Organized Religion, How do we remove it? [Archive]

al8

3rd June 2009, 17:04

To get to grips with eradicating religion it's best to understand what it is, it's role, how it came to be, as well as who and what are its perpetuators. And then let this critical understanding of the problem guide the way forth to a solution. This approach will give you the most insight into the intricacies. But I will nonetheless give you my general suggestion.

Because religion serves many purposes and has a basis that rests on several different pillars, that is, being a multi-sided issue; you have to tackle it from all angles and leave no breathing space or opening for it to escape eradication. By analogy, you can't cage a dangerous animal if your cage has gaping holes, or missing entire sides. It will escape. The same applies to religion.

My suggestion is the following 4 main angles of attack;

1. Eradicate the public visibility of religion.
2. Forbid religious indoctrination of minors as child abuse.
3. Instate an explicitly atheistic and materialist education in schools.
4. Make men masters of their own existence.

(1)By eradicating religions public visibility I mean tearing down and forbidding all religious symbols -- everything that makes religious people visible as religious folk. That includes tearing down, detonating, and burning their religious buildings (with religious architecture, but appropriating for secular use buildings that can be striped bare of the religious stuff). Banning religious clothing and jewelry. Things should be made so that people should expect great hassle if they don't keep their religion, in any way shape or form, private.

(2)Religious ideology is not a rational thing (unlike the self-interest of the clergy), it spits in the face of reason. So there is no discussing the matter. It is already outside the realm of talk and debate. Reason, evidence and science as opposed to faith and religion are incompatible paradigms. People don't get religious by them selves, by any real degree, people first have to be (mostly) softened up as kids to be receptive to the brain damage. In this day and age children are not considered the property of parents to be done damage on as the parents please, in regards to child molestation and neglect fx. Further recognized protection of children from religious indoctrination by parents and others should be covered by the same token and made standard.

(3)As to the third angle. Children should not get the impression that religion is a big issue, the entire goal here is to make matters of religion a mute point, a non-issue. But when the matter of religion is presented it should only be presented to the children in a comprehensive way, as in a comparative religion class setting, taught by an explicit hardcore atheist that explains the matter in a historical materialist fashion.

(4)Angle 4 is important in that it eradicates to an important extent the receptivity to religion. If people are doing great/are well off; are not being exploited, oppressed, bamboozled, but instead enjoy freedom, fulfilment of wants, needs and of security - they don't find it in themselves the need to have false comfort or to escape into a fantasy world (of which religion is one avenue).

Those 4 angles are harsh and hard, but are all the more real measures to ensure the eradication of religion.

Bud Struggle

3rd June 2009, 21:43

My suggestion is the following 4 main angles of attack;

1. Eradicate the public visibility of religion.
2. Forbid religious indoctrination of minors as child abuse.
3. Instate an explicitly atheistic and materialist education in schools.
4. Make men masters of their own existence.

So here's your problem: you hinder my freedom of action and belief. You could do whatever you want for YOU, but with each of these points you stop ME from doing what I want to do. Your will over mine--you enter the same territory as the Church did when it made everyone become Christian.

1. Eradicate the public visibility of religion. I and my associates may want to build a church--who are YOU to tell us we can't? Or tell us we can't worship as we see fit--in public or private.

2. Forbid religious indoctrination of minors as child abuse. Why should you have the right to tell me how to raise my child and me not have the right to tell you how to raise your child? You are imposing your ideas over me--totally unaccecptable in a free society.

3. Instate an explicitly atheistic and materialist education in schools. In a communist society it would be best if the local Soviet voted on such things--don't you think? And you never know who's going to be elected to your Soviet.

4. Make men masters of their own existence. Ah yes, Master of his own Domain! I quite agree with that one. :D

And her's the problem: (Almost) every one of your suggestions limits my freedom. Why would anyone ever want a political/economic system that limited their freedom? If I want to believe in Jesus--who the hell are you to tell me I'm wrong and I should believe something else. Who the hell are you to tell me I can't (with the help of friends) build a church or preach to people what I believe? You seem to have total freedom about what you believe yet you damn me into clandestine cells and meetings. But we will overcome! :D

You see this is where well meaning Socialists/Communists fall into Totalitarinism, and it happens over and over and over again--with very well meaning (Stalin excluded) Revolutionaries.

Everybody wants to rule the world.

(And an aside to August: Congrats on your moderator job--
RP said the new Mod would be strict. ;) )

Kwisatz Haderach

3rd June 2009, 22:03

Al8's propositions are laughable, because they would only be possible if a large majority of the population was composed of atheists. He's proposing to fight the battle against religion with weapons that can only become available after the battle has already been won.

In a communist society it would be best if the local Soviet voted on such things--don't you think? And you never know who's going to be elected to your Soviet.
No, no, you don't seem to understand. After the revolution, everyone will magically agree with al8 on everything. :D

Bud Struggle

3rd June 2009, 22:14

Good to see you back, KH!

al8

4th June 2009, 03:30

@Tomk:

The thing is, a 'free society' is a myth and will never happen. There are always strictures, do's and dont's in any society. All I'm doing is proposing a new set of standards. And I do want freedom for people, just not for reactionaries. Reactionaries deserve no quarters. That's why I want you and your kind oppressed.
Is that plain enough?

al8

4th June 2009, 03:49

Al8's propositions are laughable, because they would only be possible if a large majority of the population was composed of atheists. He's proposing to fight the battle against religion with weapons that can only become available after the battle has already been won.

What is ludicrous here is your absurd conception of the way forth to success. Its sort of like hearing a right winger say that for a revolution to succeed it would already have happened and thus it will never happen. It just an empty word game.

Il Medico

4th June 2009, 07:09

1. Eradicate the public visibility of religion.
2. Forbid religious indoctrination of minors as child abuse.
3. Instate an explicitly atheistic and materialist education in schools.
4. Make men masters of their own existence.
I have to say I disagree. Religion in its current form is bad. It is used by the ruling class to make the lower orders complement and justify their misdeeds. However, religion itself is not detrimental. Even fervent atheist like Marx said that religion freed from its current state would be acceptable in a communist society. There is many problems with your plan. One it flies in the face of everything that we are fighting for. For the minority to impose upon the majority, their will like what you described above, surmounts to nothing more then a class system with an oppressed majority. People will always hold beliefs in some thing that can't be proved. The fact is science can answer everything, and it doesn't try. Science tries to answer the question 'How'. Religion on the other hand tries to answer the question 'Why'. And whether you'll admit it or not their is an abstract, spiritual side of the human condition. Two, most schools already teach purely secular material, even in the US. Three, while I agree that children should not be forced to follow any certain religion, the choice is ultimately their to make. No matter what they were raised as, my friend Steven is a devout Buddhist, he was raised Catholic. To deny them the choice whether to believe or not is totalitarian, and explicitly anti-communist. And four, men will be masters of their own existence when they are free from Capitalism, War, oppression, and exploitation. They are in control and thus will decide whether or not to have faith in a God. Taking away the choice of faith is not making anyone masters of their existence, it is making you the master.

Robert

4th June 2009, 13:46

It is used by the ruling class to make the lower orders complement and justify their misdeeds.

I understand why you say that, but consider: many of the biggest churches (in the USA anyway) are started and then maintained and grown by very ordinary people. They are anti-intellectual. They do not come from wealth. They do tend to buy themselves very large houses and nice cars, but they also give away a lot of money. Also, they are completely out of favor politically, at the moment anyway.

However, religion itself is not detrimental.

Agree

For the minority to impose upon the majority, their will like what you described above, surmounts to nothing more then a class system with an oppressed majority.

Now you sound like one of us. Welcome to the dark side.:lol:

And whether you'll admit it or not their is an abstract, spiritual side of the human condition.

Get the hell outta the way, people, CJ's rollin'!

Taking away the choice of faith is not making anyone masters of their existence, it is making you the master.

Amen.

Something else the OP is missing is this: there are tens of thousands of little "churches", really prayer groups, meeting in the living rooms of working class people, that are nothing but good. They read a little Bible, talk a bit, pray for various things, have a little coffee, and go home. They make no trouble. And yhey are just as important to their congregants as Notre Dame is to Catholics.

Not even the Chinese secret police can get rid of Falun Gong.

Kyrest

5th June 2009, 04:39

Quote: "Why should you have the right to tell me how to raise my child and me not have the right to tell you how to raise your child? You are imposing your ideas over me--totally unaccecptable in a free society."

You see what your not understanding is the main problem with religion in our society, it's that religion is indoctrinated into children who have not fully developed their rationality. If you really want society to be fair and all that children should be FAIRLY taught about world religions and about Atheism and when they reach 18 and their rationality is fully developed then they may if they wish choose a religion. Well that's in what one may say is a "fair" society, but in a post revolutionary society then children should be taught the failures of man's past such as religion and should be shown how irrational and detrimental it is. Because in a post revolutionary society education should be completely secular and deal with only rational issues.
That's my take anyways but I must say religion in general is a bunch of rubbish and mainly leads to war and hate amongst people. The Roman Catholic church for instance tells uneducated people in Africa, where AIDS is prevalent, that apparently condoms are bad and are unsafe even though science has proven them otherwise...Africans are lead to believe this is right because at a young age the Roman Catholic church indoctrinates them with the ridiculous idea that faith should guide their lives not rationality. Going back to the condom issue, it's sad that we allow someone like the Pope who, with his comments has indirectly killed thousands of people, not face any responsibility.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

5th June 2009, 07:34

Religions don't die natural deaths, it seems. Greco-Roman Paganism was crushed by the nascent Christians. The conquistadors completely almost completely obliterated the belief systems of the New World.

Our ignorant forebears may have replaced one set of superstitions with another, but we have no such excuse. Humanity knows too much to continue depending on imaginary friends.

The sooner we get shot of religion the better off we will be as a civilised species.

Kwisatz Haderach

5th June 2009, 10:00

The sooner we get shot of religion the better off we will be as a civilised species.
Prove it, or give me some sort of argument for believing that claim beyond "religion is false." Even granted that religion is false, it does not logically follow that humanity would be better off without it. Newtonian physics was false too...

I simply cannot wrap my head around this idea that we must force everyone to stop believing lies. It sounds impossible to accomplish, dangerous in giving too much power to those who get to decide what the truth is, and may not even be beneficial. I mean, I understand your disbelief, I really do - I just happen to believe in one more God than you do, after all, so there are plenty of gods that I reject - but I cannot understand the idea that if some belief is false, we must necessarily go to enormous lengths to stamp it out.

Sir Comradical

5th June 2009, 10:34

Remove the material conditions that compel people to adopt such backward ideas. Where there is poverty, there is religion. If poverty is alleviated then religion will naturally fade away.

Bud Struggle

5th June 2009, 15:28

You see what your not understanding is the main problem with religion in our society, it's that religion is indoctrinated into children who have not fully developed their rationality. Yea but you seem to think there is some set standards of rationality. I'm a Christian and I find it a highly rational way to exist in this world. IT explains things quite well for me and I've been able to function in the economic world and the world of personal happiness to the fullest degree. It works FOR ME. I may not for you. But just because it works for me--doesn't give me any right to impose my understanding of the world on you. You have the same situation.

If you really want society to be fair and all that children should be FAIRLY taught about world religions and about Atheism and when they reach 18 and their rationality is fully developed then they may if they wish choose a religion. All well and good for your kids--but I want my kids to be taught how I understand the world--and the ways in which I was able to prosper in this world. I would like my kids to have a differnet perspective than other kids. As a matter of fact I like the whole idea of educational diversity--it makes the world a more interesting and creative place.

Well that's in what one may say is a "fair" society, but in a post revolutionary society then children should be taught the failures of man's past such as religion and should be shown how irrational and detrimental it is. We can always take time in our educational process to teach kids all the failures of attempted Socialist and Communist societies. :)

Because in a post revolutionary society education should be completely secular and deal with only rational issues. As long as I am the one to decide what is rational and what isn't. As I said: Christianity and Capitalism has proved a totally rational way for me to live.

That's my take anyways but I must say religion in general is a bunch of rubbish... A bit of preaching here. Hopefully you won't mind if I don't respond. :)

trivas7

5th June 2009, 16:18

Remove the material conditions that compel people to adopt such backward ideas. Where there is poverty, there is religion. If poverty is alleviated then religion will naturally fade away.
I agree. In the presence of knowledge ignorance withers away.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

5th June 2009, 16:40

Prove it, or give me some sort of argument for believing that claim beyond "religion is false." Even granted that religion is false, it does not logically follow that humanity would be better off without it. Newtonian physics was false too...

No, Newtonian physics is incomplete, not false. It works perfectly fine at small fractions of the speed of light - just ask NASA. Sure, they could use relativistic physics (which is also incomplete, only less so), but the maths is more complicated and you would get the same results anyway, so why make a task more difficult than it has to be?

On the other hand, religion does not work, not even partially. Prayer is a complete bust. Religious comforts are false and provided only after death, and nobody has come back to tell us otherwise. Other functions (like charity) could just as easily be replaced with secular equivalents.

What's the harm? (http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/harmarchive.html) A lot of things, it seems, and not just religion.

I simply cannot wrap my head around this idea that we must force everyone to stop believing lies. It sounds impossible to accomplish, dangerous in giving too much power to those who get to decide what the truth is, and may not even be beneficial.Impossible? We won't know that until we try it. Truth is decided by reality, not consensus or the whims of a powerful few. As for beneficial, when religion had a lot more influence than it does now, it was thought that stuff like plagues were caused by Jews or witches. Europe was significantly depopulated as a result. Then along came science. Science doesn't tell you that it's wrong to burn witches or throw Jews off cliffs, but it will tell you that such actions have no effect on the spread of disease, which is a good enough reason not to do it.

It seems that slowly, but surely, the world is catching on to this sort of realisation.

I mean, I understand your disbelief, I really do - I just happen to believe in one more God than you do, after all, so there are plenty of gods that I reject - but I cannot understand the idea that if some belief is false, we must necessarily go to enormous lengths to stamp it out.We've barely even begun. Part of the struggle is convincing other atheists that the practical eradication of religion is a worthwhile endeavour that can be achieved (relatively) bloodlessly. While I consider myself an optimist, I'm under no illusions that such a thing will be achieved within my lifetime.

But to me, part of being an atheist includes the realisation that while my span of existance is limited, that doesn't mean that I cannot add my straw to a particular haystack of a historical trend, so to speak.

Kwisatz Haderach

5th June 2009, 21:57

No, Newtonian physics is incomplete, not false. It works perfectly fine at small fractions of the speed of light - just ask NASA. Sure, they could use relativistic physics (which is also incomplete, only less so), but the maths is more complicated and you would get the same results anyway, so why make a task more difficult than it has to be?

On the other hand, religion does not work, not even partially. Prayer is a complete bust. Religious comforts are false and provided only after death, and nobody has come back to tell us otherwise. Other functions (like charity) could just as easily be replaced with secular equivalents.
You are correct that Newtonian physics is an approximation of [what we currently believe to be] the truth. Depending on how loose your standards for an approximation are, you could argue the same about pretty much any obsolete scientific theory. Fine. My argument was that just because X is false, it does not logically follow that humanity would be better off without X. You have not addressed this argument.

And if you object to my use of an obsolete scientific theory as an example because it's still kind-of sort-of close to the truth, there are plenty of other useful lies to choose from. It may be necessary for revolutionaries to lie about their plans for the revolution, for example. It may be necessary to lie to a loved one in order to protect them. And so on.

What's the harm? (http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/harmarchive.html) A lot of things, it seems, and not just religion.
Bad things done by religious people and/or in the name of religion do not prove that religion is bad any more than Stalin proves that anti-capitalism is bad.

Impossible? We won't know that until we try it. Truth is decided by reality, not consensus or the whims of a powerful few.
What you don't seem to realize is that while reality does indeed exist independent of human opinion, legislation does not. Any kind of laws, rules, morals, standards of behavior, whatever you want to call them, are completely and absolutely dependent on human opinion.

"Reality" does not write laws. "Reality" doesn't decide what is or is not acceptable in human society. People do. It's all nice and good to proclaim that standards of behavior and belief should follow reality, but since those things are decided by people, the dilemma you face is this: How do you ensure that the people empowered to decide laws and standards of behavior will, in fact, follow reality?

As for beneficial, when religion had a lot more influence than it does now, it was thought that stuff like plagues were caused by Jews or witches. Europe was significantly depopulated as a result. Then along came science. Science doesn't tell you that it's wrong to burn witches or throw Jews off cliffs, but it will tell you that such actions have no effect on the spread of disease, which is a good enough reason not to do it.
Don't be obtuse. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the germ theory of disease would have been proposed sooner in a world with less religious influence.

Furthermore, it is dishonest and ridiculous to pretend that you have a crystal ball which lets you know the alternative course that human history might have taken in some fancy what-if scenario where religion is magically absent.

If you really want to imagine human history without religion, you have to answer some hard questions: Why is religion absent? What makes this alternative world different from ours? At which point does your alternative history diverge from real history? What event caused the divergence? It is realistic to expect that such an event might have happened? Can you trace the logical consequences of this event through thousands of years of complex human interactions?

A world without religion isn't as simple as "our world, minus the priests."

We've barely even begun. Part of the struggle is convincing other atheists that the practical eradication of religion is a worthwhile endeavour that can be achieved (relatively) bloodlessly. While I consider myself an optimist, I'm under no illusions that such a thing will be achieved within my lifetime.
Ok, I'm as good as an atheist with respect to, say, Hinduism. I even believe that Hinduism has negative social consequences because of the caste system. Yet I absolutely do not agree that Hinduism should be eradicated. Convince me.

Hinduism is a lie? Irrelevant, it's not our business to eradicate lies.
Hindu clergy did some nasty stuff in the past? Why should we care?
Hindu clergy are doing some nasty stuff today? Argue that it goes against the tenets of Hinduism. It's easier to persuade people of that than to convert them to atheism.
Hinduism supports an oppressive caste system? See above, and support some progressive interpretation instead.

Got any other arguments? Most of all, I'd like to know why eradicating Hinduism is worth the effort while we have more important things to worry about, like fighting capitalism, and while we can reduce or neutralize the reactionary impact of Hinduism in much easier ways than a full frontal assault. Why should we fight a battle if we don't have to?

Demogorgon

5th June 2009, 22:28

Sir Comradical

6th June 2009, 00:01

I agree. In the presence of knowledge ignorance withers away.

Ideology in general is a result of material condition. Take the Judeo-Christian faith, the reason god assumes the character of a feudal warlord in much of the Old Testament is because the dominant social structure in biblical times was one of tyranny and serfdom. The reason god derives obscene pleasure in inflicting punishment is because he's the personified super-ego of the ruling class. People who accept divine tyrants will accept earthly tyrants (Bakunin?), if we eliminate tyranny on earth then I believe people will start to look at the Judeo-Christian God with utter contempt.

Bud Struggle

6th June 2009, 13:53

Ideology in general is a result of material condition. Take the Judeo-Christian faith, the reason god assumes the character of a feudal warlord in much of the Old Testament is because the dominant social structure in biblical times was one of tyranny and serfdom. The reason god derives obscene pleasure in inflicting punishment is because he's the personified super-ego of the ruling class. People who accept divine tyrants will accept earthly tyrants (Bakunin?), if we eliminate tyranny on earth then I believe people will start to look at the Judeo-Christian God with utter contempt.

Yea, the Old Testament of the Bible was written in a particular time and place and it references those time and places. The New Testament is something different. Jesus against all expectations isn't a Feudal overlord. He's God but also a regular guy--a working man that fishes for a living and was the son of a carpenter. He was nobody's boss. In the middle ages they tried to make him a king and ruler, but it really never stuck. Jesus is really identifiable with the average workingman the people looking for healthcare, the bums on the street even.

While it is indeed easy to displace a king and ruler, it's much more difficult to displace a friend and brother--and that's what Jesus has come to be for a large part of Christianity.

Here's a poem by Ezra Pound--it's hard to think of this Jesus as some sort of Feudal lord:

Ha’ we lost the goodliest fere o’ all
For the priests and the gallows tree?
Aye lover he was of brawny men,
O’ ships and the open sea.
When they came wi’ a host to take Our Man
His smile was good to see,
“First let these go!” quo’ our Goodly Fere,
“Or I’ll see ye damned,” says he.
Aye he sent us out through the crossed high spears
And the scorn of his laugh rang free,
“Why took ye not me when I walked about
Alone in the town?” says he.
Oh we drank his “Hale” in the good red wine
When we last made company,
No capon priest was the Goodly Fere
But a man o’ men was he.
I ha’ seen him drive a hundred men
Wi’ a bundle o’ cords swung free,
That they took the high and holy house
For their pawn and treasury.
They’ll no’ get him a’ in a book I think
Though they write it cunningly;
No mouse of the scrolls was the Goodly Fere
But aye loved the open sea.
If they think they ha’ snared our Goodly Fere
They are fools to the last degree.
“I’ll go to the feast,” quo’ our Goodly Fere,
“Though I go to the gallows tree.”
“Ye ha’ seen me heal the lame and blind,
And wake the dead,” says he,
“Ye shall see one thing to master all:
‘Tis how a brave man dies on the tree.”
A son of God was the Goodly Fere
That bade us his brothers be.
I ha’ seen him cow a thousand men.
I have seen him upon the tree.
He cried no cry when they drave the nails
And the blood gushed hot and free,
The hounds of the crimson sky gave tongue
But never a cry cried he.
I ha’ seen him cow a thousand men
On the hills o’ Galilee,
They whined as he walked out calm between,
Wi’ his eyes like the grey o’ the sea,
Like the sea that brooks no voyaging
With the winds unleashed and free,
Like the sea that he cowed at Genseret
Wi’ twey words spoke’ suddently.
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea,
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
I ha’ seen him eat o’ the honey-comb
Sin’ they nailed him to the tree.”

trivas7

6th June 2009, 15:40

Bud Struggle

6th June 2009, 16:03

He's God only in the light of subsequent Christian theology. He's not the God of the Jews, for whom an incarnate God is blasphemy; he's one in a long line of incarnate dying and rising gods in human form, from Bacchus and Horus to Krishna.

Fine, but that's not the point. Jesus isn't the God of the Master--he's the Carpenter-God, the Fisherman-God, the Worker-God, the Outcast-God. And we are his brothers: we carperters, fishermen, workers, outcasts.

That's one hell of a tough mythos to beat.

trivas7

6th June 2009, 16:36

Fine, but that's not the point. Jesus isn't the God of the Master--he's the Carpenter-God, the Fisherman-God, the Worker-God, the Outcast-God. And we are his brothers: we carperters, fishermen, workers, outcasts.
This might be your point; Christian history is nothing if not Christ as God the Master, Judge-and-Jury of all mankind.

ArrowLance

6th June 2009, 16:57

Why should you have the right to tell me how to raise my child and me not have the right to tell you how to raise your child? You are imposing your ideas over me--totally unaccecptable in a free society.

Why should you have the right to raise 'your' child? What makes it yours? Children are members of society like everyone else and do not need parents to dictate their behavior for them.

Bud Struggle

6th June 2009, 18:02

This might be your point; Christian history is nothing if not Christ as God the Master, Judge-and-Jury of all mankind.

Christ-as-Master is a fabrication of masters. The Gospels see us through that in an easy read. Jesus was a workingman. Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, were bureaucrats. Workingpeople stick together.

Bud Struggle

6th June 2009, 18:09

Why should you have the right to raise 'your' child? What makes it yours? Children are members of society like everyone else and do not need parents to dictate their behavior for them.

Who says that children are members of society before they are members of families? Do you think it will be that way after the Revolution? I will certainly challenge that assumption.

And if I can't control what my kid learns then I'll just start to control what society teaches to all it's kids. I have no problem with that. FWIW: I personally am very active on my county's school board.

I'm a hard worker and I get what I want. Legally, peacefully, I get what I want.

ArrowLance

6th June 2009, 19:14

Who says that children are members of society before they are members of families? Do you think it will be that way after the Revolution? I will certainly challenge that assumption.

And if I can't control what my kid learns then I'll just start to control what society teaches to all it's kids. I have no problem with that. FWIW: I personally am very active on my county's school board.

I'm a hard worker and I get what I want. Legally, peacefully, I get what I want.

Of course you have a say in what society teaches them.

trivas7

6th June 2009, 19:18

Christ-as-Master is a fabrication of masters.
Christ-as-Christ is a fabrication of masters.

Bud Struggle

6th June 2009, 19:20

Of course you have a say in what society teaches them.

Indeed. But there's harder workers and less hard workers. I've gotten what I've wanted under Capitalism--I don't see me getting any different under Communism.

Bring it on, Comrades! :thumbup:

al8

6th June 2009, 19:55

As a reactionary you would be excised from any decision process regarding education.

PeaderO'Donnell

6th June 2009, 20:23

Decolonize The Left

6th June 2009, 22:16

Religion is part of human nature.

It seems both crazy and counter-productive to oppose it.

However capitalism does a very good job at undermining the values that most religions (certainly Christianity and Islam) eppouse...

I don't think anyone can make any conclusive claims regarding 'human nature.' It seems to be an awfully vague subject, and one which ought not be used as justification for any one historical phenomenon.

- August

Demogorgon

6th June 2009, 23:48

I don't think anyone can make any conclusive claims regarding 'human nature.' It seems to be an awfully vague subject, and one which ought not be used as justification for any one historical phenomenon.

- August
That is true, on the other hand Human's across all cultures and all periods of history have had a tendency to seek both divine solutions to their problems and supernatural explanations to things they don't understand.

I remain to be convinced that this is a particular problem, in my experience atheists can be just as irrational in our own way anyway. This obsession with forcing people to be "rational" is quite creepy actually and often looks like "agree with me or else".

Decolonize The Left

7th June 2009, 05:12

That is true, on the other hand Human's across all cultures and all periods of history have had a tendency to seek both divine solutions to their problems and supernatural explanations to things they don't understand.

This is often due to shortcomings regarding material explanations. Prior to the telescope, what were human beings to make of stars?

I remain to be convinced that this is a particular problem, in my experience atheists can be just as irrational in our own way anyway. This obsession with forcing people to be "rational" is quite creepy actually and often looks like "agree with me or else".

This is true. You might be interested in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2089) I made recently.

- August

PeaderO'Donnell

7th June 2009, 11:24

It seems it's pretty difficult. After 60 years of anti-religious propaganda in the Soviet Union:

Approximately 100 million citizens consider themselves Russian Orthodox Christians, amounting to 70% of population, although the Church claims a membership of 80 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Russia

Religion appears part of human nature because it is a universal phenomena occuring in all societies (even the technocratic-imperialist one of the modern west...witness the popularity of new age waffle) and since it existed in primitive communism I cant see how it will ever simply vanish. Militant opposition to religion arose from various quarters (the founding fathers of the United States were hardly Christian...) for various reasons but at this point in history it is simply childish (look at how people on this blog label progressive social movements like Hamas as fascist which allows them to fence sit on the genocide of the Palestinian people).

However it would seem to me that it is capitalism that undermines the values thought by most religions with its baltant individualism and need to exaggerate things such as pride, greed and lust in order to maintain itself in existence.

Looking at the sociopathic consumer culture that surrounds us and is most definitely a product of imperialist capitalism I wonder how Tom squares his defense of the system with his Christian faith.

Kwisatz Haderach

7th June 2009, 13:26

There is no such thing as "human nature," in the sense of pre-programmed behavior that humans are somehow compelled to engage in. One of the reasons why Homo sapiens is the most successful mammal species ever is because of our adaptability. We can behave in any way we choose. The only things our "nature" compels us to do is eat, sleep and reproduce. And we can even choose to stop doing those basic things, if we so desire.

Having said that, certain behaviors come with costs. Eradicating religion is possible - anything is possible - but the cost may be too high. Let me explain why.

Anti-theists would like to eliminate religious faith and have people behave based solely on verifiable empirical information. The problem is, most of our information comes from other people's claims, not from our own experiences or any scientific experiments that we have personally witnessed. It is all well and good to say that other people have performed the required experiments and discovered all this information in a proper scientific manner, but you don't really know that. You have to take other people's word for it. You have to trust them. This is an unavoidable consequence of living in society, of being a member of a social species: A lot of your information comes from other members of your species, and you have to trust that they are telling the truth even when they don't prove it to you.

Believing things just because other people say them, without giving you any proof, is an absolutely necessary condition of living in human society.

Of course, you can and should be selective about what to believe. The first logical step is to only believe things said by large numbers of other people - it's more likely that one person is deceiving you than that a million people are all trying to deceive you. The second step is to decide which people are more trustworthy than others, and give more weight to the things said by the more trustworthy people.

So you can have a whole bunch of safeguards to avoid being deceived. But you can never fully eliminate that possibility. There are very many things that you must believe on faith or trust alone in order to function in human society. And that is why religious faith is an inevitable product, not of "human nature," but of human society. If large numbers of trustworthy people say that there is a God, it makes sense to believe them for the same reason why it makes sense to believe large numbers of trustworthy people when they say the Earth is round.

A completely faithless person would also be a completely paranoid person, refusing to believe anything unless he saw the proof with his own eyes. You say a country called Uruguay exists? Show it to me. You say all matter is made of atoms? Teach me physics and show me all the relevant experiments. Such a level of mistrust would make society as we know it impossible.

So yes, it is possible to eradicate religion. But what would be the cost?

Living like Asimov's Solarians (http://asimov.wikia.com/wiki/The_Naked_Sun).

Robert

7th June 2009, 15:00

The only things our "nature" compels us to do is eat, sleep and reproduce.How about covet? I don't know if people are "compelled" to covet, but they do, from a very early age.

KH, great post, but the difference in my accepting that Uruguay exists, though I've never been there, and accepting that Jesus walked on the water and turned two fish into two thousand is that the first is consistent with other things I personally observe around me every day. If I drive far enough down the highway, I know I will eventually reach another city, then county, and so on. Just like it says in the books. Plus, there's no motive in the "lie" about the name of the country I will reach if I drive far enough through central and south America.

The miracles described in the bible fail on both counts.

Same with chemistry: I cook every day and can see the exact same transformations every single time I add heat to the sauce or fail to put the lid on the pot. I know from books and face to face talks with my fellows that the same thing happens in every kitchen from Tokyo to Toronto.

ArrowLance

7th June 2009, 15:08

Anti-theists would like to eliminate religious faith and have people behave based solely on verifiable empirical information. The problem is, most of our information comes from other people's claims, not from our own experiences or any scientific experiments that we have personally witnessed. It is all well and good to say that other people have performed the required experiments and discovered all this information in a proper scientific manner, but you don't really know that. You have to take other people's word for it. You have to trust them. This is an unavoidable consequence of living in society, of being a member of a social species: A lot of your information comes from other members of your species, and you have to trust that they are telling the truth even when they don't prove it to you.

Believing things just because other people say them, without giving you any proof, is an absolutely necessary condition of living in human society.

Of course, you can and should be selective about what to believe. The first logical step is to only believe things said by large numbers of other people - it's more likely that one person is deceiving you than that a million people are all trying to deceive you. The second step is to decide which people are more trustworthy than others, and give more weight to the things said by the more trustworthy people.

You're approaching this wrong. Yes, accepting things with little evidence is normal. But, as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The amount of evidence we require should be based on the importance of the subject. Obviously if someone tells you their name is Bob, unless this is a business deal you have no reason to think otherwise. In the end who cares if he is lying about his name. However, if someone tells you there is an all powerful being that demands you live a certain way, of course you need evidence of such a being.

Kwisatz Haderach

7th June 2009, 22:50

How about covet? I don't know if people are "compelled" to covet, but they do, from a very early age.
Sort of. People are curious from a very early age, and they get annoyed if you take away an object that arose their curiosity. They tend to get bored with those "coveted" things after a while, though. The drive is to take something, study it, and then ignore it once it's no longer interesting. Not the same as accumulation.

KH, great post, but the difference in my accepting that Uruguay exists, though I've never been there, and accepting that Jesus walked on the water and turned two fish into two thousand is that the first is consistent with other things I personally observe around me every day. If I drive far enough down the highway, I know I will eventually reach another city, then county, and so on. Just like it says in the books.
Sure, but you also accept plenty of things that are not consistent with the stuff you personally observe every day. For example, from personal observation, most people would conclude that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it. Most of us know that is false only from other people's claims.

Plus, there's no motive in the "lie" about the name of the country I will reach if I drive far enough through central and south America.
Conspiracy theories abound with claims that such-and-such basic fact is a lie, and they usually come with plausible-sounding reasons as to why those lies are being promoted by the powers that be. I'm sure you could find some nutjob somewhere who can tell you precisely why "THEY" are lying about Uruguay.

The thing is, we only know he's a nutjob because he looks that way compared with the rest of society. The claims of the majority are our frame of reference. If you took that away - if you just crash landed on Earth with no information about the planet and this nutjob was the first person you met - what reason would you have to doubt his words?

You're approaching this wrong. Yes, accepting things with little evidence is normal. But, as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Right, but what counts as extraordinary? Something which is unusual when compared with all the other information you have about the universe. But most of that "other information" comes from other people's claims... So, in fact, an extraordinary claim is simply a claim that does not fit well with all the other claims you've been hearing.

Which means that if everyone claims there is a God, such a claim is no longer extraordinary. And the same goes for any other claim that you cannot easily verify - from religion to biology to particle physics.

The amount of evidence we require should be based on the importance of the subject.
But we routinely accept claims on very important subjects with little or no evidence. People with no knowledge of biology or chemistry accept the claim that certain drugs will cure them, for example. I have no knowledge of engineering but I accept the claim that various bridges and vehicles and tall buildings are safe. The first time I took a plane, I had no reason to believe it wouldn't crash except other people's claims that it was highly unlikely. I certainly have no more than a very basic understanding of aerodynamics, and I have no idea at all how a jet engine works. I trust that it works only because other people said it does.

Of course, those are very many other people who say those things. They even say them on official channels like television and books, which society teaches us to trust. But isn't the same true for religion and superstition?

Robert

7th June 2009, 23:00

Sure, but you also accept plenty of things that are not consistent with the stuff you personally observe every day. For example, from personal observation, most people would conclude that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it. Most of us know that is false only from other people's claims.

There's something awkward about that argument and I'm not sure what it is. I think it's a red herring. The people who tell me about the solar system and the shape of the Earth are the same people who tell me water boils at high temperature and evaporates.

Your argument would be more convincing if you were to give me an example of something that I do accept without seeing, to the same extent I accept that there are 63 moons around Jupiter, but evidence for which there is nothing more compelling than some ancient texts describing supernatural events.

Sir Comradical

8th June 2009, 12:39

Yea, the Old Testament of the Bible was written in a particular time and place and it references those time and places. The New Testament is something different. Jesus against all expectations isn't a Feudal overlord. He's God but also a regular guy--a working man that fishes for a living and was the son of a carpenter. He was nobody's boss. In the middle ages they tried to make him a king and ruler, but it really never stuck. Jesus is really identifiable with the average workingman the people looking for healthcare, the bums on the street even.

While it is indeed easy to displace a king and ruler, it's much more difficult to displace a friend and brother--and that's what Jesus has come to be for a large part of Christianity.

Here's a poem by Ezra Pound--it's hard to think of this Jesus as some sort of Feudal lord:

Ha’ we lost the goodliest fere o’ all
For the priests and the gallows tree?
Aye lover he was of brawny men,
O’ ships and the open sea.
When they came wi’ a host to take Our Man
His smile was good to see,
“First let these go!” quo’ our Goodly Fere,
“Or I’ll see ye damned,” says he.
Aye he sent us out through the crossed high spears
And the scorn of his laugh rang free,
“Why took ye not me when I walked about
Alone in the town?” says he.
Oh we drank his “Hale” in the good red wine
When we last made company,
No capon priest was the Goodly Fere
But a man o’ men was he.
I ha’ seen him drive a hundred men
Wi’ a bundle o’ cords swung free,
That they took the high and holy house
For their pawn and treasury.
They’ll no’ get him a’ in a book I think
Though they write it cunningly;
No mouse of the scrolls was the Goodly Fere
But aye loved the open sea.
If they think they ha’ snared our Goodly Fere
They are fools to the last degree.
“I’ll go to the feast,” quo’ our Goodly Fere,
“Though I go to the gallows tree.”
“Ye ha’ seen me heal the lame and blind,
And wake the dead,” says he,
“Ye shall see one thing to master all:
‘Tis how a brave man dies on the tree.”
A son of God was the Goodly Fere
That bade us his brothers be.
I ha’ seen him cow a thousand men.
I have seen him upon the tree.
He cried no cry when they drave the nails
And the blood gushed hot and free,
The hounds of the crimson sky gave tongue
But never a cry cried he.
I ha’ seen him cow a thousand men
On the hills o’ Galilee,
They whined as he walked out calm between,
Wi’ his eyes like the grey o’ the sea,
Like the sea that brooks no voyaging
With the winds unleashed and free,
Like the sea that he cowed at Genseret
Wi’ twey words spoke’ suddently.
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea,
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
I ha’ seen him eat o’ the honey-comb
Sin’ they nailed him to the tree.”

Agreed and nice poem.

trivas7

8th June 2009, 17:36

Agreed and nice poem.
Jesus-meek-and-mild is a creation of Norman Rockwell and the Hallmark Corp.

pusher robot

8th June 2009, 20:51

Jesus-meek-and-mild is a creation of Norman Rockwell and the Hallmark Corp.

Really? Did Rockwell ever actually paint Jesus?

Bud Struggle

8th June 2009, 21:23

Really? Did Rockwell ever actually paint Jesus?

Brother Pusher! Good to see you back! (I'm TomK by other means.)

FWIW Trivas: the Biblical Jesus is very similar to the one in the poem I posted. He was a proletarian.

pusher robot

8th June 2009, 21:31

Brother Pusher! Good to see you back! (I'm TomK by other means.)

FWIW Trivas: the Biblical Jesus is very similar to the one in the poem I posted. He was a proletarian.

Thanks! I took a break because I felt that I was getting a little too snarky and didn't want to turn into a troll. But now I feel refreshed and ready to suffer the slings and arrows again. I was actually prompted to return by an unplanned meat-space encounter with another rev-lefter!

Bud Struggle

8th June 2009, 21:55

Well, good to have you back.

ArrowLance

9th June 2009, 01:16

Right, but what counts as extraordinary? Something which is unusual when compared with all the other information you have about the universe. But most of that "other information" comes from other people's claims... So, in fact, an extraordinary claim is simply a claim that does not fit well with all the other claims you've been hearing.

Which means that if everyone claims there is a God, such a claim is no longer extraordinary. And the same goes for any other claim that you cannot easily verify - from religion to biology to particle physics.

But we routinely accept claims on very important subjects with little or no evidence. People with no knowledge of biology or chemistry accept the claim that certain drugs will cure them, for example. I have no knowledge of engineering but I accept the claim that various bridges and vehicles and tall buildings are safe. The first time I took a plane, I had no reason to believe it wouldn't crash except other people's claims that it was highly unlikely. I certainly have no more than a very basic understanding of aerodynamics, and I have no idea at all how a jet engine works. I trust that it works only because other people said it does.

Of course, those are very many other people who say those things. They even say them on official channels like television and books, which society teaches us to trust. But isn't the same true for religion and superstition?

No the amount of people make no difference on what is extraordinary. Your definition of extraordinary is does not match the way I was using the word. And I would say you are mistaken in trusting these things solely based on what others have claimed. You do not need to be a chemist to evaluate the effectiveness of a drug. You do not have to be a mechanic to understand know a bridge works. You should not trust an aeroplane because other people say it does. These are important things and it is not wise to make decisions based only on what others say.

-marx-

9th June 2009, 02:27

Of course, you can and should be selective about what to believe. The first logical step is to only believe things said by large numbers of other people - it's more likely that one person is deceiving you than that a million people are all trying to deceive you.

This is not always the case, the masses are deluded, they are theists and lack reasoning skills and cannot be trusted. Even in face of scientific evidence for evolution and theories for the beginning of the universe they continue to believe the unscientific hypothesis that god exists.

I don't trust people who are not materialists (and I don't trust all of them either:D), they are easily lead up the garden path by comfort stories and what rationality they may or may not have had is thrown out the window.

We must all trust other people to a certain extent but I would much rather trust a scientist who has no ulterior motives behind his experiments and can provide evidence when requested than a theist who has a fable and bends the facts to fit this fable in an attempt to give it credulity among the masses.

Robert

9th June 2009, 02:31

Pusher man! Sincerely glad to see you.

Not too much has changed on the board. I'm still converting, oh, 'bout 35-40 commies a week over to the dark side.

Not.:lol:

Have fun.

RTG.

Demogorgon

9th June 2009, 03:00

This is not always the case, the masses are deluded, they are theists and lack reasoning skills and cannot be trusted.
What an egalitarian position! Presumably they lack the skills tom govern themselves also and require benevolent masters to do it for them?

-marx-

9th June 2009, 03:23

Not at all, but isn't it correct to assume that if they cannot use their reason to distinguish myth from fact (that which they live their lives by and also try to force onto everyone else) their reasoning skills are somewhat lacking?
I'm sure the theists can govern themselves just fine but I wouldn't like them to be in control of my country that's certain. Abortion would become illegal, womens rights would be shoved back to the dark ages, valuable stem cell research would come to a halt, and atheists will be persecuted for not believing in fairy tales. That would just be for starters.

Demogorgon

9th June 2009, 12:17

Not at all, but isn't it correct to assume that if they cannot use their reason to distinguish myth from fact (that which they live their lives by and also try to force onto everyone else) their reasoning skills are somewhat lacking?
I'm sure the theists can govern themselves just fine but I wouldn't like them to be in control of my country that's certain. Abortion would become illegal, womens rights would be shoved back to the dark ages, valuable stem cell research would come to a halt, and atheists will be persecuted for not believing in fairy tales. That would just be for starters.
The majority of this country's Government believe in God and many are practicing Christians yet abortion and stem cell research are legal and atheists are certainly not persecuted,

Explain that one away.

Kwisatz Haderach

9th June 2009, 12:31

No the amount of people make no difference on what is extraordinary. Your definition of extraordinary is does not match the way I was using the word.
Ok, so what is your definition of extraordinary? Is there a possible definition of "extraordinary" that does not rely on information about the universe that you know only from other people's claims?

If you lived alone all your life and never encountered another human being - and thus never had access to other people's claims - what would you consider to be extraordinary? I bet the assertion that the Earth is round would sound rather extraordinary.

And I would say you are mistaken in trusting these things solely based on what others have claimed. You do not need to be a chemist to evaluate the effectiveness of a drug. You do not have to be a mechanic to understand know a bridge works. You should not trust an aeroplane because other people say it does. These are important things and it is not wise to make decisions based only on what others say.
True, you don't have to be a chemist to evaluate the effectiveness of a drug - you could test it on other people, or on various animals before you take it. But let's face it, none of us does that. We don't personally test a new drug before taking it; we trust the words of our doctors.

The same holds for everything else. Presumably, if you put enough time into it, you could learn how all the stuff around you works. But no one does that. We trust other people - people we don't even know - with our lives.

This is not always the case, the masses are deluded, they are theists and lack reasoning skills and cannot be trusted.
And you arrived at this conclusion based on what information? More importantly, what is the source of that information? How do you know that materialism is correct?

From other people's claims and experiences, perhaps?

Even in face of scientific evidence for evolution and theories for the beginning of the universe they continue to believe the unscientific hypothesis that god exists.
Religion does not rely on the verifiability of the hypothesis that God exists (or to put it differently, I would be a Christian even if I knew that God does not exist). Also, the hypothesis that God exists is not affected in the slightest by the fact of biological evolution by natural selection, or the fact that the universe began with a singularity.

But all of that is beside the point.

The point is, have you, yourself, performed studies and experiments to verify the truth of biological evolution, or the expansion of the universe (which is the basis for the Big Bang theory)? Have you, yourself, observed genetic mutations or redshift in distant stars?

Or do you simply trust that these things are true because other people told you they are?

We must all trust other people to a certain extent but I would much rather trust a scientist who has no ulterior motives behind his experiments and can provide evidence when requested than a theist who has a fable and bends the facts to fit this fable in an attempt to give it credulity among the masses.
What makes you believe that scientists are more trustworthy than theists? Do you hold this belief based on experiments you have performed to check the likelihood that a scientist is telling the truth versus the likelihood that a theist is telling the truth? Or do you hold this belief based solely on other people's claims - for example claims that you've read in science books?

Or to put it another way: If you lived alone on a desert island all your life and just encountered other people for the first time, would you have any reason to believe that the scientists are more trustworthy than the priests?

Your ideas about who is trustworthy and who is not are themselves based on other people's claims, most of which you have not verified for yourself.

Kwisatz Haderach

9th June 2009, 12:52

Not at all, but isn't it correct to assume that if they cannot use their reason to distinguish myth from fact (that which they live their lives by and also try to force onto everyone else) their reasoning skills are somewhat lacking?
I believe my reasoning skills are quite good, actually. And I also believe that paragraph contains a very large quantity of straw...

I'm sure the theists can govern themselves just fine but I wouldn't like them to be in control of my country that's certain. Abortion would become illegal, womens rights would be shoved back to the dark ages, valuable stem cell research would come to a halt, and atheists will be persecuted for not believing in fairy tales. That would just be for starters.
First, as Demogorgon pointed out, there are countries ruled by theists right now where none of those things are happening.

Secondly, since a "theist" is simply a person who believes in the existence of one or more gods, please explain how you logically get from the proposition

A: "One or more gods exist."

To any of the following propositions:

B: "Abortion should be illegal."
C: "Women should have no rights."
D: "Stem cell research should be illegal."
E: "Atheists should be persecuted."

If there is no logical way to get from A to B, C, D or E, then it cannot be true that all theists want to ban abortion, destroy women's rights, ban stem cell research or oppress atheists. Belief in god(s) alone is not enough to make a person want to do those things. In order to be reactionary, they must believe something else - there must be some other belief that they hold, besides belief in god(s), which makes them reactionary.

I do not deny that there is a certain correlation between theism and reactionary beliefs. However, no one here proved any kind of causation.

-marx-

9th June 2009, 21:15

The majority of this country's Government believe in God and many are practicing Christians yet abortion and stem cell research are legal and atheists are certainly not persecuted,

Explain that one away.

Not it my country they aren't but anyways. I should have originally said Christian Fundamentalist rather than theist, a bad choice of words on my part as I was thinking about a particular group of theists more specifically.

Also, many people class themself as Christians yet have never read the bible, don't go to church and have no religious motives to their political actions.

If the fundamentalist Christians (I use the fundies as an example because they seem to be the ones trying to attain power in the US) became the majority in government and passed laws of their kind there would be persecution of homosexuals, women wouldn't maintain their rights and in fact male /female equality would fall apart, abortion would become illegal, communists wouldn't be allowed to protest etc and would become persecuted, science wouldn't be the same etc etc

With people like Fred Phelps, Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson and Ray Comfort who needs enemies?!?!?!?

I don't buy it for a second, you may see my mistrust of theists and particularly fundies as wrong but its the way I am (If I am entirely wrong, then please, correct me). My opinions (and you know what opinions are like) may not be entirely correct but they are the opinions I have formed from observing fundies actions and seeing what they want our society to be. I possibly am a little defensive when it comes to theists but that is because I despise and hate religion. I also hate seeing people believing in fairy tales just because they are comforting. My views aren't entirely unfounded IMO.

One thing I maintain though is, if the masses believe in god, like they do, then the masses are indeed deluded! And this was really the only point I was trying to make, I'd rather trust someone without religious delusions than someone with them. I don't think peoples right to believe in what they wish should be taken away from them, I feel education and the teaching of facts only should take place and children shouldn't be allowed to be brought up religious (its child abuse IMO), if, when they become adults, they want to be religious then fine. We cant stop adults from believing in fairy tales if that's what they want to believe, or rather need to believe to cope with the idea of death.

Demogorgan, are you religious BTW?

ArrowLance

9th June 2009, 22:25

Ok, so what is your definition of extraordinary? Is there a possible definition of "extraordinary" that does not rely on information about the universe that you know only from other people's claims?

If you lived alone all your life and never encountered another human being - and thus never had access to other people's claims - what would you consider to be extraordinary? I bet the assertion that the Earth is round would sound rather extraordinary.

Thats because the claim that the Earth is round IS extraordinary. It does not look very round from where I stand.

True, you don't have to be a chemist to evaluate the effectiveness of a drug - you could test it on other people, or on various animals before you take it. But let's face it, none of us does that. We don't personally test a new drug before taking it; we trust the words of our doctors.

The same holds for everything else. Presumably, if you put enough time into it, you could learn how all the stuff around you works. But no one does that. We trust other people - people we don't even know - with our lives.

That is your stupid decision. You do not have to personally test a new drug. You can read published research goes through enough scrutiny that we know what is reported is what was reported is what was observed(shown not just to be someones claims).

And you arrived at this conclusion based on what information? More importantly, what is the source of that information? How do you know that materialism is correct?

From other people's claims and experiences, perhaps?

Observation and logical reasoning.

Religion does not rely on the verifiability of the hypothesis that God exists (or to put it differently, I would be a Christian even if I knew that God does not exist). Also, the hypothesis that God exists is not affected in the slightest by the fact of biological evolution by natural selection, or the fact that the universe began with a singularity.

But all of that is beside the point.

The point is, have you, yourself, performed studies and experiments to verify the truth of biological evolution, or the expansion of the universe (which is the basis for the Big Bang theory)? Have you, yourself, observed genetic mutations or redshift in distant stars?

Or do you simply trust that these things are true because other people told you they are?

I read, and not just peoples claims, but their research. If you get your research from the proper places you know that what is being reported is what was observed.

What makes you believe that scientists are more trustworthy than theists? Do you hold this belief based on experiments you have performed to check the likelihood that a scientist is telling the truth versus the likelihood that a theist is telling the truth? Or do you hold this belief based solely on other people's claims - for example claims that you've read in science books?

Or to put it another way: If you lived alone on a desert island all your life and just encountered other people for the first time, would you have any reason to believe that the scientists are more trustworthy than the priests?

Your ideas about who is trustworthy and who is not are themselves based on other people's claims, most of which you have not verified for yourself.

Everyone is just as trustworthy. I will evaluate any evidence any of them provide. Claims in science books have been verified to have been observed, and those observations are evidence.

-marx-

9th June 2009, 22:46

Scientists trustworthyness has been proved time and time again through experience and application. If they say this drug does this and 4 billion people take that drug and it does what it is supposed to do, then it is trustworthy, along with the scientist.
God on the other and is not trustworthy, he cant be seen, heard, felt, touched or measured. God is hearsay.There is no evidence that god exists, the onus is on theists to prove god exists if they want to be taken seriously not on atheists to disprove god and no theist can prove god for one simple reason, he doesn't exist, all evidence, or a lack of it, suggests this.

Decolonize The Left

9th June 2009, 23:18

True, you don't have to be a chemist to evaluate the effectiveness of a drug - you could test it on other people, or on various animals before you take it. But let's face it, none of us does that. We don't personally test a new drug before taking it; we trust the words of our doctors.

The same holds for everything else. Presumably, if you put enough time into it, you could learn how all the stuff around you works. But no one does that. We trust other people - people we don't even know - with our lives.

And you arrived at this conclusion based on what information? More importantly, what is the source of that information? How do you know that materialism is correct?

From other people's claims and experiences, perhaps?

What makes you believe that scientists are more trustworthy than theists? Do you hold this belief based on experiments you have performed to check the likelihood that a scientist is telling the truth versus the likelihood that a theist is telling the truth? Or do you hold this belief based solely on other people's claims - for example claims that you've read in science books?

This is a total misrepresentation of the situation. Science, and the scientific method, is based upon repeated observation by any independent observer. Hence we trust what is related to us by scientists because they are held by other scientists to this condition of inquiry - mutual coherency.

Religion, on the other hand, has absolutely no form of coherency. All religious doctrine (now called "study") is based upon books which contradict themselves. Furthermore, the fact that these books are believed to be the 'word of god' discredits the entire study from the get-go as it is already positing something which cannot be verified.

You are attempting to equate religious study with science through an extreme form of relativism ("how do you know what they tell you is true?"). This is pathetic as it is the last refuge for stuffing your god into our existence. In order to make room for an out-dated and totally discredited belief, you must discredit a simple standard of inquiry: the scientific method.

I'm not aware if you do this on purpose, or whether this is merely the form which your religious beliefs are forced to adopt in order to preserve themselves.

As a truly religious person, truly confident in your faith, you're best off admitting that you're believing in some stories and you don't care what anyone says about it because you're going to believe it anyway. At least it's a somewhat strong position to hold... Childish? Yes. Dogmatic? Absolutely. Dangerous? For certain. But strong. It is weak to attempt to fight the rational battle when your beliefs cannot be synthesized with rational inquiry because they're total nonsense (just look at history and the progressive isolation of religious beliefs).

Religion does not rely on the verifiability of the hypothesis that God exists (or to put it differently, I would be a Christian even if I knew that God does not exist). Also, the hypothesis that God exists is not affected in the slightest by the fact of biological evolution by natural selection, or the fact that the universe began with a singularity.

But all of that is beside the point.

Actually, this is entirely the point. Religion is so far removed from reality that it cannot even be questioned - faith. What does it mean when someone's beliefs cannot be questioned? If this person was a Nazi, or a racist, or a sociopath and a murderer, you'd think they should be detained for an extended period of time, or perhaps even killed.

Now, being an intelligent person, you will certainly note that Nazis are not symmetric with theists. Nor are racists and murderers. You will claim that these beliefs (nationalism, racism, etc...) become dangerous when they are realized in physical form as violence towards others. You will then claim that religion does not correlate necessarily with outward violence and hence is not subject to this sort of critique.

It's a fair position, but not entirely coherent. It ignores inward violence and the tendency of inward violence to translate into outward violence in subtle ways. For religion, most especially Christianity, is entirely based upon violence against the believer. The entire religion is founded upon turning against oneself and subjecting oneself to pain and suffering (imagined suffering at that!). This suffering, which one has posited, then justifies the posited existence of god's love.
Case in point: original sin. The foundation of Christianity is original sin - that is, the belief that Adam and Eve sinned in their magical world of plenty and hence condemned the rest of humanity to a life of sin. That's right - a story has just placed guilt and resentment upon every single individual on this planet. You are certainly aware of the physiological problems which result from guilt and resentment; they translate directly into stress which causes one's nervous system to work excessively and slowly damages the immune system.

Furthermore, this sort of inward violence can only translate into outward violence unless this person is isolated (such as in a monastery, or a temple) with others enacting the same sort of repression. When confined, this violence remains inward as it has no vehicle for outward representation. Yet, in a large social community, it finds plenty of vehicles. This inward violence seizes any form of opposition which usually takes the form of progressive causes, and vehemently fights against it. On what terms? Why, because the progressive causes violate the 'holy word!'
Proposition 8 in California: the banning of gay marriage? Millions donated by the Mormon church to support this hateful legislation. 50% of the donors were identified (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pe2023SzWXxE8wYX5qWeoIw), totaling $16,293,327.24 in donations.
Abortion? The pope (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271218,00.html) just said "NO."
War? All for it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war).

What makes you believe that scientists are more trustworthy than theists? Do you hold this belief based on experiments you have performed to check the likelihood that a scientist is telling the truth versus the likelihood that a theist is telling the truth? Or do you hold this belief based solely on other people's claims - for example claims that you've read in science books?

What makes me trust scientists? For the most part, the conclusions they relate are verifiable.
What makes me distrust theists? History.

This passage, from Nietzsche's phenomenal book entitled The Anti-Christ, speaks volumes:

Under Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of contact with actuality. It offers purely imaginary causes ("God" "soul," "ego," "spirit," "free will"--or even "unfree"), and purely imaginary effects ("sin" "salvation" "grace," "punishment," "forgiveness of sins"). Intercourse between imaginary beings ("God," "spirits," "souls"); an imaginary natural history (anthropocentric; a total denial of the concept of natural causes); an imaginary psychology (misunderstandings of self, misinterpretations of agreeable or disagreeable general feelings--for example, of the states of the nervus sympathicus with the help of the sign-language of religio-ethical balderdash--, "repentance," "pangs of conscience," "temptation by the devil," "the presence of God"); an imaginary teleology (the "kingdom of God," "the last judgment," "eternal life").--This purely fictitious world, greatly to its disadvantage, is to be differentiated from the world of dreams; the later at least reflects reality, whereas the former falsifies it, cheapens it and denies it. Once the concept of "nature" had been opposed to the concept of "God," the word "natural" necessarily took on the meaning of "abominable"--the whole of that fictitious world has its sources in hatred of the natural (--the real!--), and is no more than evidence of a profound uneasiness in the presence of reality. . . . This explains everything. Who alone has any reason for living his way out of reality? The man who suffers under it. But to suffer from reality one must be a botched reality. . . . The preponderance of pains over pleasures is the cause of this fictitious morality and religion: but such a preponderance also supplies the formula for decadence..

- August

Demogorgon

10th June 2009, 00:52

Decolonize The Left

10th June 2009, 06:03

See, this is my problem with anti-theism (asides from the fact it often descends into bigotry and ironically presents a threat to secularism), it holds religion to far higher standards than it holds itself. If you wish religion to answer to almost very high standards of intellectual rigour, you better be ready to subject yourself to it too. As it stands, we are simply not getting this. Perhaps the most ironic thing though is the way that you lot are rounding on KH with charges of "irrational" when he is blatantly more rational than you lot.

I am more than willing to subject my arguments to the highest standard of intellectual rigor. I would expect nothing less from anyone of integrity.

With apologies to AugustWest for picking on him (he is the only one in this thread with points worth going through) I want to pick up on a few points to show the problem.

No apologies needed. When I made my previous post I expected a thoughtful and intelligent rebuttal from KC, and you've offered an equally reasonable one. It is these types of discussions, whereby we are willing to extend ourselves rationally and intellectually, all-the-while preserving respect for one-another, that I wish to foster and see spread throughout our board.

Now, to your claims.

Well that is a very narrow interpretation of it that tends to shut out inductive reasoning. You will find that if scientists bound themselves to this, they would never innovate. Successful science is often about being willing to push the boundaries and go with an hypothesis based upon inductive reasoning adding the empirical evidence later. I see no particular reason why somebody who wishes to place God within the Universe cannot do similar.

While scientific innovation bends this basic maxim, it never breaks it and still calls itself "science." It is obvious that scientists must experiment alone, or with few others, before they are able to declare (or not!) something to be a fact.

The point remains that phenomena either end up as facts, or as fiction. Often times facts turn out to be fiction (or awkward fictitious descriptions of facts), but always science moves on - always maintains the same process.

On the other hand, religion cannot boast such a progressive process. "Somebody who wishes to place God within the Universe" cannot do similar because they cannot make claims to god. They can describe phenomena - they can describe unknown sources of causality - but they cannot allocate "god" as a cause because this cannot be verified.

This is precisely why throughout history the explanation of "god" has never, ever, sufficed. It always turns out to be something else. Why is it any different now?

This is dishonest. You take the weakest of all religious arguments and hold it up as the standard argument. If you read philosophical journals, arguments from theists never rely on holy texts and usually don't try and prove a particular religion, rather they discuss the existence of God in broader terms.

Correct! "Broader terms." More metaphysical, abstract, unverifiable, unrealistic, terms... Much like 'philosophy of the mind' and moral philosophy in general, it's doings are so far removed from reality that they cannot possibly be considered reasonable.

Think about this.
Historically, theists used to be able to appeal to natural phenomenon for 'proof' of god. "Lightning! What is it? Who knows! Must be something like me, only more powerful!"
Then theists used 'holy books' for 'proof' of god.
But now, these books have been so thoroughly discredited that theists must appeal to metaphysical arguments - arguments of first cause, etc...

You attempt to argue on behalf of the theists, and do admirably I might add, but you only point out their short-comings. They have lost all arguments to natural phenomena. They have lost all arguments to holy texts. Now they are confined to abstract nonsense regarding metaphysical postulations in order to preserve their prejudices. This sort of study isn't even religion - it's a more-or-less secular attempt to justify religion.

The existence of God is a question that has to be separated from the validity of any given religion. If I were to wake up tomorrow and decide God were real, there would be no reason for me to start following a religion and if I wished to make an argument, I certainly wouldn't rely on so-called religious revelation to do so.

Well, I'm not sure you could make an "argument" for 'deciding God was real.' You'd more-or-less be stating an opinion, one which you induced from some experience, which most likely could be explained in an ulterior fashion.

But I see what you're saying, and yes, theism is not religion. I've yet to meet a theist who isn't religious - have you?

Sorry, but this is wild speculation and rubbish. Ranging from the simple fact that few Christians believe that Adam and Eve is anything other than ancient mythology to explain a flaw in human nature. The Catholic Doctrine of Original Sin is something quite different from taking the apple from the forbidden tree. If memory serves it was St. Augustine that defined it as (in simplified form) the human temptation to do bad that is in conflict with our desire to do good. Quite different from what you think it is.

You sure? One third of Americans believe the Bible to be literally true. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx) How many do you think believe it to be partly true? How many do you think read St. Augustine? And since when did he speak anything determinant regarding religious stories?

Also Christians encouraged to engage in self loathing and all the rest of it? That sounds like something you would get from Anton Lavay! Certainly not any serious thinker.

I am certainly not as eloquent as the man was himself, but I suggest you invest some time into reading Friedrich Nietzsche. Here (http://www.swan.ac.uk/german/fns/ac.htm) is The Anti-Christ online. Here (http://records.viu.ca/%7Ejohnstoi/nietzsche/genealogytofc.htm) is On the Genealogy of Morals online. I suggest you delve into these two books for a better understanding of a strong argument against religion.

Again this is dishonest as you are comparing the church's modern condemnation of abortion with its ancient support for war. The church in the past was quite tolerant of abortion and these days it tends to be strongly anti-war.

I would be greatly appreciative of some links towards the church's history of 'tolerance towards abortion.' Furthermore, the church may be 'strongly anti-war' but does this stop politicians from using religion to justify wars themselves. Has it ever?

- August

Kwisatz Haderach

10th June 2009, 16:05

You are attempting to equate religious study with science through an extreme form of relativism ("how do you know what they tell you is true?"). This is pathetic as it is the last refuge for stuffing your god into our existence. In order to make room for an out-dated and totally discredited belief, you must discredit a simple standard of inquiry: the scientific method.

I'm not aware if you do this on purpose, or whether this is merely the form which your religious beliefs are forced to adopt in order to preserve themselves.
That is not the kind of argument I am making at all. I'm sorry that I have gone forward with this argument for so long that you've lost sight of my original point, the one that the argument was meant to support. My original point was this:

Believing things just because other people say them, without giving you any proof, is an absolutely necessary condition of living in human society.

[...]

A completely faithless person would also be a completely paranoid person, refusing to believe anything unless he saw the proof with his own eyes. You say a country called Uruguay exists? Show it to me. You say all matter is made of atoms? Teach me physics and show me all the relevant experiments. Such a level of mistrust would make society as we know it impossible.

So yes, it is possible to eradicate religion. But what would be the cost? Living like Asimov's Solarians (http://asimov.wikia.com/wiki/The_Naked_Sun).
My argument was not about the validity of religious faith when compared to scientific inquiry. I was not supporting the extreme relativism you accuse me of. On the contrary. My argument was that such extreme relativism is the logical consequence of an entirely faithless (and thus trust-less) society, that such a paranoid society is insane and undesirable, and therefore anti-theists should not attempt to eradicate faith.

I was trying to show the negative consequences of a faithless world, not argue that faith is somehow equivalent to scientific inquiry.

My argument goes like this: Faith is a species of trust. Anti-theists wish to eradicate faith, but the only way to do this would be to eradicate, or at least greatly weaken, human trust. A society without trust is undesirable, because in the absence of trust people could logically go so far as to disbelieve any scientific pronouncements that they cannot verify for themselves, or otherwise slip into all sorts of extreme relativism and solipsism. It is likely that human society could not function at all if people were not willing to trust each other without proof on certain things. Therefore it is unreasonable, and dangerous, to demand that people do not believe anything without proof. Therefore anti-theism is bad for humankind.

What I am making here is a utilitarian argument against anti-theism. I am not defending the validity of religious beliefs.

* * * * *

Having said that, the following is not related to my main argument:

Now, being an intelligent person, you will certainly note that Nazis are not symmetric with theists. Nor are racists and murderers. You will claim that these beliefs (nationalism, racism, etc...) become dangerous when they are realized in physical form as violence towards others. You will then claim that religion does not correlate necessarily with outward violence and hence is not subject to this sort of critique.

It's a fair position, but not entirely coherent. It ignores inward violence and the tendency of inward violence to translate into outward violence in subtle ways. For religion, most especially Christianity, is entirely based upon violence against the believer. The entire religion is founded upon turning against oneself and subjecting oneself to pain and suffering (imagined suffering at that!). This suffering, which one has posited, then justifies the posited existence of god's love.
Case in point: original sin. The foundation of Christianity is original sin - that is, the belief that Adam and Eve sinned in their magical world of plenty and hence condemned the rest of humanity to a life of sin. That's right - a story has just placed guilt and resentment upon every single individual on this planet. You are certainly aware of the physiological problems which result from guilt and resentment; they translate directly into stress which causes one's nervous system to work excessively and slowly damages the immune system.
C.S. Lewis once remarked that the Christian message cannot possibly appeal to someone who doesn't already feel guilty or sinful, before he heard the Christian message. I subscribe to this view. The early Christians must have known it too. They called their message "The Good News" (Evangelios, the Gospel). What was the good news? Redemption from sin. Obviously, that's only good news if you already agree that you're sinful, or guilty of something.

If you don't already agree that you are guilty of something, then, uh, there's no way you could become a Christian. Christianity does not create guilt. At most, it may take advantage of pre-existing guilt. But the guilt has to be pre-existing, otherwise the Christian message doesn't make any sense.

Furthermore, I don't see how admitting imperfection in yourself could in any way qualify as "inward violence." I also don't see how this "inward violence" - whatever it is - must manifest as outward (i.e. real) violence.

Every step of your argument is a non-sequitur:
If Christianity requires guilt, it does not follow that it produces guilt.
If Christianity produces guilt, it does not follow that guilt qualifies as "inward violence" or that it is bad. I've seen plenty of people who would have been greatly improved by some guilt, remorse, or humility.
If a person has "inward violence," it does not follow that she will be outwardly violent.

This inward violence seizes any form of opposition which usually takes the form of progressive causes, and vehemently fights against it. On what terms? Why, because the progressive causes violate the 'holy word!'
Hmm, I vehemently fight against capitalism. Maybe my inward violence has decided that capitalism violates the holy word! Or something... :rolleyes:

I'm sorry to ridicule you, but this "inward violence" stuff just doesn't sound remotely believable. How does guilt make you want to fight people, exactly...?

Historically, theists used to be able to appeal to natural phenomenon for 'proof' of god. "Lightning! What is it? Who knows! Must be something like me, only more powerful!"
Then theists used 'holy books' for 'proof' of god.
But now, these books have been so thoroughly discredited that theists must appeal to metaphysical arguments - arguments of first cause, etc...
Now? Some of those metaphysical arguments are thousands of years old! And I'm not aware of any theologians who ever used the argument that God exists because there are some unexplained phenomena in nature (like lightning and such).

You are taking some of the ideas held by the more uninformed religious believers today and projecting them back in time as the supposedly "original" arguments for God. That is dishonest. And furthermore...

You attempt to argue on behalf of the theists, and do admirably I might add, but you only point out their short-comings. They have lost all arguments to natural phenomena. They have lost all arguments to holy texts.
...you then proceed to use this dishonest hypothesis about the "original" arguments to construct a strawman. Except that many religions never used those "original" arguments at all.

The first argument ever used for the existence of the Christian God, for example, was "we saw Jesus perform a number of miracles, so that proves he spoke the truth about God." Not the arguments you listed. And many other religions started out with a similar first argument - something along the lines of "there is this person preaching a new religion, and he did extraordinary things, so he must be telling the truth."

Of course that's not necessarily a strong argument, but even so, atheists never argued against it. They simply denied the premise: "no miracles or extraordinary things ever happened." In other words, the original argument was never refuted. It became obsolete, as time passed and it got increasingly difficult to prove what actually happened thousands of years ago.

You sure? One third of Americans believe the Bible to be literally true. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx) How many do you think believe it to be partly true?
I highly doubt that one third of Americans read the entire Bible. Many of those people who said they believed it to be literally true were claiming the literal truth of things they never read. As such, I can't take their statements very seriously.

Furthermore, the church may be 'strongly anti-war' but does this stop politicians from using religion to justify wars themselves. Has it ever?
That's a very, very weak argument against religion. Politicians have also used "science" to justify racism. Does that mean that science is in any way responsible for racism? Of course not.

And let's not even get into the social sciences, which have a long history of being used to justify the dominant prejudices of the time. Marxism itself was just as vulnerable to this as the other social sciences. Remember Stalin.

Kwisatz Haderach

10th June 2009, 19:06

Not it my country they aren't but anyways. I should have originally said Christian Fundamentalist rather than theist, a bad choice of words on my part as I was thinking about a particular group of theists more specifically.
Ok, then we are in agreement. Fundamentalists are indeed reactionary, due to some of the specific beliefs they hold in addition to their basic Christian beliefs.

If the fundamentalist Christians (I use the fundies as an example because they seem to be the ones trying to attain power in the US) became the majority in government and passed laws of their kind there would be persecution of homosexuals, women wouldn't maintain their rights and in fact male /female equality would fall apart, abortion would become illegal, communists wouldn't be allowed to protest etc and would become persecuted, science wouldn't be the same etc etc
Yes, that is undeniably true.

I don't buy it for a second, you may see my mistrust of theists and particularly fundies as wrong but its the way I am (If I am entirely wrong, then please, correct me).
You are correct about fundies. But you are wrong to think that all theists must be like that, or that fundamentalists are somehow the "true" Christians. That's not the case at all. There have always been multiple competing schools of thought within Christianity (and within every religion), with some of them being progressive and others reactionary.

American fundamentalists are a particulary reactionary Christian group that has arisen in very recent times. They do not represent Christianity any more than Stalin represents Marxism.

I don't think peoples right to believe in what they wish should be taken away from them, I feel education and the teaching of facts only should take place
Ok, then, again, we agree. Except for one thing:

and children shouldn't be allowed to be brought up religious (its child abuse IMO)
How do you plan to stop it? And what counts as "religion"? Parents tell their children all sorts of things as if they were fact - not just typical religious things like stories about Jesus, but also fairy tales, highly embellished accounts of historical events, stuff about Santa Claus, outright lies about human reproduction to avoid having to explain sex, and so on. I can't think of any objective way to separate religion from these other things, and it would be absurd to make it illegal to tell children anything that might be untrue.

Frankly, adults sometimes need to lie to children. I can't imagine a functioning society where this was not allowed.

* * * * *

Going back to my main argument now...

You do not have to personally test a new drug. You can read published research goes through enough scrutiny that we know what is reported is what was reported is what was observed(shown not just to be someones claims).

I read, and not just peoples claims, but their research. If you get your research from the proper places you know that what is being reported is what was observed.
How do you know that, exactly? Because it was verified by large numbers of people? Then you are simply choosing to trust majority opinion. It's still possible that they're all lying, or that they are all honestly mistaken.

If you wish to be completely without faith, you can't just assume people are telling the truth. The onus must be on them to prove to you that they're telling the truth. Even if the entire world agrees with some statement, you must still refuse to believe it unless they present you with proof that it's true. And I mean you need to see (and understand) the experiment that proves it to be true. Otherwise you'd need to trust the claims of other people who say they saw the experiment.

Are these demands too high? Am I asking you to behave in a ridiculous, insane manner? These are the demands of complete disbelief, I'm afraid. That is how you must act if you wish to be entirely without faith. If you do not wish to behave in that manner, then you must accept that faith is sometimes good and useful (note: I said sometimes, not always; I am not arguing that faith is necessarily good - I am merely arguing that faith is not always bad).

Everyone is just as trustworthy. I will evaluate any evidence any of them provide. Claims in science books have been verified to have been observed, and those observations are evidence.
No. Only observations that you made for yourself are adequate evidence if you wish to avoid faith entirely. In order to accept observations made by other people, you must trust that they are telling the truth - which requires some degree of faith.

Scientists trustworthyness has been proved time and time again through experience and application. If they say this drug does this and 4 billion people take that drug and it does what it is supposed to do, then it is trustworthy, along with the scientist.
But again, as I said above, if you wish to be entirely without faith then you can only believe what you see for yourself. You cannot believe anything about any experience or application that you did not personally witness. No matter how many people tell you something - even if it's 4 billion - you cannot believe it without seeing for yourself. That is what it takes to be completely without faith.

There is no evidence that god exists
Of course. I never claimed there was.

Now let me make this absolutely clear so that there is no further confusion: I am not arguing against science. I'm not even arguing for religion. I am arguing against anti-theism.

I am not saying that science is no different from religion. I am saying that even science sometimes requires you to trust other people on their word alone. I am saying that IF you want to abandon all faith in any unproven claims made by other people, THEN you must adopt this absurd relativist position that I am describing. Since you do not want to adopt this position (because it's ridiculous, and would make science impossible), you must have some degree of faith that other people are telling the truth even when they don't prove it to you.

I am trying to show that there is a conflict between science and radical disbelief, because a completely faithless person should refuse to believe even the claims of the entire scientific community unless he can personally verify them for himself.

I take it for granted that science is good and useful. Therefore, if there is a conflict between science and radical disbelief, then radical disbelief must be wrong. That is my argument.

Decolonize The Left

10th June 2009, 22:05

Great post - I'd rep it but the server says I've given out too much in the past 24 hrs.

That is not the kind of argument I am making at all. I'm sorry that I have gone forward with this argument for so long that you've lost sight of my original point, the one that the argument was meant to support.

I certainly did lose sight - apologies on my behalf. I shall focus solely on your original point; if you'd like me to respond to your careful deconstruction of my previous argument, I can do so, but for now I'll return to the issue at hand.

My original point was this:
Believing things just because other people say them, without giving you any proof, is an absolutely necessary condition of living in human society.

Are you sure? What qualifies as proof? What qualifies as "believing things?" Does a child believe that something is bad/wrong when they are told not to do it? Or do they merely follow command? Are you sure that this person believes 'just because other people say' to? What about visual confirmation? Sensual confirmation? Conditioning?

A child is told not to walk into the street and obeys the command of the adult. Does this child believe that it is bad to do so? Or are they merely obeying orders? Do the cars flying by count as 'proof?' Is this child capable of making the induction that these cars are traveling at a high speed and are much larger than the child - and hence this is a dangerous situation?

You see that the situation is not so simple.

A completely faithless person would also be a completely paranoid person, refusing to believe anything unless he saw the proof with his own eyes. You say a country called Uruguay exists? Show it to me. You say all matter is made of atoms? Teach me physics and show me all the relevant experiments. Such a level of mistrust would make society as we know it impossible.

Faith is belief without/despite evidence. Do you consider experience to be evidence? What about logical/rational induction/deduction?

So yes, it is possible to eradicate religion. But what would be the cost? Living like Asimov's Solarians (http://www.anonym.to/?http://asimov.wikia.com/wiki/The_Naked_Sun).

The link was interesting but I fail to make the connection.

My argument was not about the validity of religious faith when compared to scientific inquiry. I was not supporting the extreme relativism you accuse me of. On the contrary. My argument was that such extreme relativism is the logical consequence of an entirely faithless (and thus trust-less) society, that such a paranoid society is insane and undesirable, and therefore anti-theists should not attempt to eradicate faith.

In general, anti-theists seek to eradicate religious faith. For we all are crippled by our faith in truth.

- August

ArrowLance

11th June 2009, 03:15

How do you know that, exactly? Because it was verified by large numbers of people? Then you are simply choosing to trust majority opinion. It's still possible that they're all lying, or that they are all honestly mistaken.

If you wish to be completely without faith, you can't just assume people are telling the truth. The onus must be on them to prove to you that they're telling the truth. Even if the entire world agrees with some statement, you must still refuse to believe it unless they present you with proof that it's true. And I mean you need to see (and understand) the experiment that proves it to be true. Otherwise you'd need to trust the claims of other people who say they saw the experiment.

Are these demands too high? Am I asking you to behave in a ridiculous, insane manner? These are the demands of complete disbelief, I'm afraid. That is how you must act if you wish to be entirely without faith. If you do not wish to behave in that manner, then you must accept that faith is sometimes good and useful (note: I said sometimes, not always; I am not arguing that faith is necessarily good - I am merely arguing that faith is not always bad).

No. Only observations that you made for yourself are adequate evidence if you wish to avoid faith entirely. In order to accept observations made by other people, you must trust that they are telling the truth - which requires some degree of faith.

But again, as I said above, if you wish to be entirely without faith then you can only believe what you see for yourself. You cannot believe anything about any experience or application that you did not personally witness. No matter how many people tell you something - even if it's 4 billion - you cannot believe it without seeing for yourself. That is what it takes to be completely without faith.

You are completly misrepresenting what i said. It is possible to know (yes know, not 'have faith') that what someone claims is what someone observed. This is part of the scientific process. You do NOT have to observe it yourself. I NEVER(!) said anything about the majority.

Il Medico

11th June 2009, 03:41

I don't think anyone can make any conclusive claims regarding 'human nature.' It seems to be an awfully vague subject, and one which ought not be used as justification for any one historical phenomenon.

- August
I agree, though there is evidence for that assumption. There is evidence of spirituality and mysticism 40,000 years ago, among men, it seems to be one of the first higher instincts of man, looking to the afterlife.

Il Medico

11th June 2009, 03:55

I understand why you say that, but consider: many of the biggest churches (in the USA anyway) are started and then maintained and grown by very ordinary people. They are anti-intellectual. They do not come from wealth. They do tend to buy themselves very large houses and nice cars, but they also give away a lot of money. Also, they are completely out of favor politically, at the moment anyway.
The upper class want people to be ignorant, racist, and full of hate, otherwise they would lose power.

Agree

Thanks, albeit a bit concerning considering your a reactionary.

Now you sound like one of us. Welcome to the dark side.:lol:

Do you have cookies?:lol:

Get the hell outta the way, people, CJ's rollin'!

I am always rolling. Also spirituality does not have to be expressed through religion. For example, Che found it spiritually soothing to smoke cigars.

Decolonize The Left

11th June 2009, 06:34

I agree, though there is evidence for that assumption. There is evidence of spirituality and mysticism 40,000 years ago, among men, it seems to be one of the first higher instincts of man, looking to the afterlife.

Spirituality and mysticism are not synonymous with an "afterlife." Furthermore, you have offered no evidence. The fact that human beings did things a long time ago is not sufficient to declare these things "human nature."

Do do so you would need to isolate when human beings actually became human beings, which is not a finite moment - rather, a long, extensive process of evolution, and then you'd need to identify the characteristics which determine this new classification (that is, characteristics in behavior, not anatomy).

- August

Il Medico

11th June 2009, 09:27

Spirituality and mysticism are not synonymous with an "afterlife." Furthermore, you have offered no evidence. The fact that human beings did things a long time ago is not sufficient to declare these things "human nature."

Do do so you would need to isolate when human beings actually became human beings, which is not a finite moment - rather, a long, extensive process of evolution, and then you'd need to identify the characteristics which determine this new classification (that is, characteristics in behavior, not anatomy).

- August
All I was saying August, is that the fact that it is among the earliest know behaviors or constructs of man, beyond mere survival, may imply that is something that has always been with us. The idea of something greater, may have come along with consciousness, thus it would be part of human nature. I am not saying it is, since we can really define human nature, however, based on the assumption that it (Human Nature) is our basic instincts, then it could be applied. Also, I never said we poped into being humans, however, consciousness, and the ability to think abstractly, must have developed in a rather short time, probably by accident. This would be supported by the fact that our older, close relatives like chimps has yet to make that leap. It was most likely a freak occurrence in evolution. The ability of abstract thought is what makes us human, otherwise we'd just be apes with pencils.:lol:
Love,
Captain Jack

Tomhet

12th June 2009, 04:46

If people wish to voluntary involve themselves in organized religion, WITHOUT OPPRESSION OF OTHERS (although, historically we've not seen this idea come in practise very often). How is this a problem? Should we not all have the right to believe what we would like to believe?

al8

12th June 2009, 05:04

Should we not all have the right to believe what we would like to believe?

No. Ideally, if there where a delete putton in peoples heads that would whipe people clean of religion I would gladly push it.

People should get hassle for believing in nonsense, especially if they are keen to flaunt it.

Let me word it another way. Should everybody have the right to believe that you, Tomhet, are stealing their thoughts because you breath air (the logical solution being to suffocate you)?

Il Medico

12th June 2009, 05:21

No. Ideally, if there where a delete putton in peoples heads that would whipe people clean of religion I would gladly push it.

People should get hassle for believing in nonsense, especially if they are keen to flaunt it.

Let me word it another way. Should everybody have the right to believe that you, Tomhet, are stealing their thoughts because you breath air (the logical solution being to suffocate you)?
What religion advocates suffocating people because they steal your thoughts? You must distinguish between the preachings of the puppet preachers and what a religion actually says. When religion is free of the upper class, it will be much more helpful then harmful. Many would consider communism idealist nonsense, they oppress us, and that is why they will eventually be overthrown. Don't make that same mistake by oppressing religion. You must also distinguish that the bible and other books that are both a collection of moral tales, and written by man, according to his conventions. If you take the bible literally when denouncing it, then you are as foolish as those who base their belief on the literal interpretation of it.

Kwisatz Haderach

12th June 2009, 17:23

No. Ideally, if there where a delete putton in peoples heads that would whipe people clean of religion I would gladly push it.
You would like to have the power to control people's thoughts? And you dare call yourself an advocate of human liberation?

People should get hassle for believing in nonsense, especially if they are keen to flaunt it.
Who gets to decide what counts as "nonsense?" You?

And don't try to get out of this problem by claiming that it's "self-evident" what counts as nonsense, or other such crap. If it were self-evident that you were right, everyone would agree with you. As long as there are people who don't agree with you - as long as there is controversy on any topic - you can either (a) allow people to believe what they want on that topic, or (b) empower a group of people to police others' beliefs.

So, which group of people do you want to empower to police religious beliefs? How shall the members of this group be selected? What methods shall they be allowed to use? After all, we can't trust the majority to police religious beliefs - the majority might be infiltrated by secret theists. We need to screen members of the thought police for the purity of their commitment to atheism.

Let me word it another way. Should everybody have the right to believe that you, Tomhet, are stealing their thoughts because you breath air (the logical solution being to suffocate you)?
Replacing "Tomhet" with "Kwisatz Haderach," the answer is yes. Laws should only restrict people's actions, or, at most, their right to actively spread certain beliefs that pose an immediate danger to society (and I mean immediate, like "let's support this imperialist power that threatens our revolution," not like "let's support this thing that may or may not be dangerous at some vague point in the future"). Laws should never restrict people's right to passively believe something, and outside emergency situations they should not restrict people's right to actively spread their beliefs either.

After all, your example of a belief pretty much describes what you believe about me, doesn't it? My existence as a religious person offends you. And that's ok - you should be allowed to be as offended as you like.

Of course, your argument is a strawman because no major religion holds the belief that a certain group of people should be killed, but I've long since given up on attempting to make you understand logical argumentation.

Tomhet

12th June 2009, 18:50

No. Ideally, if there where a delete putton in peoples heads that would whipe people clean of religion I would gladly push it.

People should get hassle for believing in nonsense, especially if they are keen to flaunt it.

Let me word it another way. Should everybody have the right to believe that you, Tomhet, are stealing their thoughts because you breath air (the logical solution being to suffocate you)?
Ridicule and persecution of religious persons directly infringes on the individual right to believe whatever one wants to believe. I agree with you, I think religion is nonsense. But I also recognize the fact that we all are different, some christians are actually egalitarian, and although they will not admit it, socialist in nature. Believe it or not, your definition of 'nonsense' is not a valid one, it's your own opinion, for you to wish to force your belief on others, is hardly leftist at all! it is borgeouis, it is exactly what we are dealing with to this day. I do not believe you are being rational, I believe your emotional and personal reaction quite clearly clouds your judgement on this subject!

~ Comrade Alex.

-marx-

13th June 2009, 01:53

Ok, then, again, we agree. Except for one thing:

(RE: parents teaching their children about religion and raising them to be religious*)

How do you plan to stop it? And what counts as "religion"? Parents tell their children all sorts of things as if they were fact - not just typical religious things like stories about Jesus, but also fairy tales, highly embellished accounts of historical events, stuff about Santa Claus, outright lies about human reproduction to avoid having to explain sex, and so on. I can't think of any objective way to separate religion from these other things, and it would be absurd to make it illegal to tell children anything that might be untrue.

Frankly, adults sometimes need to lie to children. I can't imagine a functioning society where this was not allowed.

*Added by me.

Yes its true, parents teach their children about santa clause and the easter bunny etc but although these are lies they aren't forcing their children to base their entire lives and belief systems on these things. There comes an age when the children realize they were just nice fantasy stories that usually resulted in presents and such.

However, the teaching of religious stories doesn't result in this realization, the child grows into an adult and continues to believe in these fairy tales, these fairy tales promise to reward them, much like the child hood presents, after they die.

There is huge difference between telling your child santa clause is real and god is real. One will eventually be exposed for the lie it is and the other will not.

Also, an atheists belief in the scientists reports are not not based on faith, they are based on proven credibility. The scientist has proven his credibility time and time again through application and experimentation and provided us evidence to judge for ourselves.
Once his credibility is established as trustworthy we can be assured the scientist is not leading us up the garden path with false stories that promise things that can never be delivered.

Science proves its trustworthiness with evidence, hence, contrary to religion, does not require faith of any sort!

al8

13th June 2009, 02:30

Ridicule and persecution of religious persons directly infringes on the individual right to believe whatever one wants to believe.

I don't believe in individual rights for reactionaries. I don't celebrate difference in the abstract. I don't have a liberal, anything-goes attitude, nor the "let's live in peace with the cuddly piranhas" one of the socialdemocrat. I don't think that kind of attitude is healthy. It might be politically expedient, but in the same manner as peeing in your pants gets you warmth.

I agree with you, I think religion is nonsense. But I also recognize the fact that we all are different, some christians are actually egalitarian, and although they will not admit it, socialist in nature.

I don't agree, I think of them as no more than trojan horses -- as a shield for the more genuine -- and misguided and foolish at best.

Believe it or not, your definition of 'nonsense' is not a valid one, it's your own opinion, for you to wish to force your belief on others, is hardly leftist at all! it is borgeouis, it is exactly what we are dealing with to this day. I do not believe you are being rational, I believe your emotional and personal reaction quite clearly clouds your judgement on this subject!

I am pushing a non-belief, more than a set belief. My final aim is that religion become a mute point, it being eradicated. The bourgeois take every means available to stupefy and pacify the working class, I merely want to do the opposite. Religion as an organized force has not only been kith and kin with the ruling classes, but developed up from that relationship and is part and parcel of the establishment. I try to fashion my attitude accordingly.

You would like to have the power to control people's thoughts? And you dare call yourself an advocate of human liberation?

I dare because I'm actually fighting for human liberation this way. I don't advocate human liberation in the abstract. I do advocate human liberation, but through power and suppression of the enemies of human liberation, namely the reactionaries.

The above hypothetical is merely a hypothetical and should be taken as such. I am saying I find nothing holy about thoughts in peoples heads, however they are not my direct target - the issue is not with thought control like you liberal types go on about - it's science fiction and not even technically feasible. The issue is with the little more laborious means, than that of pushing a button, of suffocating religion through abolishing it's public presence.

Who gets to decide what counts as "nonsense?" You?

And don't try to get out of this problem by claiming that it's "self-evident" what counts as nonsense, or other such crap. If it were self-evident that you were right, everyone would agree with you. As long as there are people who don't agree with you - as long as there is controversy on any topic - you can either (a) allow people to believe what they want on that topic, or (b) empower a group of people to police others' beliefs.

So, which group of people do you want to empower to police religious beliefs? How shall the members of this group be selected? What methods shall they be allowed to use? After all, we can't trust the majority to police religious beliefs - the majority might be infiltrated by secret theists. We need to screen members of the thought police for the purity of their commitment to atheism.

To answer your first questions; Those who will and can, basically.

I can see the program for the suppression of religions public visibility take on various forms and have all manner of actors. I don't see much point in elaborating hypotheticals for you, since it's not a project you intend to be involved in to any positive extent. You also lack the realistic imagination, willingly perhaps, to envision the demise of your pet superstition (and that's ok). I gather that from your phrase "policing belief" - as if beliefs are people - and your 1984 caricature mongering in general, that you're not asking sincerely.

Replacing "Tomhet" with "Kwisatz Haderach," the answer is yes. Laws should only restrict people's actions...

Agreed, because that is dictated by the practicality of the matter at hand. But I suspect we disagree on what counts as actions to be restricted.

, or, at most, their right to actively spread certain beliefs that pose an immediate danger to society (and I mean immediate, like "let's support this imperialist power that threatens our revolution," not like "let's support this thing that may or may not be dangerous at some vague point in the future"). Laws should never restrict people's right to passively believe something, and outside emergency situations they should not restrict people's right to actively spread their beliefs either.

Surprisingly I mostly agree with you this time. However things need to be taken on a subject by subject basis. Your approach does not provide protection against the damage that can accumulate if allowed to germinate, like an open show of misogynistic attitudes over time which can have negative effects on female liberation and self worth. And that is a fault. Such things need to be dealt with harshly and with much fuss for the perpetrator(s). Much like with religion, but I know you conveniently take a liking to lax standards, no doubt because you want to create space for your religion to survive.

After all, your example of a belief pretty much describes what you believe about me, doesn't it? My existence as a religious person offends you. And that's ok - you should be allowed to be as offended as you like.

Not quite, but somewhat of course. I was taking an extreme example and it was not directly with you mind. You are a rare occurrence, Kwasatz, you are a mix of good communism (for the most part) and completely and hopelessly brainwashed when it comes to religion. Sometimes when you give good replies in the OI it's like seeing a donkey talk, it's unreal. :p

Of course, your argument is a strawman because no major religion holds the belief that a certain group of people should be killed, but I've long since given up on attempting to make you understand logical argumentation.

Killing is not the only damage organized religious agents can incite to happen or commit. But anyway, it's in their arsenal though, can and has been used in the past. Nearest example to come to my mind was the mass sloughter by agents of the Iranian theocracy of communist militants. And another one closer to home of an acquaintance who got poisoned (fortunately survived) by a christian who believed him to be possessed by the devil.

And your sure one to talk with regard to logical argumentation, proudly flaunting your reliance on belief without and despite evidence, e.g faith. Your stance isn't a reasonable one by definition. There is not much to discuss if you throw reason and evidence out the window as a principle. I might as well be talking to wall for that matter.

trivas7

13th June 2009, 15:28

I am pushing a non-belief, more than a set belief. My final aim is that religion become a mute point, it being eradicated. The bourgeois take every means available to stupefy and pacify the working class, I merely want to do the opposite. Religion as an organized force has not only been kith and kin with the ruling classes, but developed up from that relationship and is part and parcel of the establishment. I try to fashion my attitude accordingly.

Your hatred for religion is palpable. For most, this makes socialism a non-starter. W/ liberators like you (the Chinese government comes to mind), who needs oppressors?

danyboy27

16th June 2009, 01:59

i think its all a matter of democracy.

i mean, if a town or a city decide to remove all religious symbol from public place, its their choice, the majority decide.

there is no need for all that hatred and opression al8 stand for, people should be free of doing whatever they want has long has you do not infringe other people right. Dirrect democracy would ensure that, if a x group of people want to do this or that, its their own choice, their vote, their democracy.

we dont need another stalin/mao to tell us what to do or what do ban, this is something i think we are grown up enough to do has a community.

its beccause of people like al8 that i have to fight my way out everyday to explain to people that Stalin communism isnt communism.

i dont want to insult you al8, but i dont get it, how the fuck could you praise communism, an ideology that have freedom and equality at its verry core and advocate religious segregation and limitation of freedom for a certain class of people?

i am communist, i am an atheist and i dont give a fuck of what my other comrade believe, i dont think that beccause i belong to a certain kind beccause i dont believe in god, i think this kind of thinking is borderline fascist.

Bud Struggle

16th June 2009, 02:09

its beccause of people like al8 that i have to fight my way out everyday to explain to people that Stalin communism isnt communism.

That's a good point. Unfortunately it's guys like al8 that get all of the press and make people fear and loath Communism. It's sad really, because Communism really has so much to offer mankind.

Good post spet.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

16th June 2009, 02:19

That's a good point. Unfortunately it's guys like al8 that get all of the press and make people fear and loath Communism.

You mean "guys like al8" that had Orthodox priests on their payroll? The USSR was not as anti-theist as you may have been led to believe. I'm pretty sure the Soviet hierarchy had no problems using religious authority to shore up their own, much like ruling classes have done throughout the ages.

danyboy27

16th June 2009, 02:27

You mean "guys like al8" that had Orthodox priests on their payroll? The USSR was not as anti-theist as you may have been led to believe. I'm pretty sure the Soviet hierarchy had no problems using religious authority to shore up their own, much like ruling classes have done throughout the ages.

by guy like al8 we meant people who want to use communism in order to achieve their agenda against people from different religious and social background.

he explicitely said that he dont believe that people like tomk shouldnt have any right at all.

Hell, itsjust a different version of what the ussr been doing toward minorities, jews and other different kind of people.

discrimination is discrimination, no matter if you want the black people to sit in the back of the bus or deprive christian people of their freedom.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

16th June 2009, 04:11

by guy like al8 we meant people who want to use communism in order to achieve their agenda against people from different religious and social background.

What agenda would that be?

he explicitely said that he dont believe that people like tomk shouldnt have any right at all.

Any right to do what?

Hell, itsjust a different version of what the ussr been doing toward minorities, jews and other different kind of people.

discrimination is discrimination, no matter if you want the black people to sit in the back of the bus or deprive christian people of their freedom.

Freedom to do what?

It seems to me that both you and TomK are screaming "oppression", but are being very hazy on details. TomK is particularly good at writing fuzzy, feel-good platitudes with a semantical content approaching zero.

trivas7

16th June 2009, 11:44

It's sad really, because Communism really has so much to offer mankind.

IYO, what exactly?

danyboy27

16th June 2009, 12:18

What agenda would that be?

to get rid of the reactionaries and socially indesirable people. people who believe in god, people with different views

What agenda would that be?

Any right to do what?

to practice their religion without being persecuted, to be able to practice their religion in their temple, to be able to show their religious symbols in public.

Freedom to do what?

to practice the religion they want without having someone coercing them into thinking otherwise

It seems to me that both you and TomK are screaming "oppression", but are being very hazy on details. TomK is particularly good at writing fuzzy, feel-good platitudes with a semantical content approaching zero.

i hope you are enjoying the precision i made.

i am against coercion, forcing people to do stuff they dont want to do, wether it is caused by capitalism, communism or fascism.

al8 totalitarism make me sick at the same level my current capitalist society make me sick.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

16th June 2009, 13:47

I can't speak for al8, but I will speak up for him.

to get rid of the reactionaries and socially indesirable people. people who believe in god, people with different views

Everyone has a different view. This would hold true even if everyone was an atheist. I highly doubt al8 is intent on getting rid of everyone.

to practice their religion without being persecuted, to be able to practice their religion in their temple, to be able to show their religious symbols in public. What if society as a whole considers their religious practise(s) objectionable?

Where do the resources come from to build and maintain their temple?

Why is it necessary for them to show their religious symbols in public?

to practice the religion they want without having someone coercing them into thinking otherwiseNobody can control thoughts, only behaviour can be controlled. If a Christian fascist attempted to convert me at gunpoint, I would say the right words and go through the right motions to save my skin, but in my head I still would not believe.

Minds cannot be changed by bodily torture, but they can be broken.

But a broken shell is precisely the opposite of the healthy mindset borne of skeptical enquiry that I seek to make the baseline. A broken shell will grovel and tell you exactly what they think you want to hear, but an upstanding human, standing before you as an equal, will tell you what's on their mind.

In short, torture, murder and so on are useless tools for destroying religion. If anything, they're not just useless, but actively counterproductive, since it tends to produce martyrs. The real serious believers are perfectly willing to die for their religion. I figure sticking them on the back of a garbage truck, instead of granting them the glamourous martyrdom they so desperately seek, will do wonders for taking the wind out of the sails of such glory-hunters, but hey, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

al8 totalitarism make me sick at the same level my current capitalist society make me sick.If you wanna feel sick, how, about you read Gibbon's account of what a Christian mob did to Hypatia of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_of_Alexandria):

"Hypatia, the daughter of Theon the mathematician, was initiated in her father's studies; her learned comments have elucidated the geometry of Apollonius and Diophantus; and she publicly taught, both at Athens and Alexandria, the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. In the bloom of beauty, and in the maturity of wisdom, the modest maid refused her lovers and instructed her disciples; the persons most illustrious for their rank or merit were impatient to visit the female philosopher; and Cyril beheld, with jealous eye, the gorgeous train of horses and slaves who crowded the door of her academy. A rumor was spread among the Christians, that the daughter of Theon was the only obstacle to the reconciliation of the prefect and the archbishop; and that obstacle was speedily removed. On a fatal day, in the holy season of Lent, Hypatia was torn from her chariot, stripped naked, dragged to the church, and inhumanly butchered by the hands of Peter the reader and a troop of savage and merciless fanatics: her flesh was scraped from her bones with sharp oyster-shells, and her quivering limbs were delivered to the flames. The just progress of inquiry and punishment was stopped by seasonable gifts; but the murder of Hypatia has imprinted an indelible stain on the character and religion of Cyril of Alexandria."

Another account has it that she was dragged to death, but I don't think that mitigates the crime in the least.

And that was just the start of a slow, bloody process in which the Pagan religions of Antiquity were casually fed through the meatgrinder of the Church and into the offal bin of history.

Bud Struggle

16th June 2009, 18:45

IYO, what exactly?

Equality and all that stuff. Don't worry, we'll never see it thanks to guys like al8.

Bud Struggle

16th June 2009, 18:52

What if society as a whole considers their religious practise(s) objectionable? So they do. What if society finds homosexuality objectionable--want to obliterate that, too?

Where do the resources come from to build and maintain their temple? People can do what they may with their time and their talent. Such things don't belong to the state.

Why is it necessary for them to show their religious symbols in public? In a free society people should be able to do as they want.

Nobody can control thoughts, only behaviour can be controlled. If a Christian fascist attempted to convert me at gunpoint, I would say the right words and go through the right motions to save my skin, but in my head I still would not believe. And if an Athiest Fascist atempted to convert me to non belief at gunpoint--I still wouldn't lack faith.

Kwisatz Haderach

16th June 2009, 18:59

I owe several replies to several people, so here goes...

What if society as a whole considers their religious practise(s) objectionable?
What if society as a whole considers homosexuality objectionable? (which, by the way, is a much more realistic scenario than society considering religion objectionable)

Let me guess: You will say that there are some things that people should be allowed to do, even in public, no matter how objectionable other people consider those activities to be.

Yes. Exactly.

Where do the resources come from to build and maintain their temple?
From the entertainment budget. Every socialist or communist society must set aside certain resources to be spent on activities that do not produce any physical objects but provide entertainment value for people. Religion is one such activity.

Now, it is true that building a temple will not provide entertainment for everyone. It will only provide entertainment for the people who believe in the religion of that temple. But the same is true for all other entertainment venues: Football stadiums only provide entertainment for people who like football, and so on.

If society can have sports stadiums, movie theaters, concert halls, TV stations and so on, then it can also have churches and temples, and they should be given the same status as other entertainment buildings.

Why is it necessary for them to show their religious symbols in public?
Because everyone should be allowed to wear whatever clothes and accessories they want in public. Not to mention that many religious symbols are simple geometric shapes (like the cross or crescent moon).

A broken shell will grovel and tell you exactly what they think you want to hear, but an upstanding human, standing before you as an equal, will tell you what's on their mind.
And if religion is on their mind?

And that was just the start of a slow, bloody process in which the Pagan religions of Antiquity were casually fed through the meatgrinder of the Church and into the offal bin of history.
Actually, by the account you quoted, this was a politically motivated murder designed to remove "the only obstacle to the reconciliation of the prefect and the archbishop."

In any case, extreme and gruesome violence was commonplace in history. It was carried out by every imaginable group against every other imaginable group, for just about any reason.

trivas7

16th June 2009, 19:14

From the entertainment budget. Every socialist or communist society must set aside certain resources to be spent on activities that do not produce any physical objects but provide entertainment value for people. Religion is one such activity.

I smell a red herring. Secular society doesn't consider religion entertainment; neither do religionists consider religious activity entertainment. Why should society support all religious activity? It would be easier to make movie-going mandatory.

Kwisatz Haderach

16th June 2009, 20:06

August, I will reply to your post next, because I've been keeping you waiting for too long.

I certainly did lose sight - apologies on my behalf. I shall focus solely on your original point; if you'd like me to respond to your careful deconstruction of my previous argument, I can do so, but for now I'll return to the issue at hand.
I often go on a tangent as new arguments come to mind while I'm thinking about the main point - I don't mind if you don't reply to these tangents (like the one at the end of this post, for example), though of course it's always nice to get a response. :)

Are you sure? What qualifies as proof? What qualifies as "believing things?"

Faith is belief without/despite evidence. Do you consider experience to be evidence? What about logical/rational induction/deduction?
By "proof" I mean empirical evidence that you gathered for yourself, or deduction or induction based on information about the universe that you gathered for yourself.

Basically, I'm saying that any information about the universe that you know solely based on the words of other people cannot be considered reliable without some degree of faith.

Or to put it differently: To be entirely faithless, you would have to assume that everyone is lying to you unless they can prove otherwise. And if one person, say "Mary", comes to you and says something, she would have to prove she is telling the truth without reference to the words of a third person - say "Jack" - because you're assuming Jack is lying, too. For example, if Albert Einstein comes to you, he has to prove he is telling the truth without reference to the works of Newton or Galileo, because you're assuming Newton and Galileo are lying too. Everything must be proven to you based on your own personal observations. So in order to make you believe modern physics, you would have to be shown every experiment ever used in the history of physics, so you can personally verify its results.

Otherwise you're relying on the faith that certain people around you are telling the truth, and/or that majority opinion is true.

Does a child believe that something is bad/wrong when they are told not to do it? Or do they merely follow command? Are you sure that this person believes 'just because other people say' to? What about visual confirmation? Sensual confirmation? Conditioning?

A child is told not to walk into the street and obeys the command of the adult. Does this child believe that it is bad to do so? Or are they merely obeying orders? Do the cars flying by count as 'proof?' Is this child capable of making the induction that these cars are traveling at a high speed and are much larger than the child - and hence this is a dangerous situation?
In your example, the child can confirm that his parents' words are true from personal experience: He can see the street. But if he could not see the street, he would have no reason to trust that his parents are telling the truth.

A faithless child should not believe it is dangerous to cross a street until he can see the dangerous street for himself. If he is told not to cross the street, but he is blindfolded and wears earplugs so he cannot see or hear the cars, then he has no reason to believe there is any danger. Except faith/trust in his parents.

The link was interesting but I fail to make the connection.
Solaria is a planet in Asimov's universe where people live in complete isolation from each other, with robots attending to their every need. It is considered taboo for one human to be in the physical presence of another.

Basically, when I said faithless people would have to live like the Solarians, I meant they would have to be hermits - although they could be high-tech hermits - because that is the only way you can avoid having to trust other people.

In general, anti-theists seek to eradicate religious faith. For we all are crippled by our faith in truth.
Which leads to the question, what is wrong with religious faith? Given that faith, or trusting other people's words even when they don't provide you with evidence, is not necessarily bad, why is religious faith bad?

I never got a satisfactory answer to the question: even if atheism is absolutely correct, why should we take any action against religious faith?

The answers I tend to get fall under two categories:

(a) Because religion is false.
(b) Because religion can motivate people to do evil things.

In response to (a), I say, so what? What if religion is false? How does that make it necessarily bad?

I am a communist, and a Christian. I believe it is important to persuade as many people as possible to become communists. I also believe it is important to persuade as many people as possible to become Christians. But I will generally not attempt to do both at the same time. If I met, say, a Muslim conservative, I would either try to push him in the direction of communism or in the direction of Christianity, depending on what seems easier. Challenging both his politics and his religion at the same time is a bad strategy, because it makes it nearly certain that he will not listen to what I have to say. So if I choose to engage him on political issues, for example, I will be careful to say nothing against Islam and I will even try to show him how communism can be based on Islam. In doing so, I would be supporting a belief that I consider to be false.

But so what? If I can serve a good purpose by using a false belief, then I will use it.

So I simply cannot wrap my head around the strange anti-theist notion that false = bad, especially when (I assume) they would not be opposed to the use of lies against our political enemies.

In response to (b), I say yes, religion can motivate people to do anything - good or evil. Anti-theists casually dismiss examples of religiously-motivated good acts with the claim that good people would do good things even without religion. True, but by the same token, evil people would also do evil things without religion. And, to counter Dawkins, religion can get evil people to do good things - out of fear, if nothing else.

If we could use religion to scare the shit out of a sociopath and make him act like an upstanding citizen, why shouldn't we?

Kwisatz Haderach

16th June 2009, 20:11

I smell a red herring. Secular society doesn't consider religion entertainment; neither do religionists consider religious activity entertainment. Why should society support all religious activity? It would be easier to make movie-going mandatory.
From a purely atheistic point of view, religion is a useless activity that provides the people engaging in it with a sense of happiness or fulfillment - for no good logical reason.

So is football from the point of view of someone who doesn't enjoy football. Why should society spend vast amounts of resources on building huge stadiums where large crowds of people can watch 22 guys running after a ball?

Because some people like that sort of thing. And they like it a lot. No further justification is necessary.

trivas7

16th June 2009, 22:16

So is football from the point of view of someone who doesn't enjoy football. Why should society spend vast amounts of resources on building huge stadiums where large crowds of people can watch 22 guys running after a ball?

B/c someone is willing to pay for them.

Because some people like that sort of thing. And they like it a lot. No further justification is necessary.Society has no stake in supporting everybody's religious activities. And good luck reconciling your views w/ those of al8 after the revolution; indeed yours is the mirror image of his authoritarian stance.

Kwisatz Haderach

16th June 2009, 23:07

B/c someone is willing to pay for them. [...] Society has no stake in supporting everybody's religious activities.
I was assuming a socialist society, where everyone has a stake in supporting every activity. Individuals will not pay for stadiums or churches because the funding for all building projects must be provided by the state (or whoever represents society as a whole).

A socialist society will necessarily have to support some activities that are enjoyed by only part of the population, if those activities are to exist at all.

If I can't have my church because you're not religious, then why should you have your stadium when I don't like football?

And good luck reconciling your views w/ those of al8 after the revolution;
I have no intention of reconciling my views with his. I intend to have my side outvote his side. And I expect that to be a very easy task.

trivas7

17th June 2009, 00:01

If I can't have my church because you're not religious, then why should you have your stadium when I don't like football?

No one should prevent you from having your church; I don't expect society to pay for mine.

I have no intention of reconciling my views with his. I intend to have my side outvote his side. And I expect that to be a very easy task.Either way I as an individual don't get to choose what I support or not.

Kwisatz Haderach

17th June 2009, 00:11

No one should prevent you from having your church; I don't expect society to pay for mine.
Society pays for everything, always - in terms of opportunity costs if nothing else. "Your" money is merely a fraction of the total product of society that has been given to you to dispose of as you please.

Decolonize The Left

17th June 2009, 00:28

August, I will reply to your post next, because I've been keeping you waiting for too long.

Nonsense. You do as you wish and I respond when I have time - a discussion such as this one ought not be rushed.

By "proof" I mean empirical evidence that you gathered for yourself, or deduction or induction based on information about the universe that you gathered for yourself.

Basically, I'm saying that any information about the universe that you know solely based on the words of other people cannot be considered reliable without some degree of faith.

Perhaps - perhaps not. Counter-example (which is also a counter to your previous response regarding the child/street example; your responses were noted):
A child is raised in isolation from other individuals other than one parent. This parent teaches said child as we have previously indicated (empirical evidence, deduction/induction based on self-gathered information). Now arises a situation whereby the parent indicates to the child that X is the case without demonstrated empirical evidence (whether or not X actually is the case is irrelevant to this example).
The child is confronted with a dilemma - one which you have described as the 'leap of faith' whereby the child is to decide solely based upon the words of another. My question is, is this faith? Has not the child a history of previously positively sustained experiences whereby what the adult told him/her was actually true? Is this current example not merely another induction whereby the child makes the decision to believe the adult based upon a history of coherency?

Or to put it differently: To be entirely faithless, you would have to assume that everyone is lying to you unless they can prove otherwise. And if one person, say "Mary", comes to you and says something, she would have to prove she is telling the truth without reference to the words of a third person - say "Jack" - because you're assuming Jack is lying, too. For example, if Albert Einstein comes to you, he has to prove he is telling the truth without reference to the works of Newton or Galileo, because you're assuming Newton and Galileo are lying too. Everything must be proven to you based on your own personal observations. So in order to make you believe modern physics, you would have to be shown every experiment ever used in the history of physics, so you can personally verify its results.

It appears to me as though you are caught in a conceptual cage. You wish to describe what it would be like to be completely faithless, yet you remain reliant upon the concepts good/bad/evil/true/false. To be completely faithless is precisely to be beyond these concepts. Each of these concepts requires a faith in truth, the truth of metaphysics.

To be clearer, it requires a faith in truth beyond oneself.

Solaria is a planet in Asimov's universe where people live in complete isolation from each other, with robots attending to their every need. It is considered taboo for one human to be in the physical presence of another.

Basically, when I said faithless people would have to live like the Solarians, I meant they would have to be hermits - although they could be high-tech hermits - because that is the only way you can avoid having to trust other people.

I disagree. One can have plenty of interactions with others without faith, they merely aren't as comfortable as we currently understand interactions.

Which leads to the question, what is wrong with religious faith? Given that faith, or trusting other people's words even when they don't provide you with evidence, is not necessarily bad, why is religious faith bad?

I never got a satisfactory answer to the question: even if atheism is absolutely correct, why should we take any action against religious faith?

The answers I tend to get fall under two categories:

(a) Because religion is false.
(b) Because religion can motivate people to do evil things.

Neither of these answers are sufficient.
a) is too obvious to be of any use anymore. This answer was useful when individuals still believed the 'holy books' to be written by god, and to be 100% true. Once the plethora of contradictions surfaced, and history began to take form (whereby we could understand how human beings wrote, edited, and reproduced these books), the idea that religion is true is a bit too commonplace to be piercing as an argument.
We see now that religion is forced to adapt to its smaller home. It is forced to either hold fast to broken traditions, or melt it's fetters into 'compromises' with changing times. The falsity of religion is only becoming more apparent - it need not be argued.
b) You provide a sufficient counter-argument.

I offer a more powerful argument:
Religion devalues human existence.

What do I mean? I mean that religion posits supernatural phenomena and subsequently devalues natural phenomena. The ultimate conclusion of this process is to devalue human life. This is done primarily through the idea of immortality, the soul, and the afterlife (heaven/hell). By positing these ideas as truth(!), religion succeeds in making this life less valuable due its transitory appearance.

What is more valuable? This body, or this soul?
What is more valuable? This life, or the after-life?
What is more valuable? Me? Or god?

You may argue that religion ought to be understood as heightening the focus upon this life through the idea of the afterlife. Yet this counter-argument ignores the totality of the situation.
For if this counter-argument is to be treated fairly, then we must immediately establish whether or not the afterlife exists! For if it does not, then the counter-argument is pointless as the posited context is non-existent. If it does, then the argument holds water for it actually contextualizes life itself. We can immediately see that this can never be determined, and hence we cannot treat the argument fairly because it is irrational.

- August