of the word "fittest" in "survival of the fittest" Darwin did not intend to imply and, as you say, has nothing to do with evolution.
I need to rephrase my response:
How is "survival of the fittest" not a fairly accurate (if simple) description of natural selection? It's true that the term has been misused to describe things that have nothing to do with evolution but that isn't Darwin's fault. (Using survival of the fittest to justify genocide isn't even logical--the Nazi's killed millions of Jews but their regime only lasted a few years and Jews now have an army that is one of the most powerful on Earth...so it would seem that the Nazis were not the most fit.)
Gould summarized the intent of nature as Darwin presented natural selection as "nature intends diversity." An intent of conformity in nature can be reasonably inferred from the use of the word "fittest" in "survival of the fittest" Darwin did not intend to imply and, as you say, has nothing to do with evolution.
But it's actually a bit pointless to apply much of Darwinian theory to humanity--we have largely taken ourselves out of the natural selection loop. With our technology and, soon, ability to speed up and choose genetic changes, we are operating under an entirely different set of rules.
Are you kidding?
As far as manipulating our own genes go, if people choose to conform to what we consider an ideal type, civilization as we know it could be wiped out by a single vunerability, just as 95% of Indians in the Amercas were wiped out by diseases nurtured by agricultural practices. As far as the Indians practiced hunting and gathering almost exclusively, they were not diverse enough to withstand the contagions the colonists brought with them.
As far as manipulating our own genes go, if people choose to conform to what we consider an ideal type, civilization as we know it could be wiped out by a single vunerability, just as 95% of Indians in the Amercas were wiped out by diseases nurtured by agricultural practices.
There is that possibility, yes. But I think it unlikely. We are talking about selecting for a very limited set of traits and this would still allow for considerable variability. It isn't cloning.
The situation would be similar to that of the movie GATTACA (quite underrated, IMO). They take out the woman's eggs, fertilize them with the husband's sperm and then screen the resulting embryos. Then they eliminate any with "defects" and choose the one with the best traits.
Sounds bad but really, who would not take, say, a pill that would reduce the chances of having a child with a birth defect? (We call them prenatal vitamins). The problem a lot of us would have is that what would become a "defect" would include some pretty common things--poor eyesight, short stature, male pattern baldness, insignificant things like that. But I don't know that losing these traits would really make the population vulnerable to any new diseases that nature would throw at us.
Now widespread cloning, THAT could be disastrous.
But even that would have a limited effect in the long run--these high tech procedures would be available only to a chosen few, hardly a blip on the overall human gene pool.
“We can start talking about whether the essence of Chrstianity in essence is antisemitic, or whether antisemitism was introduced into Christian society and writing later. We could go over passages in the new testament that are considered to indicate animosity toward Judaism and Jews. But remember, in the beginning of this conversation you talked about Christian governments in past history, not the pure essence of Christianity. And the fact is that past Christian governments and societies and organized reigion and theologians, until recently, believed in and promoted antisemitism. Now happily, they do not. As a Jew I'm just happy over this positive shift in the attitude of Christians. I don't really care which attitude was more faithful to the true core of Christianity. However, I do object to you trying to rewrite Christian history about this issue.”
I never said Christian governments did not promote anti-Semitism. I was merely responding to the claim that Christianity is responsible.
“Not really. A stop sign is human made symbol deriving all its meaning from human society, yet peope know to stop. Or ratther, they have the capacity to understand both on therational and the emotional level why stoping is the right thing to do. They make a moral choice to stop independant of god, based on their own mind and their own society. It is not necessary to add a 'thou shall not kill' passage to the sign. Although, even if you do, that would just be another human made sign -- the actual moral decision will still be a completely human one.”
The claim was that humans inherently know not to kill based solely on their humanity. And yet; that humans create morality. This is saying that morality is objective, “but only so far as it suits my argument.”
“That's not true. In atheism life is not given purpose by an external diety (or rather the internal belief in such a diety). Atheist have to find purpose in terms of this world alone, which is tough, but in no way impossible.”
Yes, it is. Does a computer program have a purpose other than that it was created for? Perhaps a person can find a use for it other than that, but that is not purpose; meaning. Purpose requires intent. The universe can have no purpose if it was an accident. If there is no purpose to the universe as a whole, any “purpose” we create upon earth is meaningless. It is just bags of chemicals-- robots if you will-- going through the motions. Emotional rhetoric regarding the simple enjoyment of eating grilled burgers or the like is not an answer to a philosophical argument.
“You said that atheist governments, by virtue of being atheist, necessarily become genocidal, while Christian governments, by virtue of being Christian, do not. Governments and states are made of people who hold philosophical and ideological views. In your view a government formed by atheists will necessarily be genocidal. That's people, not philosophy. If that was not what you meant, I suggest softening and clarifying your words.”
Jerry Chandler was quoting my philosophical argument regarding the consequences of a subjective view of morality. I was responding to that. You are referring to unrelated statements I made and inferring something that was not explicit in the text. I only pointed out statistical facts; I did not give reasons why atheist governments are almost always genocidal.
“There is no such thing as Darwinist morality in the sense of morality in Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory is a technical description of the process by which diverse biological life develops, it has nothing to do with morality. There are humans who tried to create moral systems based on the application, or rather the misapllication, of Darwin's theory in the realm of human morality. But this is a misuse of science.”
Tell that to Luigi Novi and Mike, to whom I was responding. Natural selection does lead many to moral conclusions though.
“Would you care to explain how this statement is about philosophy, not people?”
Would you care to think before you post? As I explained to Micha I was referring to a comment made by Jerry Chandler when I asked why people thought I was referring to people. In the quote from me you give, however, I was responding to a direct question about atheist behavior. Maybe you think I shouldn’t have to answer other people’s queries?
“You miss the point, Ben. Enjoying life and living life to the fullest is the meaning of life. Take all of what I mentioned away from a population and most of the people would be miserable. Take religion away from that population and only a handful would be miserable. If you can find meaning and joy in life itself, then life has meaning.”
I could point out that studies show that religious people are, on average, much happier than their non-religious counterparts. But it makes more sense to point out that “creating your own meaning” is emotional garbage. It is not a sufficient reply to a philosophical argument. What you are really doing is redefining the term “meaning” to suit your needs.
“Because you keep shifting your stance from moment to moment. You sight very specific examples of people and what they did and then you want it to be about the philosophy and not the people. Well, news flash, you can't really separate the two here. Your argument has been about how the philosophy, or lack thereof, causes the people to act. I believe your point to be mistaken. If the best you can do is wrongly sight historical facts, attribute things to one philosophy that weren't part of that philosophy, dodge parts of posts that you find inconvenient to deal with and throw out extreme examples of fictitious atheist actions... Well, I and others will continue to view your point as mistaken.”
I am talking to about ten people at once. That naturally leads to me speaking about several things at once. Of course one of my arguments is that atheism is a dangerous philosophy and leads a portion of atheists to do horrible things. I never said that all atheists are moral reprobates though. Where have I wrongly cited historical facts or attributed things to a philosophy that aren’t part of it? As far as dodging posts that are inconvenient to deal with. First, not every point is worth responding to (most are repeats of what someone else has said) and if I responded to everything my posts would be very long. When there is one of me and ten of you it is unfair to accuse me of not responding to everything when many of you have not done so. Finally, it is not an extreme example. It would be if it were something I said atheists were secretly and nefariously wishing to do. But all I said is that atheism (as a philosophy) logically leads to nihilism, which cannot condemn such evil actions.
“First, you're wrongly putting forward the idea that the morals being adopted are in some way exclusively Christian. A number of cultures and faiths all around the world developed with a number of moral codes that mirror some of those in Christianity. The simple fact that some many have developed prohibitions against murder, theft, etc. should go toward showing that man does have an innate set of moral values that he will develop even if he has to ascribe some sort of mystic meaning to them.”
There are cannibalistic tribes in different places in this world. There is no reason to believe atheists wouldn’t adopt the morality of those tribes if they were born there, just as they have adopted Western morality being born here. But is had been shown that converts to Christianity in such places have rejected much of their upbringing. Oh, and here I *am* talking about people. This is because it was as I said before originally brought up to me as a question about atheists as individuals.
“Second, you wrongly put forward the popular but widely debunked idea that western culture and law is based on Christianity. It's not.”
Seeing as how you’re the one making the ad hoc claim it is on you to support it. Calling something widely debunked does not make it so.
“Third, have you ever heard of this fun little thing called "the law" before? Even atheists, although this may be a huge surprise to you, don't enjoy the idea of spending time in the stocks or locked up behind bars.”
I never thought of it this way before, but now I finally realize… you have no idea what you’re talking about. When have I said anything about crime and atheists? How does this prove anything? It does suggest that atheists only refrain from criminal activity because they are afraid of punishment, however. Your assertion, not mine.
“Christianity, particularly once it went through the filter of Rome, sought to replace Judaism. Part of how some groups did this was to demonize the Jews and promote the idea of the Jews being the killers of Christ. There are countless examples in Church history of Christianity using just that justification to murder Jews.”
Did you even read the whole last post of mine, or did you just pick one line and decide to respond? I clearly pointed out that Christians are not Christianity, but instead you ignored this and went forward with your post, oblivious.
“Speaking of non-sequiturs, what is the relevance of good and evil in the administration of government?”
Did you miss the discussion on Stalin? Never heard of Mao or Pol Pot? I could go on…
“As opposed to strawmen about kinder morder?”
Do you even know what a strawman argument is? It is misrepresenting someone else’s argument and then attacking that. All I did was to give an example showing the logical consequences of nihilism. No misrepresentation.
“(Using survival of the fittest to justify genocide isn't even logical--the Nazi's killed millions of Jews but their regime only lasted a few years and Jews now have an army that is one of the most powerful on Earth...so it would seem that the Nazis were not the most fit.)”
Richard Dawkins, atheist and renowned evolutionary biologist, seems to favor some sort of eugenics program. Although he is mysteriously silent on the specifics. Now I know that no one, no matter how prominent in their field, necessarily speaks for it. But even the full title of Darwin’s book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” seems to indicate that he is not that far off.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 10, 2007 02:31 AM
Responding by saying “you’re not worth giving an argument to” is a classic way of avoiding giving an argument.
No, I'm perfectly happy to engage in debates -- just not with you.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 10, 2007 02:31 AM
Claiming someone is stupid on the basis that they disagree with you or that they have a strong belief of some sort in an area where you evidently do not is pretty pathetic.
I'm not claiming you're stupid just because I disagree with you. I'm calling you stupid because, well... you are.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 10, 2007 02:31 AM
If you actually have some evidence that I am stupid I would love to hear it.
It's all over this thread. People have refuted your arguments up one side and down the other and you respond by pretending that's not the case.
My final words on this subject:
1. If you believe strongly that something is true then by extension you are sure those who disagree are wrong. If you have strong character, however, you can disagree without vilifying your "opponent."
2. If your belief system is so damned great, you shouldn't need to unfairly demonize your opponents. The best way to evangelize is to exemplify your beliefs through your actions, not your words.
3. I've noted that the people who are surest of themselves and their beliefs are also the ones least interested in forcing them on everyone else. Something to think about.
As far as manipulating our own genes go, if people choose to conform to what we consider an ideal type, civilization as we know it could be wiped out by a single vunerability, just as 95% of Indians in the Amercas were wiped out by diseases nurtured by agricultural practices.There is that possibility, yes. But I think it unlikely. We are talking about selecting for a very limited set of traits and this would still allow for considerable variability. It isn't cloning.
Have you seen a year of playboy playmates in the last few years? They are for the most part 12 months of sisters adopting the same poses.
Where people are free to choose, they typically choose to do what other people choose. What we need to do, which is preserve as much genetic diversity as possible, probably won't be done. Once we've mastered cloning, the disadvantages will probably be too abstract for people to abide by. They'll leave it to other people to worry about, and the issue will be neglected.
But even [cloning] would have a limited effect in the long run--these high tech procedures would be available only to a chosen few, hardly a blip on the overall human gene pool.
College used to be available only to a privileged class. People mortgage their homes to put their kids through college, but it still gets done.
If morality is subjective that means taking little children up on to a stage and cutting them up with chainsaws for sport is not evil...
...and your genetic line would die out, with the genetic line of people who instinctively protect their children or -- even better -- families who socialize together to do so would fill in to consume the resources that sustain us all. Morality is not needed to justify something that can be justified by a little reproductive self-interest.That is a non sequitur.
As opposed to strawmen about kinder morder?The point is that there is nothing in the moral code of survival that prevents evil.
Speaking of non-sequiturs, what is the relevance of good and evil in the administration of government?
Are you living the Lifestyle of Doing Good?™
Did you miss the discussion on Stalin? Never heard of Mao or Pol Pot? I could go on...
There were a number of references to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, and you haven't cited any of them to establish a counterpoint of any kind. How can you go on when you haven't even started?
Do you even know what a strawman argument is? It is misrepresenting someone else's argument and then attacking that. All I did was to give an example showing the logical consequences of nihilism. No misrepresentation.
Your "logical consequence" has no real-world example, and no real-world advocate.
Your denying your Fiction™ is not a Misrepresentation™ demonstrates it is not I who has a problem understanding the qualifications for a strawman argument.
(Using survival of the fittest to justify genocide isn't even logical--the Nazi's killed millions of Jews but their regime only lasted a few years and Jews now have an army that is one of the most powerful on Earth...so it would seem that the Nazis were not the most fit.)Gould summarized the intent of nature as Darwin presented natural selection as "nature intends diversity." An intent of conformity in nature can be reasonably inferred from the use of the word "fittest" in "survival of the fittest" Darwin did not intend to imply and, as you say, has nothing to do with evolution.
Richard Dawkins, atheist and renowned evolutionary biologist, seems to favor some sort of eugenics program. Although he is mysteriously silent on the specifics. Now I know that no one, no matter how prominent in their field, necessarily speaks for it. But even the full title of Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," seems to indicate that he is not that far off.
Thank you for agreeing and accepting that it's the abuse of the principle of "survival of the fittest" on which the governmental resolve for genocide seems to depend. No need to blame atheism for a belief that depends on no particular religious doctrine -- even the doctrine there is no god.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 10, 2007 04:17 PM
"Yes, it is. Does a computer program have a purpose other than that it was created for?"
That's an extremely faulty analogy. A computer program is not self aware, it has only one function and it is unable to make true choices. A human being is self aware and can be just about anything he or she wants to be and can make an unlimited amount of choices and changes over a lifetime. Humans can also reason and learn. For some, that action leads to faith. For others, that action leads to the rejection of faith. Neither is greater or less then the other if, in the end, both people act as good people or bad.
"Emotional rhetoric regarding the simple enjoyment of eating grilled burgers or the like is not an answer to a philosophical argument."
That's not emotional rhetoric, it's just life. Life is in and of itself a philosophy. It's also in and of itself a source of meaning. Just because someone can find meaning in life itself without being told that some grandfatherly figure with a big grey beard has your life's plan and meaning mapped out from points A to B does not make them wrong, misguided or somehow on the path to being a bad person.
"Would you care to think before you post? As I explained to Micha I was referring to a comment made by Jerry Chandler when I asked why people thought I was referring to people. In the quote from me you give, however, I was responding to a direct question about atheist behavior. Maybe you think I shouldn’t have to answer other people’s queries?"
Absolutely you should respond to others. Thing is, when your responses don't back the other arguments that your making to other posters, it weakens your overall argument. See, we argue with multiple posters all of the time around here, but our points are usually the same no matter who we are debating with. We don't claim that it's A that matters and not B with one poster, turn around and tell another poster that it's actually B and not A that's the nut of the matter and then tell yet another poster that it's more about C then those unimportant things like A or B. My point is that it is not the philosophy or the faith that's as important as the person. I could be debating ten different posters here and I would be consistent in saying that it's A and not B with every single person here every single time.
"But it makes more sense to point out that “creating your own meaning” is emotional garbage. It is not a sufficient reply to a philosophical argument."
Really now? There are entire movements and philosophies out there that focus on life being its own meaning. What you're actually saying here is that you personally don't like or agree with thousands of years worth of others' belief systems so they just don't count. Doesn't work that way. They exist and people are just fine with them. Any good teacher of philosophy, outside of Sunday School, would tell you the same.
"Of course one of my arguments is that atheism is a dangerous philosophy and leads a portion of atheists to do horrible things. I never said that all atheists are moral reprobates though.
And the fact that a portion of Christians do horrible things to this very day in the name of Christianity does or doesn't make Christianity a dangerous philosophy? I say no, but, if applied fairly and equally, your argument would say yes. As a matter of fact, Christians and Christianity come out the worse of the two under your argument. As has been pointed out by others, many crimes in history committed by Christians have been done so directly explicitly in the name of Christianity. You would be hard pressed to find tyrants and dictators in history that declared their actions were in the name of atheism. The best you can do is point to dictators that used atheism as but one of many tools for conquest, power or control of their people.
"Where have I wrongly cited historical facts or attributed things to a philosophy that aren’t part of it?"
Well, you claim a tyranny or a dictatorship as an atheist government when the reality of it is far more complex then that. I would suggest you actually read about the life of Stalin (Did you know that he was educated at the Seminary of Tiflis and that his mother's goal for him was to become a priest?) and his rather complex relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church. Stalin was a bit of a bastard and his rule did involve religious, political and ideological purges at points, (while letting the church partially rebuild at one point as well) but they were just a few tools of many in his box. His philosophy was not in and of itself atheistic any more then King Henry VIII's (or any of history's more deranged monarchs) philosophy was truly Christian.
And it's only fair, by your POV and argument, that you recognize that his government wasn't really atheist. After all, you keep discounting examples of Christian governments activities in history because you "clearly pointed out that Christians are not Christianity" and such. Well, atheists are not atheism. Please find me the tenant of atheism that instructs one kill, oppress and purge and I will then gladly admit that you aren't talking out of both sides of your mouth and trying to have it both ways here.
"There is no reason to believe atheists wouldn’t adopt the morality of those tribes if they were born there, just as they have adopted Western morality being born here. But is had been shown that converts to Christianity in such places have rejected much of their upbringing."
There's no reason to automatically assume that they would either. If they did not share the natives religious beliefs, they would then not share the spiritual beliefs that some have of eating their enemies souls, gaining their strength, etc.
"Seeing as how you’re the one making the ad hoc claim it is on you to support it. Calling something widely debunked does not make it so."
That could take more writing then this thread already has...
The very short version.
Again, you really need to read more. First, many American traditions, cultural ticks and beliefs come from pre-Christian Europe. We still even engage in "Christian" ceremonies and observations of holidays that predate Christianity. Once we got here, some things even made their way into our culture from the natives.
Even our government system was set up to not be religious in nature. Read the things that were written by the Founding Fathers. Don't read books about them written by someone with a bias and an agenda. Go read their correspondences and their notes from the time that they created our government.
They knew the inherent dangers in a theocracy, even a Christian one. They were barely removed from one themselves. Some were stupid enough to want to make one here, but the wiser heads prevailed. That's why our federal laws are predominantly those that are more or less universal (murder, theft, etc.) rather then religious (outlawing other religions, forcing worship, obedience to the church, etc.).
The Founding Fathers weren't even Christian. Most were Deists. Some of them viewed Christian belief as pure superstition and flat out claimed that the divinity of Christ and his resurrection was nothing more then mumbo-jumbo. They weren't about to turn around and lay the foundation for a Christian Theocracy. Hell, they even swiped ideas from The Tribe of Nations and the Indian's law to build our government. No, Christianity was recognized as having a place in peoples lives by some and seen as a necessity for the people by others, but it was not the foundation for our country.
"I never thought of it this way before, but now I finally realize… you have no idea what you’re talking about. When have I said anything about crime and atheists? How does this prove anything? It does suggest that atheists only refrain from criminal activity because they are afraid of punishment, however. Your assertion, not mine."
Gee... Killing babies maybe? That's murder. If you're not talking about people doing evil things like murder, theft, rape, etc. that are all covered by laws and deemed crimes, then what the hell are you talking about. What, you're only talking about acts of evil that aren't crimes in most societies? You're maybe talking about some evil person sending really snotty letters to the local paper? You're talking about acts of evil. Most acts of evil are covered by laws that make them a crime.
And, why yes, it does suggest that some atheist respect the law. I sighted my friend and his family for their beliefs and not as a blanket statement to cover every single atheist out there. Your the pro and blanket statements about others' who hold religious beliefs you disapprove of, not me.
"I never said Christian governments did not promote anti-Semitism. I was merely responding to the claim that Christianity is responsible."
"Did you miss the discussion on Stalin? Never heard of Mao or Pol Pot? I could go on…"
"Did you even read the whole last post of mine, or did you just pick one line and decide to respond? I clearly pointed out that Christians are not Christianity, but instead you ignored this and went forward with your post, oblivious."
So, basically, your defense of the many crimes of Christians and Christian governments throughout history is to point out that they don't really matter because the people are not the philosophy. I can accept that as a defense. It's a perfectly valid one.
Likewise, the crimes committed by atheists and "atheist" governments don't count because the people are not the philosophy. As I said in my above posts, it's the person that matters and not the faith. Thank you for pointing out that perfectly valid defense of atheism for all to see and finally showing some level of common sense.
1) "I never said Christian governments did not promote anti-Semitism. I was merely responding to the claim that Christianity is responsible."
Nor did I claim that Christianity was responsible. I don't know who did. Let's repeat again, for he sake of clarity: for most of its history, Christian society, influenced by religious considerations as viewed by that society and outlined by its Christian religious establishment, believed in antisemitism and acted accordingly. There is a direct connection between this antisemitism, developed in Christian culture by Christians and accepted by Christians, and the antisemitism that motivated Nazism, although Nazi antisemitism was also shaped by other modern forces as well. If you have no argument with this statement, I can move on, since I never claimed that Christianity is inherently or solely responsible for antisemitism. Antisemitism is a complex phenomena, as is human morality by the way, and should be treated accordingly.
2) "The claim was that humans inherently know not to kill based solely on their humanity. And yet; that humans create morality. This is saying that morality is objective, “but only so far as it suits my argument.”"
No. This shows that you did not understand the point of my argument at all. I'll try to explain it to you in clearer language so you can understand the subtlty involved, which you seem to be missing, and which I may have not made clear enough for you.
There are two ways to explain this to you.
a. The scientific explanation. Objective scientific observation seems to suggest that humans, Christian or not, develop moral systems usually along comparable outlines. Biology shows that certain aspect of human morality are the result of the biological structure of the brain (and are affected by alterations to the brain by drugs or injury). Anthropolgy, sociology, psychology and history show that moral systems develop among humans as a result of a collective process of social interaction. Darwinian biology suggests that the ability of the human species to develop moral systems may have played a role in its ability to survive natural selection (just as living in herds or packs benefit other animals). All this boils down to this: morality is inherant in human societies -- when a human is born and raised he develops morality, i.e. knows moral behavior, in the same mixure of biology and sociology that make it possible for him to know to be attracted to members of the opposite sex (most of the time), seek to procreate, eat, learn how to speak, develop a sense of humor, and so forth. And systems of morality are an objective biological, sociological, psychiological, anthroplogical, historical phenomenon that exists in societies of the human species, and which can be explained without recourse to god (unless you want to). Humans 'know' moral behavior because they belong to the human species, not from outside of it.
(this is a good explanation, but I'm not sure it is clear enough for Ben. It is hard to write ideas like that in simplistic terms).
b.the philosophical explanation again. You assume that for something to be objective it has to be external to humans, preferably described in physical-chemical terms, or even better, attributed to god. This is a false dichotomy. As I tried to explain to you, the emotion of love, the word 'love,' the stop sign, are all objective things -- they are facts of human life, which humans know -- despite not being reduceable to physical-chemical terms, and not requiring god to have meaning or possesing an inherent meaning. They gain their meaning from humanity, not natural sciences or god.
3) "Does a computer program have a purpose other than that it was created for?"
Good example. What gives purpose to computer programs? humans. Humans have the capacity to give purpose to things like computer programs, and they do. If the computer program is a game, than the purpose is to win by following a certain scheme. Yet, while you accept thst computer programs get their purpose from humans, you feel the need for someone else to give a purpose to human life. Why wouldn't the same humans who have the capacity to give purpose to computer games and many other things give purpose to their own life as well?
"Purpose requires intent."
The philosophical term is intentionality, look it up. Humans have intent. intent is a quality of humans, but not of inanimate objects.
"The universe can have no purpose if it was an accident."
You are applying human terms to a very vast natural universe that does not necessariily conform to human metaphors of craftsmanship. But look at it this way: when Michaelangelo looked at a slab of rock, the slab of rock was accidental, but for Michaelangelo it had a purpose, to be a stature of David. Now you assume that for Michaelangelo to have a purpose, some other divine artist had to look at him and give it a purpose. but Michaelangelo was not a slab of rock, but a human being, and he was capable of looking at himself and giving himself purpose -- to be a sculptor.
"If there is no purpose to the universe as a whole, any “purpose” we create upon earth is meaningless."
Why?
"It is just bags of chemicals-- robots if you will-- going through the motions."
Again, a false dichotomy. You claim erroniously that atheism reduces humans to bags of chemicals, and then blaim it for doing so, and suggest that it's either that or accepting god, and not only any god, but your christian god. To a biochemist, humans are a bag of chemicals. But humans are also emotional beings, rational beings, social beings, psychological beings, artistic beings, historical beings, and so forth. The human experience is not reduced to chemistry and theology. There are other disciplines and dimensions to the human experience.
"Emotional rhetoric regarding the simple enjoyment of eating grilled burgers or the like is not an answer to a philosophical argument."
I do not consider you qualified, based on past experience, to decide what constitutes a philosophical argument. It also seems to me that the emotional rhetoric is yours. You feel the need for an external force to give meaning to your life, and will not be satisfied with anything less than that. And for some reason you feel this entity must correspond to a diety described in some greek and hebrew texts, of all things. Why? I do not know. I see no rational reason.
4) "Jerry Chandler was quoting my philosophical argument regarding the consequences of a subjective view of morality. I was responding to that. You are referring to unrelated statements I made and inferring something that was not explicit in the text. I only pointed out statistical facts; I did not give reasons why atheist governments are almost always genocidal."
It would be nice if your arguments were internally consistent. It's easier to follow. You did not really state statistical facts as much as make an unsubstantiated statistical claim. however this claim was not 'meaningless', I think. It had a purpose. I assume the purpose was to point a connection between their atheism and their genocidal tendancies, or else what was the point. I think your interpretation of your 'facts' is incorrect (it was already explained why), and I do not trust your facts either.
5) "Tell that to Luigi Novi and Mike, to whom I was responding."
I take no responsibility to Mike, but I doubt Luigi Novi claimed that there is such a thing as Darwinian morality. He's too smart. Maybe you didn't understand him correctly? Hopefully, he will address this himself. In any case, the point I was trying to make is that there is no such thing as Darwinian morality. If we do not disagree on this point lets move on.
"Natural selection does lead many to moral conclusions though."
In a similar sense to that Christianity leads many to antisemitism, but more so. The results of the Superbowl might lead people to moral conclusions (my team lost, god hates me), but this would be incorrect.
5) "What you are really doing is redefining the term “meaning” to suit your needs."
Hardly. In everyday usage the term 'meaning' refers to something done by humans. Humans confer meaning on things, and they understand that meaning. "What do you mean? Is this what he meant? That's not what I mean. The meaning of this edifice is to symbolize the soldiers killed in Vietnam, the real meaning of this story is satirical, the meaning of the hebrew word 'Elohim' is god in English, but not exactly," and so forth. Yet when it comes to the meaning of life, suddenly 'meaning' has to have a different meaning, it must refer to the will of an external entity, a Judeo-Christian diety, or else it's not really 'meaning.' Why is that?
6) "Of course one of my arguments is that atheism is a dangerous philosophy and leads a portion of atheists to do horrible things."
And I could claim that Christianity is a dangerous philosophy thst leads a portion of Christians to do horrible things. However, I have not argued that. It does not follow from the fact that Christians have done horrible things that Christianity is dangerous, and the same is true of atheism.
"Where have I wrongly cited historical facts or attributed things to a philosophy that aren’t part of it?""
When you equated atheism in nihilism, and where you tried to create the impression that Christian, unlike atheists, have not done horrible things.
7) "There are cannibalistic tribes in different places in this world. There is no reason to believe atheists wouldn’t adopt the morality of those tribes if they were born there, just as they have adopted Western morality being born here. But is had been shown that converts to Christianity in such places have rejected much of their upbringing."
People who become atheists often reject some aspects of their upbringing while keeping others, and so do Christian converts, and Muslim. It is also necessary to distinguish between converts and people who were brought up on and hold a philosophy that is different than the one of the society they live in, or is different than the one once held by that society. The act of conversion to any religion or out of religion is a great psychological event which often involves dramatic acts of rejection of the old beliefs. Yet we often see societies that changed their religion retain many aspects of their old culture for centuries.
8) "Second, you wrongly put forward the popular but widely debunked idea that western culture and law is based on Christianity. It's not.”
"Seeing as how you’re the one making the ad hoc claim it is on you to support it. Calling something widely debunked does not make it so."
It doesn't require much knowledge in history to know that Western culture was greatly shaped and influenced by Greco-Roman culture, and by pre-Christian Germanic culture and Celtic culture. It should also be pointed out that Christianity itself was influenced by other cultures, and so has Judaism.
9) "Richard Dawkins, atheist and renowned evolutionary biologist, seems to favor some sort of eugenics program."
Since I haven't read this book, and I don't trust your judgement on this, it is impossible for me to address this specific accusation leveled on Dawkins. since you haven't read the book past he title, and provided no proof other than that, I don't know if you should address it either.
There was a case I heard of in which Oliver Wendel holmes upheld in court a eugenics program practiced somewhere in the US.
In atheism life is not given purpose by an external diety (or rather the internal belief in such a diety). Atheist have to find purpose in terms of this world alone, which is tough, but in no way impossible.Yes, it is. Does a computer program have a purpose other than that it was created for? Perhaps a person can find a use for it other than that, but that is not purpose; meaning. Purpose requires intent.
When you say it is impossible for something whose presence is arbitrary to be employed for any purpose, it sounds nonsensical -- especially when you admit it can be employed practically, perhaps like the coke bottle that drops into the village in "The Gods Must Be Crazy."
The steam-engine was invented to pump water out of mines. Air conditionaing was invented as a failed cure for malaria, and synthetic dyes were invented in failed research to synthesize quinine. Celluloid was synthesized in a failed attempt to invent a replacement for ivory in cue balls.
According to you, it was impossible for society to adopt these inventions because their existence was arbitrary in relation to which we now use them. Your almost absolute top-down thinking -- and your complete ignorance of the principle of reinvention in the diffusion of innovation -- seems to suggest you've never had a job where you've had to take money from people, much less a sales job. You've never worked in the private sector, have you?
"I could point out that studies show that religious people are, on average, much happier than their non-religious counterparts."
I've heard that, and I find it very ironic. Religious people are living the ideals of atheism (or rather one of the ideals held by some atheistic people. since atheism is not a moral philosophy). They create their own meaning and purpose in life, by choosing to believe in a diety, and find happiness this way.
You know what? I just read Micha's response to Ben Lesar and something hit me. See, I found myself thinking that Micha was making sense, had good points and that Ben would brush off, ignore or just not get any of them. That being the case and Micha being a better blogger then I, what good is it to waste anymore time with this.
Ben isn't about to change his stance in the least. It would do just as much good talking to him as it would be talking to a member of the KKK about blacks. Ben is a religious bigot. Even his rhetoric plays the same way as other bigots. You can replace "atheists" with "blacks" or "Jews" in a good half of his remarks and it would sound as though it was straight out of the Klan's talking points book.
That, or Ben is either just dense or working to get Troll-of-the-Month for June. Not that it matters at this point. No matter the answer to what Ben is, it's pointless to go any further with Ben in this discussion.
Besides, when the discussion/debate has drifted towards what I said well above I despise most about public discussions about religion... It's time to go. If the debate drifts towards ideas of, behind or about faith and religion rather then attacks on peoples' beliefs by the narrow minded and time has to be wasted to defend something that doesn't really need defending...
Yeah, time to call it quits for a bit. The stakes here, and Ben, aren't worth the time and effort.
Would you care to think before you post? As I explained to Micha I was referring to a comment made by Jerry Chandler when I asked why people thought I was referring to people. In the quote from me you give, however, I was responding to a direct question about atheist behavior. Maybe you think I shouldn’t have to answer other people’s queries?
Dude, if being called on it when your general statements conflict with other things you say bothers you that much, don't make over-generalized statements without context.
Bill, let me try to explain my view on this point. When you offer an idea, particularly a bold claim or an accusation in a discussion, and someone offers a response that, by virtue of its evidence or reason, would appear to refute it, and you intend to continue in the conversation, then the intellectually honest and decent thing is to respond to it, particularly in the latter case when it’s some type of accusation or criticism. If you’ve tired of the thread, and choose to no longer participate, and you don’t make a habit of that sort of thing, then that’s understandable. But if you continue to post in that thread, without addressing that disproved accusation, then it strikes me as not in keeping with the best spirit of civility.
Reason-based or fact-based conclusions are not formed in a vacuum. If I’ve been “unfair to religionists”, or “condescending”, then the decent thing to do is to illustrate that accusation when I ask you to. The alternative is to act as if making an unfounded accusation, and then evading the point when you’re called on it is morally acceptable. I’m sorry, but it’s not morally acceptable.
While this is speculation on my part, I seriously suspect that this accusation of yours was borne more out of an impression or perception of what you thought I was saying, rather than what I actually did say, and perhaps resentment that I was treating you and your assertion in the same way I would treat it if it came from anyone else. If this were not true, then why not simply point to the passage where you felt I was unfair or condescending to all theists? If it was not resentment at my not playing favorites because you felt you were exempt because we’re friends, then why is it that rather than “walking away” from the conversation when it was between me and someone else, you instead stood there and backed me up, cheered me on, or offered me compliments via email? Just because you’re not a troll, paralogist or bigot like those have occasionally pollute boards like this doesn’t mean that you’re exempt from putting up or shutting up when you make an accusation. When I put my big fat foot in my mouth when Steve Irwin died, I didn’t act indignant that others criticized me for the inappropriate remark I made. They were right. I was wrong, and that was that.
……………………………
As far as the less serious matter of the “doctrine” issue, again, you could’ve responded to my pointing out to you that there is a distinction between a doctrine, and an idea that is co-opted into being part of one, and said something about how natural selection provided an example of this. But instead, you imply doing so takes “hours” or “days”, that it requires that this be a “doctoral dissertation”, and that the only reason for doing so is to arrive at a “definitive answer”. Why is this? It didn’t take you hours or days to write your 2:23pm post yesterday did it? Nor did it require the implication that it was part of a dissertation or “definitive answers”, did it? If I may suggest, what you could’ve done was something like this:
Okay, that’s a good point, Luigi. I can sorta see where you’re going with doctrine vs. part of a doctrine, and natural selection provides a good example of how people exploit neutral ideas as part of non-neutral doctrines, but the reason I still think you’re wrong is because when I looked in this dictionary, and some definitions in it indicate atheism to be a type of doctrine.”
See? No dissertation. No “definitive” answer, since it acknowledges my point while still maintaining your own position. No “hours” or “days” to write it. And now that you’ve offered a substantial reference for this point, I can respond to it:
I concede your point about the dictionary. Then again, the American Heritage Dictionary, in addition to merely defining atheism as “disbelief” in God and secondarily as a “doctrine” that there isn’t a God, the last definition it gives is “Godlessness; immorality.” I’m sorry, but while I don’t normally disagree with the Bible, this time I’m going to have to. And it doesn’t even give that definition as an archaic one, as Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary does. So if I disagree with that definition, can I disagree with the “doctrine” one? Well, my Microsoft Word dictionary defines “doctrine” as “a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief, theory, or policy.” Since atheism is not this in and of itself, but can indeed by used by someone as the basis for one, as you yourself stated, I must concede that your application of that word was correct. Granted, the AHD calls a doctrine a body of “principles”, which atheism is not, but I think you’ve made your point.
Luigi,
Very well.
I read the post that led me to criticize you for being condescending and now must agree with you that the criticism was without merit. I apologize.
The "harder edge" to which I referred was evident in your response to Rex, whom you accused of making a bigoted statement. Given Rex's positive track record here, I believe it would've made sense to give him the benefit of the doubt and ask him what he meant rather than assuming he was being bigoted.
I believe you provided a distorted view of Christianity when you wrote the following:
"First of all, I do not know of where in the Bible it teaches free will or self-determination. It teaches that having any other gods other than the Judeo-Christian god is a sin, that saying his name in vain is a sin, and prescribes the death penalty for working on the Sabbath, not being a virgin on one’s wedding night (if you’re female), being a rebellious child, wearing clothing made from two different threads, planting different crops side by side, being homosexual, etc. Where is the self-determination or free will in that? Can you tell me where in the Bible it preaches these things?"
It is said in the Bible that God will punish us for violating his commandments. One can reasonably interpret that to mean humanity must indeed by free, and have freewill; otherwise, how could we justifiably be held responsible for our actions? That is in fact the basis for the Catholic theology with respect to freewill.
Think of it this way: just because the law proscribes certain actions by threat of punishment doesn't mean we lack free will. We can choose to act within the law or to violate it and face the consequences.
As for you "conceding" my point about the dictionary, I don't know what there is for you to "concede." As I said, some dictionaries include the word "doctrine" in the definition of "atheism" and some don't. To me, that simply means I wasn't out-and-out smoking crack when I said atheism could be a doctrine. That said, there's obviously a lot of room for debate and disagreement on the issue.
I hope you found this response satisfactory.
Bill Myers: It is said in the Bible that God will punish us for violating his commandments. One can reasonably interpret that to mean humanity must indeed by free, and have freewill; otherwise, how could we justifiably be held responsible for our actions? That is in fact the basis for the Catholic theology with respect to freewill.
Luigi Novi: I don’t see how an admonishment to follow laws is an example of free will. Laws are a limitation on free will, not an expression of it. It’s perfectly valid to limit free will through just laws, mind you, but I don’t see a suggestion of free will in laws, in and of themselves. While one can muse about the nature of the two, I don’t see how the concept is visible in the laws themselves, since a discussion of free will seems to be a separate thing.
Yes, you’re right that prescribed legal behavior does not entail lack of free will. I’m just saying that it makes no commentary on the concept one way or the other. Legal issues and philosophical issues would appear to be separate.
Bill Myers: As for you "conceding" my point about the dictionary, I don't know what there is for you to "concede." As I said, some dictionaries include the word "doctrine" in the definition of "atheism" and some don't.
Luigi Novi: Previously, I didn’t know that. I’m conceding that now I do, because of you. :-)
Ben Lesar: My understanding has always been that PAD is not a religious Jew.
Luigi Novi: Then why does he attend a synagogue, as he stated on the 10.21.03 WHAT’CHA WANNA KNOW? thread? Does he really like their Bingo Night, or something?
Ben Lesar: He practices Hanukah to be sure, but I believe he has said before that he holds an agnostic position regarding the existence of God.
Luigi Novi: Which does not preclude belief in him, since there are and have been agnostic theists (those who believe in him, but do not know him). Atheism and theism deal with belief. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Deism could be viewed as another example of a viewpoint that encompasses both agnosticism and theism (though the being in question is a non-specified natural force, rather than the Judeo-Christian God).
As far as Peter is concerned, one possible clue that may indicate that he understands this distinction between agnosticism and atheism (pending his jumping in on this point to clarify, since I don’t presume to speak for him) is that when asked how he felt about atheism and atheists on the last Q & A thread in April, he responded, “I don’t believe in atheists.” While this remark appears to be at least partially humorous, I’m guessing that it is authentic in the sense that he is not an atheist himself, and does believe in, or allow for the possibility of the existence of God. So being an agnostic does not preclude one from being religious, and in any event, none of this precludes the reasonable observation that he and his family assimilated into the U.S.
Ben Lesar: Until the last one hundred years or so most Jews did not do so. We were speaking of historical anti-Semitism so I was referring to what the majority of Jews historically were (religious) that led them not to assimilate. That I was speaking in the present tense does not matter because I was using a historical definition. I specified that I was not refering merely to ethnicity earlier, so don’t claim I am making this up after the fact.
Luigi Novi: “We” were not talking about historical assimilation. The first person to bring up the word on this thread was Micha, who said, in his June 7, 7:46pm post:
“So it doesn’t really matter if one Nazi hated Jews because of what he heard in Church, another because Jews were the wrong race, a third because they were capitalists, a fourth because they were communists, or because they kept to themselves, or assimilated to much, or were too rich, or too poor, or too traditionalists, or too modern and liberal, or all of above. Christianity made its contribution to the mix, as did other ideologies.”
He did not specify historical assimilation, and indeed, he mentioned the 20th Century, so unless he was referring specifically to a portion of that century that he considered to be operationally separate from recent times for the purposes of this discussion (which he can clarify if he wishes), he did not mean historical assimilation. Even you, in your first mention of assimilation in your June 8, 10:18pm post, said nothing that indicated to me that you were referring to the historical. You said:
“The fact is that may people all over the world don’t like Jews. One possible reason is that races and cultures of one kind don’t tolerate those of others coming to their nation and not assimilating. But to me the reason is spiritual. I believe that since the Jews are God’s chosen people those under sinister influence direct anger towards them without even knowing why.”
Nowhere in that did you mention or imply “historical” assimilation. Even if you wanted to clarify now that you were doing so, that does not mean that “we” (Micha, you, myself) were doing so.
Moreover, let’s be clear, what specifically are you referring to by “assimilation”? Learning the language? Following the laws? Paying taxes? Eating the local cuisine? Making friends in the community? What?
Ben Lesar: You said it was derived from Christianity specifically, not just religion.
Luigi Novi: And last time I checked, Christianity is a religion. Are you implying that saying “derived from Christianity” in one passage, and then, merely to avoiding repetition or because the distinction between the specificity and generality was moot in that particular situation, saying, “derived from religion” in another, changes the validity of the specific point being made? Does the generality-specificity distinction in this particular case alter the reasonability of the assertion being made?
Ben Lesar: Christianity is not responsible for Gandhi’s anti-Semitism; ergo Christianity cannot be the cause of anti-Semitism.
Luigi Novi: This is a false syllogism. In the first place, why does not being responsible for one man’s anti-Semitism mean that it cannot be responsible for any of it? You really do not know how to form coherent logic if you think this is anything other than a non-sequitur.
While I was unaware that Gandhi was an anti-Semite (I was only aware of his holding racist views of African blacks), let’s assume for argument’s sake that he was. First of all, how have you established that Christianity is not responsible for his anti-Semitism? I assume you’re not implying that it could not inform anti-Semitism on his part because he himself was not a Christian, right? Putting aside the fact that religion is not the sole source of bigotry, one can absorb ideas and sentiments from the community in which they live. Since Gandhi lived in Britain, South Africa, and British-ruled India, he could easily have absorbed through osmosis the anti-Semitism present in those British-rules societies, which are/were predominantly Christian. Since he experimented with some “English” customs when he lived in London, like taking dance lessons, why could he not adopt anti-Semitism if he encountered it? Since he developed a racist attitude towards the blacks he encountered in South Africa (he called them “only one degree removed from the animal”), why could he not become an anti-Semite through his exposure to those same communities? According to professors Surendra Bhana and Goolam Vahed, who specialize in South Africa, in The Making of a Political Reformer: Gandhi in South Africa, 1893–1914, in which they explain the relationship and conflict between the African and Indian communities under the white rule: “the young Gandhi was influenced by segregationist notions prevalent in the 1890s.” So why could he not be influenced by anti-Semitism if he encountered it?
Ben Lesar: I never admitted to doing such a thing. I raised a new argument. I never said, “This is what I have been saying all along.” I said, “Speaking of which, Luigi, numbers do matter.”
Luigi Novi: After you had previously insisted that you had not done that, even though you had.
Ben Lesar: By definition being subjective renders meaning a matter of opinion… and not a fact. That means you don’t believe meaning is something that exists, but something that you make up. That is no meaning at all.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. The meaning in question is one that a non-believer can perceive in life. If you want to use the phrase “make up” because that wording sounds a bit more crude and pejorative, be my guest, but the fact that a theist’s meaning may be derived from an centralized authority or holy book and an atheist’s may be one that he or she discovers in a more personal manner does not mean that the former is valid, and the latter is “no meaning at all.” What you mean is that the atheist’s meaning is not one that you personally find valid. That doesn’t meant yours is a meaning and theirs is not. And either case, both are indeed matters of opinion and viewpoint, since religious dogmas and doctrines are matters of faith, and not fact.
Ben Lesar: You ignored my use of the world “objective.” This means that something is right or wrong regardless of what people approve or disapprove of.
Luigi Novi: No it doesn’t. It means that the conclusion or idea in question was formed with the person’s biases and preconceptions held aside. “Objective” does not mean “right” or “true” or “good” or “really”, nor does “subjective” mean “wrong”, even if theists like yourself commonly use those concepts as a crude synonym for those things. Your use of the word was not ignored, just recognized as having no effect on my response to your statement.
Ben Lesar: To say that what is best for the species is a universal law is completely unfounded.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say it was a universal law. I said that such behavior evolved and survived because it gave that advantage to the species that exhibited. Species that don’t exhibit it are more likely to kill each other and go extinct, which is why they’re not around. Moral behavior is natural. But a universal “law” sounds like a moral assessment, which is not natural. This is why Michael Shermer distinguishes human morality from pre-moral behavior found in non-human animals: humans are capable, in addition to behaving morally, of forming moral assessments. Other animals cannot. Humans come up with moral “laws”. Other animals cannot. Bats, when they return to the cave from the hunt with food, will sometimes regurgitate it into the mouths of fellow bats who were not so lucky, knowing that someone else will eventually do the same to them. This is a pre-moral example of reciprocal altruism. This is why your musing about “killing undesirables” doesn’t apply. Bats cannot form intellectual assessments about what’s best for their species; they can only act on the inborn instincts they have. The only ones who can make assessments of morality, however—and therefore are subject to sometimes making assessments that we can agree wrong—are humans. In fact, even within humans, Shermer distinguishes between morality and ethics by asserting that morality is thoughts on behaviors about right and wrong, and that ethics are theories about moral thoughts and behaviors. “Laws” of man are derived from ethics, or moral assessments, but not necessarily from natural moral behavior. Some basic moral assessments are direct extension of natural moral behavior—the vast majority of us do not go around killing each other because our empathy (which is natural) prevents us from doing so, and would make us feel bad if we did. But some moral assessments—killing undesirables, on the other hand, are not, as they are more distant from these basic drives. Shermer even goes into where/when in the evolution of our species between 1.5 million years ago and today we crossed the Bio-Cultural Transitional Boundary, when our moral behavior began to be influenced primarily by our modern environment, and not our ancestral environment.
Ben Lesar: I would like to know when I have done so.
Luigi Novi: Any time that you make a statement about a group—in this case atheists—that is not based on any type of empirical evidence, but a completely unscientific and undocumented preconception or bias that you refuse to put aside in the possibility that it might wrong, even when presented with reasoning or evidence that shows that it might be, and that statement is particularly pejorative, judgmental, accusatory, etc., and you show no compunction about leveling that assertion at a member of that group without even first asking them about their point of view about it in order to confirm it, then you are judging an entire swath of people, not based a detailed or informed assessment of their character or personality as a person, but on a superficial aspect of their personhood, and doing so in a way that is clearly hateful, whether you admit it or not. That is bigotry, and is both intellectually untenable, and morally indefensible. Examples?
-You claim that a logical extension of this lack of belief in god is the belief that there is no truth, morality, or value in anything, which is clearly false, since atheists do not believe this, and you did not offer any evidence that they do. The attempt to connect the two is a common lie spread by some theists, but that does not make the lie true. Indeed, if I’m sitting here saying that I don’t believe in or have any tendencies toward nihilism, and you cannot cite any statistically significant example of atheists who do, then how can it be true? And since it’s not true, how can stating that it is not be an example of a bigot judging others?
And subsequent to my prior statement that you were doing this, continued:
-You claimed that atheists do not realize what their philosophy entails. And yet, atheism is not a philosophy, because it does not make any statements of assertion, has no organized principles, holy texts, rules, or authorities. It is merely the lack of a belief in god, which is not a philosophy. “I recognize the validity of the Scientific Method, testability, falsification, and the Peer Review Process, and a consistent adherence to those things does not yield any evidence of an omnipotent being” is not a philosophy. It’s a statement of fact.
-You called atheists moral parasites. While you did claim in the sentence that preceded this that they were “emulating” Christians, which is not derogatory (though untrue), “moral parasites” is a clearly derogatory, inflammatory choice of wording that any intelligent, honest person would see as insulting. At the very least, it’s a poor way to elaborate on the preceding sentence about emulating Christians.
-You are remarkably intolerant of philosophical ideas that you do not share, claiming that they are not merely not the answers that you prefer, but that they are not answers at all, and are “emotional garbage”, as with the matter of purpose and meaning in a Godless universe, as if somehow you alone get to decide what the definition of “purpose” or “meaning” are, instead of simply respecting someone else’s point of view, which you cannot prove to be wrong on the basis of fact, evidence, reason, or reference. That’s certainly an intolerant attitude.
Ben Lesar: They have a Christian cultural tradition to emulate.
Luigi Novi: To me, this would seem to imply that the basic principles that govern Western culture and law were originated by Christians. But they were not. Most of the basic principles upon which our laws were based predate the Bible. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, which was a secular codex, had the same basic laws, and it predates the Bible by several hundred years. Some Biblical concepts, in fact, were actually based on it, such as “an eye for an eye”, “an arm for an arm”, and many other rules in the Torah.
Moreover, some of the principles upon which America was founded were based on a combination of ancient Greek ideas about democracy, Native American practices of egalitarianism, ideas popularized during the French Enlightenment, and yes, some basic laws that were not invented by the Judeo-Christian religion, but which some of the Founding Fathers were raised with.
And many of our laws and principles clearly contradict the Bible, and Christianity in particular. Principles of equality among people of different color, and the outlawing of slavery are in direct contradiction of Jesus’ endorsement of slavery. Free market capitalism is contrary to his instruction that a wealthy man could pass through the eye of a needle more easily than get into heaven. And that’s just Christianity. If we open it up to the Bible in general, or Catholicism in particular, there’s lots more that conflicts.
And there is also the matter of numerous indigenous, pre-industrial tribes that have been isolated from the Bible and from industrialized society, that possess principles identical to Biblical or Christian ones—both good and bad—which shows that such things arise independently in multiple locations on Earth, and were not invented by either the Bible or Christianity.
Ben Lesar: They are moral parasites, leeching off morals that suit them and discarding just a few that don’t.
Luigi Novi: Everyone does this, including, I’ll wager, you, unless you want to tell me that you’re for slavery and the complete abandonment of all your worldly goods.
Ben Lesar: This is another thing I have never seen atheists actually formulate. An original moral system.
Luigi Novi: Neither have Christians or Jews. Many, if not most of the laws, stories, and practices of Judaism and Christianity, are based on earlier religions.
Rene: I don’t know what depresses me more. The atheist’s view of a world lacking any extrinsic meaning or you Christian guys believing we humans are so deeply flawed and fallen that the only thing stopping us all from killing babies is a stern God threatening us with eternal burning.
Luigi Novi: Just out of curiosity, why does meaning not being extrinsic depress you? When you experience the beauty of a sunset, the miracle of childbirth, the wonder of photos from the Hubble Telescope, are the sentiments generated in you lessened for their being intrinsic instead of extrinsic?
Jerry Chandler: Would Mother Teresa or any of the various affectionately revered figures in religious history acted differently if they were removed from the Church?
Luigi Novi: You mean if they were never indoctrinated in it in the first place? Of course they would have. You don’t see atheists performing baptisms on people without their consent. You don’t see atheists refusing to accept food to give to the needy because they think God will provide for them. You don’t see atheists running “hospitals” where people die because advanced medical care is withheld, while availing themselves of that same advanced care for themselves. You don’t see atheists condemning divorce while okaying it for celebrities like Princess Diana. You need religion for that.
Jerry Chandler: Religion means exactly jack-all. The person and who and what they are at their core is what matters…It aint the belief that matters as much as it is the person who holds it.
Luigi Novi: Well, it depends on both the person and the belief. If the belief in question is the literal six-day creation, and one theist wants that taught in science classrooms and thinks any opponent of that is inherently immoral and another theist does think this, then that is an example of a morally neutral belief whose application is predicated on the character or personality of the adherent. But if the belief in question is “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live,” then it’s not just the person, but the belief is one that inherently lends itself to crimes against humanity, especially if taken and adhered to literally. Granted, the aforementioned non-extremist religionist may choose not to kill women he thinks are witches, which would also go to personality and character, but even then, that’s because he’s making a decision not to follow that particular belief—in other words, he doesn’t have that belief at all.
Jerry Chandler: Well, an atheist believes that he’s going to die in the end and that it is the end. They don’t believe that they’re going anywhere else after death other then maybe haunting the Playboy Mansion. They don’t believe that their is a reward given for living a good life once you die. In other words, they’re not being bribed into being a good person. They’re not being a good person or trying to live a good life because they believe that they’ll get something for it in the end. They’re also not working from a perspective of fear.
Luigi Novi: Michael Shermer touches upon this in The Science of Good & Evil:
“What would you do if there were no God? Would you commit robbery, rape, and murder, or would you continue being a good and moral person? Either way the question is a debate stopper. If the answer is that you would soon turn to robbery, rape, or murder, than this is a moral indictment of your character, indicating you are not to be trusted because if, for any reason, you were to turn away from your belief in God (and most people do, at some point in your lives), your true immoral nature would emerge and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you. If the answer is that you would continue being good and moral, then apparently you can be good without God. QED.”
Ben Lesar: You can say that people claiming to be Christians (whether they were or weren’t isn’t mine to judge) shared in promoting it, but not that Christianity is responsible.
Luigi Novi: Both individual Christians and the church have at times help spread anti-Semitism. If, however, you mean the religion apart from its practitioners, then yes, that would sound reasonable.
Ben Lesar: How could it be when the Bible says that Jews are God’s chosen people. Jesus was a Jew.
Luigi Novi: Because bigots are invariably irrational.
Or to put it another way:
“I believe that since the Jews are God’s chosen people those under sinister influence direct anger towards them without even knowing why.”
Ben Lesar: I never said atheists couldn’t enjoy life. I did say, however, that under an atheist worldview there is no purpose to life.
Luigi Novi: And when Jerry said “How about life itself” and “enjoying” it, he was clearly responding to your statement by saying that those things can be and are the “meaning” that atheists have. Stop pretending that you didn’t understand him.
Ben Lesar: Claiming someone is stupid on the basis that they disagree with you or that they have a strong belief of some sort in an area where you evidently do not is pretty pathetic.
Luigi Novi: Agreed. Which is why Bill never said that that was the basis for that opinion. To speculate, I’d guess it was likely your complete inability to hold a discussion with intellectual honesty, consistency, a modicum of command of the facts of both science and history, and an abstinence from both logical fallacies, and the insistence of presenting commonly repeated stereotypes about a group of people as having a basis in reason or fact.
Ben Lesar: If you actually have some evidence that I am stupid I would love to hear it.
Luigi Novi: Ah. A gauntlet is thrown down.
All right, Ben, here goes:
-The only way to know what goes on in the minds of atheists, with regard, for example, to ideas about meaning or purpose in life, is to ask them, or perhaps do some type of research on it, but you not only refused to do this, you have continued to insist on your lies about atheists on this point, even after informed you that you were in error about. That’s stupid.
-You repeatedly chicken out of responding to the specific distinction offered by someone between crimes committed by atheist governments and crimes committed by theists governments because you know full well that you cannot refute that point. This is intellectually dishonest, but to think that the other person (and other readers of the thread) won’t notice it is exceedingly stupid.
-You insist that not believing in an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient, timeless being for whom there is no empirical evidence may logically result in the belief that there is no morality, truth, or value in anything, again, despite atheists here telling you that they have zero likelihood of ever subscribing to that latter idea. That’s stupid.
-You make an argument that appeals to numbers. Then you say that you weren’t. Then you decided that you were after all. That’s stupid.
-You allege that I said something that I did not, based on “memory”, rather than scrolling up and double-checking it to be sure, like I do. That’s stupid.
-You argue that anti-Semitism is not derived at least in part from Christianity, even though the historical evidence says otherwise. That’s stupid.
-You claim that someone is not religious, simply because they’re agnostic (when there are agnostic believers in God), even though they belong to a synagogue. This could generously attributed to ignorance. But to insist upon this notion, without at least looking it up to confirm it one way or the other, and on a message board debate with people who are clearly knowledgeable and intelligent enough to probably have done so themselves, takes Olympic levels of stupidity here, Ben.
-You not only don’t know what the words “objective” and “subjective” mean, you refuse to consult a reference source that would bolster your assertions of those words, which would certainly be a reasonable move if you’re going to use them in a disagreement with someone over them. You similarly do this with the words “meaning” and “purpose”. That’s taking stupidity—and arrogance—to an art form.
-You argue that non-Christians can “emulate” Christian morality, but act obtuse on the notion of non-Christians emulating other behaviors from them, like anti-Semitism. That’s stupid.
-You repeatedly refer to this emulation as “parasitic”, a wording that is blatantly inflammatory and pejorative. Stupid.
-You state or imply that modern principles of morality originated with Christianity, even though anyone with a smattering of knowledge of history and current events knows that those principles existed prior to Christianity, and currently exist in the tribes of peoples not exposed to it. That’s stupid.
-You are largely (if not completely) ignorant in the various ways in which thinking goes wrong, and as such, utilize a number of logical fallacies, from the Argument from Incredulity (as when you claim to be unable to see how atheists can have an objective meaning or purpose in life), Straw Men (claiming that my statements about naturally-occurring morality are “universal laws”; claiming that Bill’s assessment of your stupidity was based on your mere disagreement, when he said nor implied no such thing), backpedaling (making a numerical argument, then saying you weren’t, and then deciding that you were doing so “newly”; claiming you were talking about “historical” assimilation when no clear indication was made that you were), etc. We’re talking all 31 flavors of stupid here.
-You are so intolerant of the idea of people holding a purpose or meaning in life that is different in some way from yours, that even when they tell you they have one, you call their ideas “emotional garbage”, and pretend that the definitions of those words is what you arbitrarily define them to be. That’s intolerant. And stupid.
-You claim studies that you say support your point of view, and then…………don’t cite them. You similarly do no research on a statement Richard Dawkins made on eugenics, which would shed light on what he meant, even though it would’ve been easy to do so, as it certainly was for me. Stupid.
Did I leave anything out?
Micha: The whole point of atheism is examining and choosing your morality according to your own judgement rather than the authority of scripture or priests.
Luigi Novi: At the risk of nitpicking, I would say that that is the moral dimension of it, or permutation of it, but not that it’s the “whole point” of it. The “whole point” of atheism is really, really, simple: A lack of belief in gods.
Bill Mulligan: But it’s actually a bit pointless to apply much of Darwinian theory to humanity--we have largely taken ourselves out of the natural selection loop.
Luigi Novi: Not really. As long as there are environmental pressures at work, we will constantly be undergoing infinitesimally minute mutations, which cannot be easily seen when looking at that the timeline of human lives, which is too short a time span to make them evident, though we may be able to see such changes by looking at the span of all of human existence, which may show changes in how our brains work.
Bill Mulligan: Now widespread cloning, THAT could be disastrous.
Luigi Novi: How so?
Ben Lesar: I never said Christian governments did not promote anti-Semitism. I was merely responding to the claim that Christianity is responsible.
Luigi Novi: Same thing. Christianity is a religion. That religion is embodied by the Church. The Church is historically responsible for condoning, encouraging, and acting on anti-Semitic sentiment. Individual practitioners who resisted these behaviors may be without culpability, but the major groups and their authorities did not.
Micha: Atheist have to find purpose in terms of this world alone, which is tough, but in no way impossible.
Ben Lesar: Yes, it is.
Luigi Novi: No, it’s not. I’m sitting right here telling you that I can see purpose and meaning in life, despite being an atheist. So your assertion that atheists cannot do this is disproven.
Ben Lesar: Does a computer program have a purpose other than that it was created for? Perhaps a person can find a use for it other than that, but that is not purpose; meaning. Purpose requires intent.
Luigi Novi: And the intent can be the secondary, emergent, or found intent discerned by the person who decides to use it for something other than what an intelligent creator intended. You can use a computer program as a noise-maker if you want to, as when you turn on iTunes on full blast, not because you’re in the mood to listen to music, but because your neighbors are pissing your off and you want to get back at them, or when you use a diskette as a coaster. Intent does not have to reside with an originator, or an intelligence. Purpose and meaning can be self-determined, or adapted after the fact. (There are aspects of this in evolution, interestingly.) Just because you personally prefer an external one does not mean that that’s the sole definition of the word. If you don’t believe this, then how would you view art that is created from found objects that the artist takes from a scrap yard and welds together, as with the works seen at: http://www.robot-models.com/? The tree cut into a block of wood onto which Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa? Or the telephone that was originally invented with the “intention” of being an aid to the hearing impaired, but came to used as a communication tool for the non-hearing impaired? Stacks of books used to support a table with a missing leg? Metals, polymers and other naturally-occurring substances that man refines, processes, or otherwise manipulates to turn into his inventions? All of those things involve the finding of a purpose in an object that is secondary or artificial.
This assertion of yours is arbitrary, ignores the evidence that disproves it, and your insistence on it, without evidentiary support, is just one more thing that reveals your arrogance.
Ben Lesar: The universe can have no purpose if it was an accident. If there is no purpose to the universe as a whole, any “purpose” we create upon earth is meaningless. It is just bags of chemicals-- robots if you will-- going through the motions.
Luigi Novi: The universe is without any intelligence or purpose, as it came into being through natural causes, and may eventually end via natural causes as well, even expanding and collapsing a multitude of times—or having done so already—completely indifferent to our existence during this one cycle we might be in. Similarly, animals evolved until the dinosaurs dominated the Earth, until they went completely extinct long before man arrived, a purposely set of events if I know of one. Can you tell me what God’s purpose was in that?
Ben Lesar: Emotional rhetoric regarding the simple enjoyment of eating grilled burgers or the like is not an answer to a philosophical argument.
Luigi Novi: No, it’s not the answer that you prefer. That doesn’t mean that it’s not an answer. Atheism is at least informed by logic and rationality. It is religion that, while originating with emotion in its beginnings, is certainly defended on an emotional basis today, as all or most of the arguments used to defend or rationalize its ideas stem from emotional, or at the very least, logical fallacies.
Ben Lesar: Natural selection does lead many to moral conclusions though.
Luigi Novi: Only those who misunderstand or deliberately ignore the fact that it’s a description of a natural process, and not a prescription for behavior.
Ben Lesar: I could point out that studies show that religious people are, on average, much happier than their non-religious counterparts.
Luigi Novi: And yet, you chose not to cite even one. Why is that?
I’m not sure about happiness, but a study in The Journal of Religion and Society shows that religion does not lead to a healthier society:
http://skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html
Even if your assertion were true, it would not validate the asserted facts or moral principles of religion, or the existence of God. Cocaine can make a person “happier”, but I wouldn’t recommend using it.
Ben Lesar: But it makes more sense to point out that “creating your own meaning” is emotional garbage.
Luigi Novi: It is not. It is a viewpoint that many hold. That you choose to attack it in the most vitriolic manner possible doesn’t make your assessment of it fact. It just reveals you to be an intolerant churl.
Ben Lesar: What you are really doing is redefining the term “meaning” to suit your needs.
Luigi Novi: No, that’s what you’re doing, because you are assuming, without citing one reference source, that the word requires that intent can be derived only on the part of the person who first created an object, and that it cannot be by someone who later acquires the object. I checked four reference sources, and none of them specify these arbitrary and narrow parameters of yours. In fact, dictionary.com, for example, says that “purpose” can be defined not only through the intent by which it was originally made, but also through the intent by which it is used. So you’re wrong.
Ben Lesar: Where have I wrongly cited historical facts or attributed things to a philosophy that aren’t part of it?
Luigi Novi: Regarding history, you have claimed or implied that anti-Semitism is not derived from Christianity, you’ve ignored things like the Code of Hammurabi that predated the Bible and had largely the same laws, you’ve ignored tribes that were untouched by the Bible that have essentially the same laws that other societies have or had, you’ve pretty much dismissed anything Hitler said that indicated he believed in God by referring to all of it as “public”, and therefore discountable, you claim that Western culture is based on Christianity, when plenty of evidence about how the U.S. was founded alone shows otherwise, etc.
Regarding atheism, you’ve made statements too numerous to count at this point, one example being the idea that it’s a “philosophy”, and “dangerous” (as if there’s something dangerous about not being convinced that there’s an invisible omnipotent man in the sky) which you haven’t even bothered trying to illustrate or elaborate on. You seem to act as if just because you’re convinced of these canards about atheism, then it is not necessary to consider the arguments of atheists who explain to you that they do not act in the manner typified by these fallacies and lies, as if your preconceptions and biases about atheists are set in stone. This is not philosophical rocket science, it’s easy. You say that atheists believe or act in this or that way, and continue to do so even after they’ve informed you that they don’t.
(And there’s also the science-related stuff about morality being naturally-occurring which you’ve ignored.)
Ben Lesar: There are cannibalistic tribes in different places in this world. There is no reason to believe atheists wouldn’t adopt the morality of those tribes if they were born there, just as they have adopted Western morality being born here.
Luigi Novi: You’re not answering Jerry’s point, which is that the existence of universal principles, even in cultures that were not touched by the Bible, shows that the Bible did not originate them. As to your point, if they were born there, then how can they be atheists, when they would be indoctrinated into the religion of that tribe?
Ben Lesar: Seeing as how you’re the one making the ad hoc claim it is on you to support it.
Luigi Novi: In the first place, you have not established that it’s an ad hoc claim, since there’s nothing that indicates that this is not a firm and consistently-held conclusion of Jerry’s, as opposed to one he’s only making situationaly (the definition of ad hoc). In the second, the burden of proof is on the person making a bold claim, particularly when it flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary. That our culture is based on things other than Christianity is established through all the evidence which exists for it, which is available to you, and unobscure. Because any new or bold idea that is opposed to the current consensus of facts must muster evidence that shows that it explains phenomena better than the current model, and since the current consensus among historians is not that Western culture was based on Christianity, it is you who shoulders the burden of proof. Not Jerry.
Ben Lesar: Calling something widely debunked does not make it so.
Luigi Novi: Correct. It is debunked by virtue of the evidence or reason offered that disproves it, and Jerry and I pointed out sources that influenced American democracy in particular and Western society in general, that are not only not Christian, but opposed to a number of aspects of it. That’s what debunks it.
Ben Lesar: Richard Dawkins…seems to favor some sort of eugenics program.
Luigi Novi: He supports the idea of asking questions about it, such as asking what the difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. This is a commonly-held view among many scientists and doctors who feel that genetic engineering can be used to eliminate prenatal diseases, correct deformities, etc. They do not advocate the murdering of entire races of people, as Hitler did, for that is not an immutable part of eugenics. You could’ve discovered this with a Google search, or by going to Dawkins’ site, but that would’ve required something resembling research, and might’ve required you to revise or abandon a preconception or impression that you may have formed when initially hearing about this, and you don’t want to do that.
Ben Lesar: Even the full title of Darwin’s book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” seems to indicate that he is not that far off.
Luigi Novi: Only for those who are dead-set on believing the worst things about him and his book, and dead-set against revising that conclusion, instead of what good faith inquiry might reveal. Darwin’s book was about natural processes. Not artificial eugenics, let alone the type practiced by the Nazis.
Ben Lesar: It does suggest that atheists only refrain from criminal activity because they are afraid of punishment, however.
Luigi Novi: Why you would think that atheists, if removed from a situation where there was law enforcement, would turn into a bunch of murdering, raping robbers, and that none of them would be prevented from immoral behavior through the natural empathy most of them feel for other people, I don’t know but you further put the lie to the notion that you are not a bigot when you make such ridiculous assertions.
True, there are some people for whom fear of punishment from the law is the only barrier between them and criminal behavior, but this is not exclusive to atheists. In fact, according to the Bureau of Prisons, atheists are proportionately underrepresented in prisons, at least on the federal level (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/crimechart.html). And that’s aside from the fact that religion itself uses fear of punishment as the main motivating factor for teaching moral behavior.
For a time, I considered that you were not necessarily a bad person, and that even if we disagreed on this one subject, it did not necessarily typify your behavior. I do not generally assume that new people who disagree with me are trolls or anything, even if they employ logical fallacies or other flawed arguments in certain topics, since we’re all human beings, and have our limitations. But with each additional post, you reveal yourself to be a vitriolic bigot, intellectually dishonest, and incapable of the basic fundamentals of honest inquiry, research, understanding, or decency, and in displaying this behavior towards those who don’t share your religious beliefs, you show yourself to be the least moral person on this board, and thus, a typical hypocrite.
And I’m done with you.
One of the dangers of being a cluster-logic thinker is that it occasionally happens largely subconsciously, and a finished product pops out of my mouth (or keyboard) and even I'm not entirely sure how to "show my work," as it were. However, having taken a couple of days to mull it over... And bear with me...
If there is a definite relationship between Atheism and Nihilism, it would have to be that Atheism is nihilistic in form if not intrinsically in function. Atheism is an assertion of a negative, that there is no God. That is the beginning, end, and entirety of Atheism. In and of itself, it offers no guidance, purpose, meaning, or morality.
However
Atheism, just as with any other philosophical concept, does not exist in a vacuum. There is not a single (fully cognizant) person whose entire life-view can be summed up as "There is no God." As with any philosophical building block, an individual will take it and run in a direction dictated by their own individual influences, experiences, and conscience.
Ironically, it is entirely likely that the predominance of hardcore theist belief within society is a leading factor in causing some who adopt an Atheistic worldview to take the next step to full-blown Nihilism. If it is so deeply ingrained in their mind that God is the sole source of purpose, meaning, and morality, then naturally removing God from the equation removes those other things. This is, of course, bunk, as an observation of any number of perfectly moral Atheists will show.
-Rex Hondo-
"Luigi Novi: I don’t see how an admonishment to follow laws is an example of free will. Laws are a limitation on free will, not an expression of it. It’s perfectly valid to limit free will through just laws, mind you, but I don’t see a suggestion of free will in laws, in and of themselves. While one can muse about the nature of the two, I don’t see how the concept is visible in the laws themselves, since a discussion of free will seems to be a separate thing."
This is really strange logic, but I'm loopy enough right now that it makes sense to me. Here goes...
To some degree, the establishment of a law is proof of free will. it's a bit like Jeff Foxworthy's bit about the rule they instruct you of in some hospitals to not have sex during the delivery. You just know that someone must have done it for them to issue a rule.
Same thing here. There must be the ability to do "wrong" if you have to mandate "right" to the masses. If mankind had no free will, if we were in fact mindless robots programmed with only what we should do, then there would be no need to tell us what not to do.
As for being a limitation on free will... Well, yeah, it is. But there are many things that are limits to free will that we deal with every day. If we chose to express our free will, then there can be consequences. That holds true with everything out there. It also doesn't negate the existence of human free will, it simply displays the limits that some would put on the exercise of our free will. If you don't like the limits someone sets, then you have the free will to seek your fortunes elsewhere with other faiths or rules. Even if those rules are the concept of no rules at all.
But it could just be the need for sleep talking.
I don't see how an admonishment to follow laws is an example of free will. Laws are a limitation on free will, not an expression of it.
If there was no disobedience, the population of every prison would be zero.
An argument against free will is portrayed in the fatalism of more than a few Vonnegut novels, like Slaughterhouse Five, where the only difference between the past and the future is that we conventionally remember one, but not the other.
If it is so deeply ingrained in their mind that God is the sole source of purpose, meaning, and morality, then naturally removing God from the equation removes those other things. This is, of course, bunk, as an observation of any number of perfectly moral Atheists will show.
Also, there is no belief in a creator in Buddhism, Nirvana being the Sanskrit word meaning "nothing." The main distinction of Buddhism from Atheism seems to be the understanding that reason is not something that fulfill all needs of an individual.
“No, I'm perfectly happy to engage in debates -- just not with you.”
My point remains. You are avoiding giving an argument by saying “your argument is so poor I won’t bother to refute it.” Guess what? When you don’t refute an argument in a debate it stands.
“I'm not claiming you're stupid just because I disagree with you. I'm calling you stupid because, well... you are.”
The fact that almost everyone I have ever known believes I am more intelligent than they are indicates otherwise.
“It's all over this thread. People have refuted your arguments up one side and down the other and you respond by pretending that's not the case.”
None of my arguments have been refuted.
“If you believe strongly that something is true then by extension you are sure those who disagree are wrong. If you have strong character, however, you can disagree without vilifying your ‘opponent.’”
So you are admitting you don’t have a strong character? Or does calling me “stupid” not count because you are insulting my intelligence and not my morality? I, on the other hand, have not directly attacked anyone in any way.
“If your belief system is so damned great, you shouldn't need to unfairly demonize your opponents. The best way to evangelize is to exemplify your beliefs through your actions, not your words.”
When they invent a way to post my actions let me know.
“I've noted that the people who are surest of themselves and their beliefs are also the ones least interested in forcing them on everyone else. Something to think about.”
I joined this thread to have an honest discussion. I have not forced anything on anyone.
“Your "logical consequence" has no real-world example, and no real-world advocate.”
I repeat, did you miss the discussion on Stalin?
“Absolutely you should respond to others. Thing is, when your responses don't back the other arguments that your making to other posters, it weakens your overall argument. See, we argue with multiple posters all of the time around here, but our points are usually the same no matter who we are debating with. We don't claim that it's A that matters and not B with one poster, turn around and tell another poster that it's actually B and not A that's the nut of the matter and then tell yet another poster that it's more about C then those unimportant things like A or B. My point is that it is not the philosophy or the faith that's as important as the person. I could be debating ten different posters here and I would be consistent in saying that it's A and not B with every single person here every single time.”
I have not once changed a position. Talking at one time about a philosophy and another about people is not a switch in position it is a switch in topic.
“Really now? There are entire movements and philosophies out there that focus on life being its own meaning. What you're actually saying here is that you personally don't like or agree with thousands of years worth of others' belief systems so they just don't count. Doesn't work that way. They exist and people are just fine with them. Any good teacher of philosophy, outside of Sunday School, would tell you the same.”
Any philosophy that doesn’t employ logic, but feelings, is a kindergarten philosophy. If you can’t back up a claim with a reason it should be taken into consideration then you are not philosophizing, you are engaging in emotional masturbation.
“And the fact that a portion of Christians do horrible things to this very day in the name of Christianity does or doesn't make Christianity a dangerous philosophy? I say no, but, if applied fairly and equally, your argument would say yes. As a matter of fact, Christians and Christianity come out the worse of the two under your argument. As has been pointed out by others, many crimes in history committed by Christians have been done so directly explicitly in the name of Christianity. You would be hard pressed to find tyrants and dictators in history that declared their actions were in the name of atheism. The best you can do is point to dictators that used atheism as but one of many tools for conquest, power or control of their people.”
I hardly see how doing something in the name of your faith makes it any worse than giving no reason at all.
“Well, you claim a tyranny or a dictatorship as an atheist government when the reality of it is far more complex then that. I would suggest you actually read about the life of Stalin (Did you know that he was educated at the Seminary of Tiflis and that his mother's goal for him was to become a priest?) and his rather complex relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church. Stalin was a bit of a bastard and his rule did involve religious, political and ideological purges at points, (while letting the church partially rebuild at one point as well) but they were just a few tools of many in his box. His philosophy was not in and of itself atheistic any more then King Henry VIII's (or any of history's more deranged monarchs) philosophy was truly Christian.”
Stalin was an atheist. It is as an agreed upon historical fact as anyone’s personal beliefs can be.
“And it's only fair, by your POV and argument, that you recognize that his government wasn't really atheist. After all, you keep discounting examples of Christian governments activities in history because you "clearly pointed out that Christians are not Christianity" and such. Well, atheists are not atheism. Please find me the tenant of atheism that instructs one kill, oppress and purge and I will then gladly admit that you aren't talking out of both sides of your mouth and trying to have it both ways here.”
I never said atheists were atheism. I only brought up Stalin in the first place because Luigi Novi implied that Christians did more evil.
The holidays we celebrate are Christian in nature. That we happen to use trees that pagans used has nothing to do with the nature of the holiday.
As far as the First Amendment goes: our federal government is not allowed to establish a state church or oppress religious minorities. At the time the Bill of Rights was written the majority of people were Christian. They were thinking of the oppression of Puritans by Angelicans. So, yes, our government was founded on Christian principles, regardless of the personal beliefs of Jefferson and several others.
“Likewise, the crimes committed by atheists and "atheist" governments don't count because the people are not the philosophy. As I said in my above posts, it's the person that matters and not the faith. Thank you for pointing out that perfectly valid defense of atheism for all to see and finally showing some level of common sense.”
I never said that atheist crimes proved atheism was a sinister philosophy, that was a different discussion. It is common among popular atheists, (Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, for example) to claim that religion is responsible for most of the wars in history. This is false. Luigi Novi implied something similar. I pointed out that atheists were in fact the ones who have the worst track record. When I argued against atheism as a philosophy I used a different argument. This is why people think I have been changing my position; they seem to think I am arguing one thing.
“Good example. What gives purpose to computer programs? humans. Humans have the capacity to give purpose to things like computer programs, and they do. If the computer program is a game, than the purpose is to win by following a certain scheme. Yet, while you accept thst computer programs get their purpose from humans, you feel the need for someone else to give a purpose to human life. Why wouldn't the same humans who have the capacity to give purpose to computer games and many other things give purpose to their own life as well?”
First, because humans create the computer programs. You cannot create your own purpose if you do not create yourself. Second, even if you could it wouldn’t be universal, it would be subjective.
“I assume the purpose was to point a connection between their atheism and their genocidal tendancies, or else what was the point. I think your interpretation of your 'facts' is incorrect (it was already explained why), and I do not trust your facts either.”
I have stated the point numerous times (to refute Luigi Novi) and it was clear when I first posted it.
“When you equated atheism in nihilism, and where you tried to create the impression that Christian, unlike atheists, have not done horrible things.”
I never said Christians have not done horrible things.
Jerry Chandler: To some degree, the establishment of a law is proof of free will.
Luigi Novi: Yes, creating laws is an acknowledgement that there is will, but it does not constitute teaching free will, which is what Ben was claiming Christianity does. That was the original point I was responding to.
Btw, I made a long post and posted it, but it hasn't gone through yet, pending approval from the webmaster. So this post, even though it will show up on the board before it, was composed after it.
Natural selection does lead many to moral conclusions though.
Really? Which ones? I'm genuinely asking here.
Richard Dawkins, atheist and renowned evolutionary biologist, seems to favor some sort of eugenics program. Although he is mysteriously silent on the specifics. Now I know that no one, no matter how prominent in their field, necessarily speaks for it. But even the full title of Darwin’s book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” seems to indicate that he is not that far off.
If true, that says something about Mr Dawkins and little to nothing about natural selection, any more than Jimmy Swaggart's indiscretions speaks about Christianity.
You should read Darwin's book. He wasn't using races in the same sense we do. But even if he was (and some of his words in later books show an unenlightened attitude toward minorities) it doesn't change a thing about the reality of natural selection as a mechanism of nature. Does the repulsive antisemitism of Martin Luther mean that all of protestantism should be rejected?
Once we've mastered cloning, the disadvantages will probably be too abstract for people to abide by. They'll leave it to other people to worry about, and the issue will be neglected.
I don't think so. Most people wouldn't want clones for children. They want ids who share some of their genetics. Having a near perfect child from your own DNA will usually be preferable to adopting the clone of someone else.
College used to be available only to a privileged class. People mortgage their homes to put their kids through college, but it still gets done.
It still is. Only about 1% of the world's population goes to college.
Posted by: Jerry chandler at June 10, 2007 07:24 PM
A computer program is not self aware, it has only one function and it is unable to make true choices.
Heresy! Have you not seen Tron?
-Rex Hondo-
Hmmm, I don't look in for a little while and we pick up another person who thinks they can 'win' something by continually repeating the same things and creating thier own meanings for words...
Well, at least Mike has a playmate now. :)
Show me how in a world without a God we would have purpose or objective morals. I have never encountered an atheist capable of doing either.
Where god leaves no evidence of Himself, how does religion make available an objective morality?
As for purpose, do you not devote time to listening to music, or have you removed that purposeless activity from your lifestyle? What great art isn't justified primarily as something that hogs as much of your time as it can get away with?
None of my arguments have been refuted.
Your inability to verify such a thing as an objective morality exists is refutation-o'-plenty that 1) people of faith are no more capable of portraying a world of objective morality than atheists, and 2) people are unable to provide their own purposes.
We have no way of verifying an objective morality, and the purposes of literally everything we do is provided either by ourselves or other people.
If morality is subjective that means taking little children up on to a stage and cutting them up with chainsaws for sport is not evil...
...and your genetic line would die out, with the genetic line of people who instinctively protect their children or -- even better -- families who socialize together to do so would fill in to consume the resources that sustain us all. Morality is not needed to justify something that can be justified by a little reproductive self-interest.That is a non sequitur.
As opposed to strawmen about kinder morder?The point is that there is nothing in the moral code of survival that prevents evil.
Speaking of non-sequiturs, what is the relevance of good and evil in the administration of government?
Are you living the Lifestyle of Doing Good?™
Did you miss the discussion on Stalin? Never heard of Mao or Pol Pot? I could go on...
Do you even know what a strawman argument is? It is misrepresenting someone else's argument and then attacking that. All I did was to give an example showing the logical consequences of nihilism. No misrepresentation.There were a number of references to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, and you haven't cited any of them to establish a counterpoint of any kind. How can you go on when you haven't even started?
Your "logical consequence" has no real-world example, and no real-world advocate.
Your denying your Fiction™ is... a Misrepresentation™ demonstrates it is not I who has a problem understanding the qualifications for a strawman argument.
I repeat, did you miss the discussion on Stalin?
The answer to your question is "not entirely." I did a search of this page for "Stalin" and found no reference to any governmental resolve to promote evil or to chainsaw children.
You do realize seeing things no one else sees is a symptom of schizophrenia, yes?
Once we've mastered cloning, the disadvantages will probably be too abstract for people to abide by. They'll leave it to other people to worry about, and the issue will be neglected.I don't think so. Most people wouldn't want clones for children. They want ids who share some of their genetics. Having a near perfect child from your own DNA will usually be preferable to adopting the clone of someone else.
Yeah, people -- as we know them now -- don't want clones for children. Are we really qualified to speak for the yet-to-be-spawned perfect beings beyond the horizon of the Gattaca-setting?
College used to be available only to a privileged class. People mortgage their homes to put their kids through college, but it still gets done.It still is. Only about 1% of the world's population goes to college.
That 1% would take up 1/6 of the US population, so I'm guessing the figure is higher -- but civilization as we know it depends on your 1%, does it not?
Hmmm, I don't look in for a little while and we pick up another person who thinks they can 'win' something by continually repeating the same things and creating thier own meanings for words...
Well, at least Mike has a playmate now. :)
Thank you, Patrick, for continuing your tradition of not finding anything wrong in what I say. That makes you playmate enough for me.
I didn't piggyback off of your use of the word "refuted" well. Let me rephrase:
Your inability to verify such a thing as an objective morality exists demonstrates that 1) people of faith are no more capable of portraying a world of objective morality than atheists, and 2) people are unable to provide their own purposes.
Ben Lesar: "I never said atheists were atheism. I only brought up Stalin in the first place because Luigi Novi implied that Christians did more evil."
I don't think he did. I think you read things into his original post that weren't there.
"First, because humans create the computer programs. You cannot create your own purpose if you do not create yourself. Second, even if you could it wouldn’t be universal, it would be subjective."
You are really trapped in your little creator metaphor, aren't you. I find it intriguing that in a conversation about a supreme being people will employ a metaphor that reflects such mundane human experience. I also find it ironic that it is the Christian here who promotes the image of humans as computer programs, as robots in effect. (It is also ironic for a Christian to refer to any philosophy other than his as emotional).
Let's look at this passage:
"You cannot create your own purpose if you do not create yourself."
Why? Because you are so hung up on your creator metaphor? It is only your emotional need to have your purpose sanctioned by a supreme being that stands behind your claim.
But let us look at this another way: who creates a human? Well, part of the process is biological, a mixure of genes, a growth of an embrio, birth. The second part involves growing up, education, experience. All these processes occur by humans in the human world, it involves the human himself (humans are sentient and self conscious beings), and his social environment. This is how humans are created, and it is this process which shapes the meanings and purposes of their lives.
Still, let's look at the creator metaphor in a third way. Let's assume for a second that here is a creator. what do we know about him/her or the purposes of our creation? we know the purpose of a computer program because we see how it functions, and how it is being used by people. But people themselves are not objects that are used by supreme beings in any clear cut way (although they are often used by other people). Nor can we learn from the way they function what their purpose is the way we can with a program or a watch, unless we assume that the purpose of humans is to live. Furthermore, in our human experience we do not often see computer programs or other manufactured objects exhibit free will, or going around worshiping their creators. They simply function. Under these circumstances, even if we were to assume a creator -- a supreme being none the less -- how arrogant do you have to be to assume you know anything about the purpose of hummans, and worse yet, that that purpose is outlined in the writings of a smal middle eastern tribe of all places.
"Second, even if you could it wouldn’t be universal, it would be subjective."
You conveniently align your metaphors and the parameters of what you're willing to accept so that they lead you to the conclusion you have already designated, and anything that does not fit is not philosophy but emotional masturbation. How convenient.
What is this strange need for universality and objectivety of a standard that exists nowhere in the human experience outside the realm of mathematics, physics and chemistry? All human experience is unreal to you unless you can attach to it the label of 'universality' and 'objectivity' by a Christian god? Michaelangelo defined his purpose as being an artist. Peter David defined his purpose as being a writer. but this is not 'universal', not 'objective'? According to what standard? If Peter David converted to Christianity and started to go to Church of a certain denomination, in a certain country, reading a translation of the gospels, cannonized by the church in a moment in history, and interpreted by different interpreters over time, and sermoned by a preacher in a given moment, would that be more 'universal' more 'objective'?
Once we've mastered cloning, the disadvantages will probably be too abstract for people to abide by. They'll leave it to other people to worry about, and the issue will be neglected.
I don't think so. Most people wouldn't want clones for children. They want ids who share some of their genetics. Having a near perfect child from your own DNA will usually be preferable to adopting the clone of someone else.
Yeah, people -- as we know them now -- don't want clones for children. Are we really qualified to speak for the yet-to-be-spawned perfect beings beyond the horizon of the Gattaca-setting?
Obviously our speculations are just that and neither of us is likely to be around 100 years from now to see who is right. But I suspect that in the far flung future our evolution will be more likely in the form of technological enhancement, which offers advantages over biological ones.
As long as we are human I think the vast majority will have children more or less the old fashioned way, albeit with many technological safeguards to enhance the likelihood of a happy healthy child. The Brave New World distopias usually fail for me because they lack a good reason why anyone would want them. It's like all the old sci-fi shows where, in the future, dinner was just a few blue pills. In reality, we eat a greater variety of real foods now, stuff from all over the world. None of the folks who magined the blue pill future seemed to have wondered why the hell anyone would choose to eat blue pills. (Similarly, they always imagine the future where everyone dresses alike. Reality--as time goes on there seems to be far more diversity of dress, hair, makeup, fashion, etc.)
That 1% would take up 1/6 of the US population, so I'm guessing the figure is higher -- but civilization as we know it depends on your 1%, does it not?
It does seem rather low. That might be an old statistic and may have only counted those who actually got degrees. I can't seem to find a good stat on just how many people in the world DO go to college. You'd think that India or China would blow the numbers out but I see one from 1998 that says only 6 million Chinese went to college.
At any rate, the number is still a very small part of the total population and the issue at hand were the statements As far as manipulating our own genes go, if people choose to conform to what we consider an ideal type, civilization as we know it could be wiped out by a single vunerability, just as 95% of Indians in the Amercas were wiped out by diseases nurtured by agricultural practices. and Where people are free to choose, they typically choose to do what other people choose. What we need to do, which is preserve as much genetic diversity as possible, probably won't be done. Once we've mastered cloning, the disadvantages will probably be too abstract for people to abide by. They'll leave it to other people to worry about, and the issue will be neglected.
Given, as you say, that we can't really know what some future humans will do, I still find it highly unlikely that anything approaching 95% will opt for reproducing by cloning or be able to afford to even if they did. Given the disadvantages of such a practice we would have to have a world that is rich, technologically advanced, has abandoned most cultural attitudes toward family and children, and is also pretty stupid. Possible, sure, what isn't? Likely, I doubt it.
Indeed, given relaxed attitudes toward dating outside of one's race or culture and the ability of us to travel far and wide, spreading our genes as we go, I wonder if the average human is now MORE genetically diverse than ever.
“You should read Darwin's book. He wasn't using races in the same sense we do. But even if he was (and some of his words in later books show an unenlightened attitude toward minorities) it doesn't change a thing about the reality of natural selection as a mechanism of nature. Does the repulsive antisemitism of Martin Luther mean that all of protestantism should be rejected?”
I did not say that it did. I said that it led to moral conclusions. Perhaps I should clarify, though, that I mean that it (often) leads *people* to moral conclusions but, unlike atheism and nihilism, there is no inherent connection between natural selection and a moral code. One can believe in natural selection without believing that we should base our morality off it. Luigi Novi, however, thinks we should.
“people of faith are no more capable of portraying a world of objective morality than atheists”
Many here have suggested that I read more. I read plenty. I now will suggest that you read a book. Read a book on meta-ethics; preferably one that covers Divine Command Theory.
“I also find it ironic that it is the Christian here who promotes the image of humans as computer programs, as robots in effect.”
Which is what we are in an atheistic universes; little more than, anyway.
“It is also ironic for a Christian to refer to any philosophy other than his as emotional.”
One can use emotional rhetoric any time one wants. However, if it is not backed up by logic it is not a philosophical argument at all. There is nothing wrong with emotion, but when one person makes a logical argument you cannot reply with it solely.
“Why? Because you are so hung up on your creator metaphor? It is only your emotional need to have your purpose sanctioned by a supreme being that stands behind your claim.”
No, because things are created with purposes. Nothing that exists has a purpose other than that given to it by its creator. Something might have a use other than its purpose, but the two are not the same. It you did not create the David then you cannot be the one to assign it purpose. Only Michelangelo could do that. So if you did not create yourself then you, likewise, cannot assign yourself purpose.
“But let us look at this another way: who creates a human? Well, part of the process is biological, a mixure of genes, a growth of an embrio, birth. The second part involves growing up, education, experience. All these processes occur by humans in the human world, it involves the human himself (humans are sentient and self conscious beings), and his social environment. This is how humans are created, and it is this process which shapes the meanings and purposes of their lives.”
Regardless; humans do not create themselves. It is by definition impossible to create oneself. One must first exist to do so. Unless you want to talk about time travel paradoxes…
“What is this strange need for universality and objectivety of a standard that exists nowhere in the human experience outside the realm of mathematics, physics and chemistry?”
At least you’re not a postmodernist. Anyway, the need for objectivity in morality is because without it the morality of killing innocents is just a matter of opinion. If you can believe that, then fine. But don’t twist and turn in an attempt to obfuscate the matter. There are three options: you believe in objective morality, you don’t believe in objective morality, you don’t know. Clearly state your position before we continue the discussion.
As far as the human cloning argument goes: anyone who has read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein should think twice before suggesting such a thing.
As far as the human cloning argument goes: anyone who has read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein should think twice before suggesting such a thing.
Human clones exist today and always have. They are called identical twins. There is nothing the least bit scary or spooky about them. Unless they are raised by crazy parents who dress them alike and encourage them to speak in unison or if they hang out with giant Japanese Moths.
Cloning could be abused...but what can't be?
As for Frankenstein, it has nothing to do with cloning (which is not the creation of life, even if it sometimes is portrayed that way). If anything today is similar to Frankenstein it might be organ and tissue transplants, which has so far worked out pretty well for a lot of folks.
"Regardless; humans do not create themselves. It is by definition impossible to create oneself. One must first exist to do so. Unless you want to talk about time travel paradoxes…"
Now you are just being stupidly obtuse, humans create humans. You see, when a mommy human and a daddy human love each other, they... well, you probably think people are just magically created by "God" and just appears....
The only creator you have are your mommy and daddy, so I guess they give you your purpose and cannot think/decide that purpose for yourself.
Most of us are intelligent to not need an invisible man in the sky to tell us the meaning of life or to scare into how to behave.
As for Frankenstein, it has nothing to do with cloning (which is not the creation of life, even if it sometimes is portrayed that way). If anything today is similar to Frankenstein it might be organ and tissue transplants, which has so far worked out pretty well for a lot of folks.
And perhaps the most important message of Frankenstein is "don't be a bad parent." Everything went wrong not because of the doctor's initial act of creation, but because he abandoned him rather than take responsibility. Given the amount of effort and cost that would go into creating clones, it's highly unlikely they would go to someone who didn't want them.
"Human clones exist today and always have. They are called identical twins."
The point of Frankenstein is that one should not play God. If a parent made a clone of themself many things could go wrong. The parent might expect things of the child that they would not expect of a child not cloned from them. They might expect them to be a carbon copy, no pun intended. Even if the parent did not, the child might. They could have identity issues. Talk about never getting out of your father's shadow. When you create something and it isn't what you wanted it to be disaster is almost inevitable.
"Most of us are intelligent to not need an invisible man in the sky to tell us the meaning of life or to scare into how to behave."
Don't take my word for it, take the word of the great philosophers and theologians much more intelligent than myself (and certainly far more intelligent than you), who have been saying otherwise for millenia.
Yeah, I'm always surprised how many folks think that clones are going to be somehow special, different from other people. It's how they used to think of test tube babies and like them I guess the myths will largely vanish once the first one is trotted out and everybody goes "Awww, he's cute."
If I was the surgeon in charge I'd probably stick on a set of rubber antennae or a forked tail, just to fuck with everybody. But that's why I'm almost never given these high visibility opportunities.
"Don't take my word for it, take the word of the great philosophers and theologians much more intelligent than myself (and certainly far more intelligent than you), who have been saying otherwise for millenia."
Because a million stupid people can;t possibly be wrong, eh?
You'll never be more intelligent than me till you can think for yourself...
"Don't take my word for it, take the word of the great philosophers and theologians much more intelligent than myself (and certainly far more intelligent than you), who have been saying otherwise for millenia."
Because a million stupid people can;t possibly be wrong, eh?
You'll never be more intelligent than me till you can think for yourself...
The point of Frankenstein is that one should not play God.
Not really. It's more along the lines of "consider the consequences of your actions" and, more to the point, "Take responsibility for your actions."
Victor Frankenstein is portrayed through his own words (most of the book is a first person narrative) as someone who palms off all the bad things in his life as the fault of those around him. He even states that his eventual predicament is somewhat the fault of his father for not carefully explaining that the alchemists he was studying were frauds.
The Creature is explained away as a tabula rasa when it was created, and all the evils it did were the result of the rejection is suffered from everyone it met, including Victor. Hell, Victor bolted and left it the day it was created, because he was horrified by it. The Creature later says it embraced evil because it was not allowed to embrace love.
I've been teaching Frankenstein to my senior English class for going on thirteen years now, and the above conclusions aren't even ones I give to my students. They inevitably come up with them themselves after some careful consideration of the book. What's really neat is how they also are able to come up with why the movie Young Frankenstein works as a comedy--because Fredrick Frankenstein immediately does take responsibility for his creation and does everything in his power to give the Creature a decent shot at life...like any parent is supposed to.
So while the majority of folks who are only passingly familiar with the story inevitably say it's about playing God, it's pretty clear that that is not what Mary Shelley intended.
Heresy! Have you not seen Tron?
-Rex Hondo-
Galva or his daddy Mega?
When you create something and it isn't what you wanted it to be disaster is almost inevitable.
Well, lots of parents have kids that turn out differently than they expected and it isn't always a disaster. I don't see how cloning, even cloning humans is "playing God" any more than any other in vitro birth and the results of those techniques are walking around now, enriching the lives of many (I know of two such kids in my immediate circle of friends right now).
I think raising yourself would be a bad idea on many levels but after a few high profile celebs end up with clones who are nothing like them--Michael Moore II wins the Republican nomination for Vice President on a ticket with George P. Bush, that sort of thing--people will realize what anyone who knows twins already does--genetics ain't everything.
Ben Lesar: When you don’t refute an argument in a debate it stands.
Luigi Novi: True. But only if it’s been demonstrated as cogent and valid by virtue of the evidence and reasoning you employ to illustrate it. Since your ability to do this is poor—and the six or seven people you’ve been interacting here are not only unconvinced by your assertions, then almost nothing you’ve said “stands”, except in your own mind.
Ben Lesar: None of my arguments have been refuted.
Luigi Novi: What’s on this board does not support that, and given your prior indication that you keep track of the thread solely through a memory that at times is faulty, as well as your poor facility with rational argumentation, this is a contention that’s impossible to give any credence. Rather than employ rational arguments, you employ paralogia, and move the goal posts, perhaps because on some level, you know you’re wrong, and know that you cannot be right by virtue of facts and reasoning. Some examples:
-Your assertions about the word “objective” and “subjective” cannot be right, given what those words actually mean, so you assign them false definitions. I provided the actual definitions, and showed how they did not support your use of them. Thus that was refuted, and as you said, you could not refute my refutation, so that stands.
-You constantly accuse me of saying things that I did not, even though scrolling up and double-checking would allow you to avoid this, as when you admitted in your June 9 6:15pm post that your assertion about my supposedly saying that the religious were responsible for more deaths, was wrong. So not only was one of your arguments refuted, but you admitted as much. And then, in your June 10, 11:49pm post, you claimed that I “implied that Christians did more evil,” when you and I both know that that’s a lie, since I never said nor implied any such thing.
-You insist that the words “purpose” and “meaning” must be assigned by the creator or originator of something, without citing a single reference source for that, whereas the references I checked (Merriam Webster’s, The American Heritage Dictionary, dictionary.com, the dictionary in Microsoft Word), either do not specify this, or clearly indicate that meaning and purpose can be assigned by others who appropriate something for a different use. Not citing a source to support your bold claim is poor argumentation, and citing sources that disprove it indeed refute your argument.
-More than one example has been provided to you of things that were used for a purpose other than the one assigned to them by their creator. And yet, you continue to act as if this cannot be done.
There’s a number of other things I refuted in the long post of mine that I posted yesterday but which has not shown up yet, such as your claim about studies showing the relationship between religion and happiness, your claim about Dawkins and eugenics, your analogy involving computer programs, etc. but these here should suffice.
You claim that you employ “reason”, that others employ emotionalism, and make all sorts of bold claims. But assigning fictional definitions to words, failing to cite sources for studies that you claim prove your point, failing to respond constantly to others (while simultaneously admonishing them for doing this) show that you have no idea what “reason” is, much less how to employ it intelligently in a discussion or debate. Thus, when you claim that you use reason and logic, that others use emotional rhetoric, it is a statement you make only because that’s the right thing to say, and not because the true nature of those concepts is found in your words or behavior.
Ben Lesar: Any philosophy that doesn’t employ logic, but feelings, is a kindergarten philosophy.
Luigi Novi: Jerry didn’t say anything about a philosophy that employs feelings instead of logic. That is simply a Straw Man on your part. He described philosophies that focus on life being its own meaning. Your only response, rather than to “refute” that, was to simply call it “emotional garbage”, thus once again attacking a philosophy simply because you don’t share it, without showing how it was untenable. So this response of yours is refuted.
Ben Lesar: I hardly see how doing something in the name of your faith makes it any worse than giving no reason at all.
Luigi Novi: It’s not worse, nor did Jerry say anything about giving “no reason at all.” Doing anything of the barbaric things he mentioned is injustified, with or without religions.
Ben Lesar: never said atheists were atheism. I only brought up Stalin in the first place because Luigi Novi implied that Christians did more evil.
Luigi Novi: I did not. If I did, then show me the post where I implied this. (Unless you want my pointing out to you the falsehood of this assertion to “stand”.)
Ben Lesar: It is common among popular atheists…to claim that religion is responsible for most of the wars in history. This is false. Luigi Novi implied something similar.
Luigi Novi: Again, I did no such thing. This is a notion of your own fabrication. I have no idea who started more wars, nor would I ever employ the fact either way, even if I learned that it was theists.
Ben Lesar: I said that it led to moral conclusions. Perhaps I should clarify, though, that I mean that it (often) leads *people* to moral conclusions but, unlike atheism and nihilism, there is no inherent connection between natural selection and a moral code. One can believe in natural selection without believing that we should base our morality off it. Luigi Novi, however, thinks we should.
Luigi Novi: I do not. I said that moral behavior evolved naturally, whereas moral assessments are artificial. I never prescribed any policy with respect to evolved behavior. But if you can point out to me where I did, then again, I challenge you to do so.
Ben Lesar: One can use emotional rhetoric any time one wants. However, if it is not backed up by logic it is not a philosophical argument at all. There is nothing wrong with emotion, but when one person makes a logical argument you cannot reply with it solely
Luigi Novi: Religion is not backed up by logic. It could be argued that in its earliest beginnings, religions were formed as an attempt to explain the natural world, and that in making their attempts, they seemed reasonable or logical, given what they knew at the time. But today, in an age in which humans have the ability and option to employ science, skepticism, critical thinking, logic, and reason, all of the arguments they employ are made on an a priori basis, and stem from the emotional inability to consider that the assertions found in religion are wrong, and the compartmentalization that accompanies it. There’s not a single argument for religion or against atheism that has not been debunked. There certainly is nothing logical about implying definitions for words that they don’t actually have, falsely accusing others of saying things they have not, claiming not only that you know what the thoughts or “philosophy” of a person or group of is when you clearly do not, but that that philosophy involves or implies nihilism, not citing research that you allege proves your point, and so forth. Those are all the tactics of paralogists, trolls, and the intolerant.
1)
Micha: “I also find it ironic that it is the Christian here who promotes the image of humans as computer programs, as robots in effect.”
Ben Lesar: "Which is what we are in an atheistic universes; little more than, anyway."
No, it is not, which is the point you seem to refuse to accept. You caricaturize the position (or rather positions) that come from atheism, create a false dichotomy between that position and your own, and presto, you win the argument. Yet the metaphor of humans as a creaed object, a computer program, is yours not mine. and I have shown you that the image of humans, as seen without god (but can also be viewed this way with god), is much more than an object.
A humanistic point of view starts with human internal experience: I think therefore I am. It is the most objective thing in the universe.
2)
"No, because things are created with purposes. Nothing that exists has a purpose other than that given to it by its creator. Something might have a use other than its purpose, but the two are not the same. It you did not create the David then you cannot be the one to assign it purpose. Only Michelangelo could do that."
In the human experience, objects manufactured by humans are created with a purpose by them. Casting that imagery into the natural world is a mistake. it's like saying that the earth is angry when an earthquake occurs.
Not all things are created with a purpose.
A purpose is not metaphysically imprinted in objects.
You present a distinction between purpose and use, which enables you to embue 'purpose' with an almost metaphysical quality, thus solidifying the creator metaphor within which you trap yourself. As if the intent in the mind of Michaelangelo when he decided to use that peace of marble to make a statue of David is somehow more real than another person's, who might use it with a different intent in mind. Only the first is 'purpose'. But there is no such metaphysical connection; the intent of the creator isn't somehow magically fixed, nor is it more objective. It is only a record of an idea in the mind of a man at a given moment. Often both the intent of creators and the purposes for which their creations are used change over time.
3)
"Regardless; humans do not create themselves. It is by definition impossible to create oneself. One must first exist to do so. Unless you want to talk about time travel paradoxes…"
You have the mind of a medieval philosopher. Words have a very rigid meaning for you, and you think they create reality.
It is not that complicated. Humans are part of the process of creating themselves, but they don't do it alone, family and society and biology and other factors also play part. Some of these things exist prior to the person created, some alongside him or her.
Yet humans do take part in the creation of themselves, and without time machines. How do they do that? Simple really. The child Michaelangelo went to school and created the young adult Michaelangelo, who went on to learn with Da Vinci and together they created Michaelangelo the adult artist. Young Michaelangelo preceded the adult and created him. No paradoxes.
It is only in the simplistic metaphors of godhood that creation is an a simple event happening completely and all at once. In the real world, both natural and human, creation is a complex process.
4)
"At least you’re not a postmodernist. Anyway, the need for objectivity in morality is because without it the morality of killing innocents is just a matter of opinion. If you can believe that, then fine. But don’t twist and turn in an attempt to obfuscate the matter. There are three options: you believe in objective morality, you don’t believe in objective morality, you don’t know. Clearly state your position before we continue the discussion."
Again the false dichotomy is forced on you by your own prior assumptions. You are trying to force morality into the wrong template. When you do not find it you invent it by labbeling the moral opinions of yourself or your religious leaders as 'objective' and then feel good about yourself. But morality does not work that way in the real world. morality is not a law of physics or a mathematical axiom, nor is it etched into stone by a supreme being. The dichotomy you insist on creating between 'objectivity' and opinion is meaningless for morality, and by applying it you miss the real subtlety and complexity of the issue. Since you seek a kind of simplicity that is not there, my answer seems like obfuscation to you. It's as if you asked me a question in psychology and expected a mathematical answer.
Here is the thing. Mathematical axioms and laws of physics are unbreakable. You do not choose to follow them, they simply are a statement of the only option there is. Not so with morality. Morality is act of choice by humans, a choice that is the result of judgement made by the human mind -- opinion. This is true whether you choose in your mind to accept the judgement of a sacred text or a priest, or whether you base your moral choice on the awareness of the suffering of others and an empathy you have for them. In both cases it is an opinion formed, a choice made. Although I would submit that basing your moral opinion on the objective reality of the suffering of others is certainly more objective and reliable than making your opinion based on a word in a 2000 year old book. But in both cases, the moral act is more than just knowing an objective truth, it also involves making a choice about it, forming an opinion about it -- it is a matter that occurs in the human mind in human society in the framework of the human experience, and has nothing to do with objectivity as you apply it.
You are not convinced? I am being too abstract? I'll try to be more concrete. Let's return to the child about to be dismembered by a chainsaw. Why is it wrong? What makes it wrong?
Well, there is no law of natural world or of mathematics or logic that prevents it from happening. Is it wrong simply because the ancient Hebrew text says thou shall not kill? But why accept these words? There is nothing inherent in them that makes them objectively true. Is it because you are of the opinion that they were written by a diety? But why accept the authority of the diety, even if you objectively knew it was the opinion of a diety, which you don't? You still have to make an act of judgement, of opinion. Let's try some more reliable objective fact: when this boy is dismembered, he will feel pain. When he dies his relations will feel pain and sadness. And also, as a result of his death, he will have no future, which is sad. we know all this because we are human, and understand these human experiences. But these objective facts do not lead to the objective logical conclusion that it is wrong to kill that child. It is only wrong if we choose to care for the loss of the child. It could be said that as humans our brain is biologically structured to care for the suffering of other humans, and our upbringing in human society teaches us also to care. This is also an objective fact of biology and sociology. But as humans we are not controled by instinct alone. Our decision might be influenced by a deep seated emotional instinct about kililng, but we are not controled by it. We must still form an opinion, make a moral choice. There is no objective force, no universal law, that will take that decision away from us, whether we are deists or atheists. This is how morality works.
I do not need an ancient text, claiming to be universal and objective, to tell me that it is wrong to allow the child to be slaughtered. Nor I am interested in winning a debate in ethics or theology with a man holding a chainsaw by claiming I possess the key to objective morality. what's the point. My 'opinion' that it is wrong for the child to be killed is cast completely in terms of human experience: the awareness of the child suffering, the suffering of his parents and so forth. If I were to make a moral appeal to save that child, I will cite these reasons, not the so called objectivety of a religious text. Nor do I need the religious text to tell me that it is so. These reasons and the moral choice I make might not fit the kind of objectivety you think you require, but it is very real -- as real as morality can be. Because morality is a human act that only has meaning in that context. The criterion of objectivety you seek does not apply to it.
You know Micha, it's funny. On the matter of purposes for creation vs. purposes adapted after the fact, I used, in the long-ass post that hasn't shown up yet, the example of (among others) the tree, a portion of which ended up as the block of wood on which Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa. You used one involving Michelangelo. Great minds think alike. :-)
Luigi, I think this post has started this whole conversation with Ben Lesar:
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 6, 2007 02:10 PM
Jason M. Bryant: "Bush believes that he's right and God is simply his justification for it. Atheists are just as capable of feeling a moral imperative, they'll just use different buzzwords to justify it."
Luigi Novi: "In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it's derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that's the derivation of one's actions, atheists can't compare. Not by far."
However, I think he read into your posts things that weren't there. I believe what you said was that your society will accept it if someone explains an irrational action as an act of religious faith, but will not accept an atheistic explanation for a similarly irrational act.
You didn't say that only theists are rational, or that atheists should get a free pass. Ben Lesar came into this discussion with certain prior assumptions about people who are not theists that have shaped every word he said.
By the way, it is OK to use Frankenstein fo the purpose of making a religious point, even if this is not the purpose Shelly had in mind when she wrote it, or even if it was not the only purpose. That purpose is not fixed in stone.
Luigi, you miss a vital point in all of this that helps to shed a light on the nature of the person you are debating with and the arguments he chooses to throw about in a seemingly random fashion.
Ben Lesar: When you don’t refute an argument in a debate it stands.
This is the same person who said this before:
First, not every point is worth responding to (most are repeats of what someone else has said) and if I responded to everything my posts would be very long.
So, as with other arguments he's put forward, it depends on who he's debating as to which version of a point he debates. If he feels that something someone has said doesn't need a response he still reserves the right to claim that the other person's point is wrong, just not worth his response. If you don't respond to one of his points... Well, his point stands as right because of the absence of response proves it right.
You're debating with the new Mike. He wants everything both ways, he'll hold your points to standards that he'll dismiss if you apply them to his and he'll simply dismiss any valid argument against his arguments because of nothing so much as he says so.
Micha: However, I think he read into your posts things that weren't there. I believe what you said was that your society will accept it if someone explains an irrational action as an act of religious faith, but will not accept an atheistic explanation for a similarly irrational act.
Luigi Novi: True. And that's mostly because atheists who commit irrational acts do not cite atheism as their motivation, that I can think of.
And no, Jerry, I didn't miss that; I noticed it myself. I would've pointed that out in my last post, but I couldn't find where the "Not every point is worth responding to" was, and besides, I tried to make the long-ass post that has not come through yet my last one on this matter. The reason I went back on that decision is because Ben made no less than three false statements about things that I had previously said (one of which he had already previously admitted was false), and I wanted to clarify their falsity (along with a few other points).
"Oh, you will bow down before me, Scullion! Both you and one day...your heir!"
Bill, my hair bows before no one!
Oh. That WASN'T a misspelling? You were talking about Cloneboy? Hey, if you can get him to bow, you're doing better than me!
""Most of us are intelligent to not need an invisible man in the sky to tell us the meaning of life or to scare into how to behave."
Don't take my word for it, take the word of the great philosophers and theologians much more intelligent than myself (and certainly far more intelligent than you), who have been saying otherwise for millenia."
There are religious philosophers from every religion and non religious philosophers, representing different opinions on the question of god and the meaning of life. So looking for them for answers is not going to solve anything. Unless you assume that all the philoshers who don't agree with your opinions are not really philosophers.
That 1% would take up 1/6 of the US population, so I'm guessing the figure is higher -- but civilization as we know it depends on your 1%, does it not?At any rate, the number is still a very small part of the total population and the issue at hand were the statements ["]As far as manipulating our own genes go, if people choose to conform to what we consider an ideal type, civilization as we know it could be wiped out by a single vunerability, just as 95% of Indians in the Amercas were wiped out by diseases nurtured by agricultural practices[,"] and ["]Where people are free to choose, they typically choose to do what other people choose. What we need to do, which is preserve as much genetic diversity as possible, probably won't be done. Once we've mastered cloning, the disadvantages will probably be too abstract for people to abide by. They'll leave it to other people to worry about, and the issue will be neglected.["]
Given, as you say, that we can't really know what some future humans will do, I still find it highly unlikely that anything approaching 95% will opt for reproducing by cloning or be able to afford to even if they did. Given the disadvantages of such a practice we would have to have a world that is rich, technologically advanced, has abandoned most cultural attitudes toward family and children, and is also pretty stupid. Possible, sure, what isn't? Likely, I doubt it.
When I say "civilization as we know it" could be wiped out by a single genetic vunerability, I don't mean a single genetic vulnerability among anything approaching a majority.
Look at the current situation where we have a shortage of translators or Middle Eastern languages -- I remember one report by one translator who said the shop she worked in was relying on translators who weren't qualified and were stamping unread transcripts as containing no vital information -- and the military is discharging translators because they're gay and don't feel like putting up with living in hiding anymore. Imagine the stakes being an immediate threat to all humanity, and imagine the removal of the vital minority not one of choice, but of that genetic vulnerability.
You're right that the decline of a future civilization isn't anything to turn our lives inside-out over, just as to a citizen of the Roman Empire preventing something like the 9-11 attacks weren't something for them to turn themselves inside-out over. But as anyone who has worked with quality assurance issues knows, the pennies of precaution we spend now could prevent a foreclosure's worth of problems to every human who depends on a high-tech infrastructure. When those pennies' worth of awareness are pennies only to a class of genetically enhance intelligence, let's just hope those genetically enhance citizens care enough about those you count on to opt-out of the whole enhancement-scene to learn to tolerate diversity among themselves.
Show me how in a world without a God we would have purpose or objective morals. I have never encountered an atheist capable of doing either.
Where god leaves no evidence of Himself, how does religion make available an objective morality?
As for purpose, do you not devote time to listening to music, or have you removed that purposeless activity from your lifestyle? What great art isn't justified primarily as something that hogs as much of your time as it can get away with?
None of my arguments have been refuted.
Your inability to verify such a thing as an objective morality exists [demonstrates] that 1) people of faith are no more capable of portraying a world of objective morality than atheists, and 2) people are unable to provide their own purposes.
Many here have suggested that I read more. I read plenty. I now will suggest that you read a book. Read a book on meta-ethics; preferably one that covers Divine Command Theory.
You deride atheists for their inability to demonstrate how in a world without a god we would have purpose or objective morals. When faced with the same challenge -- demonstrating how in a world where no god leaves evidence of his existence we have any more purpose or any more access to objective morality than if he didn't exist -- you insist I fulfill the challenge for you. Gee, isn't it nice to be you?
The point of Frankenstein is that one should not play God. If a parent made a clone of themself many things could go wrong. The parent might expect things of the child that they would not expect of a child not cloned from them. They might expect them to be a carbon copy, no pun intended.
The first cat clone was not identical to its host. It was reported that one was striped and the other was spotted.
By the time humans are genetically refined enough to make cloning attractive, they will be so much smarter than us no one here will be able to comprehend their transgressions.
When you create something and it isn't what you wanted it to be disaster is almost inevitable.
Like Post-It Notes? Like air conditioning? Like celluloid? Not big on Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, are you?
You're debating with the new Mike. He wants everything both ways, he'll hold your points to standards that he'll dismiss if you apply them to his and he'll simply dismiss any valid argument against his arguments because of nothing so much as he says so.
Like When?™
Jerry, everytime you arbitrarily accuse me of something, I feel like someone is licking the air that wafts over my body as I walk by. Strangely, the sensation isn't terrible. I can only hope the experience is also good for you.
Posted by: Micha at June 11, 2007 09:50 PM
"Unless you assume that all the philoshers who don't agree with your opinions are not really philosophers."
Yeah, from his responses to others here, that about covers his stance.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 11, 2007 09:18 PM
"Ben made no less than three false statements about things that I had previously said..."
You mean that he has *GASP* chosen to bear false witness against you?!? And in posts made on the Sabbath no less??? Why, that's hardly a very Christian thing to do.
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at June 11, 2007 07:02 PM
Heresy! Have you not seen Tron?
Galva or his daddy Mega?
In actuality, in most versions of Transformers continuity, Galvatron is a rebuilt (often by Unicron) Megatron, rather than a successor.
Of course, given whatever small part I may have had in getting the current ball rolling, I'm kind of nervous about risking a discussion of religious themes in Transformers and Megatron/Galvatron as a messianic figure.
-Rex Hondo-
I know, but that's too long and convoluted for such a short and poor joke.
Yeah, but it's so hard to resist putting on the tweed jacket, pulling out the pipe, and acting as professor of useless knowledge studies. :P
-Rex Hondo-
I think it's time for a sequel to Tron. Tron 2.0 or something.
Been done, with exactly that title, as a video game.
http://www.lith.com/games.asp?id=4
It's actually pretty good.
-Rex Hondo-
Re: Cloning: All research in that area should be directed toward one goal- resurrecting my dog.
Priorities, people.
Re: identical twins: I'm reminded of a high school science fair I covered back in 1999 or thereabouts. Students from all over the country attended, and those I interviewed included twin girls from Minnesota. Their experiment examined whether twins had telepathic abilities.
They concluded that twins do not have telepathic abilities, but here's the irony:
Twice during the interview, they spoke in unison. I mean perfect unison, not one piggy-backing on the other's comment. That doesn't prove telepathy, of course, but I found the fact that they were on the same wavelength, as it were, an amusingly ironic contrast to their conclusion.
But again, to return to the main point: cloning's ultimate purpose is to bring back my dog.
After all, look at the mess the world's been in since she died in 1991. We've had Clinton ("Boo! Hiss!", say Republicans); we've had G.W. Bush ("Boo! Hiss!", say Democrats); we've had high gas prices ("Boo! Hiss!", say just about everybody); We've had two Star Trek series (Voyager and Enterprise) that often lost their way ("WTF?" say "Star Trek fans); we've had Jerry Springer and others of his ilk; Angel was cancelled at least a season too early; and not enough people are aware of Fallen Angel.
Coincidence? If you think so, that's just because you didn't know her. She could open the screen door to the deck with her nose and she could get into the garbage and still look innocent.
Bring back my dog through cloning. Save the world.
Rick
OK, this religion vs. atheism brouhaha has gone on long enough. We need to settle this in a sane, rational manner like they did on Monty Python's Flying Circus: by wrestling for it.
(As I recall, the results from the Monty Python wrestling match were: "God exists, by two falls to a submission.")
Rick,
Well, did you think ahead to save a good sized chunk?
Bill Mulligan: Several years ago, I found a few strands of her fur that had gotten caught in the underside of a kitchen chair. So, yes, we have DNA.
Rick
As crazy as it sounds...save it.
When I see kids in high school science labs doing the kind of DNA splicing I had to go to freaking grad school for, there's just no saying what will be feasible.
I wonder though about the whole nature vs nurture thing. As Mike pointed out, cloned cats are physically different in some ways and much a a cat or dog's personality is in their home life. which can never be perfectly replicated.
I'm typing this with one hand, the other occupied with holding my little cat Obie as she gnaws on a button. I wonder, would Obie II do that?
“Because a million stupid people can;t possibly be wrong, eh?”
Not nearly a million and definitely not stupid; read some philosophy.
“So while the majority of folks who are only passingly familiar with the story inevitably say it's about playing God, it's pretty clear that that is not what Mary Shelley intended.”
Then why in one passage does the monster compare Victor to God and himself to Adam? There is also the rest of the title, “or, The Modern Prometheus.”
“True. But only if it’s been demonstrated as cogent and valid by virtue of the evidence and reasoning you employ to illustrate it. Since your ability to do this is poor—and the six or seven people you’ve been interacting here are not only unconvinced by your assertions, then almost nothing you’ve said “stands”, except in your own mind.”
Not so. Even if my arguments were poor, which they are not, in a debate one is obliged to refute them or concede them.
“Your assertions about the word “objective” and “subjective” cannot be right, given what those words actually mean, so you assign them false definitions. I provided the actual definitions, and showed how they did not support your use of them. Thus that was refuted, and as you said, you could not refute my refutation, so that stands.”
I would like to know when you provided the “actual” definitions.
“You constantly accuse me of saying things that I did not, even though scrolling up and double-checking would allow you to avoid this, as when you admitted in your June 9 6:15pm post that your assertion about my supposedly saying that the religious were responsible for more deaths, was wrong. So not only was one of your arguments refuted, but you admitted as much. And then, in your June 10, 11:49pm post, you claimed that I “implied that Christians did more evil,” when you and I both know that that’s a lie, since I never said nor implied any such thing.“
I accused you once of saying something you did not. I admitted to being wrong. If anything the ability to admit being wrong enhances one’s credibility. It was not an argument it was merely a statement. There are various forms of argumentation (syllogisms, for example) and it fit none of them. So, no, I have not admitted to an argument being refuted. You are the one playing with definitions. Finally, you did imply Christians do more evil. I used the word “imply” for a reason. You did not explicitly state it, but you did indeed imply it.
“More than one example has been provided to you of things that were used for a purpose other than the one assigned to them by their creator. And yet, you continue to act as if this cannot be done.”
That is not a purpose, but a use. Existentialists would agree. Existentialism holds that use is not purpose. Clearly many philosophers agree with me, then, as to what purpose is. Or at least what it isn’t. And these are philosophers who are more inclined to agree with you than me.
“But assigning fictional definitions to words, failing to cite sources for studies that you claim prove your point, failing to respond constantly to others (while simultaneously admonishing them for doing this) show that you have no idea what “reason” is, much less how to employ it intelligently in a discussion or debate.”
Never done it, the only studies I have mentioned are well known enough that unless someone requests I cite them I see no need to bother, you have that backwards (maybe you shouldn’t lose entire posts if you want to make such claims), I know exactly what reason is and how to employ it.
“Jerry didn’t say anything about a philosophy that employs feelings instead of logic. That is simply a Straw Man on your part. He described philosophies that focus on life being its own meaning. Your only response, rather than to “refute” that, was to simply call it “emotional garbage”, thus once again attacking a philosophy simply because you don’t share it, without showing how it was untenable. So this response of yours is refuted.”
Of course he didn’t say it, he used it. If he wants to make a claim about “life being its own meaning” he should back it up with logic, not emotional rhetoric.
“I did not. If I did, then show me the post where I implied this.”
You said “In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it's derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that's the derivation of one's actions, atheists can't compare. Not by far.”
I admitted to being wrong in my memory that you cited specifics (I was getting it confused because Bill Myers mentioned the crusades shortly thereafter), but it does *imply* that Christians are responsible for worse actions than atheists. You even use the term “actions” and say atheists can’t compare in getting away with them. This certainly *implies* that Christians commit worse.
“Again, I did no such thing. This is a notion of your own fabrication.”
I said you “implied SOMETHING SIMILAR.” That Christians are worse in some way is essentially what you were saying. This is in essence the claim that is being made by those saying religion causes most wars.
“I do not. I said that moral behavior evolved naturally, whereas moral assessments are artificial. I never prescribed any policy with respect to evolved behavior. But if you can point out to me where I did, then again, I challenge you to do so.”
In your June 9th post at 5: 37 AM you said: “Morality, like all other behaviors, was not “prepared”, but evolved naturally in our species, and indeed, pre-moral behavior can be observed in non-human animals to this day. Morality prolongs not only individual organisms, but also the species. That’s why we have it.* If you want a good book on this subject, read The Science of Good & Evil by Michael Shermer.”
*In other words, “Morality exists to preserve the species.” If so, then what is moral is what preserves the species.
“There’s not a single argument for religion or against atheism that has not been debunked.”
That is patently false.
“claiming not only that you know what the thoughts or “philosophy” of a person or group of is when you clearly do not”
I never claimed to know what anyone’s philosophy was. I claimed, correctly, that nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism.
“You have the mind of a medieval philosopher. Words have a very rigid meaning for you, and you think they create reality.”
You have the mind of a Soviet Bureaucrat. Words have a very loose meaning for you, and you want to recreate reality. There is a reason Orwell based much of 1984 off of the Soviet Union. Continue with your newspeak. Some may fall for it, but I will not.
“There is no objective force, no universal law, that will take that decision away from us, whether we are deists or atheists. This is how morality works.”
God is the moral lawgiver. If he exists then there can be an objective moral law. If he does not, then there cannot be. (Mike: that's your basic summary of Divine Command Theory.)
“If he feels that something someone has said doesn't need a response he still reserves the right to claim that the other person's point is wrong, just not worth his response.”
Reread what you just quoted. I said that I didn’t respond because most were repeats. Another reason is that some don’t even address anything I was speaking about… such as mentioning crime for no particular reason. I am perfectly willing to let something like that stand.
“There are religious philosophers from every religion and non religious philosophers, representing different opinions on the question of god and the meaning of life. So looking for them for answers is not going to solve anything. Unless you assume that all the philoshers who don't agree with your opinions are not really philosophers.”
Or I could point out that the majority of famous philosophers from all sides happen to agree with me.
“You mean that he has *GASP* chosen to bear false witness against you?!? And in posts made on the Sabbath no less??? Why, that's hardly a very Christian thing to do.”
Bearing false witness refers to a court of law, not one of public opinion.
Also, I find it interesting that I am called a bigot for saying nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism. And yet there is no shortage of atheists who are nihilists. Clearly they agree with me. Are they bigots? Or are they just self-hating atheists?
"Also, I find it interesting that I am called a bigot for saying nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism. And yet there is no shortage of atheists who are nihilists. Clearly they agree with me. Are they bigots? Or are they just self-hating atheists? "
There are no shortage of racists, bigots, and killers that are christians, so they all must be by your arguments and definitions. And let's not forget your homosexual pedophile priests! Priests, the representatives of their faiths. Pedophiles... guess you're a pedophile too, eh Benny?
The days when religion ruled the earth was called "The Dark Ages" for a reason...
Bill Mulligan said, "I'm typing this with one hand, the other occupied with holding my little cat Obie as she gnaws on a button. I wonder, would Obie II do that?"
So, if a hypothetical cloned cat would be Obie II, does that make your current cat Obie I?
Rick
P.S. those strands of fur have been preserved in a photo album.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 12, 2007 02:41 PM
I wonder, would Obie II do that?
No.
A freak mishap due to a flaw in the cloning process will result in Obie II possessing beyond genius intellect. While you're sleeping, Obie II will not only study technology but will make leaps heretofore thought impossible. He will graft cybernetic implements onto himself and become a Cyborg Super-Cat. He will begin raising an army of cats whose intellect he will enhance through genetic engineering (injecting them with a specially designed retrovirus that will carry the re-sequenced DNA) and provide them with cybernetic implements as well. This army of amped-up cats will dominate the world, only to realize that world domination is boring. They will then take naps while we, their slaves, fetch catnip for them.
Keep an eye on Obie, that's all I'm saying.
But Bill, how exactly would this be different than the current state of affairs? Other than the cyborg part it sounds pretty much like the world as it is...
Then why in one passage does the monster compare Victor to God and himself to Adam? There is also the rest of the title, “or, The Modern Prometheus.”
Because the narrators making the comparison, Victor and the Creature, are consummate egotists. As for the title, I didn't realize Prometheus was the Christian God.
There is also the rest of the title, “or, The Modern Prometheus.”
Prometheus gave humans fire and was tortured for it. Calling Frankenstein a modern Prometheus makes sense--he advanced human knowledge and suffered for his attempt. The only puzzling bit is that Prometheus is generally thought of as heroic and Frankenstein is anything but...however, some have claimed that Shelly saw Prometheus as a villain, that she lamented the loss of the simple life (although going without fire seems a bit extreme to me but hey, it's all allegorical)
Also, I find it interesting that I am called a bigot for saying nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism. And yet there is no shortage of atheists who are nihilists. Clearly they agree with me. Are they bigots? Or are they just self-hating atheists?
The existence of nihilistic atheists is no more evidence of the truth of your statement than if someone said that "Corruption is a logical outworking of Christianity" and pointed out a few high profile Christian crooks.
Also, where are you finding all these atheist nihilists? Nihilism seems to me to be a pretty unpopular philosophy, limited mostly to mopey adolescents and even they usually grow out of it once they get over themselves.
So, if a hypothetical cloned cat would be Obie II, does that make your current cat Obie I?
Well, sure, just like the men who fought on July 21 1861 called it The First Battle of Bull Run. They knew they'd be back.
A freak mishap due to a flaw in the cloning process will result in Obie II possessing beyond genius intellect. While you're sleeping, Obie II will not only study technology but will make leaps heretofore thought impossible. He will graft cybernetic implements onto himself and become a Cyborg Super-Cat. He will begin raising an army of cats whose intellect he will enhance through genetic engineering (injecting them with a specially designed retrovirus that will carry the re-sequenced DNA) and provide them with cybernetic implements as well. This army of amped-up cats will dominate the world, only to realize that world domination is boring. They will then take naps while we, their slaves, fetch catnip for them.
I'm not worried, I can always distract her with her favorite toy, little mouse filled with catni....Hey!
You said “In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it's derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that's the derivation of one's actions, atheists can't compare. Not by far.”
I admitted to being wrong in my memory that you cited specifics (I was getting it confused because Bill Myers mentioned the crusades shortly thereafter), but it does *imply* that Christians are responsible for worse actions than atheists. You even use the term “actions” and say atheists can’t compare in getting away with them. This certainly *implies* that Christians commit worse.
No, it doesn't. First of all, I don't see the word "Christians" anywhere in the sentence; the statement refers to all theists. Second, what you can get a pass on is not at all the same thing as what you actually do. If I say, "Children can get away with actions that adults can't, because society gives them a free pass," that doesn't mean children are doing worse things than adults. The sentence contains no qualitative words that refer to or modify the word "actions."
Okay, let me try to post my Sunday evening post again, this time in pieces. I edited some of it for length, and some of it because the points and exchanges therein were responded to by others. I apologize that it's still long, and if its placement here seems not to chronologically mesh with what surrounds it.
Ben Lesar: My understanding has always been that PAD is not a religious Jew.
Luigi Novi: Then why does he attend a synagogue, as he stated on the 10.21.03 WHAT’CHA WANNA KNOW? thread? Does he really like their Bingo Night, or something?
Ben Lesar: He practices Hanukah to be sure, but I believe he has said before that he holds an agnostic position regarding the existence of God.
Luigi Novi: Which does not preclude belief in him, since there are and have been agnostic theists (those who believe in him, but do not know him). Atheism and theism deal with belief. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Deism could be viewed as another example of a viewpoint that encompasses both agnosticism and theism (though the being in question is a non-specified natural force, rather than the Judeo-Christian God).
As far as Peter is concerned, one possible clue that may indicate that he understands this distinction between agnosticism and atheism (pending his jumping in on this point to clarify, since I don’t presume to speak for him) is that when asked how he felt about atheism and atheists on the last Q & A thread in April, he responded, “I don’t believe in atheists.” While this remark appears to be at least partially humorous, I’m guessing that it is authentic in the sense that he is not an atheist himself, and does believe in, or allow for the possibility of the existence of God. So being an agnostic does not preclude one from being religious, and in any event, none of this precludes the reasonable observation that he and his family assimilated into the U.S.
Ben Lesar: Until the last one hundred years or so most Jews did not do so. We were speaking of historical anti-Semitism so I was referring to what the majority of Jews historically were (religious) that led them not to assimilate. That I was speaking in the present tense does not matter because I was using a historical definition. I specified that I was not refering merely to ethnicity earlier, so don’t claim I am making this up after the fact.
Luigi Novi: “We” were not talking about historical assimilation. The first person to bring up the word on this thread was Micha, who said, in his June 7, 7:46pm post:
“So it doesn’t really matter if one Nazi hated Jews because of what he heard in Church, another because Jews were the wrong race, a third because they were capitalists, a fourth because they were communists, or because they kept to themselves, or assimilated to much, or were too rich, or too poor, or too traditionalists, or too modern and liberal, or all of above. Christianity made its contribution to the mix, as did other ideologies.”
He did not specify historical assimilation, and indeed, he mentioned the 20th Century, so unless he was referring specifically to a portion of that century that he considered to be operationally separate from recent times for the purposes of this discussion (which he can clarify if he wishes), he did not mean historical assimilation. Even you, in your first mention of assimilation in your June 8, 10:18pm post, said nothing that indicated to me that you were referring to the historical. You said:
“The fact is that may people all over the world don’t like Jews. One possible reason is that races and cultures of one kind don’t tolerate those of others coming to their nation and not assimilating. But to me the reason is spiritual. I believe that since the Jews are God’s chosen people those under sinister influence direct anger towards them without even knowing why.”
Nowhere in that did you mention or imply “historical” assimilation. Even if you wanted to clarify now that you were doing so, that does not mean that “we” (Micha, you, myself) were doing so.
Moreover, let’s be clear, what specifically are you referring to by “assimilation”? Learning the language? Following the laws? Paying taxes? Eating the local cuisine? Making friends in the community? What?
Ben Lesar: You said it was derived from Christianity specifically, not just religion.
Luigi Novi: And last time I checked, Christianity is a religion. Are you implying that saying “derived from Christianity” in one passage, and then, merely to avoiding repetition or because the distinction between the specificity and generality was moot in that particular situation, saying, “derived from religion” in another, changes the validity of the specific point being made? Does the generality-specificity distinction in this particular case alter the reasonability of the assertion being made?
Ben Lesar: Christianity is not responsible for Gandhi’s anti-Semitism; ergo Christianity cannot be the cause of anti-Semitism.
Luigi Novi: This is a false syllogism. In the first place, why does not being responsible for one man’s anti-Semitism mean that it cannot be responsible for any of it? You really do not know how to form coherent logic if you think this is anything other than a non-sequitur.
While I was unaware that Gandhi was an anti-Semite (I was only aware of his holding racist views of African blacks), let’s assume for argument’s sake that he was. First of all, how have you established that Christianity is not responsible for his anti-Semitism? I assume you’re not implying that it could not inform anti-Semitism on his part because he himself was not a Christian, right? Putting aside the fact that religion is not the sole source of bigotry, one can absorb ideas and sentiments from the community in which they live. Since Gandhi lived in Britain, South Africa, and British-ruled India, he could easily have absorbed through osmosis the anti-Semitism present in those British-rules societies, which are/were predominantly Christian. Since he experimented with some “English” customs when he lived in London, like taking dance lessons, why could he not adopt anti-Semitism if he encountered it? Since he developed a racist attitude towards the blacks he encountered in South Africa (he called them “only one degree removed from the animal”), why could he not become an anti-Semite through his exposure to those same communities? According to professors Surendra Bhana and Goolam Vahed, who specialize in South Africa, in The Making of a Political Reformer: Gandhi in South Africa, 1893–1914, in which they explain the relationship and conflict between the African and Indian communities under the white rule: “the young Gandhi was influenced by segregationist notions prevalent in the 1890s.” So why could he not be influenced by anti-Semitism if he encountered it?
Ben Lesar: By definition being subjective renders meaning a matter of opinion… and not a fact. That means you don’t believe meaning is something that exists, but something that you make up. That is no meaning at all.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. The meaning in question is one that a non-believer can perceive in life. If you want to use the phrase “make up” because that wording sounds a bit more crude and pejorative, be my guest, but the fact that a theist’s meaning may be derived from an centralized authority or holy book and an atheist’s may be one that he or she discovers in a more personal manner does not mean that the former is valid, and the latter is “no meaning at all.” What you mean is that the atheist’s meaning is not one that you personally find valid. That doesn’t meant yours is a meaning and theirs is not. And either case, both are indeed matters of opinion and viewpoint, since religious dogmas and doctrines are matters of faith, and not fact.
Ben Lesar: You ignored my use of the world “objective.” This means that something is right or wrong regardless of what people approve or disapprove of.
Luigi Novi: No it doesn’t. It means that the conclusion or idea in question was formed with the person’s biases and preconceptions held aside. “Objective” does not mean “right” or “true” or “good” or “really”, nor does “subjective” mean “wrong”, even if theists like yourself commonly use those concepts as a crude synonym for those things. Your use of the word was not ignored, just recognized as having no effect on my response to your statement.
Ben Lesar: To say that what is best for the species is a universal law is completely unfounded.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say it was a universal law. I said that such behavior evolved and survived because it gave that advantage to the species that exhibited. Species that don’t exhibit it are more likely to kill each other and go extinct, which is why they’re not around. Moral behavior is natural. But a universal “law” sounds like a moral assessment, which is not natural. This is why Michael Shermer distinguishes human morality from pre-moral behavior found in non-human animals: humans are capable, in addition to behaving morally, of forming moral assessments. Other animals cannot. Humans come up with moral “laws”. Other animals cannot. Bats, when they return to the cave from the hunt with food, will sometimes regurgitate it into the mouths of fellow bats who were not so lucky, knowing that someone else will eventually do the same to them. This is a pre-moral example of reciprocal altruism. This is why your musing about “killing undesirables” doesn’t apply. Bats cannot form intellectual assessments about what’s best for their species; they can only act on the inborn instincts they have. The only ones who can make assessments of morality, however—and therefore are subject to sometimes making assessments that we can agree wrong—are humans. In fact, even within humans, Shermer distinguishes between morality and ethics by asserting that morality is thoughts on behaviors about right and wrong, and that ethics are theories about moral thoughts and behaviors. “Laws” of man are derived from ethics, or moral assessments, but not necessarily from natural moral behavior. Some basic moral assessments are direct extension of natural moral behavior—the vast majority of us do not go around killing each other because our empathy (which is natural) prevents us from doing so, and would make us feel bad if we did. But some moral assessments—killing undesirables, on the other hand, are not, as they are more distant from these basic drives. Shermer even goes into where/when in the evolution of our species between 1.5 million years ago and today we crossed the Bio-Cultural Transitional Boundary, when our moral behavior began to be influenced primarily by our modern environment, and not our ancestral environment.
Ben Lesar: I would like to know when I have done so.
Luigi Novi: Any time that you make a statement about a group—in this case atheists—that is not based on any type of empirical evidence, but a completely unscientific and undocumented preconception or bias that you refuse to put aside in the possibility that it might wrong, even when presented with reasoning or evidence that shows that it might be, and that statement is particularly pejorative, judgmental, accusatory, etc., and you show no compunction about leveling that assertion at a member of that group without even first asking them about their point of view about it in order to confirm it, then you are judging an entire swath of people, not based a detailed or informed assessment of their character or personality as a person, but on a superficial aspect of their personhood, and doing so in a way that is clearly hateful, whether you admit it or not. That is bigotry, and is both intellectually untenable, and morally indefensible. Examples?
-You claim that a logical extension of this lack of belief in god is the belief that there is no truth, morality, or value in anything, which is clearly false, since atheists do not believe this, and you did not offer any evidence that they do. The attempt to connect the two is a common lie spread by some theists, but that does not make the lie true. Indeed, if I’m sitting here saying that I don’t believe in or have any tendencies toward nihilism, and you cannot cite any statistically significant example of atheists who do, then how can it be true? And since it’s not true, how can stating that it is not be an example of a bigot judging others?
And subsequent to my prior statement that you were doing this, continued:
-You claimed that atheists do not realize what their philosophy entails. And yet, atheism is not a philosophy, because it does not make any statements of assertion, has no organized principles, holy texts, rules, or authorities. It is merely the lack of a belief in god, which is not a philosophy. “I recognize the validity of the Scientific Method, testability, falsification, and the Peer Review Process, and a consistent adherence to those things does not yield any evidence of an omnipotent being” is not a philosophy. It’s a statement of my viewpoint, which is based on facts, reason, rationality, and the consistent application thereof.
-You called atheists moral parasites. While you did claim in the sentence that preceded this that they were “emulating” Christians, which is not derogatory (though untrue), “moral parasites” is a clearly derogatory, inflammatory choice of wording that any intelligent, honest person would see as insulting. At the very least, it’s a poor way to elaborate on the preceding sentence about emulating Christians.
-You are remarkably intolerant of philosophical ideas that you do not share, claiming that they are not merely not the answers that you prefer, but that they are not answers at all, and are “emotional garbage”, as with the matter of purpose and meaning in a Godless universe, as if somehow you alone get to decide what the definition of “purpose” or “meaning” are, instead of simply respecting someone else’s point of view, which you cannot prove to be wrong on the basis of fact, evidence, reason, or reference. That’s certainly an intolerant attitude.
Ben Lesar: They have a Christian cultural tradition to emulate.
Luigi Novi: To me, this would seem to imply that the basic principles that govern Western culture and law were originated by Christians. But they were not. Most of the basic principles upon which our laws were based predate the Bible. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, which was a secular codex, had the same basic laws, and it predates the Bible by several hundred years. Some Biblical concepts, in fact, were actually based on it, such as “an eye for an eye”, “an arm for an arm”, and many other rules in the Torah.
Moreover, some of the principles upon which America was founded were based on a combination of ancient Greek ideas about democracy, Native American practices of egalitarianism, ideas popularized during the French Enlightenment, and yes, some basic laws that were not invented by the Judeo-Christian religion, but which some of the Founding Fathers were raised with.
And many of our laws and principles clearly contradict the Bible, and Christianity in particular. Principles of equality among people of different color, and the outlawing of slavery are in direct contradiction of Jesus’ endorsement of slavery. Free market capitalism is contrary to his instruction that a wealthy man could pass through the eye of a needle more easily than get into heaven. And that’s just Christianity. If we open it up to the Bible in general, or Catholicism in particular, there’s lots more that conflicts.
And there is also the matter of numerous indigenous, pre-industrial tribes that have been isolated from the Bible and from industrialized society, that possess principles identical to Biblical or Christian ones—both good and bad—which shows that such things arise independently in multiple locations on Earth, and were not invented by either the Bible or Christianity.
Ben Lesar: They are moral parasites, leeching off morals that suit them and discarding just a few that don’t.
Luigi Novi: Everyone does this, including, I’ll wager, you, unless you want to tell me that you’re for slavery and the complete abandonment of all your worldly goods.
Ben Lesar: This is another thing I have never seen atheists actually formulate. An original moral system.
Luigi Novi: Neither have Christians or Jews. Much, if not all of Judaism and Christianity, are based on earlier religions and traditions.
Quick note for Bill Myers: I don't know if you are still on this thread but I just wanted to thank you for your kind words. Actually, I know I am capable of reasonable erudition and incisive argument (too many years in the debating club) but frankly these days I rarely have the time to sit down and analyze a case and construct one. Also, since I now earn my living through this damn box of electronics (I'm a translator), there are days when I simply can't stand to look at the thing.
I find the discussions here interesting and stimulating. On occasion, I like to throw in my two cents worth (almost worth 2 cents American these days) but the reading is usually enough to satisfy me.
I must say I found Luigi Novi's ruminations about religion and his current reactions to those who advocate it similar to mine. As I get older and crankier, I seem to have less patience for absolutism. Although in the past I used to content myself with dissecting (figuratively not literally - please don't call the cops) the occasional Jehovah's Witness foolish enough to ring my doorbell. Now I find myself reacting to people trying to save me when I'm out in public. I tend to get quite sarcastic (particularly when I know the 10 commandments and they don't). Typical nasty question from me: "Have you even read the Bible?" In response to the inevitable "of course", I ask "Really? Where did you learn to read Greek?" Another is why don't you call your Saviour by his proper name 'Yeshua bar Miriam'?" which usually gets me a blank look. I realize that I am being infantile and petty when I do this but, dammit, why do people never challenge their own belief systems but have no problem with not only challenging mine but denigrating it and dismissing it as though I were some poor, besotted nincompoop?
End of rant. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Regards, The Rev.
Since he developed a racist attitude towards the blacks he encountered in South Africa (he called them “only one degree removed from the animal”
He was referring specifically to hardened criminals in the jail he was being kept in. He may have been bigoted against Blacks but I'm not sure that quote, in context, tells the tale.
Okay, this is part 2 of 2:
Rene: I don’t know what depresses me more. The atheist’s view of a world lacking any extrinsic meaning or you Christian guys believing we humans are so deeply flawed and fallen that the only thing stopping us all from killing babies is a stern God threatening us with eternal burning.
Luigi Novi: Just out of curiosity, why does meaning not being extrinsic depress you? When you experience the beauty of a sunset, the miracle of childbirth, the wonder of photos from the Hubble Telescope, are the sentiments generated in you lessened for their being intrinsic instead of extrinsic?
Jerry Chandler: Would Mother Teresa or any of the various affectionately revered figures in religious history acted differently if they were removed from the Church?
Luigi Novi: You mean if they were never indoctrinated in it in the first place? Speaking solely of the things they did that stemmed only from religion, and would not have seemed appropriate to them if they were atheists, well, of course they would have. Take Mother Teresa. You don’t see atheists performing baptisms on people without their consent. You don’t see atheists refusing to accept food to give to the needy because they think God will provide for them. You don’t see atheists running “hospitals” where people die because advanced medical care is withheld, while availing themselves of that same advanced care for themselves. You don’t see atheists condemning divorce while okaying it for celebrities like Princess Diana. You need religion for that. (Source: Christopher Hitchens’ book, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice.)
Jerry Chandler: Religion means exactly jack-all. The person and who and what they are at their core is what matters…It aint the belief that matters as much as it is the person who holds it.
Luigi Novi: Well, it depends on both the person and the belief. If the belief in question is the literal six-day creation, and one theist wants that taught in science classrooms and thinks any opponent of that is inherently immoral and another theist does think this, then that is an example of a morally neutral belief whose application is predicated on the character or personality of the adherent. But if the belief in question is “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live,” then it’s not just the person, but the belief is one that inherently lends itself to crimes against humanity, especially if taken and adhered to literally. Granted, the aforementioned non-extremist religionist may choose not to kill women he thinks are witches, which would also go to personality and character, but even then, that’s because he’s making a decision not to follow that particular belief—in other words, he doesn’t have that belief at all.
Jerry Chandler: Well, an atheist believes that he’s going to die in the end and that it is the end. They don’t believe that they’re going anywhere else after death other then maybe haunting the Playboy Mansion. They don’t believe that their is a reward given for living a good life once you die. In other words, they’re not being bribed into being a good person. They’re not being a good person or trying to live a good life because they believe that they’ll get something for it in the end. They’re also not working from a perspective of fear.
Luigi Novi: Michael Shermer touches upon this in The Science of Good & Evil:
“What would you do if there were no God? Would you commit robbery, rape, and murder, or would you continue being a good and moral person? Either way the question is a debate stopper. If the answer is that you would soon turn to robbery, rape, or murder, than this is a moral indictment of your character, indicating you are not to be trusted because if, for any reason, you were to turn away from your belief in God (and most people do, at some point in your lives), your true immoral nature would emerge and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you. If the answer is that you would continue being good and moral, then apparently you can be good without God. QED.”
Ben Lesar: You can say that people claiming to be Christians (whether they were or weren’t isn’t mine to judge) shared in promoting it, but not that Christianity is responsible.
Luigi Novi: Both individual Christians and the church have at times help spread anti-Semitism. If, however, you mean the religion apart from its practitioners, then yes, that would sound reasonable.
Ben Lesar: How could it be when the Bible says that Jews are God’s chosen people. Jesus was a Jew.
Luigi Novi: Because bigots are invariably irrational.
Or to put it another way:
“I believe that since the Jews are God’s chosen people those under sinister influence direct anger towards them without even knowing why.”
Bill Mulligan: But it’s actually a bit pointless to apply much of Darwinian theory to humanity--we have largely taken ourselves out of the natural selection loop.
Luigi Novi: Not really. As long as there are environmental pressures at work, we will constantly be undergoing infinitesimally minute mutations, which cannot be easily seen when looking at that the timeline of human lives, which is too short a time span to make them evident, though we may be able to see such changes by looking at the span of all of human existence, which may show changes in how our brains work.
Ben Lesar: I never said Christian governments did not promote anti-Semitism. I was merely responding to the claim that Christianity is responsible.
Luigi Novi: What in your observation is the difference?
Ben Lesar: The universe can have no purpose if it was an accident. If there is no purpose to the universe as a whole, any “purpose” we create upon earth is meaningless. It is just bags of chemicals-- robots if you will-- going through the motions.
Luigi Novi: The universe is without any intelligence or purpose, as it came into being through natural causes, and may eventually end via natural causes as well. It may even be expanding and collapsing a multitude of times—or having done so many times already—completely indifferent to our existence during this one cycle in which we have come to exist. Similarly, animals evolved until the dinosaurs dominated the Earth, until they went completely extinct long before man arrived, a purposely set of events if I know of one. Just out of curiosity, what was God’s purpose was in that?
Ben Lesar: Emotional rhetoric regarding the simple enjoyment of eating grilled burgers or the like is not an answer to a philosophical argument.
Luigi Novi: No, it’s not the answer that you prefer. That doesn’t mean that it’s not an answer. Atheism is at least informed a consistent adherence to empirical methods of testing knowledge. It is religion that, while possibly originating with some attempt to explain natural phenomena based on intelligent observation in its beginnings, is certainly defended on an emotional basis today, particularly as embodied in most of the arguments used to defend or rationalize its ideas stem from emotional, or at the very least, logically flawed arguments.
Ben Lesar: Natural selection does lead many to moral conclusions though.
Luigi Novi: It may be responsible for the pre-moral behavior found in animals, but it does not lead to intellectual conclusions, except to those who misunderstand or deliberately ignore the fact that it’s a description of a natural process, and not a prescription for behavior.
Ben Lesar: I could point out that studies show that religious people are, on average, much happier than their non-religious counterparts.
Luigi Novi: And yet, you chose not to cite even one. Why is that?
I’m not sure about happiness, but a study in The Journal of Religion and Society shows that religion does not lead to a healthier society:
http://skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html
Even if your assertion were true, it would not validate the asserted facts or moral principles of religion, or the existence of God. Cocaine can make a person “happier”, but I wouldn’t recommend using it.
Jerry Chandler: First, you're wrongly putting forward the idea that the morals being adopted are in some way exclusively Christian. A number of cultures and faiths all around the world developed with a number of moral codes that mirror some of those in Christianity. The simple fact that some many have developed prohibitions against murder, theft, etc. should go toward showing that man does have an innate set of moral values that he will develop even if he has to ascribe some sort of mystic meaning to them.
Ben Lesar: There are cannibalistic tribes in different places in this world. There is no reason to believe atheists wouldn’t adopt the morality of those tribes if they were born there, just as they have adopted Western morality being born here.
Luigi Novi: I don’t see how this answers Jerry’s point, which is that the existence of universal principles, even in cultures that were not touched by the Bible, shows that the Bible did not originate them. As to your point, if these hypothetical atheists were to be born there, then how can they be atheists, when they would be indoctrinated into the religion of that tribe?
Jerry Chandler: Second, you wrongly put forward the popular but widely debunked idea that western culture and law is based on Christianity. It's not.
Ben Lesar: Seeing as how you’re the one making the ad hoc claim it is on you to support it.
Luigi Novi: In the first place, you have not established that it’s an ad hoc claim, since there’s nothing that indicates that this is not a firm and consistently-held conclusion of Jerry’s, as opposed to one he’s only making situationaly (the definition of ad hoc). In the second, the burden of proof is on the person making a bold claim, particularly when it flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary. That our culture is based on things other than Christianity is established through all the evidence which exists for it, which is available to you, and unobscure. Because any new or bold idea that is opposed to the current consensus of facts must muster evidence that shows that it explains phenomena better than the current model, and since the current consensus among historians is not that Western culture was based on Christianity (rather, it’s merely a contention of Christian apologist who ignore the same historical info that you do), it is you who shoulders the burden of proof. Not Jerry.
Ben Lesar: Calling something widely debunked does not make it so.
Luigi Novi: Correct. It is debunked by virtue of the evidence or reason offered that disproves it, and Jerry and I pointed out sources that influenced American democracy in particular and Western society in general, that are not only not Christian, but opposed to a number of aspects of it. That’s what debunks it.
Ben Lesar: Richard Dawkins…seems to favor some sort of eugenics program.
Luigi Novi: He supports the idea of asking questions about it, such as asking what the difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. This is a commonly-held view among many scientists and doctors who feel that genetic engineering can be used to eliminate prenatal diseases, correct deformities, etc. They do not advocate the murdering of entire races of people, as Hitler did, for that is not an immutable part of eugenics. You could’ve discovered this with a Google search, or by going to Dawkins’ site, but you did not. It took me about a minute or so to do so. Not doing so at all presumably took you even less.
Ben Lesar: Even the full title of Darwin’s book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” seems to indicate that he is not that far off.
Luigi Novi: Only for those who are dead-set on believing the worst things about him and his book, and dead-set against revising that conclusion, instead of what good faith inquiry might reveal. Darwin’s book was about natural processes. Not artificial eugenics, let alone the type practiced by the Nazis.
Jerry: Even atheists, although this may be a huge surprise to you, don't enjoy the idea of spending time in the stocks or locked up behind bars.
Ben Lesar: It does suggest that atheists only refrain from criminal activity because they are afraid of punishment, however.
Luigi Novi: Why you would think that atheists, if removed from a situation where there was law enforcement, would turn into a bunch of murdering, raping robbers, and that none of them would be prevented from immoral behavior through the natural empathy most of them feel for other people, I don’t know, but you further put the lie to the notion that you are not a bigot when you make such ridiculous assertions.
True, there are some people for whom fear of punishment from the law is the only barrier between them and criminal behavior, but this is not exclusive to atheists. In fact, according to the Bureau of Prisons, atheists are proportionately underrepresented in prisons, at least on the federal level (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/crimechart.html). And that’s aside from the fact that religion itself uses fear of punishment as the main motivating factor for teaching moral behavior.
It is a common practice among bigots to “otherize” those who are different in some way from them, and impugning their inherent morality is one of them. Claiming that they are in fact not doing this is yet another.
Okay, Part 2 of 2 did not go through. I'm wondering if like at Nitcentral, this is because there were two url's in that part, and posts won't go through will more than one url. Let me try by splitting up that post so that each url is in a different part. If it still doesn't work, then maybe it's a matter of how many lengthy posts are made within a brief time, so I'm not sure what I'll do then:
Rene: I don’t know what depresses me more. The atheist’s view of a world lacking any extrinsic meaning or you Christian guys believing we humans are so deeply flawed and fallen that the only thing stopping us all from killing babies is a stern God threatening us with eternal burning.
Luigi Novi: Just out of curiosity, why does meaning not being extrinsic depress you? When you experience the beauty of a sunset, the miracle of childbirth, the wonder of photos from the Hubble Telescope, are the sentiments generated in you lessened for their being intrinsic instead of extrinsic?
Jerry Chandler: Would Mother Teresa or any of the various affectionately revered figures in religious history acted differently if they were removed from the Church?
Luigi Novi: You mean if they were never indoctrinated in it in the first place? Speaking solely of the things they did that stemmed only from religion, and would not have seemed appropriate to them if they were atheists, well, of course they would have. Take Mother Teresa. You don’t see atheists performing baptisms on people without their consent. You don’t see atheists refusing to accept food to give to the needy because they think God will provide for them. You don’t see atheists running “hospitals” where people die because advanced medical care is withheld, while availing themselves of that same advanced care for themselves. You don’t see atheists condemning divorce while okaying it for celebrities like Princess Diana. You need religion for that. (Source: Christopher Hitchens’ book, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice.)
Jerry Chandler: Religion means exactly jack-all. The person and who and what they are at their core is what matters…It aint the belief that matters as much as it is the person who holds it.
Luigi Novi: Well, it depends on both the person and the belief. If the belief in question is the literal six-day creation, and one theist wants that taught in science classrooms and thinks any opponent of that is inherently immoral and another theist does think this, then that is an example of a morally neutral belief whose application is predicated on the character or personality of the adherent. But if the belief in question is “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live,” then it’s not just the person, but the belief is one that inherently lends itself to crimes against humanity, especially if taken and adhered to literally. Granted, the aforementioned non-extremist religionist may choose not to kill women he thinks are witches, which would also go to personality and character, but even then, that’s because he’s making a decision not to follow that particular belief—in other words, he doesn’t have that belief at all.
Jerry Chandler: Well, an atheist believes that he’s going to die in the end and that it is the end. They don’t believe that they’re going anywhere else after death other then maybe haunting the Playboy Mansion. They don’t believe that their is a reward given for living a good life once you die. In other words, they’re not being bribed into being a good person. They’re not being a good person or trying to live a good life because they believe that they’ll get something for it in the end. They’re also not working from a perspective of fear.
Luigi Novi: Michael Shermer touches upon this in The Science of Good & Evil:
“What would you do if there were no God? Would you commit robbery, rape, and murder, or would you continue being a good and moral person? Either way the question is a debate stopper. If the answer is that you would soon turn to robbery, rape, or murder, than this is a moral indictment of your character, indicating you are not to be trusted because if, for any reason, you were to turn away from your belief in God (and most people do, at some point in your lives), your true immoral nature would emerge and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you. If the answer is that you would continue being good and moral, then apparently you can be good without God. QED.”
Ben Lesar: You can say that people claiming to be Christians (whether they were or weren’t isn’t mine to judge) shared in promoting it, but not that Christianity is responsible.
Luigi Novi: Both individual Christians and the church have at times help spread anti-Semitism. If, however, you mean the religion apart from its practitioners, then yes, that would sound reasonable.
Ben Lesar: How could it be when the Bible says that Jews are God’s chosen people. Jesus was a Jew.
Luigi Novi: Because bigots are invariably irrational.
Or to put it another way:
“I believe that since the Jews are God’s chosen people those under sinister influence direct anger towards them without even knowing why.”
Bill Mulligan: But it’s actually a bit pointless to apply much of Darwinian theory to humanity--we have largely taken ourselves out of the natural selection loop.
Luigi Novi: Not really. As long as there are environmental pressures at work, we will constantly be undergoing infinitesimally minute mutations, which cannot be easily seen when looking at that the timeline of human lives, which is too short a time span to make them evident, though we may be able to see such changes by looking at the span of all of human existence, which may show changes in how our brains work.
Ben Lesar: I never said Christian governments did not promote anti-Semitism. I was merely responding to the claim that Christianity is responsible.
Luigi Novi: What in your observation is the difference?
Ben Lesar: The universe can have no purpose if it was an accident. If there is no purpose to the universe as a whole, any “purpose” we create upon earth is meaningless. It is just bags of chemicals-- robots if you will-- going through the motions.
Luigi Novi: The universe is without any intelligence or purpose, as it came into being through natural causes, and may eventually end via natural causes as well. It may even be expanding and collapsing a multitude of times—or having done so many times already—completely indifferent to our existence during this one cycle in which we have come to exist. Similarly, animals evolved until the dinosaurs dominated the Earth, until they went completely extinct long before man arrived, a purposely set of events if I know of one. Just out of curiosity, what was God’s purpose was in that?
Ben Lesar: Emotional rhetoric regarding the simple enjoyment of eating grilled burgers or the like is not an answer to a philosophical argument.
Luigi Novi: No, it’s not the answer that you prefer. That doesn’t mean that it’s not an answer. Atheism is at least informed a consistent adherence to empirical methods of testing knowledge. It is religion that, while possibly originating with some attempt to explain natural phenomena based on intelligent observation in its beginnings, is certainly defended on an emotional basis today, particularly as embodied in most of the arguments used to defend or rationalize its ideas stem from emotional, or at the very least, logically flawed arguments.
Ben Lesar: Natural selection does lead many to moral conclusions though.
Luigi Novi: It may be responsible for the pre-moral behavior found in animals, but it does not lead to intellectual conclusions, except to those who misunderstand or deliberately ignore the fact that it’s a description of a natural process, and not a prescription for behavior.
Ben Lesar: I could point out that studies show that religious people are, on average, much happier than their non-religious counterparts.
Luigi Novi: And yet, you chose not to cite even one. Why is that?
I’m not sure about happiness, but a study in The Journal of Religion and Society shows that religion does not lead to a healthier society:
http://skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html
Even if your assertion were true, it would not validate the asserted facts or moral principles of religion, or the existence of God. Cocaine can make a person “happier”, but I wouldn’t recommend using it.
Posted by: The Rev. Mr. Black at June 12, 2007 06:55 PM
Actually, I know I am capable of reasonable erudition and incisive argument (too many years in the debating club) but frankly these days I rarely have the time to sit down and analyze a case and construct one.
Maybe it was someone else who said they usually held off posting on account of a small group of people including me. Whatever. They obviously don't realize that:
a.) I'm not that bright.
b.) My posts aren't usually that interesting.
and
c.) My best posts were written by cheap third-world elven labor.
It worked. Here’s Part 3 of 3 (the shortest of the three):
Jerry Chandler: First, you're wrongly putting forward the idea that the morals being adopted are in some way exclusively Christian. A number of cultures and faiths all around the world developed with a number of moral codes that mirror some of those in Christianity. The simple fact that some many have developed prohibitions against murder, theft, etc. should go toward showing that man does have an innate set of moral values that he will develop even if he has to ascribe some sort of mystic meaning to them.
Ben Lesar: There are cannibalistic tribes in different places in this world. There is no reason to believe atheists wouldn’t adopt the morality of those tribes if they were born there, just as they have adopted Western morality being born here.
Luigi Novi: I don’t see how this answers Jerry’s point, which is that the existence of universal principles, even in cultures that were not touched by the Bible, shows that the Bible did not originate them. As to your point, if these hypothetical atheists were to be born there, then how can they be atheists, when they would be indoctrinated into the religion of that tribe?
Jerry Chandler: Second, you wrongly put forward the popular but widely debunked idea that western culture and law is based on Christianity. It's not.
Ben Lesar: Seeing as how you’re the one making the ad hoc claim it is on you to support it.
Luigi Novi: In the first place, you have not established that it’s an ad hoc claim, since there’s nothing that indicates that this is not a firm and consistently-held conclusion of Jerry’s, as opposed to one he’s only making situationaly (the definition of ad hoc). In the second, the burden of proof is on the person making a bold claim, particularly when it flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary. That our culture is based on things other than Christianity is established through all the evidence which exists for it, which is available to you, and unobscure. Because any new or bold idea that is opposed to the current consensus of facts must muster evidence that shows that it explains phenomena better than the current model, and since the current consensus among historians is not that Western culture was based on Christianity (rather, it’s merely a contention of Christian apologist who ignore the same historical info that you do), it is you who shoulders the burden of proof. Not Jerry.
Ben Lesar: Calling something widely debunked does not make it so.
Luigi Novi: Correct. It is debunked by virtue of the evidence or reason offered that disproves it, and Jerry and I pointed out sources that influenced American democracy in particular and Western society in general, that are not only not Christian, but opposed to a number of aspects of it. That’s what debunks it.
Ben Lesar: Richard Dawkins…seems to favor some sort of eugenics program.
Luigi Novi: He supports the idea of asking questions about it, such as asking what the difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. This is a commonly-held view among many scientists and doctors who feel that genetic engineering can be used to eliminate prenatal diseases, correct deformities, etc. They do not advocate the murdering of entire races of people, as Hitler did, for that is not an immutable part of eugenics. You could’ve discovered this with a Google search, or by going to Dawkins’ site, but you did not. It took me about a minute or so to do so. Not doing so at all presumably took you even less.
Ben Lesar: Even the full title of Darwin’s book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” seems to indicate that he is not that far off.
Luigi Novi: Only for those who are dead-set on believing the worst things about him and his book, and dead-set against revising that conclusion, instead of what good faith inquiry might reveal. Darwin’s book was about natural processes. Not artificial eugenics, let alone the type practiced by the Nazis.
Jerry: Even atheists, although this may be a huge surprise to you, don't enjoy the idea of spending time in the stocks or locked up behind bars.
Ben Lesar: It does suggest that atheists only refrain from criminal activity because they are afraid of punishment, however.
Luigi Novi: Why you would think that atheists, if removed from a situation where there was law enforcement, would turn into a bunch of murdering, raping robbers, and that none of them would be prevented from immoral behavior through the natural empathy most of them feel for other people, I don’t know, but you further put the lie to the notion that you are not a bigot when you make such ridiculous assertions.
True, there are some people for whom fear of punishment from the law is the only barrier between them and criminal behavior, but this is not exclusive to atheists. In fact, according to the Bureau of Prisons, atheists are proportionately underrepresented in prisons, at least on the federal level (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/crimechart.html). And that’s aside from the fact that religion itself uses fear of punishment as the main motivating factor for teaching moral behavior.
It is a common practice among bigots to “otherize” those who are different in some way from them, and impugning their inherent morality is one of them. Claiming that they are in fact not doing this is yet another.
Actually, Rev, I'll bet that you can't tell me the ten Commandments. I'll even open the floor to everybody else on this little test of knowledge. One question with two parts:
Tell me how you know what the Ten Commandments are (how are you able to identify them as the genuine article) and what are they (the list.)
No cheating and looking them up. I'll be nice and just trust everybody here to play fair. Believe it or not, there is a point to this beyond merely playing trivia games.
I know I'm going to regret this, but I have a question for Ben Lesar: In all this ongoing diatribe about the purpose of life, inter alia, at no point do you state (and if you did, I'm sorry if I missed it), what exactly is the purpose of life, from your pseudo-Christian perspective? And please do not try to tell me it is to "give glory to God" as another pseudo-Christian tried to tell me the other day. As I said to him, "why would you want to worship a deity that is so insecure that he needs to be worshiped by a lifeform that is far less to him than bacteria are to us?" I mean of all the deities available (of which there are many in the various human pantheons - in fact, if one were of a snarky mode, the First Commandment implies this. Why tell us to have no other gods before us if there are NO OTHER GODS?)
Just wondering.
Regards, The Rev
By the way, IMHO, and as presented to others clearly and I think, irrefutably, the purpose of life is life. C'est tout. Don't need no omniscient, omnipotent (by the way, those two notions are, ipso facto, mutually exclusive), omnipresent, omni-fill-in-the-blank) guy in the sky to give it meaning.
I have a post in which I respond to things said between yesterday and now, but I'll wait a bit to let other posts breathe.
To Jerry Chandler. Touché. What I should have said was that I knew the Ten Commandments as they are commonly believed to be better then the person who was trying to get me to pass an "intelligence" test (which included questions like "How many of each animal did Moses (sic) allow on the Ark"). It was a not-so-clever attempt to demonstrate to me how stupid I actually was and how direly I was in need of guidance.
As a professional translator and interpreter, I recognize, as you point out, that it would take considerable research to determine (if that is possible) exactly what the original, non-translated, unamended, unemended Commandments were, what the author(s)'s motive and purpose was, etc.
Sorry if I was unclear. As I wrote earlier, one of the reasons I rarely post here is that I do not have the time to properly construct my offerings.
Regards, the Rev
I'm wondering if like at Nitcentral, this is because there were two url's in that part, and posts won't go through will more than one url.
I've had posts get lost in the spam filter that only had one URL in them. (Which is kind of ironic, since the purpose of including a URL was to provide factual support for my answer to a question someone had asked--the "Jesus as vegetarian" discussion a few months ago was one of them--and that's kind of the opposite of the reason for having spam filters.)
Rev,
Actually, that's not the direction that I was headed in. I'm just fine with the modern day versions in the common print of the day.
English is A-OK. I re-open the trivia floor.
Bill Mulligan: But it’s actually a bit pointless to apply much of Darwinian theory to humanity--we have largely taken ourselves out of the natural selection loop.
Luigi Novi: Not really. As long as there are environmental pressures at work, we will constantly be undergoing infinitesimally minute mutations, which cannot be easily seen when looking at that the timeline of human lives, which is too short a time span to make them evident, though we may be able to see such changes by looking at the span of all of human existence, which may show changes in how our brains work.
But we are making ourselves increasingly immune to environmental pressures through technology. What would once have been traits that would have reduced our evolutionary fitness are now mostly irrelevant. Bad yes? Get glasses or contacts or surgery. Tens of millions now living should be dead, were it not for medicine. We don't need to modify our bodies to deal with the environment--we modify the environment.
While there will always be some changes in the gene pool I still think that any major changes in humanity from this point on will be as a result of directed alterations, not natural selection (this assumes a continuation of civilization and the absence of any mass extinction type event).
a.) I'm not that bright.
b.) My posts aren't usually that interesting.
c.) My best posts were written by cheap third-world elven labor.
d.) I don't know the meaning of the word "fear" - but then again I don't know the meaning of most words.
e.) I still love nature, despite what it did to me.
Okay, here's my response to things said between my post yesterday and now:
Ben Lesar: Not so. Even if my arguments were poor, which they are not, in a debate one is obliged to refute them or concede them.
Luigi Novi: Untrue. If their credibility is so transparently nonexistent that a reader decides that it’s unnecessary and pointless to respond, either because he thinks that the originator of it would be unable or unwilling to comprehend the logic that refutes it, or because he thinks no one else will seriously consider that poor-made argument, then he may opt to skip it. Media outlets, to use an analogy, will not necessarily check out any ol’ accusation made against the president. If some yahoo calls up a newsdesk and tells them that the president is a purple-with-yellow-polka-dot space alien from a planet where the inhabitants are all descended from Elvis, and that he knows this because he read it in a supermarket tabloid, the news desk is not going to waste their time. The issue of the assertion’s credibility, therefore, is one factor on which the decision to respond is made, and on which the potential respondent must make a judgment call. And there are also other factors, like how much time one has in the day, the importance of each point or statement made vis-à-vis space considerations, etc. In my observation, refusing to refute an argument or counterargument only calls the person into question is they are observed to do so often, in a pattern of behavior, whenever someone provides something that appears to refute their position. Obviously, this does not apply to Bill, who has not made a recurrent habit of this over the years I’ve observed him on this site. You certainly didn’t respond to all of my arguments, did you? And you yourself said that “not every point is worth responding to”. Does that mean that those you did not respond to “stand”? Indeed, what does it mean when an argument “stands”, in your view?
Ben Lesar: I would like to know when you provided the “actual” definitions.
Luigi Novi: Sorry, I didn’t realize that that was in the long post I made on Sunday evening, which did not go through. I thought it was in an earlier post. I’ve since reposted it. Sorry about that.
Ben Lesar: I accused you once of saying something you did not. I admitted to being wrong. If anything the ability to admit being wrong enhances one’s credibility. It was not an argument it was merely a statement. There are various forms of argumentation (syllogisms, for example) and it fit none of them. So, no, I have not admitted to an argument being refuted. You are the one playing with definitions.
Luigi Novi: Spitting hairs over the words “statement” and “argument” is certainly playing with definitions. Yes, I agree with your view on admitting when one is wrong, which is why I myself have done so on this board, including once with you. But while stating this is principle is certainly lofty, demonstrating it in practice is not something that many are able to do, as your continued insistence on notions that transparently false shows. Insisting on the definition of a word without citing a single source certainly qualifies. Asserting things about supposed scores of atheists without documenting it does as well. So does repeatedly mentioning “studies”, and then not citing a single one.
Ben Lesar: Finally, you did imply Christians do more evil. I used the word “imply” for a reason. You did not explicitly state it, but you did indeed imply it.
Luigi Novi: No, you interpreted it as such. That’s not the same thing as implying it, which would require you to know intent, and to the exclusion of other possible meanings. Mind you, Ben, I can acknowledge the possibility that I said something that one could might misinterpret as such, and indeed, I was forced, in my June 11, 12:02am post, for example, to clarify a statement I had made prior because Jerry’s having missed its original context in which it was made caused him to misunderstand it. But you can bridge this disagreement by pointing out the statement in question. Then, if I review it, I can consider whether “Okay, I didn’t mean what you took it to mean, but I can see how it could be viewed that way”, or “You’re wrong, it doesn’t even resemble what you claim it means.” Indeed, didn’t I challenged you to point out where I had said this? Did you do this, in furtherance of your alleged adherence to the principle of respond-or-it-stands? Of course not. You chickened out of doing so. And I can only speculate that you did not do this because you knew, perhaps on some level, that if you did so, I and others would point out that no such implication would’ve been seen in the statement when viewed in context by a consensus of reasonable, intelligent readers without some a priori bias against me.
The only people who argued aspects of quantity were you, and IIRC, Micha. I never did, and for the simple reason that it would be impossible to establish such a thing. For one thing, how do you define a theist? Someone who sorta has some ideas about God, or a creator? Someone who is religious, but a lapsed one? How devout? And how do you count a crime as having been committed by an atheist? Does it count only by virtue of the highest member of government, like Stalin, or do you have to count every member in the chain of command who bore any complicity in the crime? And how do you judge that complicity? Does “just following orders” count? What about aiding in the cleaning up the mess after the fact, like say with the sonderkommandos—Jews who were forced to help the Nazis load bodies from the gas chambers into the crematoria during the Holocaust—do they count? And what about the fact that religion of individuals in history is something that is not easily documented, especially in communist societies like the Soviet Union, where religion flourished underground, but where people would be too afraid to profess so in public? If others beside the head dictator are culpable, how do you resolve that problem for the purpose of the atheists vs. theists census that you cling to and which you falsely accuse me of clinging to? Establishing such a thing requires answering too many questions whose answers are unclear.
And in addition to the impossibility of establishing such a thing, it’s irrelevant. Who cares if say, atheists killed 100 people, and theists killed 101? Does that make theists “more” culpable? Of course not. It’s a stupid idea, the kinda that only someone incapable of forming coherent logic would promote, or at least someone with an agenda who could only promote that agenda using pseudoscientific reasoning, because that was the only kind available that would even appear to support it. This is why I did not focus on such a thing, but on something perhaps a bit more subtle, and which most people who touch upon this notion do not often mention, and anyone who reads my posts when I participated in that aspect of that discussion will see that I was quite explicit in making this point: That whereas there are crimes committed in the name of religion, there are no crimes committed in the name of atheism. Whereas there are priests, rabbis, imams and believers who interpret the rules and sayings in their holy texts to promote hatred and genocide, there are no priests, rabbis, imams, rules, or holy texts in atheism, which makes analogy between crimes committed by atheists and crimes committed by theists untenable. This is yet another point that you never answered—again, despite your “respond or it stands” musing.
So by virtue of the fact that I was explicit in what I did say and did mean, and my explicit statement that I do not subscribe to this theory you attribute to me, and your refusal to respond when I challenged you to provide a quote that “implied” what you claimed it did, you’ve been refuted. If you had any good faith intention of participating on this board with decency and honesty, you would concede this.
I’m guessing though, that you will not, and that the points raised in this passage will be another thing you don’t respond to.
Ben Lesar: That is not a purpose, but a use. Existentialists would agree. Existentialism holds that use is not purpose.
Luigi Novi: The reference sources I consulted say otherwise. Merriam Webter’s Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition), The American Heritage Dictionary, dictionary.com, and the dictionary in my Microsoft Word program are either mum on the distinction, or clearly indicate that purpose can derived either from the originator of something, or from one later acquires or finds a different use for that something. None of them make a distinction between “purpose” and “use”.
As far as existentialism, that is defined as a 20th-century philosophical movement that denies that the universe has any intrinsic meaning or purpose, and requires individuals to take responsibility for their own actions and shape their own destines. This pretty much describes my feelings on the concepts of meaning and purpose, and which Jerry alluded to, and yet, I do not form a distinction between “purpose” and “use”.
So you’re not only asserting a definition of a word that none of the other people here are familiar with, but which is unsupported by four different reference sources.
So the question must be asked: What sources can you cite that document your assertion that “purpose” and “use” are distinct in the manner that you claim, and that the purpose for something cannot be different from the one originally assigned to it? What source on existentialism asserts these things about the word “purpose”?
If you cannot answer this question, then the appearance that you are just splitting hairs by making up your own definitions for words will ”stand”.
Ben Lesar: Clearly many philosophers agree with me, then, as to what purpose is. Or at least what it isn’t. And these are philosophers who are more inclined to agree with you than me.
Luigi Novi: Okay. Please cite them.
Ben Lesar: Never done it, the only studies I have mentioned are well known enough that unless someone requests I cite them I see no need to bother, you have that backwards, I know exactly what reason is and how to employ it.
Luigi Novi: You think you do. But your arguments indicate otherwise. Saying something that is not true is certainly not within the parameters of “reason”. Not citing any of the “studies” you mentioned is within “reason”, and it’s not like you have to wait for someone to ask you to provide one in order to do so. Just because it “sounds better” if one’s position is backed up by logic, and worse if it’s backed up by emotion or rhetoric, does not mean, therefore, ipso facto, that yours are automatically logical and his emotional. The same sort of fabrication of vocabulary applies to your assertions about “objective and subjective”, and “purpose and meaning”.
Ben Lesar: Of course he didn’t say it, he used it. If he wants to make a claim about “life being its own meaning” he should back it up with logic, not emotional rhetoric.
Luigi Novi: You did not establish that he used emotional rhetoric instead of logic. You simply claim he does, without illustrating it. You simply dismiss his view of life because you do not share it. That is far more emotional, and far less logical, than anything that he said. While the meaning in life that each individual finds in life may derive at least partially from sentiment, this is no less true of religious ones than non-religious ones, since neither is based entirely on things like scientific empiricism.
Ben Lesar: I only brought up Stalin in the first place because Luigi Novi implied that Christians did more evil.