God Speaking...anyone listening?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Why would that be God's plan? Sounds more like your plan.:) Most Christian sects believe in the all powerful, Old Testament God, who condemns sinners to eternal torment in hell. Some of the "nicer" sects, like some branches of the good old Church of England, have come up with the concept of a "nicer" God. This holds that people don't go to a permanent torment in hell, they go to purgatory and work off their sins, so that eventually everyone ends up in heaven. They reckon it's still worth becoming Christian on Earth, because you avoid a very long slog through purgatory.

---

Ah well, I do not know much about the "Old testament" or the New testament and such. It's not "my plan", it's what I've seen formulated here.
Yes purgatory would also work here, as man would still be responsible for their actions but end up in heaven eventually. That conforms to the idea of the Deists that there is a God but that we were born to be free and we have our own actions which he does not press influence on or even predetermines everything. As stated in earlier posts it is not what I personally believe in, but I liked the idea of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

I didn't say that, I asked a question, "But if God is supernatural how can he interact with nature?" I can't see how a supernatural God could interact with nature.

---

Yes, sorry, you asked about it. I wasn't fully wrong in my assumption that you were of the view that a supernatural God could probably not interact with nature though, as you say so yourself now. What I was saying is that something supernatural is not by definition something that has no interaction with the natural world. Although I cannot provide any examples of supernatural happenings or beings interacting with us, so I have no further argumentation here.

Quote:

---

Every time people have looked for the cause of events they have been able to find a natural cause. For instance, when looking for the cause of life they used to think there might be a supernatural "elan vital", but then scientists showed we do not need to postulate such a thing, as chemistry and biology can quite adequately explain how life comes about from generation and growth of chemical & biological structures. Lightning bolts were once though to be caused by an angry (perhaps supernatural?) God, but meteorologists found a better explanation, using basic physics & chemistry. So for all the events we see there is a physical explanation. There are only a few events (immaculate conception, resurrection...) that are holding on as possibilities for being supernatural events, but it seems like a desperate holding on, especially as Christians hold that they can only happened once, and that was 2000 years ago. Very neat... beyond any chance of all conquering science explaining them away as well. But why should we believe that these "one off" events happened? There is no good evidence for them.

---

I see your reasoning that we do not notice anything happening by influence of a supernatural God. What one does have to wonder though: if these events you named were truly fake (the resurrection of Jesus for example), would it not have been noticed by quite some people, even back then? Surely you cannot tell me that one person ran into a village saying that Jesus had come to life, and people just believed it with no questions asked? Either people simply believed it and the story kept being told without anybody questioning it, or something really happened and that is why people kept telling the tale.

As for why it was one off, I do not mean to be the desperate guy here who keeps defending religion against all proof, but ever since 2000 years ago there has been no Jesus on earth. He was the only one ever to be resurrected, and there is really no 'need' for God to resurrect anybody else. It is unnatural and shouldn't happen. There would be good reason why it only happened once back then (if it even happened).

Quote:

---

I'll accept that, along with Richard Dawkins. There can be no absolute proof of absence. But there is no proof of absence for Thor, Tooth Fairy, or Zeus. But do you believe in these things? Will you put a fallen tooth under your pillow, or raise hymns to the Gods of Mount Olympus and Valhalla, just in case, just to keep them happy. If not, why should you believe in the Christian God, and make similar genuflections to an almost-certain absence.

---

I don't mean to use lack of proof of absence as my only excuse as to why something can be real. I think at this point I am only trying to defend something which I do not even really stand for myself, which does not work very well. I will leave the debate up to other people who have their own arguments for believing God is real. I'd appreciate it if you could answer to this post and clarify a few things!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvoWarrior5

... if these events you named were truly fake (the resurrection of Jesus for example), would it not have been noticed by quite some people, even back then?

---

The gospels were written many years after the event, and were copied and copied by fallible scribes with their own religious agendas. They are just not reliable sources. Now others will argue against me, and if you want to come to an opinion on this you'll have to read a book or two. Start with Dawkins "the God Delusion" p.92 - p.97 and maybe read some of his recommendations on this particular topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

The gospels were written many years after the event, and were copied and copied by fallible scribes with their own religious agendas. They are just not reliable sources. Now others will argue against me, and if you want to come to an opinion on this you'll have to read a book or two. Start with Dawkins "the God Delusion" p.92 - p.97 and maybe read some of his recommendations on this particular topic.

---

As an atheist, I agree that the gospels are not reliable. Nonetheless, a great many ancient historians, from Herodotus to Livy, also wrote many years after the events and they had their own agendas, too. Yet I'm not quite so skeptical about their stories.

The "reliability" of stories is often influenced by the extent to which we are willing or eager to believe those stories. I have a friend here in Oregon who claims to have seen a Sasquatch. I don't buy it -- but the guy is normally reliable, reasonable, and credible. It's not the nature of the evidence that makes the story incredible, it's the nature of the story. (Well, it's the nature of the evidence, too. He says he saw it at night, peeking out at him from behind a tree, 60 or 70 yards away.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

As an atheist, I agree that the gospels are not reliable. Nonetheless, a great many ancient historians, from Herodotus to Livy, also wrote many years after the events and they had their own agendas, too. Yet I'm not quite so skeptical about their stories.

---

Really? You trust Herodotus? You believe in the dog-headed men, death-dealing gods, life-saving dolphins, and public sex with goats? :) Plutarch dubbed him the 'Father of Lies', so I think one needs to careful. He's a good example that, given half a chance, historians will just make things up, or repeat any old fantasy, because 'it's a good story'. These days they tend to get into a great deal of trouble for doing such things, but in Ancient Times, they could get away with it.

I actually knew that Herodutus was called "The Father of Lies", so he wasnt a good example (he was just the only ancient historian I could remember immediately, along with Livy). My point is reasonable, though. Plutarch also wrote years after the events he described. Some events are simply more credible than others, even when the "evidence" for them is identical. If my friend had said that he saw a cougar instead of a sasquatch, I'd believe him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

No it's not, religions have nasty doctrines like "Don't suffer a witch to live" that explicitly propagate cruelty. Think of the Salem Witch trials, and the persecutions of old women in Europe simply because they muttered a few off-colour words, or were said to have done so. Also, Dawkins doesn't promote violence against religious people, or suggest they should be treated as second class citizens. He just argues against their ideologies, and encourages them to adapt more rational & liberal attitudes.

---

Atheistic righteousness against religion is as bad as any specific religious righteousness against another religion. It is the righteousness that is driving the hatred.

In general, bigots don't promote violence against other people in a state that protects civil liberties because that could get them into trouble. Basically, they have no power to implement that violence. That's the way it should stay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I actually knew that Herodutus was called "The Father of Lies", so he wasnt a good example (he was just the only ancient historian I could remember immediately, along with Livy). My point is reasonable, though. Plutarch also wrote years after the events he described. Some events are simply more credible than others, even when the "evidence" for them is identical. If my friend had said that he saw a cougar instead of a sasquatch, I'd believe him.

---

Plutarch is an untrustworthy, lightweight, tendentious commentator. He wrote as an Academic in the second century CE as the movement toward making Plato as the principal authority in all philosophical matters was gaining momentum. Stoicism needed to be dethroned, and he used unfair methods in an attempt to do so. The Pyrrhonist Sextus Empiricus was far more thorough and fair-minded in his presentation of the doctrines, making him and the actual stoics much better sources for details of the Greek Stoics.

That said he can't be totally ignored. For instance, Plutarch tells us that Epicurus was famous for the maxim “live unnoticed”. This is a splendid addition to the other maxims found in the Principal Doctrines and Vatican Sayings. To “live unnoticed” means to live a completely private life, with no involvement, beyond what might be obligatory for all citizens, in the public life of one’s community, and also with no ambitions for making a mark in any other public realm—in any of the arts or professions. This fits with the maxims we have from Epicurus' own hands, and his general philosophy, so is something we can accept more readily.

I've just read "Pursuits of Wisdom" by John M. Cooper who draws out how difficult it us to get a complete picture of the Ancient Philosophies from the main sources, like Plutarch, Cicero, et. al.

Your "sasquatch vs. cougar" point is a good one, I think. I'm more likely to believe Plutarch on a common sense, everyday, observation that Epicurus suggested "live unnoticed" than any of the (differing) stories of the resurrection in the four gospels, some of which make it necessary to believe in angels and such like supernatural things, beings for which there is no more evidence than there is for sasquatch. The Christian scribes had a Christian drum to beat so I think it very likely they "talked up the story", just as Plutarch "talked down" the Stoics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

There can be no absolute proof of absence. But there is no proof of absence for Thor, Tooth Fairy, or Zeus. But do you believe in these things? Will you put a fallen tooth under your pillow, or raise hymns to the Gods of Mount Olympus and Valhalla, just in case, just to keep them happy. If not, why should you believe in the Christian God, and make similar genuflections to an almost-certain absence.

---

You can prove things don't exist. For example, the deterministic materialism upon which atheism rests has been shown not to exist by quantum theory in the early 20th century. Without those deterministic billiard balls, atheism is a metaphysics without a universe to justify it.

You can also prove, using the same quantum theory, that Gods who are so omniscient that they know the initial state of the universe and can predict with that everything that will happen don't exist because that initial state of the universe doesn't exist.

However, what you are trying to do with reference to Thor, the tooth fairy and Zeus, which are metaphors, is to reduce what consciousness comes up with to a Spaghetti Monster. The Spaghetti Monster is easier to critique although I prefer to skip the critique and grate Parmesan cheese on mine. Atheism at core is a lack of imagination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

You can prove things don't exist. For example, the deterministic materialism upon which atheism rests has been shown not to exist by quantum theory in the early 20th century.

---

A scientific theory cannot show that something doesn't exists; a scientific theory is just a model. Reality may make a model obsolete or reveal its limitations. Who knows, a deterministic material model may make a comeback, to reject this out of hand is to show a lack of imagination. Also, I don't see how atheism requires deterministic materialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Atheistic righteousness against religion is as bad as any specific religious righteousness against another religion.

---

So, Richard Dawkins slagging off theists is as bad as the crazy islamist sects currently waging total war against people whose beliefs are slightly different to theirs.

I never considered looking at it that way, but now you bring it up, I can see the attraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Atheistic righteousness against religion is as bad as any specific religious righteousness against another religion. It is the righteousness that is driving the hatred.

In general, bigots don't promote violence against other people in a state that protects civil liberties because that could get them into trouble. Basically, they have no power to implement that violence. That's the way it should stay.

---

I'm no atheist and I hope I don't get struck by a thunderbolt for sticking up for them, but when have you seen an atheist trying to use force to convert others to atheism, or murdering blasphemers and heretics in the belief that it will send them straight to atheist heaven in a golden chariot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

I'm no atheist and I hope I don't get struck by a thunderbolt for sticking up for them, but when have you seen an atheist trying to use force to convert others to atheism, or murdering blasphemers and heretics in the belief that it will send them straight to atheist heaven in a golden chariot?

---

The closest I can think of is a politician in my country, Geert Wilders (an agnost), who is extremely hateful towards the islam. If you look on his Wikipedia page you'll see what I mean, he even made a film about what an evil religion it is. I once saw the film and I am very surprised that he was not actually punished when he was being prosecuted for the things he's said. I do agree with YesNo on the fact that bigots do not have the power to implement violence and that is the main reason they do not do it. I actually suspect that if he had been able to, Wilders might actually have pressed for violent measures. Even though he doesn't do it in the present state of affairs because he would never be able to do it and would just end up in prison.

Aside from that, there's the Khmer Rouge which I almost forgot about for a minute. Cannot say I am an expert on the matter but I saw them being mentioned here and after a quick search for 'religion' on their Wikipedia page it's clear to me that they executed many religious people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

I'm no atheist and I hope I don't get struck by a thunderbolt for sticking up for them, but when have you seen an atheist trying to use force to convert others to atheism, or murdering blasphemers and heretics in the belief that it will send them straight to atheist heaven in a golden chariot?

---

Actually Zeus has just spoken to me, and has praised me for defending the stoics. The Christians are first on his list for thunderbolts. He finds the atheists amusing, and will let them off with a caution, this time. Better start building temples to Zeus from now on though! What's that tooth fairy? OK, I'll ask Zeus to let the Christians off this time as well, but he's an angry old b...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvoWarrior5

The closest I can think of is a politician in my country, Geert Wilders (an agnost)...

---

These agnostics are the ones we really have to worry about :)

To get serious, I do find Wilders extreme, but you can't equate being an agnostic with being a bigot. You might say, with some justification, that Wilders is a bigot, but you have to look deeper to see where his extreme views come from. Wikipedia makes clear that he is a very right wing politician, might his politics not have more to do with him being a bigot than his agnosticism?

Quote:

---

I once saw the film and I am very surprised that he was not actually punished when he was being prosecuted for the things he's said... I actually suspect that if he had been able to, Wilders might actually have pressed for violent measures. Even though he doesn't do it in the present state of affairs because he would never be able to do it and would just end up in prison.

---

So he didn't press for violent measures in the film? Then why should he be prosecuted? Everyone should have freedom of speech, even right wing fascists and extreme islamists.

Quote:

---

Aside from that, there's the Khmer Rouge which I almost forgot about for a minute. Cannot say I am an expert on the matter but I saw them being mentioned here and after a quick search for 'religion' on their Wikipedia page it's clear to me that they executed many religious people.

---

Yes but they were, yet again, communists. You have one group of atheists (Attlee, Russell, Dawkins) who are not mass-murders and another group of atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) who are. So is there any difference between the first and second group? Yes indeed... the second group are communists, the first group are not. So doesn't it look like communism is the problem, not atheism?

Never mind for now, unfinished post. Will finish later, class starts soon!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Yes but they were, yet again, communists. You have one group of atheists (Attlee, Russell, Dawkins) who are not mass-murders and another group of atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) who are. So is there any difference between the first and second group? Yes indeed... the second group are communists, the first group are not. So doesn't it look like communism is the problem, not atheism?

---

Peaceful communists would probably beg to differ. The problem is the people, not the labels they adopt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

Peaceful communists would probably beg to differ. The problem is the people, not the labels they adopt.

---

Of course. Labels are mandatory in order to communicate. However, we must be very careful about this. There can be many double agents playing this peaceful game. As a resident of USA, I prefer to leave this topic to the CIA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

I'm no atheist and I hope I don't get struck by a thunderbolt for sticking up for them, but when have you seen an atheist trying to use force to convert others to atheism, or murdering blasphemers and heretics in the belief that it will send them straight to atheist heaven in a golden chariot?

---

On the strength of that, you have just won the entire internet for best post ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

On the strength of that, you have just won the entire internet for best post ever.

---

What a comical ignoramus you are. Best post ever? I know, you saw them all. You are omniscient, eh? ROFLMAO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

What a comical ignoramus you are. Best post ever? I know, you saw them all. You are omniscient, eh? ROFLMAO

---

I try to make allowances for people to whom English is a second language, and I'm presuming you're one of them, as you seem to struggle with metaphors.

Perhaps you should learn more of the language and its complexity before jumping in and making a fool of yourself.

This name of this particular sub-forum is "Religious Texts" --"texts" being the operative word. Yours fooly therefore suggests that we read various texts in order to form better-informed opinions. The "source" (i.e. the New Testament) is a good place to start, and the closing chapters of the Book of Job in the Old Testament provide another illuminating focal point.

Other sources might include "The Will to Believe" by William James(highly recommended!) and twentieth century theologians-- Catholics such as Teilhard de Chardin and other Christian commentators, such as Karl Barth and Paul Tillich.

Also, perhaps we could all benefit by learning more about the concept of Free Will.

The Atheist, thanks!!! You've made my day. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

Best post ever? I know, you saw them all. You are omniscient, eh?

---

Look up "hyperbole" in the dictionary; it's an entirely valid trope. Mr Atheist makes good use of it here in praising Mona Amon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

This name of this particular sub-forum is "Religious Texts" --"texts" being the operative word. Yours fooly therefore suggests that we read various texts in order to form better-informed opinions. The "source" (i.e. the New Testament) is a good place to start...

---

I had that crammed into my brain in school for ten years. I think most people here have probably had similar experiences. I think we can take it as given that most people have adequate experience of that text.

Quote:

---

Other sources might include "The Will to Believe" by William James(highly recommended!) and twentieth century theologians-- Catholics such as Teilhard de Chardin and other Christian commentators, such as Karl Barth and Paul Tillich.

---

I've read Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Barth and Paul Tillich. You seem to be assuming that the atheists here haven't read much in the area of religion. Why do you presume that? Maybe the thread is focusing on an "Old Testament" God, but that's because people have been defending an "Old Testament" god, but if you want to bring in the kind of God put forward by writers like Tillich, then bring in the idea, don't make veiled and unsubstantiated insults about atheists not being well read. Why not assume we have read these, or similar, writers and make your point?

Then again, there is always more to read :) Why not start a thread on "The Will to Believe", if you want people to read your favourite text. I do want to know more about James' view of religion, so I'll read along. I might even read parts of the Bible, again. So why not start a thread on Job?

RE: response to previous reply, #104 above^
Yours fooly's comment (#101) recommends that we refer to texts. This is more than a mere "suggestion," it is actually a cardinal LitNet rule, which can be found by clicking the top thread in this forum.

That comment was not directed at any specific LitNutter, but rather was a general observation. In that reply a reference to atheists, pro or con, was neither expressed nor implied.

The New Testament, The Book of Job, and the various theologians were mentioned as examples of authors of texts in chich we could discuss.

And as far as "starting a thread of "The Will to Believe," I've already done this, way back in November of 2010! Maybe you'd like to give it a look-see:

William James Redux

Rules are mostly made to be broken. The originator of the thread didn't specify a text, so why shouldn't we proceed to argue without quoting texts? This is a free-for-all forum not a scholastic journal.If the moderators think this thread has broken the spirit of the rules then they will soon shut it down. But why does it bother you so much? Why should we quote chapter and verse when having an argument? Obviously we are all affected by the texts we have read, why do we have to make them explicit in a thread? If you don't like the thread ignore it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

And as far as "starting a thread of "The Will to Believe":

William James Redux

---

Thanks for the long summary of “The Will to Believe.” Now I no longer feel the need to read James on religion and will avoid a lot of bad philosophy. I’ll present some arguments against James here. The quotes in the following are from James.

“The Will to Believe” is “a defense of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religion matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical intellect may not have been coerced.”

How can he dismiss the logical so easily?

“If I say to you ‘Be a theosophist or be a Mohammedan,’ it is probably a dead option”.

He's certainly wrong there (unfortunately!)

James finds fault with Pascal’s wager, “. . .We feel that a faith. . .adopted wilfully after such a mechanical calculation would lack the inner soul of faith’s reality.”

What on earth is the “inner soul of faith’s reality”? If we assume it is a strong, emotional belief, why wouldn’t Pascal have this? By all reports he seemed rather passionate about his faith, however mechanical his wager.

James quotes Clifford, the British mathematician, who said: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for every one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

At last some sense :)

After quoting that, and declaring it “healthy”, James then tries to argue against it (!) Objective evidence, he declares, is “never triumphantly there,” it is a “mere aspiration. . .marking the infinitely remote ideal of our thinking life.”

So he’s denying the usefulness of evidence, which is really very silly. We take the pragmatic view that the sun will rise tomorrow, so plan for work. We don’t need total evidence, just good evidence.

Now he decides to take Pascal’s wager anyway, ”When it comes to eternal truths – the ultimate question as to whether or not God exists – we do not have the luxury of waiting around “

“We ought . . .delicately and profoundly to respect one another’s mental freedom: then only shall we bring about the intellectual republic; then only shall we have that spirit of inner tolerance without which all our outer tolerance is soulless, and which is empiricism’s glory; then only shall we live and let live, in speculative as well as well as in practical things.”

Why should I tolerate James’ bad arguments? We should, of course, respect others rights to mental freedom. But we shouldn't be so delicate as to stop all argument. If was good arguments that defeated the slave trade and other evils that came to us as the legacy of our many dark ages. Of course we should let Christians live, and let them get on with their irrational practices, just as long as they don't try to revive practices like the Spanish Inquisition or Calvinist persecution. That is, just so long as they let us live, and get on with what we are doing.

I’d always wondered why Bertrand Russell heaped scorn on James as a philosopher, when pragmatism appears to be a fine philosophy. I guess he was thinking of documents like ‘the Will to Believe”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Rules are mostly made to be broken. The originator of the thread didn't specify a text, so why shouldn't we proceed to argue without quoting texts? This is a free-for-all forum not a scholastic journal.If the moderators think this thread has broken the spirit of the rules then they will soon shut it down. But why does it bother you so much? Why should we quote chapter and verse when having an argument? Obviously we are all affected by the texts we have read, why do we have to make them explicit in a thread? If you don't like the thread ignore it!

---

Because, as it says in the rules for the "Religious Texts" forum, there are more appropriate places on this site for the arguments such as the ones in this particular thread: "Serious Discussions," for instance. The word "texts" means texts to me, but you have a right to the contrary opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

I'm no atheist and I hope I don't get struck by a thunderbolt for sticking up for them, but when have you seen an atheist trying to use force to convert others to atheism, or murdering blasphemers and heretics in the belief that it will send them straight to atheist heaven in a golden chariot?

---

They don't send them to an "atheistic heaven" since atheists don't believe in that. Given the political opportunity, they just kill them.

Atheists in states with civil liberties have to behave just as everyone else. They have to restrict their actions to defamation.

However, if an atheist wants to hold religion in general responsible for events such as 911 or events in Northern Ireland, as my earlier quote of Dawkins showed, atheists need to assume responsibility for North Korea, the Khmer Rouge, Stalinism, and Maoism to name a few. After the 20th century atheists have not only lost on the scientific front, but also on the ethical front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

However, if an atheist wants to hold religion in general responsible for events such as 911 or events in Northern Ireland, as my earlier quote of Dawkins showed, atheists need to assume responsibility for North Korea, the Khmer Rouge, Stalinism, and Maoism to name a few. After the 20th century atheists have not only lost on the scientific front, but also on the ethical front.

---

False equivalence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

They don't send them to an "atheistic heaven" since atheists don't believe in that.

---

My point exactly. An atheist may do evil because he's an Evil Atheist and there must be just as many of those as there are evil religious people, but at least he will not do evil in the belief that God told him to do it. Also, I'm not talking about murderous psychopaths like Pol Pot or Stalin. Such wackos can spring up from any ideological or religious background. Religion and atheism are both equally powerless against pure, irrational hatred, megalomania and destructive impulses gone berserk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

... atheists need to assume responsibility for North Korea, the Khmer Rouge, Stalinism, and Maoism to name a few.

---

You just keep stating that without any justification. I pointed out earlier how it is Stalinist ideology that leads to "the killing fields", but you just keep repeating "it's atheism at fault", without providing any reasoned justification. Can you explain exactly how it is atheism that is responsible for these Stalinist atrocities?

P.S. Note, I've moved from suggesting these are communist atrocities as there is some room for arguing that there might be nice communists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

An atheist may do evil because he's an Evil Atheist and there must be just as many of those as there are evil religious people, but at least he will not do evil in the belief that God told him to do it.

---

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

---

wow a rather harsh take on what a person is. E. T would not approve.
good people do not act evil because of religion. good people is a fabricated concept made up to create a division between people. it is a title given to some to make them feel special or beside others like them. some people however do evil things because it is readily in them to do so. they just need that ticking hand and they are off on a rampage.
religion is that ticking hand besides the word GOOD needs a kicking and evil will come crushing down. There is no such a thing as GOOD what there is sensible and logical and the understanding that doing wrong to others is not characteristic to humans.
so really religion is a breeding ground for a justified killing or destroying but it is not the reason why people do what they do. people are evil because they are ignorant. ignorance is the reason why many take religion for granted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

You just keep stating that without any justification. I pointed out earlier how it is Stalinist ideology that leads to "the killing fields", but you just keep repeating "it's atheism at fault", without providing any reasoned justification. Can you explain exactly how it is atheism that is responsible for these Stalinist atrocities?

P.S. Note, I've moved from suggesting these are communist atrocities as there is some room for arguing that there might be nice communists.

---

The justification goes like this: If a state promotes atheism and there are atrocities, atheism is responsible for those atrocities.

Now, you need to provide justification for why someone should expect the current bunch of Dawkins-style atheists, given sufficient political power, would behave any differently than the atheists in North Korea or those in the Khmer Rouge. Listening to their self-righteous, fanatical defamation of religion in general, I can't see why they would be any different. I know they claim to be different, but I see no difference.

Here is where the "bigotry" comes in. If someone creates a we-them social ideology where they engage in haranguing the "them"-group but excuse similar behavior for the "we"-group, you have bigotry. It doesn't matter what that person is bigoted about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

My point exactly. An atheist may do evil because he's an Evil Atheist and there must be just as many of those as there are evil religious people, but at least he will not do evil in the belief that God told him to do it. Also, I'm not talking about murderous psychopaths like Pol Pot or Stalin. Such wackos can spring up from any ideological or religious background. Religion and atheism are both equally powerless against pure, irrational hatred, megalomania and destructive impulses gone berserk.

---

I think we agree except on one point: Doing evil on the belief that "God" told him to do it is no different than doing evil on the belief the universe or reason or whatever told him to do it.

One of the ways to get to what atheists are actually saying is to skip the "God" part and talk about the "Universe". Then we don't get caught up in the question of existence.

Just to make sure I understand your position, do the terrorists who brought down the Twin Towers in New York over a decade ago represent for you the Islamic religion or just their own wacko natures? In other words, to respond to that terrorism, is it enough to confront Al-Qaeda or was that a reason to be opposed to Islam itself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

The justification goes like this: If a state promotes atheism and there are atrocities, atheism is responsible for those atrocities

---

That's nonsense though - a non sequiter. You could just as easily say that since the Soviet state supported socialist realist art, said art is responsible for the Holodomor. It ignores every single variable of a state except for one. Q.E.D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

The justification goes like this: If a state promotes atheism and there are atrocities, atheism is responsible for those atrocities.

---

That's ridiculous, it's like saying, "If a state promotes gymnastics and there are atrocities, gymnastics is responsible for those atrocities."

Quote:

---

Now, you need to provide justification for why someone should expect the current bunch of Dawkins-style atheists, given sufficient political power, would behave any differently than the atheists in North Korea... Listening to their self-righteous, fanatical defamation of religion in general, I can't see why they would be any different. I know they claim to be different, but I see no difference.

---

What's a Dawkins-style atheist? Atheists are found right across the political spectrum. I don't know what Dawkins' political views are exactly, he shows little inclination to pursue political power. He tends to argue against conservatives like Bush, and praise liberals like Obama, so I think he's fairly close to Obama in general (without the religious streak of course!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

What's a Dawkins-style atheist? Atheists are found right across the political spectrum. I don't know what Dawkins' political views are exactly, he shows little inclination to pursue political power. He tends to argue against conservatives like Bush, and praise liberals like Obama, so I think he's fairly close to Obama in general (without the religious streak of course!)

---

The defamatory rhetoric atheists use against religion generates self-righteousness. It sets up an us-them, good guy-bad guy dichotomy. We have seen atheists do this before. The consequences are visible in North Korea and the Khmer Rouge. It doesn't matter what the underlying politics were in the past. All that matters is the power of this self-righteousness.

Now I would like to hear a justification that the current atheistic self-righteousness and defamation of religion is any better than what fueled atrocities in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

The defamatory rhetoric atheists use against religion generates self-righteousness. It sets up an us-them, good guy-bad guy dichotomy. We have seen atheists do this before. The consequences are visible in North Korea and the Khmer Rouge. It doesn't matter what the underlying politics were in the past. All that matters is the power of this self-righteousness.

Now I would like to hear a justification that the current atheistic self-righteousness and defamation of religion is any better than what fueled atrocities in the past.

---

Provide examples of this "defamation"