Respect

[IzzaThePush]

Do we have to respect believes that make suffering in consequence?

[lupe]

No, we should respect PEOPLE.

With beliefs, opinions, ideas etc. we agree or we disagree. This whole thing about " respect" to beliefs is absurd and promoted for other reasons... We should point out the abundant proof on the consequences of irrational beliefs. But we should do it by respecting the people who happen to have these beliefs.

[The Atheist]

Do we have to respect believes that make suffering in consequence?

Only in a forum.

Neither religion nor theists deserve respect as of right. The suffering is only a side issue anyway.

[mtpspur]

Perhaps giving respect is not a right for thesists and religion but one likes to think courtesy has some meaning still in these tell it like it is days or it just proves many a point on the fall of man from an elevated state of creation. Either way I'm smiling.

[The Atheist]

Perhaps giving respect is not a right for thesists and religion but one likes to think courtesy has some meaning still in these tell it like it is days or it just proves many a point on the fall of man from an elevated state of creation.

Yes, I've heard that before, but it just sounds like special pleading for religion.

[mal4mac]

You don't have to respect anyone else's beliefs, just tolerate them, in the sense of "put up" with them. If you respect a faith then you hold it in high regard, admire it in some way. No atheist could have that attitude to Christianity or Islam, and no one should expect them to.

But an atheist should tolerate Islam, up to a point... If someone isn't causing you any harm then you shouldn't harm them in any way. For instance, if a French Islamic woman is wearing the burkha she is causing no one any harm, so the French state should not force her to wear something else.

If a Finnish cartoonist is drawing cartoons of Mohammed then they are not physically hurting anyone so they should not be physically attacked - Islamic people don't have to respect the cartoonist, but they can tolerate him. If they don't want to just "put up" with him, they can write some newspaper articles saying why they think the cartoonist is wrong, or not very funny.

[BasDirks]

Do we have to respect believes that make suffering in consequence?

"Have to"? I do not think it fruitful to speak of respect as a "have to". Instead we might ask if we respect believes that lead to suffering. You would have to tell us what you mean by respecting, and more importantly, beliefs.

I do not respect the belief that homosexuals should be hanged, but I will tolerate it. Very different is my stance on the actual hanging of homosexuals. In that case I think we must intervene with force to protect them).

You see the difference between beliefs and deeds (I could further explicate this point)? This is crucial. Thought-crime as conceived by Orwell is a dangerous idea (only if deeds result from it ;) )

[IzzaThePush]

by respect i mean"live and let live". but i myself think we have to save people who are victims of people with harming and deadly belives. but i think we can help people out of "evil" religion/idealism, by appealing to their pitty and love for their victims.

[dafydd manton]

There's a strange, alien concept known as "common decency", which goes hand-in-glove with something called "basic good manners". Nothing to do with being incredibly well educated, nothing to do with religious beliefs, but something that is open to all humans. Provided that they want it.

[The Atheist]

by respect i mean"live and let live". but i myself think we have to save people who are victims of people with harming and deadly belives. but i think we can help people out of "evil" religion/idealism, by appealing to their pitty and love for their victims.

Won't work. Check out Reverend Jim Jones for details on how it actually goes down. They just end up feeling persecuted, which is then used to draw the group tighter together.


There's a strange, alien concept known as "common decency", which goes hand-in-glove with something called "basic good manners".

Precious little of either left in the world these days.

The problem with that approach is also that left unchallenged, religion has a shocking record at abuse of human rights.

[Manalive]

Won't work. Check out Reverend Jim Jones for details on how it actually goes down. They just end up feeling persecuted, which is then used to draw the group tighter together.



Precious little of either left in the world these days.

The problem with that approach is also that left unchallenged, religion has a shocking record at abuse of human rights.

And where are the atheist societies which respect human rights? I would hardly call Soviet Russia or China countries to model atheist humanism off of.
Given the human tradition: a purely atheist society seems more miraculous-- or ridiculous-- than a religious society. I.e.: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=16999

I'm not sure about respect, but religious tolerance should be something shown by all members of society. If I were to go to live among the people of the Amazon or some African tribe, what good is my Western way of thinking and survival to them? It's two worlds with different thinking; so yes, definitely respect. It's difficult to say on suffering. Is a woman who wears a Muslim hijab suffering to my Western standards? Well, it's hard to judge. Oh, and I would include atheists in the religious tolerance category . What is more miraculous than believing things have always gone right by accident?

[The Atheist]

And where are the atheist societies which respect human rights?

First off, they would be secular societies, not atheist societies, because atheism isn't a doctrine, it's simply a lack of belief in god/s. Humanism is probably what you're trying to look for. Here's the British society. (http://www.humanism.org.uk/home)


I would hardly call Soviet Russia or China countries to model atheist humanism off of.

It's unbelievably dishonest to call USSR and China "atheist countries" because they are/were Communist countries that happen to be atheistic. If you are unable to understand the difference, you really need to learn some more history.

A far better idea is to look at largely secular countries, which have the highest standard of living and freedom of any countries - Scandinavian nations, France, New Zealand and others are prominent among them.



Given the human tradition: a purely atheist society seems more miraculous-- or ridiculous-- than a religious society.

What's so ridiculous about people not believing in fairytales and myths?

I'm not sure what the link was supposed to reveal - maybe you could expand on that.


I'm not sure about respect, but religious tolerance should be something shown by all members of society.

I agree entirely, but unfortunately for the sky-daddy worshippers, they need to pull their heads in first.

Do away with trying to subvert education, law and customs - militant atheism will disappear overnight.

Religion has had ten thousand years to get rid of its dark side, and when I see some signs of it happening, I'll gladly put down the cudgels.


What is more miraculous than believing things have always gone right by accident?

What things have "always gone right"? You surely cannot be talking about human history - a history of war, torture, bigotry and oppression.

[Ohmyscience]

I don't think it atheism should be readily associated with Soviet Russia and China. It would be unfair as the idealogies that governed those states were communism. You can have religious bureaucracies that form with the same intensity and using religion as a guise to promote an agenda. It's really unfair to attack an ideology based on those who represent it. The only thing you should do is attack the doctrines that are flawed.

To OP, that is hard to categorize since suffering is not universally defined the same. I think we should only respect reasonable beliefs. I can hope to understand why someone would hold their opinion but respect should be earned through good reasoning. So, no we should not respect ideas regardless whether someone suffers or not. In fact I think it would be patronizing to tell someone you respect their beliefs when you think they are rediculous.

[The Atheist]

Bravo!

[Manalive]

First off, they would be secular societies, not atheist societies, because atheism isn't a doctrine, it's simply a lack of belief in god/s. Humanism is probably what you're trying to look for. Here's the British society. (http://www.humanism.org.uk/home)

To be fair you said: "Neither religion nor theists deserve respect as of right." I took it for granted that you were referring to atheist government all along instead of secular government. Forgive me for implying.




It's unbelievably dishonest to call USSR and China "atheist countries" because they are/were Communist countries that happen to be atheistic. If you are unable to understand the difference, you really need to learn some more history.

A far better idea is to look at largely secular countries, which have the highest standard of living and freedom of any countries - Scandinavian nations, France, New Zealand and others are prominent among them.

Again, I was referring to atheist countries. And it's not dishonest to call those countries atheist when in fact they are/were, no more than it's not dishonest to call capitalist countries by whatever theological positions they might hold. I was under the assumption that to be a Marxist is to be an atheist?


What's so ridiculous about people not believing in fairytales and myths?

I'm not sure what the link was supposed to reveal - maybe you could expand on that...

What things have "always gone right"? You surely cannot be talking about human history - a history of war, torture, bigotry and oppression.

People have always believed in fairy tales and myths. They seem to be wholly reasonable things to me. What do you want to replace them with? Rational thing such as theories? Science has done a lot for humanity, but removing religion has given us an overwhelming doubt about everything.

Life is what I am talking about when I say things have always gone right. Believing that things have been unfolding without fault from the beginning; that elephants and horses do not paint a picture or carry on a conversation; or why things do not replicate absolutely the same in nature: why is no one thing exactly, down to every gene, the exact same thing, seems to be miraculous to me. It seems awfully complicated to relegate it to "chance", natural selection, or whatever scientific word you wish to call it. Atheism-- or secularism, I never know which it is with you-- and to a large extent science can never tell why sunsets or a parents child is so beautiful to us. It can explain "how" but not "why". Science and Religion are best when they work together. You get the best of both worlds.


The link was to go along with religion being part of us since "the beginning". Someone arguing against religion is looking at a long history of it being part of humanity. We'll see how these modern secularist countries do in a few thousand years.


a history of war, torture, bigotry and oppression.

Atheistic science will wipe every tear and dry every eye of this. What a man of faith.

Man holds up a mirror to the universe to show himself, but God holds up a mirror to the universe and shows man. What a complete different way we like to see things in our mind.

[Manalive]

"It's really unfair to attack an ideology based on those who represent it. The only thing you should do is attack the doctrines that are flawed."

You let off every Crusader, Jihadist, and religious zealot by doing that. But I'll agree. :)

[The Atheist]

To be fair you said: "Neither religion nor theists deserve respect as of right." I took it for granted that you were referring to atheist government all along instead of secular government. Forgive me for implying.

I wasn't referring to governments at all, but since you raised them, I thought we should make the distinction between them. Enforced atheism, as practised by totalitarian states, is as much a perversion of atheism as suicide bombing is of islam. Atheism isn't a doctrine, and it absolutely is not a political doctrine.



Again, I was referring to atheist countries. And it's not dishonest to call those countries atheist when in fact they are/were, no more than it's not dishonest to call capitalist countries by whatever theological positions they might hold. I was under the assumption that to be a Marxist is to be an atheist?

See above.

I will also note that I only know one Marxist, but he's the biggest jerk in New Zealand, if not the planet, so I really don't care what Marxists think - they're a dying breed, thank god.

Do we call capitalist nations names based on theism? I can't hink of any examples. If you look at Italy and USA as two extremely theistic nations by population, we don't call them religious states, but democratic states.

*cough* I am compelled to note that states controlled by religion are not the best places.



People have always believed in fairy tales and myths. They seem to be wholly reasonable things to me.

Loch Ness monster? Sasquatch? Zeus? Osiris? Thor? Zoroaster? Which is reasonable? Which one should we believe? Which one has more veracity/value?


What do you want to replace them with? Rational thing such as theories?

I'd personally prefer they weren't replaced with anything. I'm using myself as an anecdote, but I don't miss any of the beliefs people have; I get along fine without them, as do most of my friends.


Science has done a lot for humanity, but removing religion has given us an overwhelming doubt about everything.

I just have to disagree here. In what way does empirical observation encourage doubt? (Other than to encourage further investigation, which is a good thing) And even if it does, is that such a bad thing? It's religion that claims to "know the truth". Science doesn't claim any truths that I know of.

Doubt is good, and the cornerstone of scepticism.


Life is what I am talking about when I say things have always gone right.

Which life/lives?

The starving people in poverty in Africa? Neanderthals, who became extinct? Kids who die from preventable disease because their parents are antivaxers?

What part of life has always gone right? Sorry, but the idea doesn't make any sense to me at all.


Believing that things have been unfolding without fault from the beginning; that elephants and horses do not paint a picture or carry on a conversation; or why things do not replicate absolutely the same in nature: why is no one thing exactly, down to every gene, the exact same thing, seems to be miraculous to me.

I'll work through this in bits, because it actually covers a lot of ground:

things have been unfolding without fault from the beginning

Nope.

The Cambrian extinction, dinosaurian extinction, the human-epoch extinction. They're just three examples of things not actually going all that well during the past ~4 billion years. I think we tend to be a bit arrogant about where we sit in history. So far, humans have been successful and dominant for about .0625% of the time that dinosaurs were.

Ask me again in a couple of million years.

that elephants and horses do not paint a picture or carry on a conversation

In fact, elephants do paint (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/). (Yes, I know it's contrived, but birds certainly sculpt (http://stripe.colorado.edu/~mitton/images/cliff%20swallow%20nests.jpg)) Who says they don't converse? It's abundantly clear that most mammals and birds can communicate in some fashion, whether it's a warning cry or food found, it's conversing.

Given that 99.99% of human communication unnecessary BS, maybe it's us who's missing the point.

Again, I find it quite arrogant to think we're "better" than other animals - not too many others indulge in wars, genocide and mass extermination of other species.

If I were an independent arbiter from Sirius IX, I'd be more accepting of animals which aren't screwing up the planet.

why things do not replicate absolutely the same in nature: why is no one thing exactly, down to every gene, the exact same thing, seems to be miraculous to me

Very simply because if they did, we'd still be single-celled organisms floating in the archetypal primordial soup. Evolution only happens because replication doesn't always work in a linear fashion. Note that for bacteria, viruses and some other forms, it does replicate exactly, though, so it isn't one or the other, but both.


It seems awfully complicated to relegate it to "chance", natural selection, or whatever scientific word you wish to call it.

To be honest, it seems a lot more complicated to suggest that some invisible entity created everything from nothing. I think we tend to get a bit earth-centric with this kind of thing. There are literally hunderds of billions of planets and moons where life hasn't happened, but because we live on the only one we know that did spark into life, we look at it as the centre of our universe.

It could be that billions of other planets have life forms on them, and if we can ever figure out how to find and study them, we might find natural selection a universal property, like hydrogen atoms, say.


Atheism-- or secularism, I never know which it is with you-- and to a large extent science can never tell why sunsets or a parents child is so beautiful to us. It can explain "how" but not "why".

If we include anthropology in the broad heading of science, I think it can absolutely explain those things. Most of them are human constructs, but there's no doubt that colour and pattern play a part in countless animalian behaviours.

Those "why" questions are what caused old Uncle Tommy Aquinas to come up with a "proof" of god, because reductionism goes on to infinity.



Science and Religion are best when they work together. You get the best of both worlds.

In what way have science and religion ever worked together or could work together?

Are you thinking of Einstein's "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." kind of thinking?

I tend to think that Einstein was probably enough of a realist to know that making atheistic statements in 1941 was probably not a good idea. His personal letters, where he reveals the concept of god to be "childish nonsense" tells me more.

I just cannot see that religion is any help to science, and I know for certain that it's been the exact opposite in the past.


The link was to go along with religion being part of us since "the beginning". Someone arguing against religion is looking at a long history of it being part of humanity. We'll see how these modern secularist countries do in a few thousand years.

I look forward to that and I'm cloning myself for a return around 3010, so let's talk about it again then!

:D

Yes, there are positives to religion, but we do have evidence that when the faith disappears, people still behave altruistically or not depending on their own determination. Accepting that a reason to keep religion overlooks the fact that it has been responsible for some fairly reprehensible behaviour over the millennia.

Take Prof Scmidt's Gobekli Tepe. It seems certain that it was built with slave labour, and it is the first recorded use of slaves.

That would make that religion responsible for slavery, which doesn't earn them a tick.


Atheistic science will wipe every tear and dry every eye of this. What a man of faith.

Nope, that isn't one of my claims.

I was merely emphasising the horrific history religion/s have behind them.


Man holds up a mirror to the universe to show himself, but God holds up a mirror to the universe and shows man. What a complete different way we like to see things in our mind.

Well, as I said above, diversity is the spice of all life!

I must wonder at the the strange concept of an entity which would create a universe containing hundreds of billions of stars, all for the benefit of one life form on the darker side of it.

[Manalive]

I wasn't referring to governments at all, but since you raised them, I thought we should make the distinction between them. Enforced atheism, as practised by totalitarian states, is as much a perversion of atheism as suicide bombing is of islam. Atheism isn't a doctrine, and it absolutely is not a political doctrine.

I will also note that I only know one Marxist, but he's the biggest jerk in New Zealand, if not the planet, so I really don't care what Marxists think - they're a dying breed, thank god.

Do we call capitalist nations names based on theism? I can't hink of any examples. If you look at Italy and USA as two extremely theistic nations by population, we don't call them religious states, but democratic states.

*cough* I am compelled to note that states controlled by religion are not the best places.

I referred to the Soviet Union and China as "atheist" because they're largely different from the secular states of the West. I'm a bit rusty on my high school history but I thought the Communist countries of the 20th century favored atheism over organized religion-- going so far as to suppress it.

I used society and governments interchangeably earlier. I should have been more careful with my wording. Anyway, I feel like we are getting into semantics on this issue so I'll drop it.



Loch Ness monster? Sasquatch? Zeus? Osiris? Thor? Zoroaster? Which is reasonable? Which one should we believe? Which one has more veracity/value?

I prefer the Greek myths. But any dying/resurrecting god myth will do. :D



I just have to disagree here. In what way does empirical observation encourage doubt? (Other than to encourage further investigation, which is a good thing) And even if it does, is that such a bad thing? It's religion that claims to "know the truth". Science doesn't claim any truths that I know of.

Doubt is good, and the cornerstone of scepticism.

Well my friend, I can let one thing be mysterious (God) and then everything else is illuminated. If science doesn't claim any truths then what good is it for us? What is doubt after doubt after doubt going to give us in the end?




Which life/lives?

The starving people in poverty in Africa? Neanderthals, who became extinct? Kids who die from preventable disease because their parents are antivaxers?

What part of life has always gone right? Sorry, but the idea doesn't make any sense to me at all.

I was referring to life in the purely biological sense. But I'll answer: The suffering of others, like those starving people in Africa, can move people to compassion. Suffering can test peoples faith or it can deliver an opportunity for them to grow spiritually, to change for the better, and to make a difference in the world. It can motivate a person to either seek or reject God, forcing them to move toward or away from Him. Moving to a secularized way of thinking, I don't really see what it can offer to these people? Realism of their suffering? Then what?



I'll work through this in bits, because it actually covers a lot of ground:

things have been unfolding without fault from the beginning

Nope.

The Cambrian extinction, dinosaurian extinction, the human-epoch extinction. They're just three examples of things not actually going all that well during the past ~4 billion years. I think we tend to be a bit arrogant about where we sit in history. So far, humans have been successful and dominant for about .0625% of the time that dinosaurs were.

Ask me again in a couple of million years.

that elephants and horses do not paint a picture or carry on a conversation

In fact, elephants do paint (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/). (Yes, I know it's contrived, but birds certainly sculpt (http://stripe.colorado.edu/~mitton/images/cliff%20swallow%20nests.jpg)) Who says they don't converse? It's abundantly clear that most mammals and birds can communicate in some fashion, whether it's a warning cry or food found, it's conversing.

Given that 99.99% of human communication unnecessary BS, maybe it's us who's missing the point.

Again, I find it quite arrogant to think we're "better" than other animals - not too many others indulge in wars, genocide and mass extermination of other species.

If I were an independent arbiter from Sirius IX, I'd be more accepting of animals which aren't screwing up the planet.

Okay, okay-- I can call poop in a jar art just as well. Quite simply, a man can draw and an animal cannot. A wolf didn't start a drawing and then a dog come along and finish it.

I'll quote G.K. Chesterton now that I am growing sleepy. "The simplest truth about man is that he is a very strange being; almost in the sense of being a stranger on earth. In all sobriety, he has much more of the external appearance of one bringing alien habits from another land than of a mere growth of this one. He has an unfair advantage and an unfair disadvantage. He cannot sleep in his own skin; his cannot trust his own instincts. He is at once a creator moving miraculous hands and fingers and a king of cripple... His mind has the same doubtful liberties and the same wild limitations. Alone among the animals, he is shaken with the beautiful madness called laughter; as if he had caught sight of some secret in the very shape of the universe hidden from the universe itself... Whether we praise these things as natural to man or abuse them as artificial in nature, they remain in the same sense unique. This is realized by the whole popular instinct called religion, until disturbed by pedants, especially the laborious pedants of the simple life."






To be honest, it seems a lot more complicated to suggest that some invisible entity created everything from nothing. I think we tend to get a bit earth-centric with this kind of thing. There are literally hunderds of billions of planets and moons where life hasn't happened, but because we live on the only one we know that did spark into life, we look at it as the centre of our universe.

It could be that billions of other planets have life forms on them, and if we can ever figure out how to find and study them, we might find natural selection a universal property, like hydrogen atoms, say.


I must wonder at the the strange concept of an entity which would create a universe containing hundreds of billions of stars, all for the benefit of one life form on the darker side of it.


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/believing_in_aliens_not_opposed_to_christianity_va ticans_top_astronomer_says/

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90KSE100&show_article=1

Ahhh, "The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man."



If we include anthropology in the broad heading of science, I think it can absolutely explain those things. Most of them are human constructs, but there's no doubt that colour and pattern play a part in countless animalian behaviours.

Those "why" questions are what caused old Uncle Tommy Aquinas to come up with a "proof" of god, because reductionism goes on to infinity.



In what way have science and religion ever worked together or could work together?

Are you thinking of Einstein's "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." kind of thinking?

I tend to think that Einstein was probably enough of a realist to know that making atheistic statements in 1941 was probably not a good idea. His personal letters, where he reveals the concept of god to be "childish nonsense" tells me more.

I just cannot see that religion is any help to science, and I know for certain that it's been the exact opposite in the past.

There are numerous famous Catholic priest who were also scientist. I wouldn't call these men hindrances to science.

Robert Grosseteste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Grosseteste)
Georges Lemaitre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre)
Albertus Magnus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus)

Catholic Church and Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science)

Sorry for all the wiki links. It's near 3 am here so I'm a bit low on thorough research. :P


Honestly, I can't see how you get along with all these pessimistic outlooks. Is there anything that gives you hope or optimism at the end of the day?

There are a few more quotes I want to take a stab at-- but quite frankly I'm having trouble keeping my eyes open now. I've skimmed over things to check for some sort of consistency of thought or sense making. Forgive me if something doesn't sound quite right.

[mal4mac]

Well my friend, I can let one thing be mysterious (God) and then everything else is illuminated. If science doesn't claim any truths then what good is it for us? What is doubt after doubt after doubt going to give us in the end?


The Ancient Sceptics suggested that doubt after doubt after doubt gives us contentment. You look at the arguments for and against God, realise there is no absolute proof either way, and, if you're lucky, throw up your hands and say, 'Who knows? Who cares? What does it matter anyway?', and a wave of relaxation comes over you... Trying to force myself to believe in a mysterious thing only makes me anxious, and doesn't illuminate anything...

[JBI]

I don't think it atheism should be readily associated with Soviet Russia and China. It would be unfair as the idealogies that governed those states were communism. You can have religious bureaucracies that form with the same intensity and using religion as a guise to promote an agenda. It's really unfair to attack an ideology based on those who represent it. The only thing you should do is attack the doctrines that are flawed.

To OP, that is hard to categorize since suffering is not universally defined the same. I think we should only respect reasonable beliefs. I can hope to understand why someone would hold their opinion but respect should be earned through good reasoning. So, no we should not respect ideas regardless whether someone suffers or not. In fact I think it would be patronizing to tell someone you respect their beliefs when you think they are rediculous.

The debate in China at least is actually a lot more involved than that. Religion, for instance, plays a very different role in Chinese society than it does in Western society, so the comparison is rather different. To me it seems more of a Neo-Confucian purge, and then a rapid modernization of the rural classes, that didn't even manage to overturn the folk religion in the slightest.

If you want to call it atheist, it is atheist in that it doesn't tolerate the religious imperialism, and new-age nonsense that somewhere like South Korea does.


{edit}

[Dodo25]

First of all, thanks @The Atheist for the patience to go over all these posts confusing atheism with totalitarianism and communism.


The Ancient Sceptics suggested that doubt after doubt after doubt gives us contentment. You look at the arguments for and against God, realise there is no absolute proof either way, and, if you're lucky, throw up your hands and say, 'Who knows? Who cares? What does it matter anyway?', and a wave of relaxation comes over you... Trying to force myself to believe in a mysterious thing only makes me anxious, and doesn't illuminate anything...

I think this is a bad way of thinking. It lets nonsense off the hook way too easily. "no proof either way"? Well there is NEVER proof against the existance of something. So this can't be an argument in favor of anything. If there is no evidence for god, and no sound argument, then there is no reason whatsoever to think he exists.

Faith (=blind faith, believing without evidence) is therefore a completely irrational concept, and 'taking the best out of both worlds, science AND faith' is close to impossible, because the beauty of science is that it's evidence-based and able to admit mistakes. The dogmatic faith found in all religions is the reason why science (i.e. evoluion in biology) is so poorly accepted world wide.

[mal4mac]

I think this is a bad way of thinking. It lets nonsense off the hook way too easily. "no proof either way"? Well there is NEVER proof against the existance of something. So this can't be an argument in favor of anything. If there is no evidence for god, and no sound argument, then there is no reason whatsoever to think he exists.

Faith (=blind faith, believing without evidence) is therefore a completely irrational concept, and 'taking the best out of both worlds, science AND faith' is close to impossible, because the beauty of science is that it's evidence-based and able to admit mistakes. The dogmatic faith found in all religions is the reason why science (i.e. evoluion in biology) is so poorly accepted world wide.

I said "no *absolute* proof either way". I agree there is no good evidence for God, just as there is no good evidence for Zeus. I also can't see any good reason for making a 'leap of faith'. So I choose not to believe in either.

I think science is not accepted world wide because it doesn't offer much in the way of consolation. This is why you find many scientists believing in some kind of God.

All this harping on about the "beauty of science" is just another form of unthinking worship. Admitting to one's mistakes is something every decent human being does, it isn't something unique to science. Everytime we look out of the window to see if it might rain we are doing "evidence based research". ("Hmmm dark cloud, I'll take my brolly".)

Also science/technology has many down sides - climate change & nuclear weapons. (Please don't say 'that's politics', Eisenhower would have got nowhere without the Dr Strangeloves)

[togre]

Do you realize the entire concept of "proof" and empiric evidence is based on the scientific method which, in turn, is base on the a priori assumptions that either 1) there universe operates on the basis of uniform, unchanging laws and can be explained entirely on the basis of physical, material realities (ie. there is no God) or 2) that the conformity of the universe to certain unchanging laws is due to the existence of a God who causes the orderliness in physical realities?

Either way, the existence (or lack of existence) of God is part of the unproven foundational premises that support science and empiric evidence and, as such, are beyond the scope of science and empiric evidence to prove, refute or evaluate.

[Dodo25]

Do you realize the entire concept of "proof" and empiric evidence is based on the scientific method which, in turn, is base on the a priori assumptions that either 1) there universe operates on the basis of uniform, unchanging laws and can be explained entirely on the basis of physical, material realities (ie. there is no God) or 2) that the conformity of the universe to certain unchanging laws is due to the existence of a God who causes the orderliness in physical realities?

Either way, the existence (or lack of existence) of God is part of the unproven foundational premises that support science and empiric evidence and, as such, are beyond the scope of science and empiric evidence to prove, refute or evaluate.

This is a false dichotomy, science doesn't rule out the supernatural, it only couldn't explain it if it were encountered. And it certainly doesn't postulate the existance of a god.



All this harping on about the "beauty of science" is just another form of unthinking worship. Admitting to one's mistakes is something every decent human being does, it isn't something unique to science. Everytime we look out of the window to see if it might rain we are doing "evidence based research". ("Hmmm dark cloud, I'll take my brolly".)

Also science/technology has many down sides - climate change & nuclear weapons. (Please don't say 'that's politics', Eisenhower would have got nowhere without the Dr Strangeloves)

How is it unthinking worship? It is the scientific method that got us to the moon or things that are happening at CERN. Of course it also brought us to Tschernobyl, Hiroshima and Elugelab. Yet I wouldn't even say nuclear weapons are evil altogether, I think one can make a sound case that SO FAR, nuclear weapons have done more good than harm (i.e. preventing the escalation of the cold war).

Science is a double-edged sword, it depends on how it is used. That's the only thing I like about the book of Genesis, the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the whole temptation scene is an amazingly relevant parable for the pursuit of knowledge.

Anyway, I still defend my claim that evidence based reasoning and admitting mistakes is what makes up science's efficiency, and conversely (am I using this word the right way?), the lack thereof makes up faith's impotence.

[IzzaThePush]

true. A common sense.

[togre]

This is a false dichotomy, science doesn't rule out the supernatural, it only couldn't explain it if it were encountered. And it certainly doesn't postulate the existance of a god.


di·chot·o·my

1 : a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities

What I said wasn't a dichotomy at all. Evidence based conclusions are accepted for two different reasons.

I drop a marble in a vacuum and measure its acceleration at 9.8m/sec2. I do this 99 times and record the same result. I therefore predict and am convinced that should I drop the marble a 100th time, its rate of acceleration will be 9.8m/sec2. There are only 2 good reasons to make that assumption.

Either...

1. The actions of the universe can be explained totally by the interaction of matter and energy and that these interactions are uniform throughout all time. (This is either the explicit denial of God as a being who can and does interact with his creation or a defining of God as a being who does not interact (which is little different from outright denial).

Or...

2. The actions of the universe can be explained as generally orderly and usually constant because of the existence of a God who formed the universe that way and who is the cause behind the regularity that is observed.


I cannot see any logical reason beyond these two to embrace the accuracy of evidence as a indicator of reality, truth, etc.

Both these reasonings for embracing empiric evidence as a valid tool in analyzing reality rest upon assumptions about the existence (or lack of existence) and nature of God.

Therefore to use the tools we generally use to analyze our world to address the issue of God (either positively or negatively) is like using a yard stick to cut a 10 in. piece of string and then using that piece of string to evaluate the accuracy of the yardstick.

Any means of understand reality must rest on unproven and unprovable assumptions. You (not addressed explicitly to Dodo25) may sneer at faith, but really you are sneering a someone because their faith is different than yours.

[The Atheist]

I referred to the Soviet Union and China as "atheist" because they're largely different from the secular states of the West. I'm a bit rusty on my high school history but I thought the Communist countries of the 20th century favored atheism over organized religion-- going so far as to suppress it.

Indeed they did repress religion, but it's about power, not god/s. A good example is that Mao's China did not make any real attempt to destroy the [seen as] harmless eastern religions and beliefs.


I prefer the Greek myths. But any dying/resurrecting god myth will do. :D

I like the Egyptian gods myself - Seth in particular, the prototype Satan.


Well my friend, I can let one thing be mysterious (God) and then everything else is illuminated.

Uh-oh, this is sounding like a Rowan Williams-esque track you've got on!

:D

(Be assured that, aside from his theology, Rowan is a man I have great respect for.)

As I constantly say, if theists had that attitude universally, I wouldn't even be called The Atheist online, I'd have stuck to my true colours and been Arrogant B_Stard, as I am in gaming.


If science doesn't claim any truths then what good is it for us? What is doubt after doubt after doubt going to give us in the end?

It doesn't claim truths, but it shows them by default. As long as 2+2=5, we really have nothing to worry about. Pythagoras' theory still works, water still contains two molecules of hydrogen to one of oxygen and the sun - such as it is today - is coming up. Science shows us what we generally call "truth" by repetition.

I have no doubt that light travels at a constant speed throughout the universe.


I was referring to life in the purely biological sense.

I see your tack below, but I still don't get it. There is so little perfection in any kind of life; we're vulnerable to an unbelievable number of diseases, we're killing the planet and countless species, and we're vulnerable to an almost infinite number of threats from outside the earth itself.


But I'll answer: The suffering of others, like those starving people in Africa, can move people to compassion.

Correct, but there's no part in there which requires a god.


Suffering can test peoples faith or it can deliver an opportunity for them to grow spiritually, to change for the better, and to make a difference in the world. It can motivate a person to either seek or reject God, forcing them to move toward or away from Him. Moving to a secularized way of thinking, I don't really see what it can offer to these people? Realism of their suffering? Then what?

This is why the RCC in particular is making great strides in increasing membership in Africa. The white man's god will give you a lovely life to make up for this one.

The danger with it is that it replaces individual responsibility.

It's Pascal's wager.



Okay, okay-- I can call poop in a jar art just as well. Quite simply, a man can draw and an animal cannot. A wolf didn't start a drawing and then a dog come along and finish it.

You're asking why only humans appear to have abstract thought.

That's one of those questions science is happy to shake its head on and say "we don't know".

It could be to do with our brain capacity; it could equally be just some obscure deviation from a mating ritual - like the birds that make elaborate patterns with sticks to attract a mate. We might know one day, but as your excellent "poop in a jar" metaphor displays, there is no consensus on what is good and bad in art, so we can be pretty confident that most of it is pure human construct.


I'll quote G.K. Chesterton now that I am growing sleepy. "The simplest truth about man is that he is a very strange being; almost in the sense of being a stranger on earth. In all sobriety, he has much more of the external appearance of one bringing alien habits from another land than of a mere growth of this one. He has an unfair advantage and an unfair disadvantage. He cannot sleep in his own skin; his cannot trust his own instincts. He is at once a creator moving miraculous hands and fingers and a king of cripple... His mind has the same doubtful liberties and the same wild limitations. Alone among the animals, he is shaken with the beautiful madness called laughter; as if he had caught sight of some secret in the very shape of the universe hidden from the universe itself... Whether we praise these things as natural to man or abuse them as artificial in nature, they remain in the same sense unique. This is realized by the whole popular instinct called religion, until disturbed by pedants, especially the laborious pedants of the simple life."

Just to deal with the bit I bolded first; Chesterton was wrong. Other animals definitely laugh and use humour.

Chesterton is making the exact fallacy I noted earlier - arrogantly assigning special status to humans.



http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/believing_in_aliens_not_opposed_to_christianity_va ticans_top_astronomer_says/

Crikey, I know a couple of blokes at a christian board that aren't going to like that much! I must go point it out to them.

:D

I do love the RCC and its constant update of theology. I see they back-slid a few days ago when some other senior Vatican bloke was talking about paedophile priests going to hell.



Ahhh, "The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man."

Whoa!

Da Vinci, Dali, Picasso, the Pyramids - of Giza and the Americas - the Burj Tower, the Hubble telescope, the Hoover dam. Crikey, I could write this list for hours. What part of amazing has this god-bloke given us? A few fairy stories? I prefer to look at the achievements of man in wonder than have to dream something up to get emotional over.



There are numerous famous Catholic priest who were also scientist. I wouldn't call these men hindrances to science.

No, but it's undeniable that religion hindered science on many occasions, and as evinced by the constant attempts to get creationism into schools, still tries to.



Sorry for all the wiki links. It's near 3 am here so I'm a bit low on thorough research. :P

No sweat. I don't doubt there are christian scientists; I even know a couple.



Honestly, I can't see how you get along with all these pessimistic outlooks. Is there anything that gives you hope or optimism at the end of the day?

What on earth is pessimistic? That we're going to die and wink out like a light bulb? That's reality, not pessimism. Believing your imaginary friend Jesus is going to show up and lead you by hand to some place for eternity isn't optimism.


Forgive me if something doesn't sound quite right.

No problemo - I'll be here all week!




Faith (=blind faith, believing without evidence) is therefore a completely irrational concept, and 'taking the best out of both worlds, science AND faith' is close to impossible, because the beauty of science is that it's evidence-based and able to admit mistakes. The dogmatic faith found in all religions is the reason why science (i.e. evoluion in biology) is so poorly accepted world wide.

Very well put.


I think science is not accepted world wide because it doesn't offer much in the way of consolation. This is why you find many scientists believing in some kind of God.

Yet the majority of scientists are not theists, and if you look at the peak of science, the NSA for example, belief in imaginary friends is very, very low.

Not that that means anything, I'm just pointing it out.

I'm glad that you use the term "consolation" in regard to belief, because it's one of my core tenets that theism only exists because people want that security blanket against death and oblivion.


Either way, the existence (or lack of existence) of God is part of the unproven foundational premises that support science and empiric evidence and, as such, are beyond the scope of science and empiric evidence to prove, refute or evaluate.

I was going to answer this, but:


This is a false dichotomy, science doesn't rule out the supernatural, it only couldn't explain it if it were encountered. And it certainly doesn't postulate the existance of a god.

Dodo already did.

[caddy_caddy]

Only in a forum.

Neither religion nor theists deserve respect as of right. The suffering is only a side issue anyway.

Yes indeed , scientists only deserve respect . I would like to thank them for all the arms they made and still making for the advancement of human civilization and to decrease the suffering in the world .

To OP . I think men is unrespectable any more .

[The Atheist]

Yes indeed , scientists only deserve respect . I would like to thank them for all the arms they made and still making for the advancement of human civilization and to decrease the suffering in the world .

Yes, scientists have contributed to weaponry, but it's the politicians that order and fire the weapons. Even the worst weapon of all, nukes, came about through a simple physics problem being solved. It was never Rutherford or Einstein's plan to make weapons.

Even if I look at the numbers killed by weapons, it's a minute fraction of the lives saved and increase in longevity brought about by scientific advances.

Blaming science for the deaths by weapons overlooks the point that humans have been killing each other long before science got involved in weaponry - jawbones and sharp sticks were enough.

You could also consider the point made earlier that nukes may be responsible for saving millions of lives due to the balance of power meaning that nobody has set one off to cause harm since 1945. How many would have died in a USSR v NATO/USA war had one broken out in the 1950s/'60s?

[OrphanPip]

Therefore to use the tools we generally use to analyze our world to address the issue of God (either positively or negatively) is like using a yard stick to cut a 10 in. piece of string and then using that piece of string to evaluate the accuracy of the yardstick.

Any means of understand reality must rest on unproven and unprovable assumptions. You (not addressed explicitly to Dodo25) may sneer at faith, but really you are sneering a someone because their faith is different than yours.

Or instead of being new age hippies we can just conclude pragmatically that you can trust empirical evidence because it produces tangible results.

Science isn't about understanding reality, it is a methodology that produces results. The idea of science being about understanding is an idealistic notion held by non-scientist, real scientist know science is about producing results and putting food on their family's plates.

Scientific methodology can not address claims of the supernatural, the only reason science comes into conflict with religion is because the religious make irrational claims about natural processes that directly contradict empirical evidence.

[mal4mac]

Yet the majority of scientists are not theists


Are you sure about this? Dawkins, I vaguely remember, had figures pointing out that the vast majority of Nobel prize winning scientists were not theists. There are many more theists amongst "lesser" scientists, and I haven't seen figures for *all* scientists.

Maybe Nobel prize winning scientists are using the "Montaigne gambit". He was a skeptic and, some argue, only proclaimed himself to be a Christian so he could live at ease in the society of which he was a part. If Nobel prize winning scientists declare themselves to be Christians they are likely to have scorn hurled at them daily, in the mass media, by Dawkins and gang.

This might explain why lesser scientists are more likely to be theists. If they are, say, science teachers working in mid-west USA it's fundamentalists who are likely to give them a hard time, so they become theists. Anything for an easy life. And please don't say they are "not really theists". If they say they are, they are. They're just struggling a bit more with their faith then others might be, or at least in a different way...

Dawkins suggested that theists were either stupid, bad or insane. I think I've just highlighted another category. What to call them? Dawkins might call them cowards. Montaigne might welcome them as fellow skeptics and social pragmatists.

[Dodo25]

Are you sure about this? Dawkins, I vaguely remember, had figures pointing out that the vast majority of Nobel prize winning scientists were not theists. There are many more theists amongst "lesser" scientists, and I haven't seen figures for *all* scientists.


I recently wrote a huge paper on creationism in the US, so I have statistics concerning science and religion available at hand:

1998:
Among 'top scientists' (in this example members of the National Academy of Sciences), only 7% believed in God. Interestingly, disbelief was most common among biologists, and the most believers were found among mathematicians and physicists (5.5% for biologists, 12% among mathematicians and phyiscists). Of course, agnosticism is counted as not-believing. The figures have been decreasing significantly within the last century, 1914, believers made up 27% of top scientists.
Source:
Larson E.J.; Witham L., Leading Scientists still reject God, in: Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, July 1998, p. 313.

2009:
'Common Scientists': 1 in 3 believes in God. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090716/survey-one-third-of-scientists-believe-in-god/index.html The link goes back to an AAAS



Dawkins suggested that theists were either stupid, bad or insane. I think I've just highlighted another category. What to call them? Dawkins might call them cowards. Montaigne might welcome them as fellow skeptics and social pragmatists.

I agree that this phenomenon might be quite common. Openly admitting to be an atheist in the US can be very badly received by the people around you. In politics, it is political suicide. Several presidents have sincerely stated that 'atheists should not be considered US citizens'.

A Gallup poll taken in 2007 showed that 53% of Americans would not vote for a generally well qualified candidate nominated by their party who happened to be an atheist. Atheism is ranked worst in esteem, for more people would not vote for an atheist than for a homosexual (43%), a 72-year-old (30%) a Mormon (24%), a women (11%), or a Jew (7%).

However, I'd like to point out that Dawkins did not quite phrase it the way you stated. There is one famous quote where he says that people who reject evolution are either ignorant, stupid or both. I think that's true, altough he is forgetting that they can simply have the 'faith' meme anchored so deeply in their beliefs that even if they see that evidence contradicts it, faith prevails. I think 'deluded' would then be the right term.

Then once he was asked to talk about what he thinks of top scientists who are religious. He said the would have to manage to perform 'mental gymnastics', think differently when in the lab than when in church. When pressed by the interviewer, Dawkins indeed admitted that he believes religious people can not be the best/ideal scientists (because they follow a wrong methodology), altough he did emphasize that there are some outstanding ones who are religious. So basically he just can't understand/imagine how they do it.

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

The OP:

Off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.

Do we have to respect believes that make suffering in consequence?

[caddy_caddy]

Originally Posted by The Atheist
Yes, scientists have contributed to weaponry, but it's the politicians that order and fire the weapons. Even the worst weapon of all, nukes, came about through a simple physics problem being solved. It was never Rutherford or Einstein's plan to make weapons.

Ic , all the advancement in weaponry is not planned , it happened by coincidence . Dr. Faustus is still alive dear ;within every scientist you can find one with an awesome ambition and thirst that can never be satisfied . He wants more and more . Men is fascinated by his genious , his abilty to create and invent ; nothing could stop him . It's really absurd to speak of suffering while the cost of one plane could survive the life of thousands and build hundreds of schools .
You can speak of whatever you like but not of suffering pleaaaaaaaase !!
We have our sky daddy and you have too -- science. You do obey and follow as we do obey and follow . But there is a big difference between our sky daddy and yours :

Your sky daddy sells his inventions ; you can't pay , you don't get ; our sky daddy gave us all His inventions for free .

Your sky daddy sells me a fruit , within his fruit there is no seed to cultivate and have a tree that has many many fruits. I'm always in need of him to get the fruit I need . Actually I'm his slave ,a modern slavery .
Our sky daddy gave me a fruit , within the fruit there is a seed . After eating the fruit I can cultivate the seed to have my own tree and many many fruit so I won't be hungry and be independent . Actually mine and yours have contradictory intentions .

Your sky daddy ignores the pleas of those who suffer to satisfy his pride and lust for power . He ruled the earth but it's not enough , he wants to rule other places too . I'm wondering what good did this to humanity , to a man who sleeps hungry ? Our sky daddy is satisifed and does not need or seek power . What ever He does , He does for our sake . He gave those who suffer an alternative : an everlasting happiness . What does your sky daddy offer as an alternative ?



Even if I look at the numbers killed by weapons, it's a minute fraction of the lives saved and increase in longevity brought about by scientific advances.


I 'm looking at the number of life I can survive , of a better life I can make too; the money one country pays on weaponry is enough to earse famine in many countries around the world .
Blaming science for the deaths by weapons overlooks the point that humans have been killing each other long before science got involved in weaponry - jawbones and sharp sticks were enough.
IC you're comparing bombs to sharp sticks !!

You could also consider the point made earlier that nukes may be responsible for saving millions of lives due to the balance of power meaning that nobody has set one off to cause harm since 1945. How many would have died in a USSR v NATO/USA war had one broken out in the 1950s/'60s?


Hellloooooooooo I'm living in the Middle East;)

[lupe]

Hellloooooooooo I'm living in the Middle East;)

You didn't have to write the last sentence, it's quite obvious you are living in the Middle East (or the US Mid-West, some would have add).
A region that, quoting the brave words of Sigmund Froyd, "has never produced anything but religions, sacred frenzies, presumptuous attempts to overcome the outer world of appearances by means of the inner world of wishful thinking."

Therefore, let's leave all the theories on the sky daddy to the only ones that can really deal with: Froyd's sucessors:wink5:

[caddy_caddy]

Originally Posted by caddy_caddy

Hellloooooooooo I'm living in the Middle East

You didn't have to write the last sentence, it's quite obvious you are living in the Middle East (or the US Mid-West, some would have add).

It doesn't seem so .The Atheist was speaking of saving life !!;)



A region that, quoting the brave words of Sigmund Froyd, "has never produced anything but religions, sacred frenzies, presumptuous attempts to overcome the outer world of appearances by means of the inner world of wishful thinking."

Therefore, let's leave all the theories on the sky daddy to the only ones that can really deal with: Froyd's sucessors .

Not to forget Darwin please . We're so proud that this land produced all the prophets , the greatest men who ever lived on this earth .
Yet this land produced men of science and philosophers .Are u interested to know about them ?

[dafydd manton]

Do we have to respect beliefs that make for suffering? Is there any one religion that, taken honestly, actually promotes suffering? This is a serious question, because other than Christianity (NOT what the Churches teach), I know little about other religious teachings.

[JuniperWoolf]

Religion has had ten thousand years to get rid of its dark side, and when I see some signs of it happening, I'll gladly put down the cudgels.

Hear hear.

[The Atheist]

What does your sky daddy offer as an alternative?

I don't have one.

The alternative I offer to religion is personal responsibility.


IC you're comparing bombs to sharp sticks !!

Indeed. An army of people with sharp sticks will kill just as many as an atomic weapon. It just takes longer.

People waged war for thousands of years before nukes were conceived. I see you mention the Middle East - well, that area, having the longest human history, also has the longest history of warfare.

[Manalive]

I don't have one.

The alternative I offer to religion is personal responsibility.

Wait, wait, wait. Let me get this straight: You're offering personal responsibility in replace of religion; and the nature of personal responsibility is that you are responsible for your actions. But in a world without religion that responsibility would be/is largely based on societal customs. So that personal responsibility is going to differ from culture to culture, no? What to do in a global world then? Let's ask a few Freudian/Jungian psychologist what they think and try and reach a consensus view on it. The way I see someone explaining this is: "Hey, it really doesn't matter what you do because we all made it up, but you should be nice to people anyway, but pst, don't bother with why you should; you'll get brownie points from someone by doing the right thing I'm sure." With all the atrociousness man is capable of, we'll just tell him to be personally responsible for himself. Who's going to tell him to be responsible? The competent State?
From a philosophical view point replacing religion with just personal responsibility won't do. People will start to wondering why they should be responsible for things just for the sake of personal responsibility. I'm not seeing a consistency in this type of thinking here. Ask any 4 year old kid to do something and he's gonna ask why.



I have no doubt that light travels at a constant speed throughout the universe.

Me too. I don't understand how it works, but I kinda get why.



I see your tack below, but I still don't get it. There is so little perfection in any kind of life; we're vulnerable to an unbelievable number of diseases, we're killing the planet and countless species, and we're vulnerable to an almost infinite number of threats from outside the earth itself.

So what, I'm killing penguins in the south pole by driving my gas guzzling SUV around town all day. Is there going to be some book about the history of the universe with my name in it telling other life forms or creatures that I was a bad human? Where's my incentive not to do that?


This is why the RCC in particular is making great strides in increasing membership in Africa. The white man's god will give you a lovely life to make up for this one.

The danger with it is that it replaces individual responsibility.

Hm, that's an interesting point. I'll ask my Nigerian-born Priest whether or not he feels he's serving a white man's god or not the next time I speak with him; or maybe I'll ask my Buddhist friend if he feels he is supporting Tibetan Exiles against China in his faith; Oh! Or the next time I meet a Muslim I'll ask how bringing down the Great Satan of the US is going. I think you should go give those Africans a nice hefty dose of personal responsibility and see how it turns out-- preferably send someone who is not white, don't want any white saviors replacing Christ.

And I'm glad you mentioned individual responsibility. I get so tired of hearing from the post-modernist about circumstances. That's refreshing.

[The Atheist]

Wait, wait, wait. Let me get this straight: You're offering personal responsibility in replace of religion; and the nature of personal responsibility is that you are responsible for your actions. But in a world without religion that responsibility would be/is largely based on societal customs. So that personal responsibility is going to differ from culture to culture, no? What to do in a global world then? Let's ask a few Freudian/Jungian psychologist what they think and try and reach a consensus view on it. The way I see someone explaining this is: "Hey, it really doesn't matter what you do because we all made it up, but you should be nice to people anyway, but pst, don't bother with why you should; you'll get brownie points from someone by doing the right thing I'm sure." With all the atrociousness man is capable of, we'll just tell him to be personally responsible for himself. Who's going to tell him to be responsible? The competent State?
From a philosophical view point replacing religion with just personal responsibility won't do. People will start to wondering why they should be responsible for things just for the sake of personal responsibility. I'm not seeing a consistency in this type of thinking here. Ask any 4 year old kid to do something and he's gonna ask why.

This is a really weak answer, because we can compare a largely secular society with a largely theistic one and see that the secular country - Sweden, Denmark and the like have very low crime rates and do not dissolve into anarchy, while the world's [arguably] most christian nation, USA, has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

We know for a fact that people accepting responsibility for themselves and not living in fear of the sky-daddy's wrath manage to accept that responsibility quite easily.

The idea that a god is needed to control the populace went out with the Borgias, I thought.


So what, I'm killing penguins in the south pole by driving my gas guzzling SUV around town all day. Is there going to be some book about the history of the universe with my name in it telling other life forms or creatures that I was a bad human? Where's my incentive not to do that?

Unless there are a lot more atheists than I realised, christians are driving SUVs as much as anyone. In fact, given the numbers that drive to church on Sundays, religionistas are probably causing more damage than non-theists.

That's a clear fail.



Hm, that's an interesting point. I'll ask my Nigerian-born Priest whether or not he feels he's serving a white man's god or not the next time I speak with him; or maybe I'll ask my Buddhist friend if he feels he is supporting Tibetan Exiles against China in his faith; Oh! Or the next time I meet a Muslim I'll ask how bringing down the Great Satan of the US is going. I think you should go give those Africans a nice hefty dose of personal responsibility and see how it turns out-- preferably send someone who is not white, don't want any white saviors replacing Christ.

I don't know what this is supposed to signify, because there are secular charities working alongside christian ones around the world. Just that the secular ones don't feel the need to sell the white man's gods with the white man's bread.

[caddy_caddy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I don't have one.

The alternative I offer to religion is personal responsibility.

Who said we don't believe in personal responsibilty . The Qura'n is full of verses that speak about the importance of personal responsibility .
Indeed. An army of people with sharp sticks will kill just as many as an atomic weapon. It just takes longer.

No , One bomb could kill what an army with sharp sticks could kill . Not to speak about its effect on the environment and the diseases it causes .

People waged war for thousands of years before nukes were conceived. I see you mention the Middle East - well, that area, having the longest human history, also has the longest history of warfare.

__________________

[Manalive]

This is a really weak answer, because we can compare a largely secular society with a largely theistic one and see that the secular country - Sweden, Denmark and the like have very low crime rates and do not dissolve into anarchy, while the world's [arguably] most christian nation, USA, has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

We know for a fact that people accepting responsibility for themselves and not living in fear of the sky-daddy's wrath manage to accept that responsibility quite easily.

The idea that a god is needed to control the populace went out with the Borgias, I thought.

Seems like a sound argument to me. They don't dissolve into anarchy because they State is so bureaucratic and gives every luxury you can imagine to their citizens. You replace God with the State and you have an alternative.

You want to move to Denmark and have to seek permission to name your child what you desire from the government-- fine with me.

And Sweden and Denmark aren't exactly large countries compared to the US. You have any Per Capita crime figures?



Unless there are a lot more atheists than I realised, christians are driving SUVs as much as anyone. In fact, given the numbers that drive to church on Sundays, religionistas are probably causing more damage than non-theists.

That's a clear fail.

A fail on your part. You took what I said about SUV's and penguins and turned my whole argument into "global warming believing Atheist vs. skeptical Christian" and missed the point entirely. Replace SUV's, Southpole, Penguins, Global warming with shooting spree, murderous rampage, genocide, etc. and then answer the question: "Is there going to be some book about the history of the universe with my name in it telling other life forms or creatures that I was a bad human? Where's my incentive not to do that?"



I don't know what this is supposed to signify, because there are secular charities working alongside christian ones around the world. Just that the secular ones don't feel the need to sell the white man's gods with the white man's bread.

It's an argument against using the term "white man's god". Hence the Muslim and lesser degree Buddhist stereotypes I used. I was being sarcastic.

[OrphanPip]

Seems like a sound argument to me. They don't dissolve into anarchy because they State is so bureaucratic and gives every luxury you can imagine to their citizens. You replace God with the State and you have an alternative.

You want to move to Denmark and have to seek permission to name your child what you desire from the government-- fine with me.

And Sweden and Denmark aren't exactly large countries compared to the US. You have any Per Capita crime figures?




This is just silly, you're acting as if religiously based morals aren't just as subjective. As if Islamic and Christian morality hasn't changed to conform to societal mores. Morality is always going to be shaped by the society, religion is simply a tool to reinforce moral discipline in a population, and seemingly an unnecessary one.

You have plenty of countries to chose from where minor crimes like adultery are punished by death, where women are considered less than human, where homosexuals are put to death, all based on religious interpretations of morality. Moreover, this isn't even an Islamic phenomena, with Uganda proposing a death penalty for repeat offenders of homosexuality just last year, supported by the head of the Catholic and Anglican churches in the country. International pressure convinced them to lower it to life imprisonment. I'm quite confident in saying that secular morality is on equal footing with the religious, if not far superior and more just.

[caddy_caddy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Morality is always going to be shaped by the society, religion is simply a tool to reinforce moral discipline in a population, and seemingly an unnecessary one.

Agree . Religion could reinforces morality but is not everything .

You have plenty of countries to chose from where minor crimes like adultery are punished by death, where women are considered less than human, where homosexuals are put to death, all based on religious interpretations of religion. Moreover, this isn't even an Islamic phenomena, with Uganda proposing a death penalty for repeat offenders of homosexuality just last year, supported by the head of the Catholic and Anglican churches in the country. International pressure convinced them to lower it to life imprisonment. I'm quite confident in saying that secular morality is on equal footing with the religious, if not far superior and more just.

Yes it could be on equal footing with the religious but with difference in purposes . Secular morality tends to protect personal freedom and individuality meanwhile religious morality tends to protect the society -- order . From this perspective homosexuality is condamned because it changed the order created by God . It is at the expense of personal freedom .

[OrphanPip]

Yes it could be on equal footing with the religious but with difference in purposes . Secular morality tends to protect personal freedom and individuality meanwhile religious morality tends to protect the society -- order . From this perspective homosexuality is condamned because it changed the order created by God . It is at the expense of personal freedom .

In which case, I'm quite happy to be rid of religiously based moral systems. More often than not they lead to arbitrary cruelty and persecution.

[The Atheist]

Quote:
[B]Who said we don't believe in personal responsibilty . The Qura'n is full of verses that speak about the importance of personal responsibility .

But you give this away in your next post - it might say it in the holy book, but it just isn't the way it works.

Your comment is this:



From this perspective homosexuality is condamned because it changed the order created by God . It is at the expense of personal freedom .

I really wish you could see what's wrong with that, because it saddens me that people can think that. You claim your religion teaches personal responsibility, then you say homosexuality is condemned by your god.

First off, if the god demands that people bow to his will, then your personal responsibility argument is shattered.

Then, if your god created the person, he must have created the homosexual.

If you believe that homosexuality is a choice, you are simply wrong. It is as much a part of that person as teeth, so the god is responsible. You cannot have it both ways.




No , One bomb could kill what an army with sharp sticks could kill . Not to speak about its effect on the environment and the diseases it causes .

This is easily refutable. Nuclear weapons to date have killed ~200,000 people. More than that died in Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge did often use sharp sticks.

When there wasn't a Kalashnikov handy.

The point is that people will kill people, regardless. We have always had war and we've also had religion all the way through. It isn't for nothing the Old Testament is a story of continuous war. Religion has had no part in stopping war, but plenty in starting it.


Seems like a sound argument to me. They don't dissolve into anarchy because they State is so bureaucratic and gives every luxury you can imagine to their citizens. You replace God with the State and you have an alternative.

You're kidding, aren't you?

The state does not in any way, replace god. I live in a highly secular country and the half of the population which doesn't believe in god/s don't worship the state. If you ever go to Denmark, Holland or Sweden, you'll realise that your premise is flat wrong.


You want to move to Denmark and have to seek permission to name your child what you desire from the government-- fine with me.

It's ok with me - we do that here as well. I have no problem with people not being able to name their children:

Mongreal Mob (a notorious and murderous NZ gang)
Scumbag

and others which the Reigistrar of Births & Deaths have refused to register.

I have no problem with a society electing a government which aims to protect the vulnerable from the idiotic, which is what we're talking about here.


And Sweden and Denmark aren't exactly large countries compared to the US. You have any Per Capita crime figures?

Si (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita)




A fail on your part. You took what I said about SUV's and penguins and turned my whole argument into "global warming believing Atheist vs. skeptical Christian" and missed the point entirely.

Going by your next sentence, I don't think so, but what the hell, I'll just go straight to the mustard:

:D



Replace SUV's, Southpole, Penguins, Global warming with shooting spree, murderous rampage, genocide, etc. and then answer the question: "Is there going to be some book about the history of the universe with my name in it telling other life forms or creatures that I was a bad human? Where's my incentive not to do that?"

You are making the same argument - that religion helps prevent being a "bad human". That's just not true. How many mass-murdering names would it take you to realise that religion is no barrier at all to anything?


Jeffrey Dahmer (http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/dahmer.htm)

Robert L Yates Jnr (http://karisable.com/skazyates.htm)

John Wayne Gacy. I can't find any safe links to this one, but he was unquestionably christian.

Or maybe the story of how Ted Bundy's Deacon grandfather helped him turn out the way he did (http://tedbundy.150m.com/part1.html)?

But then I found something really funny - a Muslim newspaper looking at christianity and serial killers (http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?tag=john-wayne-gacy) in answer to Muslim serial killers. The irony in that is deep. I notice they don't mention Mohammed Atta....

Reverend James Warren Jones anyone? Do you need a link for big Jim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones)?

So, we can prove that christianity doesn't stop people being bad.

I don't blame religion for killing, but equally, it is no protection against murder, or any other crime. Your argument of "who's going to know without a god?" is just a trip back to Pascal's wager.

[caddy_caddy]

You might or might not agree on the reasons behind it , but it is not arbitrary at all .

[Scheherazade]

Since this thread has drifted away from its original aim

("religious respect", ironically),

it will now be closed.