Atheism

[Adil3tr]

Would you say that some atheists have turned their idea, a end to hatred or smug sense of superiority based on beliefs, into hatred or a smug sense of superiority based on their beliefs? It just seems to me some atheists hate religion just as much as fundamentalists of different religions hate each other.

[Wanted Man]

There is a pretty big thread on this here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/logical-extreme-new-t138790/index.html

[Raúl Duke]

When will this litany of threads on atheism end?


It just seems to me some atheists hate religion just as much as fundamentalists of different religions hate each other. I don't really care if they hate religion, since it is nonsense no matter how you spin it; that's not an issue.

Perhaps what you are implying is that atheists hate the religious, but as it's plainly obvious in real life atheists do not "discriminate" or insult the religious for being religious constantly nor do most of them bother themselves with insulting religion constantly.

It may seem this way on this forum, but that's because the purpose of a forum is to discuss things. If you make a thread about religion, it's obvious that you will get people's opinion that religion is nonsense.

[Joseph_McCarthy]

I beleive that people need to study their own religions to realize the fallacies that exist within them and how they've been used to control them, I believe that one day free thought will emerge and people won't interpret ancient literature as fact.

I don't beleive that atheism should be enforced upon anyone, but I hope more people reject organized religion and stop basing their lives on what they beleive a tyrannical deity wants them to do. The people should be free from this kind of mental enslavement.

[Terminator X]

I'm tired of people associating atheism with "hatred." I simply wish to live without religious influence or domination in my life. If others wish to subscribe to religion, fine, but I don't actively endorse it. Of course, if someone brings up religion around me, I'll give my opinion and attempt to open their eyes to the inherent fallacies, but I don't actively try to convert people to "atheism" nor profess "hate" for those with a different lifestyle than I.

If that's "smug" then so be it.

[Adil3tr]

No No, I'm just saying that there are some smug douch athiests. The revolutionaries on this site seem fine, or if they hate religion, they at least aren't assholes about it. Really, I believe people will do this with anything, religion, anti religion, nationalism, politics.

[The Vegan Marxist]

No No, I'm just saying that there are some smug douch athiests. The revolutionaries on this site seem fine, or if they hate religion, they at least aren't assholes about it. Really, I believe people will do this with anything, religion, anti religion, nationalism, politics.

The only douche bag atheist I've ever seen is Christopher Hitchens. Other than that, I think it's just that more & more people are becoming proud of being atheists. The 21st century are the years of when many atheists finally came out of their closets. It's uplifting movement.

[praxis1966]

The only douche bag atheist I've ever seen is Christopher Hitchens.

You obviously haven't read Bakunin then. He was pretty douchey about his atheism as well. I love him for it, but then again I'm a pretty big douche myself. Ask anybody.


It just seems to me some atheists hate religion just as much as fundamentalists of different religions hate each other.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once: Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

[chegitz guevara]

Every belief system is full of smug douchebags. Check out RevLeft.com for a bunch of smug douchebags in favor of revolution ... oh wait.

[IllicitPopsicle]

@Chegitz: Why are you such a smug douchebag? jeez... :cool:

[chegitz guevara]

I am NOT smug!

[IllicitPopsicle]

Neener neener.

No, I'm not being serious. :P

But to the OP: That's their personal decision. It's better to just let them talk. Usually they'll do a good job about making themselves look like idiots. The real atheists are much, much nicer about it.

[praxis1966]

The real atheists are much, much nicer about it.

Kinda like real Christians know that their religion is all about brotherly love?:p

[chegitz guevara]

I used to go to a weekly atheist meeting. It conflicts with my anarchist/communist study group now, so I haven't been in a while. Some people are atheist evangelists, but most of us are live-and-let-live kinda folks who just don't want religion shoved down our throats.

[NGNM85]

I make no secret of my dislike for religion. However, this is not bigotry on my part, this is in no way comparable to the intolerence and bile spewed by bishops and clerics around the world. I'm not pre-judging it, I'm judging it. It's an asessment based on facts and observations. I read the passages which treat women as property, preach homosexuality is an abomination, that heretics will and should be condemned to eternal suffering, all the hatred and blatant exhortations to violence these books contain. Then I ponder the blood-soaked history of these documents, from Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, to modern Islamic Jihad. I see images of more honor killings, terrorist martyrs, abortion-clinic bombings, and burning crosses. I read headlines of a woman being run over by a car and killed for wearing makeup and western clothes, thousands cry out for the death of Salman Rushdie, simply for writing a piece of fiction that apparently offends the Prophet, and religious groups successfully defeating gay marriage in California. When you add it all up it's amazing people can still defend this institution. I make absolutely no apologies for how I feel about religion. Any thorough analysis will lead to the ultimate conclusion that this dogma is nothing short of the antithesis of civilization.

[Adil3tr]

Thats what I'm talking about, you know damn well most people who believe in god aren't crazy. As for the violent passages, those are just little bits made big by the church a long time ago. There are tons of socialist passages as well. I am not a very religious person, and believe me, the idea of missionaries really pisses me off. I don't believe in public prayer or group religion, but I don't support group and angry atheism. I guess I just religion to fade over time to something spiritual, but rational, where compassion is the greatest virtue.

[chegitz guevara]

That depends on how you define crazy. If I made a convincing argument that I believed in unicorns and fairies, most folks would consider me crazy. I fail to see the substantive difference.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Religion is an idea that exists and will continue to exist as long as we have a society based on the exploitation and oppression of one class by another. For many people the only way to get through the day is by having something that offers the potential for a better existance outside of the day to day drudgery of capitalism. Only workers who develop a class consciousness and an understanding of the benefits of socialist society can see the alternatives to the utopias of religion.

I am an athiest - but I do not hate religion. I recognise that some people need religion in their lives - just to make their lives bearable. I defend the right of every individual to practice their religion as long as they don't attempt to impose those religious beliefs on others. However, there is a difference between individuals who practice religion and a religious hierarchy who operate as an arm of the state. The religious hierarchy must be opposed as any other facet of oppression. It must be done skillfully in order to differentiate the needs of individuals from those of the hierarchy. In Ireland it has been quite easy over the past period given the attempts by both the state and the Catholic hierarchy to hide paedophiles and their activities.

Working class people, as their class consciousness develops, will eventually realise that religion holds no future for them. Until that time Marxists must skillfully defend their right to practice their religion while at the same time pointing out the oppressive role of their religious institutions.

[Adil3tr]

That depends on how you define crazy. If I made a convincing argument that I believed in unicorns and fairies, most folks would consider me crazy. I fail to see the substantive difference.

Comparing jesus to unicorns isn't going to win people over.

[NecroCommie]

Comparing jesus to unicorns isn't going to win people over.
How would you go about explaining that there is no fundamental difference between religions and any other silly superstition?

[danyboy27]

yea, some atheist are smuggy, but please understand us, we live in a era where people are blowing themselves up so they can get to paradise, where religous folks in north america praise that jesus assasinate hugo chavez, where creationist try to demonstrate that jesus walked along with the dinosaurs, where ignorant mutiltate the genital of their children over some fucking misinterpretation about a book, where people attach the mentally ill at three and left to die beccause they are supposedely cursed, where politician try to ban gay union and make sodomy illegal.

i think a healthy dose of smugness is normal, considering the number of batshit insane stuff going on.

[Adil3tr]

But people would do the same for "freedom." Religion is an idea that people are loyal to, its not like two christian countries never fought each other.

[chegitz guevara]

Comparing jesus to unicorns isn't going to win people over.

I'm not interested in winning people over to atheism. I avoid discussions of religion with theists in the real world. As religious belief is based on emotion, I have no ability to "win" a rational discussion. I'm just pointing out a fact here.

[Jolly Red Giant]

yea, some atheist are smuggy, but please understand us, we live in a era where people are blowing themselves up so they can get to paradise, where religous folks in north america praise that jesus assasinate hugo chavez, where creationist try to demonstrate that jesus walked along with the dinosaurs, where ignorant mutiltate the genital of their children over some fucking misinterpretation about a book, where people attach the mentally ill at three and left to die beccause they are supposedely cursed, where politician try to ban gay union and make sodomy illegal.
But that nonsense has always gone on - Marxists need to address the issue of religion in how it impacts on ordinary working class people and why they seek solace in it and need to act accordingly. To take issue with religion based on the fundementalist lunatic fringe confines those athiests to the lunatic fringe as well.

[727Goon]

I'm not religious, but one thing that pisses me off to no end is upper class liberal elitist atheists shitting on working class religious people.

[NGNM85]

Thats what I'm talking about, you know damn well most people who believe in god aren't crazy.

No, they aren't crazy, at least, not completely, but they hold some crazy beliefs. Religion is fundamentally irratuional, and reigious convinction, thus, has an inverse relationship with ones' capacity for rational thought. Simply the proposition that these are the best books ever written, begs incredulity. Let alone that they are the word of the omnipotent creator of the universe, all the way down to Jonah and the whale, (Sorry, 'big fish.') and the talking snake.



As for the violent passages, those are just little bits made big by the church a long time ago. There are tons of socialist passages as well.

No, there is an overwhelming amount of truly hateful morally abhorrent crap in those books. This concept that these are religions of love is simply the result of a well-orchestrated PR campaign. It's not just a drop in the bucket.



I am not a very religious person, and believe me, the idea of missionaries really pisses me off. I don't believe in public prayer or group religion, but I don't support group and angry atheism.

How should I react when homosexuals are denied equal rights, stem cell research (Which offers, perhaps, the most promise of perhaps any discovery in the history of medicine.) is continually railroaded, women's reproductive rights are in constant jeapordy, a harmless fiction writer is subject to global campaign calling for his death, women are set on fire for simply talking to a man who isn't their husband, abortion doctors are being executed, and at LEAST a third of US schools don't even teach evolution? I feel very justified in being pissed off about that. I think that's a very understandable reaction.




I guess I just religion to fade over time to something spiritual, but rational, where compassion is the greatest virtue.

I'm not going to hazard a guess as to what 'spiritual' means. If it's rational, it's not religion.

Religion also has nothing to do with compassion. People who are truly compassionate don't have to have it drilled into them, or to be persuaded with threats of eternal damnation. Compassion is a natural human characteristic. Throwing battery acid into the faces of young girls going to school, burning down abortion clinics, and strapping bombs to oneself are not natural behaviors. People have to learn that somewhere. Without religion, there's no reason to expect we'd suddenly be without the former, but we'd probably have a lot less of the latter.

[NGNM85]

I'm not religious, but one thing that pisses me off to no end is upper class liberal elitist atheists shitting on working class religious people.

I don't think anybody here fits that discription.

[Invincible Summer]

I'm not religious, but one thing that pisses me off to no end is upper class liberal elitist atheists shitting on working class religious people.

Again, I hate it when people (mostly here on Revleft) use this passive-aggressive technique to basically pin others for being "anti-working class" because of their anti-theism.


I don't care if you're working class or the goddamned CEO of Wal-Mart. If you tell your kids that the Tooth Fairy and Santa and Superman aren't real, yet go to church/mosque/synagogue/temple and pray/sacrifice/whatever to a god(s) and thank the god(s) for "blessings" then you're a big hypocrite that needs to wake the fuck up.

People say how religion can be compatible with communism, but I say it can act more as a deterrent... why go through all the trouble of starting a revolution when it's all up to god anyway?

[Adil3tr]

Fine, whatever. But you will never destroy religion, it can only fade away. People will cling their beliefs at the very hint of militant atheism. You are leaving a gaping hole for the capitalists to exploit. And just for the record, I'm a Muslim. I donate a quarter of my extra money a year to the poor and a once a year I sacrifice an animal to god and give the meat to the needy.

[Adi Shankara]

My thing is this: whenever you see a prominent atheist debate someone, they're always debating these back country preachers or non-theologians who are mostly pentecostal and evangelical in nature (so of course their arguments are going to be subjective, duh!) who look like they never had an education (the exception: Christopher Hitchens debating Douglas Wilson, who wasn't a complete nimrod) in theology or religious discourse.
Now I'm not a christian, but what I would like to see is the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc. debate christian intellectuals (before you make a joke, remember that the founder of quantum theory Max Planck and Leo Tolstoy were both Christians) like emeritus professor of philosophy at Oxford U. Richard Swineburne, Notre Dame theology/philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga, or Physicist/Mathematician Stephen D. Unwin.

only then would the atheist movement ever have hope of winning over religious intellectuals, because lets face it, very few religious people who have a university education could be considered dogmatic or evangelical, so it'd be interesting to see them actually have a christian who represents their views debate an atheist, not the 1000th Billy Graham knock off who hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

[this is an invasion]

"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished. "


I like that quote. But I don't really care if you're religious, as long as you can keep a lid on it.

[Adi Shankara]

"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished. "


I like that quote. But I don't really care if you're religious, as long as you can keep a lid on it.

But see, that's Bakunin having a western ignorance of eastern religion; in Hinduism, Buddhism,and Sikhism, there is no "god" in the traditional sense, that rules over all, or is all-powerful. in fact, in Hinduism, "gods" are bound to the same rules of Karma that humans are, unless they are free from Karma, of which they cease to exist and become a part of the flow of consciousness called Brahma, that we would otherwise call "time and space". (as easy as I can explain it)

(I may not be explaining that very well, but tl;dr Mikhail Bakunin takes a really incomplete western-biased stance on religion)

[727Goon]

But see, that's Bakunin having a western ignorance of eastern religion; in Hinduism, Buddhism,and Sikhism, there is no "god" in the traditional sense, that rules over all, or is all-powerful. in fact, in Hinduism, "gods" are bound to the same rules of Karma that humans are, unless they are free from Karma, of which they cease to exist and become a part of the flow of consciousness called Brahma.

(I may not be explaining that very well, but tl;dr Mikhail Bakunin takes a really incomplete western-biased stance on religion)

A european racist being euro-centric? Nonsense!

[Terminator X]

Fine, whatever. But you will never destroy religion, it can only fade away.

No atheist here is advocating the destruction of religion. We just want you to keep it out of our lives. If you want to sacrifice a cow, have at it. (Although, in a post-scarcity society, there wouldn't really be a need for you to give meat to the needy, as there would be no "needy.")

It's fairly ironic how the religious types here are projecting a false image of atheists as being these violent, oppressive, destructive, angry people, when organized religion is responsible for the majority of the major wars and violent deaths in world history.

[Adi Shankara]

If you want to sacrifice a cow, have at it.


It's fairly ironic how the religious types here are projecting a false image of atheists as being these violent, oppressive, destructive, angry people, when organized religion is responsible for the majority of the major wars and violent deaths in world history.

Also ironic: you saying "sacrificing a cow" in obvious reference/ignorance of Brahmin Hinduism, (when Hinduism holds cows sacred and not fit for sacrifice), in a conversation about knowledge of other people's beliefs.

it's okay, we all make mistakes. *ahem*

[Terminator X]

Also ironic: you saying "sacrificing a cow" in obvious reference/ignorance of Brahmin Hinduism, (when Hinduism holds cows sacred and not fit for sacrifice), in a conversation about knowledge of other people's beliefs.

it's okay, we all make mistakes. *ahem*

He said he was Muslim.

[Invincible Summer]

Also ironic: you saying "sacrificing a cow" in obvious reference/ignorance of Brahmin Hinduism, (when Hinduism holds cows sacred and not fit for sacrifice), in a conversation about knowledge of other people's beliefs.

it's okay, we all make mistakes. *ahem*

I don't see how he was saying that "in obvious reference" to Brahmin Hinduism. If anything, he was saying it to Adil3tr who is Muslim.



EDIT: DJ beat me to it.


Anyways, I actually think the whole "religions are responsible for more violence than atheism!" argument a bit weak. I think it's more effective to attack religion at the philosophical root.

[Terminator X]

Anyways, I actually think the whole "religions are responsible for more violence than atheism!" argument a bit weak. I think it's more effective to attack religion at the philosophical root.

I agree, it was more of a response to the repeated use of the words "destruction" and "angry" in reference to atheists throughout this thread.

[Adi Shankara]

He said he was Muslim.

But muslims don't sacrifice cattle (and when they do, it's very uncommon); they sacrifice sheep and goats, and they give it to the poor:


The meat would then be divided into three equal parts to be distributed to others. The family eats one third, another third is given to other relatives, friends or neighbours, and the other third is given to the poor as a gift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_ul-Adha#The_Hijrah

[Terminator X]

But muslims don't sacrifice cattle (and when they do, it's very uncommon); they sacrifice sheep and goats.



The sacrifice is done to help the poor and in remembrance of Prophet Abraham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham)'s willingness to sacrifice his son Ismail at God's command. The sacrificial animal may be a lamb, a sheep, a goat, a camel or a cow. The animal must be healthy and conscious.

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


Sure, it may be "uncommon," but it's still performed, so my reference wasn't completely inaccurate or off-base.

Regardless, I don't think the point of this thread is to discuss livestock. Back on topic.

[Adil3tr]

Also ironic: you saying "sacrificing a cow" in obvious reference/ignorance of Brahmin Hinduism, (when Hinduism holds cows sacred and not fit for sacrifice), in a conversation about knowledge of other people's beliefs.

it's okay, we all make mistakes. *ahem*

Actually I'm muslim, so that is what we do. We pay a butcher with another family to pay for the meat from a cow to go to the poor.

Also, I know some athiests, I have no problem with them, they seem nice enough. It's just some athiests take it too far. Have you read Chris Hedges?

[Revy]

I am going to teach my kids that I am God....and Jesus is the false god, and to spread the word of my gospel against the infidels.

[this is an invasion]

But see, that's Bakunin having a western ignorance of eastern religion; in Hinduism, Buddhism,and Sikhism, there is no "god" in the traditional sense, that rules over all, or is all-powerful. in fact, in Hinduism, "gods" are bound to the same rules of Karma that humans are, unless they are free from Karma, of which they cease to exist and become a part of the flow of consciousness called Brahma, that we would otherwise call "time and space". (as easy as I can explain it)

(I may not be explaining that very well, but tl;dr Mikhail Bakunin takes a really incomplete western-biased stance on religion)

That's tight, bro. We can be super PC and nitpick the words, or we can understand what he was saying, which is that religion is used by the ruling class to justify their existence.

[NGNM85]

My thing is this: whenever you see a prominent atheist debate someone, they're always debating these back country preachers or non-theologians who are mostly pentecostal and evangelical in nature (so of course their arguments are going to be subjective, duh!) who look like they never had an education (the exception: Christopher Hitchens debating Douglas Wilson, who wasn't a complete nimrod) in theology or religious discourse.
Now I'm not a christian, but what I would like to see is the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc. debate christian intellectuals (before you make a joke, remember that the founder of quantum theory Max Planck and Leo Tolstoy were both Christians) like emeritus professor of philosophy at Oxford U. Richard Swineburne, Notre Dame theology/philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga, or Physicist/Mathematician Stephen D. Unwin.

I also brought up Gregor Mendel, Francis Colins, and Louis Pasteur.

However, the central thesis is incorrect. Dawkins and Harris have debated with several prominant intellectuals; for example, Dawkins debated John Lennox (Who alse debated Christopher Hitchens.) and others. Harris has debated Dennis Prager, for example. Both have debated Deepak Chopra, who's intelligent, even though he is a crackpot. Dawkins does have a specific rule about debating creationists, he refuses to do so, anymore, because he thinks it just legitimizes their views.


only then would the atheist movement ever have hope of winning over religious intellectuals, because lets face it, very few religious people who have a university education could be considered dogmatic or evangelical, so it'd be interesting to see them actually have a christian who represents their views debate an atheist, not the 1000th Billy Graham knock off who hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

Again, Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens have debated a number of religious intellectuals.

Intellectual or otherwise winning over religious people is always a crapshoot because their beliefs aren't based on logic, and are, therefore fairly well insulated from it. I gave the example of Francis Collins, one of the worlds' leading genetists. If he applied the same intellectual rigor he applies in his genetics expiriments to his religious beliefs, they'd collapse immediately. Bill Maher did a short interview with him in Religilous that speaks volumes. All this proves is the frightening capacity that the human mind has for cognitive dissonance, for simultaneously advocating two fundamentally incompatible ideas.


But see, that's Bakunin having a western ignorance of eastern religion; in Hinduism, Buddhism,and Sikhism, there is no "god" in the traditional sense, that rules over all, or is all-powerful. in fact, in Hinduism, "gods" are bound to the same rules of Karma that humans are, unless they are free from Karma, of which they cease to exist and become a part of the flow of consciousness called Brahma, that we would otherwise call "time and space". (as easy as I can explain it)



Here you’re breaking one of the unwritten laws; ‘Thou shalt never critically compare religions.” I have been quite viciously attacked for this on this forum. In any case.. Buddhism, and Sikhism may not have the same structure as the Abrahamic faiths, and may have a substantially smaller bodycount. However, that doesn’t make it any less crazy. The real problem is dogmatism; total certitude based on zero evidence.

[NGNM85]

Anyways, I actually think the whole "religions are responsible for more violence than atheism!" argument a bit weak. I think it's more effective to attack religion at the philosophical root.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Besides, it's an absolute fact. Atheism is simply the logical refusal to accept extreme conclusions based on zero evidence. The problem with the Soviet Union under Stalin, the Third Reich (Especially because Hitler seems to have been a Christian.) or the Khmer Rouge wasn't an excess of reason, or critical analysis. The atrocities of Nazism, or Stalinism weren't the result of the absence of religion, it was because they were too much like religion. They were simply secular dogmas.

[Stephen Colbert]

I am going to teach my kids that I am God....and Jesus is the false god, and to spread the word of my gospel against the infidels.

The story of Jesus is on par with that of Santa or the Easter bunny. If you ask people if Santa is real when you are 30 years old people laugh and mock you at the absurdity. If you ask people if Jesus is real at 30 years old they bring you to their cult meeting :laugh:

[Revy]

The story of Jesus is on par with that of Santa or the Easter bunny. If you ask people if Santa is real when you are 30 years old people laugh and mock you at the absurdity. If you ask people if Jesus is real at 30 years old they bring you to their cult meeting :laugh:

I am not 30, but...

Is Bob Avakian real? :confused:

[Adi Shankara]

Intellectual or otherwise winning over religious people is always a crapshoot because their beliefs aren't based on logic, and are, therefore fairly well insulated from it. I gave the example of Francis Collins, one of the worlds' leading genetists. If he applied the same intellectual rigor he applies in his genetics expiriments to his religious beliefs, they'd collapse immediately. Bill Maher did a short interview with him in Religilous that speaks volumes. All this proves is the frightening capacity that the human mind has for cognitive dissonance, for simultaneously advocating two fundamentally incompatible ideas.

Here is what you're missing though; none of those guys above, with the exception of Gregor Mendel, none of those guys had any tertiary education in philosophy or theology; while Tolstoy nor Planck hadn't either, Planck wrote extensively on religion over the course of many years and indeed tied quantum theory to his own beliefs, while Tolstoy, like Dawkins, was a ruminator who didn't just decide to write about religion one day.

but even so, I saw the Francis Collins debate, and it wasn't a "cop-out" when he spoke of subjectivity; it was actually a good point in regards to the legendary "why are we here" question. I have yet to see the John Lennox Debate, but I will watch it for certain.

if anything, I think Collins rather put Dawkin's view of objectivity of subjective matters into place when he rebutted with this (borrowed from wiki):


I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as 'Why am I here?', 'What happens after we die?' If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion."[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_%28geneticist%29#cite_note-21)It's a good point. Dawkins nor Collins know the answer to the question "why are we here", and since no one knows, it's impossible to begin to make an objective stance on it.

[Stephen Colbert]

I am not 30, but...

Is Bob Avakian real? ;)

He's very real. Give him money or you are a sinner

[Adi Shankara]

Also, Francis Collins wasn't no fool who bought whatever he read; he spoke out against creationism, dogmatic belief, etc. of which he says evolution is a fully embraceable concept within Christianity.

[Coggeh]

It's a good point. Dawkins was being subjective himself, while attempting to be objective. Dawkins nor Collins know the answer to the question "why are we here", and since no one knows, it's impossible to begin to make an objective stance on it.Ever think why science haven't answered the why are we here question?
Cause its a dumb question to ask of a scientist. You can't just use the limits of science today to argue for an idea that has no scientific merit whatsoever. Its like saying Oh you don't know why the cookies got to the cookie jar ? their must have been a cookie god.

Or 10 thousand years ago when no one knew anything about the sun, they asked why is the sun there, the thing that gives us life, their must be a sun god. Which we know today as nonsense.

Science can tell you how we got here, the why are we here is just stupid because it can be answered by anyone in any number of ways. Such as me saying the reason we are here is to go forth and multiple and have huge orgies.. doesn't make it true(though i wish it was)

[NGNM85]

Here is what you're missing though; none of those guys above, with the exception of Gregor Mendel, none of those guys had any tertiary education in philosophy or theology; while Tolstoy nor Planck hadn't either, Planck wrote extensively on religion over the course of many years and indeed tied quantum theory to his own beliefs, while Tolstoy, like Dawkins, was a ruminator who didn't just decide to write about religion one day.

I was simply making the point that it’s true there have been some very brilliant religious scientists. However, this is by virtue of a cognitive dissonance which insulated their religious convictions from logic.


but even so, I saw the Francis Collins debate, and it wasn't a "cop-out" when he spoke of subjectivity; it was actually a good point in regards to the legendary "why are we here" question. I have yet to see the John Lennox Debate, but I will watch it for certain.

if anything, I think Collins rather put Dawkin's view of objectivity of subjective matters into place when he rebutted with this (borrowed from wiki):

I object to the idea that ANYTHING is ‘outside of nature.’ You can ask those questions, but that isn’t what Collins is doing. He doesn’t think there might be a god according to what he incorrectly describes as evidence, he absolutely believes it, moreover he absolutely believes in the Christian god, and the Passion, and the Resurrection, etc. These beliefs are logically indefensible.


It's a good point. Dawkins nor Collins know the answer to the question "why are we here", and since no one knows, it's impossible to begin to make an objective stance on it.

Again, I am presently unable to disprove the existence of Unicorns, that doesn’t mean that I should seriously consider their existence, or devote a substantial amount of my time to contemplating their nature.


Also, Francis Collins wasn't no fool who bought whatever he read; he spoke out against creationism, dogmatic belief, etc. of which he says evolution is a fully embraceable concept within Christianity.

His arguing against dogmatism is merely ironic. Christianity can be edited to be considered consistent with evolution, or anything else. Most Christians do this to one degree or another.

[727Goon]

That's tight, bro. We can be super PC and nitpick the words, or we can understand what he was saying, which is that religion is used by the ruling class to justify their existence.

It's not even about being PC, it's about being consistent. Obviously Eastern religions can be exploited by the ruling class to justify their existence, but in a much different way than Western religion, as they do not have the concept of a "Boss in the sky". If Bakunin had just been referring to the situation in Europe, it would have been okay, but since he was trying to speak universally it was clearly a Eurocentric statement that non-European cultures couldn't relate to.

[Adi Shankara]

Or 10 thousand years ago when no one knew anything about the sun, they asked why is the sun there, the thing that gives us life, their must be a sun god. Which we know today as nonsense.


Ah yes, the traditional folly of humanity--always liking to imagine that we're marching towards "progress" than backwards; nevermind that our ancestors were very advanced in many many ways, esp. in the realms of astronomy and such rumination, so far as they discovered the time the earth takes to go around the sun (the Mayans), the exact time stars would appear in our galaxy (also the Mayans) and concepts of probability, algebra, etc. (Africans and Arabs).

continue thinking that our ancestor's are simpletons. it really is a weak point, considering how advanced they were.


Again, I am presently unable to disprove the existence of Unicorns, that doesn’t mean that I should seriously consider their existence, or devote a substantial amount of my time to contemplating their nature.

and as ridiculous as it sounds, if you're trying to be entirely objective, you can't rule out the existence of pink unicorns either, hence why to me personally and many philosophers, objectivity isn't always the best tool for subjective matters like philosophy and religion.

until there is solid irrefutable proof either way, it's never going to be an objective matter.

[this is an invasion]

It's not even about being PC, it's about being consistent. Obviously Eastern religions can be exploited by the ruling class to justify their existence, but in a much different way than Western religion, as they do not have the concept of a "Boss in the sky". If Bakunin had just been referring to the situation in Europe, it would have been okay, but since he was trying to speak universally it was clearly a Eurocentric statement that non-European cultures couldn't relate to.

This is all that's important. Fuck Bakunin, that man is dead.

[RadioRaheem84]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Besides, it's an absolute fact. Atheism is simply the logical refusal to accept extreme conclusions based on zero evidence. The problem with the Soviet Union under Stalin, the Third Reich (Especially because Hitler seems to have been a Christian.) or the Khmer Rouge wasn't an excess of reason, or critical analysis. The atrocities of Nazism, or Stalinism weren't the result of the absence of religion, it was because they were too much like religion. They were simply secular dogmas.

Straight out of the Hitchens playbook. There is no scoresheet between religious and secular regimes. It's politcal interests that lie behind the killing in war, not religion. Like Bakunin said, fuck like all the classical anarchists have said; religion is just the justification for the status quo. Khomeini was just as much a political animal as his secular counterpart Carter. I think it legitimizes religion more when you differenciate so much and put religion on a higher plane than where it really is in the heirarchy.

[727Goon]

I wouldn't say fuck Bakunin, he was a political genius and his ideas are relevant today, but it is important to note that he was a racist and euro-centric.

[Adi Shankara]

Straight out of the Hitchens playbook. There is no scoresheet between religious and secular regimes. It's politcal interests that lie behind the killing in war, not religion. Like Bakunin said, fuck like all the classical anarchists have said; religion is just the justification for the status quo. Khomeini was just as much a political animal as his secular counterpart Carter. I think it legitimizes religion more when you differenciate so much and put religion on a higher plane than where it really is in the heirarchy.

I think people like him make all "anarchists" (since his status as an anarchist is debatable) completely foolish when they speak of things like the Israeli apartheid situatio as the stuff of religion, not capitalism. in fact, isn't that a non-marxist view?

Hell, he probably still thinks Osama Bin Laden is primarily motivated by religion.

[Coggeh]

Ah yes, the traditional folly of humanity--always liking to imagine that we're marching towards "progress" than backwards; nevermind that our ancestors were very advanced in many many ways, esp. in the realms of astronomy and such rumination, so far as they discovered the time the earth takes to go around the sun (the Mayans), the exact time stars would appear in our galaxy (also the Mayans) and concepts of probability, algebra, etc. (Africans and Arabs).

continue thinking that our ancestor's are simpletons. it really is a weak point, considering how advanced they were.
Nice quote mining.
Stop trying to turn my simple point into some 3rd worldist argument. Nobody is suggesting that they were simpletons or anything like that and you damn well know it, we get it lots of advancements were found in cultures dating thousands of years back (funny how you never mentioned ancient greece ?). But instead of dwelling on them why don't we use the advancments of the last ten thousand years to further our understanding eh?




and as ridiculous as it sounds, if you're trying to be entirely objective, you can't rule out the existence of pink unicorns either, hence why to me personally and many philosophers, objectivity isn't always the best tool for subjective matters like philosophy and religion.
until there is solid irrefutable proof either way, it's never going to be an objective matter.Know how we know their is no pink space unicorn? or celestial teapot? or a god? because their is no evidence pointing in the direction of any. Your being completly pedantic here, because science can't 100% rule it out you take that as some sort of evidence for its existence.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Funnily enough, my boss in the sky (what an obnoxious, bullshit, childish way to view God) basically takes away any and all authority any boss on earth has over me. Almost like I read a bible, or something.

[NGNM85]

and as ridiculous as it sounds, if you're trying to be entirely objective, you can't rule out the existence of pink unicorns either, hence why to me personally and many philosophers, objectivity isn't always the best tool for subjective matters like philosophy and religion.

until there is solid irrefutable proof either way, it's never going to be an objective matter.

I don't remember specifying the type or color of unicorns, but it's really irrelevant. Raul Duke covered this, earlier. However, I will reiterate. The only thing we can absolutely prove exists is our own minds. So, obviously there are standards of evidence that we use to judge. The more extreme a prposition, the greater the burden of evidence. In this case, no such evidence exists, beyond the argument from existence, which is really rhetorical bullshit.

[black magick hustla]

The Litany of Satan




O you, the wisest and fairest of the Angels,
God betrayed by destiny and deprived of praise,

O Satan, take pity on my long misery!


O Prince of Exile, you who have been wronged
And who vanquished always rise up again more strong,

O Satan, take pity on my long misery!


You who know all, great king of hidden things,
The familiar healer of human sufferings,
O Satan, take pity on my long misery!

You who teach through love the taste for Heaven
To the cursed pariah, even to the leper,

O Satan, take pity on my long misery!


You who of Death, your mistress old and strong,
Have begotten Hope, — a charming madcap!
O Satan, take pity on my long misery!

You who give the outlaw that calm and haughty look
That damns the whole multitude around his scaffold.

O Satan, take pity on my long misery!

You who know in what nooks of the miserly earth
A jealous God has hidden precious stones,
O Satan, take pity on my long misery!

You whose clear eye sees the deep arsenals
Where the tribe of metals sleeps in its tomb,

O Satan, take pity on my long misery!


You whose broad hand conceals the precipice
From the sleep-walker wandering on the building's ledge,
O Satan, take pity on my long misery!

You who soften magically the old bones
Of belated drunkards trampled by the horses,

O Satan, take pity on my long misery!


You who to console frail mankind in its sufferings
Taught us to mix sulphur and saltpeter,
O Satan, take pity on my long misery!

You who put your mark, O subtle accomplice,
Upon the brow of Croesus, base and pitiless,

O Satan, take pity on my long misery!


You who put in the eyes and hearts of prostitutes
The cult of sores and the love of rags and tatters,
O Satan, take pity on my long misery!

Staff of those in exile, lamp of the inventor,
Confessor of the hanged and of conspirators,

O Satan, take pity on my long misery!


Adopted father of those whom in black rage
— God the Father drove from the earthly paradise,
O Satan, take pity on my long misery!

Prayer

Glory and praise to you, O Satan, in the heights
Of Heaven where you reigned and in the depths
Of Hell where vanquished you dream in silence!
Grant that my soul may someday repose near to you
Under the Tree of Knowledge, when, over your brow,
Its branches will spread like a new Temple.

[NGNM85]

I think people like him make all "anarchists" (since his status as an anarchist is debatable) completely foolish when they speak of things like the Israeli apartheid situatio as the stuff of religion, not capitalism. in fact, isn't that a non-marxist view?

Hell, he probably still thinks Osama Bin Laden is primarily motivated by religion.

These accusations are really baseless.

I'm not a Marxist.

There is a vocal segment of the Israeli right, particularly among the settlers that does actually believe God, in his capacity as divine real-estate agent, promised them the land of Israel. This idea has a long history, and not just among the Jews, but also in the Evangelical Christian tradition. However, the problem in Israel is really correctly characterized as an aparthied state, where the dominant group is enforcing a particularly brutal segregation and oppression of the other. (With the complete support of the United States.) I don't think the present situation is entirely attributable to 'capitalism', or religion.

Osama Bin Laden is equally motivated by both. He takes political actions against political enemies in his, at least in his own mind, 'holy war' to establish a theocratic state in complience with his extremist version of Islam.

[this is an invasion]

I wouldn't say fuck Bakunin, he was a political genius and his ideas are relevant today, but it is important to note that he was a racist and euro-centric.

I'm not denying he was racist. What I mean when I say "fuck Bakunin" is that I don't care about him as a person. He's long dead, and the only thing left of him is his ideas. We can spend time nitpicking his word choice, or we can look at the ideas that he was putting forth and toss the ones that aren't relevant or needed (like his racism).

[727Goon]

All right, fair enough.

[Zanthorus]

I'm not a Marxist.

Yeah, I think we already figured that one out...

A lot of what follows is directed at specific people or general points made in this thread. I can't be bothered to go through quoting everyone, you know who you are.

First off religion is not a product of class struggle, neither is it always and everywhere a tool used by ruling classes to oppress the working and opressed classes of every epoch. That is the worst kind of class reductionism. Religion is a mode of thought through which people view the world and their surroundings. Because it is a way of interpreting the world it naturally gets caught up in class struggle and certain religions, or interpretations of those religions, can come to reflect the position of various classes in the struggle. Christianity served equally well to justify Henry the Eighth or Louis the Sixteenth as it did Thomas Muntzer and the Anabaptists during the peasants war or Gerrard Winstanley and the Diggers.

And it is not just class struggle which Religion reflects but life in general. Many of the great problems of the world such as how can humans live in harmony with nature, or in a way which is in conformity with their own humanity, have in the past been thought out (And fought out) through the lenses of religion. There was in fact one man who was profoundly religious and an unrepentant mystic without whom Karl Marx would not have been Karl Marx - Georg Willhelm Friedrich Hegel. Indeed, much of the problem with some of the traditional Marxist accounts of the Marx-Hegel connection is that they think of Hegel as someone who put forth a rationalistic "logic" to understand the world. But Hegel was no enlightenment sycophant of rationalism. Hegel's work is inseperable from his worldview derived from the ancient Hermetic tradition. The reason I cite Hegel's case is to show that even though it is possible to present a superficial denunciation of all religious thinking as "irrational", "illogical" and then stop thinking about it all together, by doing so you ignore the "rational kernel" of attempts to understand the world through religious lenses.

You also reflect the weakness of the enlightenment project. The attempt to project "reason" into all spheres of life. The problem is that "reason" is eternal, things are either wrong or right. From the standpoint of "rational" thinkers therefore, thought has no history. Remember what Marx said about how bourgeois economists view the world?


Economists have a singular method of procedure. There are only two kinds of institutions for them, artificial and natural. The institutions of feudalism are artificial institutions, those of the bourgeoisie are natural institutions. In this, they resemble the theologians, who likewise establish two kinds of religion. Every religion which is not theirs is an invention of men, while their own is an emanation from God. When the economists say that present-day relations – the relations of bourgeois production – are natural, they imply that these are the relations in which wealth is created and productive forces developed in conformity with the laws of nature. These relations therefore are themselves natural laws independent of the influence of time. They are eternal laws which must always govern society. Thus, there has been history, but there is no longer any.

This brings us on nicely to another Marx quote which ties in nicely with the previous:


Herr Bauer, as a genuine, although Critical, theologian or theological Critic, could not get beyond the religious contradiction. In the attitude of the Jews to the Christian world he could see only the attitude of the Jewish religion to the Christian religion. He even had to restore the religious contradiction in a Critical way — in the antithesis between the attitudes of the Jew and the Christian to Critical religion — atheism, the last stage of theism, the negative recognition of God.

I think that really gets to the heart of the matter. Atheism merely establishes itself as a "critical religion" which acts in the same way all other religions do proclaiming itself to be the eternal truth while ridiculing all other religions as errant nonsense. Atheism as the purely negative rejection of religion is not yet materialism:


Of the vast majority of the German socialist working men it may even be said that mere atheism has been outgrown by them. This purely negative term does not apply to them any more, for they maintain no longer merely a theoretical, but rather a practical opposition to the belief in God. They are simply done with God, they live and think in the real world, for they are materialists.

Just my two cents.

[NGNM85]

Yeah, I think we already figured that one out...

I didn't realize I was obligated to be a Marxist.


First off religion is not a product of class struggle, neither is it always and everywhere a tool used by ruling classes to oppress the working and opressed classes of every epoch. That is the worst kind of class reductionism. Religion is a mode of thought through which people view the world and their surroundings. Because it is a way of interpreting the world it naturally gets caught up in class struggle and certain religions, or interpretations of those religions, can come to reflect the position of various classes in the struggle. Christianity served equally well to justify Henry the Eighth or Louis the Sixteenth as it did Thomas Muntzer and the Anabaptists during the peasants war or Gerrard Winstanley and the Diggers.

Amen! (The irony is not lost on me.)


...The reason I cite Hegel's case is to show that even though it is possible to present a superficial denunciation of all religious thinking as "irrational", "illogical" and then stop thinking about it all together, by doing so you ignore the "rational kernel" of attempts to understand the world through religious lenses.

I fully acknowledge, and have listed some great religious thinkers. Truly brilliant men. Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine, to name two more. However, St. Augustine believed heretics should be tortured, Thomas Aquinas, that they should be killed. These are extreme examples. My point is that these were intelligent and rational men, except when it came to religion. The human mind is capable of a frightening degree of cognitive dissonance, where brilliant, educated, capable people can hold really crazy ideas.



I think that really gets to the heart of the matter. Atheism merely establishes itself as a "critical religion" which acts in the same way all other religions do proclaiming itself to be the eternal truth while ridiculing all other religions as errant nonsense. Atheism as the purely negative rejection of religion is not yet materialism:

Just my two cents.

Comparing Atheism to religion is incorrect. Atheism has no central tenets, no ideology, etc. Atheism is simply the refusal to accept extreme claims based on zero evidence. It is materialism, just a specific element of materialism. That's all that Atheism is.

[Adi Shankara]

Osama Bin Laden is equally motivated by both. He takes political actions against political enemies in his, at least in his own mind, 'holy war' to establish a theocratic state in complience with his extremist version of Islam.

I can see you know very little on Osama Bin Laden, so I'll make a seperate post for this.

you don't know what he thinks, so don't beg the question. however, we can observe his actions and the thoughts of the people he surrounds himself with.

if you look into the character created by the CIA named Osama bin Laden, you'll see that he is seen, from sea to shining sea, in every oppressed nation, as a freedom fighter. only in America and the developed world is Osama bin Laden seen as a "terrorist". but in other parts, they see him as an almost mythical figure, Che Guevara like.

he fought against Soviet occupation. he fought against the US occupation. they bombed the Kenyan embassy in retaliation of the arrest of anti-government Islamic-anarchists in Egypt who were against the USA's puppet, Hosni Mubarak.

now then, there is actually very little evidence of Osama Bin Laden being a religious extremist; there is even less evidence that he was involved in the 9/11 attacks (if you don't believe me, go to the FBI's most wanted list and show me where he is charged with that). at most, he expressed sympathy with sharia law, which is troubling, but certainly isn't the entire being of Bin Laden. he has a very loose affiliation with the Taliban, and in fact, they tried to sell him down the river in 2001, which is why he escaped to Pakistan in the first place.

most of his campaigns have been political, and very little of them were motivated directly by religion. the fact of the matter is, he is strictly political, and styles himself as a freedom fighter against western values (in favor of middle eastern ones) and capitalism (though he isn't exactly an ally of socialism).

[Adi Shankara]

Comparing Atheism to religion is incorrect. Atheism has no central tenets, no ideology, etc. Atheism is simply the refusal to accept extreme claims based on zero evidence. It is materialism, just a specific element of materialism. That's all that Atheism is.

I think the thing is, many people see the faith that atheists have in what they perceive is rationalism and science; but everything that isn't scientific law, is faith, because science is subject to change as we discover new things, so to hold certain scientific principles that haven't been demonstrated as law or fact is risky.

my point being, everything, including science, is faith based, if they believe certain changeable principles can explain away the permanent. you read extensively into John Lennox (you say), I'm surprised you dont' know this.

[Coggeh]

I think the thing is, many people see the faith that atheists have in what they perceive is rationalism and science; but everything that isn't scientific law, is faith, because science is subject to change as we discover new things, so to hold certain scientific principles that haven't been demonstrated as law or fact is risky.
Lets look at what havent been demonstrated as "fact" in science:
Evolution
Natural Selection
The earth revolving around the sun
Gravity
the list goes on.
You think these are faith?



my point being, everything, including science, is faith based, if they believe certain changeable principles can explain away the permanent. you read extensively into John Lennox (you say), I'm surprised you dont' know this.
Science is not faith based don't dare try using that creationist BS argument about science. If science was "faith based" you really they would have sent a man to the moon based on f**king faith?

[Franz Fanonipants]

radical empiricism is the elevation of method to an object of worship. especially with the history of the West basically using said "rationality" and empiricist thinking to justify unequal material conditions. furthermore since empiricism IS just a method, it does continually evolve and as a result cannot be held as entirely airtight.

it obv. isn't exactly the same as religion but the processes of unquestioning loyalty to one era's empirical progress is about as uncritical as believing in that old "sky fairy."

[Adi Shankara]

If science was "faith based" you really they would have sent a man to the moon based on f**king faith?

considering what happened to the chimp that went before him, yes.

[chegitz guevara]

It's a good point. Dawkins nor Collins know the answer to the question "why are we here", and since no one knows, it's impossible to begin to make an objective stance on it.

Saying that no one knows or that Dawkins or Collins don't know assumes there's something to be known. There isn't. The universe and life have no purpose or meaning, other than what sentients chose to give to it.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

I have been in the company of atheists that claimed to be revolutionary, but were more on the level of social democrats. And I have been in the company of people that were part of the liberation theology movement. VERY, VERY RADICAL AND VERY REVOLUTIONARY.give me this group any day than the former.

[Adi Shankara]

Saying that no one knows or that Dawkins or Collins don't know assumes there's something to be known. There isn't. The universe and life have no purpose or meaning, other than what sentients chose to give to it.

pardon me being a dick, but since you're stating that as an objective fact, I'm hoping you're going to back it up with proof?


I have been in the company of atheists that claimed to be revolutionary, but were more on the level of social democrats. And I have been in the company of people that were part of the liberation theology movement. VERY, VERY RADICAL AND VERY REVOLUTIONARY.give me this group any day than the former.

Indeed; I'd like to see anyone challenge the credentials of the Bishops and priests of Nicaragua who not only risked their positions in the church, but their very lives as well when they broke with Rome and Papal edict to defend the Nicaraguan revolutionary war, taking the side of the Sandanistas.

[chegitz guevara]

pardon me being a dick, but since you're stating that as an objective fact, I'm hoping you're going to back it up with proof?

Show me something, anything, that has intrinsic meaning.

[Zanthorus]

I didn't realize I was obligated to be a Marxist.

You're not obligated to be anything. I was merely commenting that your lack of Marxist analysis was pretty obvious to everyone. Of course I would regard said lack to be a defect. But one problem at a time...


I fully acknowledge, and have listed some great religious thinkers. Truly brilliant men. Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine, to name two more. However, St. Augustine believed heretics should be tortured, Thomas Aquinas, that they should be killed. These are extreme examples. My point is that these were intelligent and rational men, except when it came to religion. The human mind is capable of a frightening degree of cognitive dissonance, where brilliant, educated, capable people can hold really crazy ideas.

There are people in the world who believe that isolated individuals acting purely in their own unrestricted self-interest will bring about the best net result for society. There are people in the world who believe that "democracy" means getting to choose which of two preselected candidates will spend the next four or five years sucking up to powerful business interests. There are people in the world who believe that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were the greatest people who ever lived.

Crazy beliefs are not limited to people of a religious bent (And in fact, what is and is not "crazy" is highly subjective).


Comparing Atheism to religion is incorrect.

Why not? You take a position on some entity labelled "God" which you have no positive belief in.


Gravity
You think these are faith?

Well Sir Issac Newton was certainly no scientific rationalist. He was in fact a Hermetic mystic, in fact I believe he wrote more on the latter than he ever did on science.

[Coggeh]

considering what happened to the chimp that went before him, yes.
Oh Christ.
Yes and the transistors in computers which needed quantum mechanics to understand and invent were all faith too.



Well Sir Issac Newton was certainly no scientific rationalist. He was in fact a Hermetic mystic, in fact I believe he wrote more on the latter than he ever did on science. In case you haven't been around for the past 80years, gravity has long since been expanded on since the days of Newton.Relativity and all that craic.

[Coggeh]

Indeed; I'd like to see anyone challenge the credentials of the Bishops and priests of Nicaragua who not only risked their positions in the church, but their very lives as well when they broke with Rome and Papal edict to defend the Nicaraguan revolutionary war, taking the side of the Sandanistas.Indeed; I'd like to see anyone challenge the credintials of Marx, Engels ,Lenin, Trotsky, Connolly, Larkin etc etc.
You really don't get it though: most marxists are athiests not because we think its cool but because marxists understand the origins of organised religion, how its been used time and time again to prop of certain social systems. The church as a body will always come down on the side of the ruling class as they have done time and time again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Lock-out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_and_Child_Scheme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War
The list could be alot longer if you include all the churches dealings with fascism in the 30s/40's

No one is denying the role of some priests in Latin america, it was a valiant role on their part but thats because many priests are on the ground and relate more to workers than to the ruling class. The church and organised religion as a body is alot different.

[Franz Fanonipants]

hey don't forget GRAMSCI

[NGNM85]

You're not obligated to be anything. I was merely commenting that your lack of Marxist analysis was pretty obvious to everyone. Of course I would regard said lack to be a defect. But one problem at a time...

As an Anarchist I have some issues with Marxism. However, there are also substantial commonalities, which is what I'd rather focus on right now.



...Crazy beliefs are not limited to people of a religious bent

Not at all, but it's a prerequisite for being religious. That's part of the problem.


(And in fact, what is and is not "crazy" is highly subjective).

I don't think so. I think if we apply reason and logic it becomes pretty clear.


Why not? You take a position on some entity labelled "God" which you have no positive belief in.

I simply refuse to accept an extreme conclusion based on zero evidence. I am not auuthoritatively saying there is no god, although I think we can be just about certain if such an entity exists it has no relation to the various dogmas people believe in. I'm saying; "Look at the evidence." This is the exact opposite of religion. First, because it has no tenets or belief system, second, because it's based on evidence. Religion is dogmatic, and presents it's ideas as absolute truth, and then tries to cram reality into this script. Atheism is simply the application of reason to the subject of the supernatural.


Well Sir Issac Newton was certainly no scientific rationalist. He was in fact a Hermetic mystic, in fact I believe he wrote more on the latter than he ever did on science.

However, Hermetic mysticism is not a necessary precondition of understanding gravity. It's wholly conceivable if he had never heard of Hermetic mysticism he still could've discovered gravity, or someone else would've.

[NGNM85]

I can see you know very little on Osama Bin Laden, so I'll make a seperate post for this.

you don't know what he thinks,

No less so than yourself.


so don't beg the question. however, we can observe his actions and the thoughts of the people he surrounds himself with.

Yes.


if you look into the character created by the CIA named Osama bin Laden, you'll see that he is seen, from sea to shining sea, in every oppressed nation, as a freedom fighter. only in America and the developed world is Osama bin Laden seen as a "terrorist". but in other parts, they see him as an almost mythical figure, Che Guevara like.

This popularity should be very disturbing. Thankfully, not 'everyone' in these oppressed nations sees him as a hero, however, he does draw a scary degree of support.


he fought against Soviet occupation. he fought against the US occupation. they bombed the Kenyan embassy in retaliation of the arrest of anti-government Islamic-anarchists in Egypt who were against the USA's puppet, Hosni Mubarak.

He also claims to care about the Palestinians, but I find this extremely difficult to believe.


now then, there is actually very little evidence of Osama Bin Laden being a religious extremist;

...Besides his numerous statements andpublished writings, which all profess and promote an extreme version of Islam, namely, Qutbism. Also that he is one of the leaders of Al Qaeda whose stated mission is to create a pan-national radical Islamic caliphate.


there is even less evidence that he was involved in the 9/11 attacks (if you don't believe me, go to the FBI's most wanted list and show me where he is charged with that).

Very possible. However, then there are all the other atrocities he's been involved in to various degrees.


at most, he expressed sympathy with sharia law, which is troubling,

He hasn't merely expressed sympathy, he firmly endorses it. "Troubling" is putting it mildly.


but certainly isn't the entire being of Bin Laden.

He has so many more repellent characteristics.


he has a very loose affiliation with the Taliban, and in fact, they tried to sell him down the river in 2001, which is why he escaped to Pakistan in the first place.

He's also claimed the Taliban were a model government, which the rest of the Middle East should strive to emulate.


most of his campaigns have been political, and very little of them were motivated directly by religion. the fact of the matter is, he is strictly political, and styles himself as a freedom fighter against western values (in favor of middle eastern ones) and capitalism (though he isn't exactly an ally of socialism).

As I said, he is not motivated strictly by either, it's both, they are inseperable, in this case. However it is absolutely evident by every measure of evidence he most sincerely believes this violent religious extremism he preaches. This man is a murder and a thug and an avowed enemy of civilization.

[NGNM85]

I think the thing is, many people see the faith that atheists have in what they perceive is rationalism and science; but everything that isn't scientific law, is faith, because science is subject to change as we discover new things, so to hold certain scientific principles that haven't been demonstrated as law or fact is risky.

my point being, everything, including science, is faith based, if they believe certain changeable principles can explain away the permanent. you read extensively into John Lennox (you say), I'm surprised you dont' know this.

This is mistaken. My 'faith' in reason is not comperable t religious 'faith', they are fundamentally different. In fact you actually hit on one of the differences, that science is subject to change, because it's based on evidence, therefore as new evidence is discovered, the picture becomes clearer. Religion is static, it's conclusions are immediately presented and accepted as the complete truth, at face value. That's what religious 'faith' is. I'm not holding any principle, here, the issue is "Is there any evidence of an omnipotent creator?" or more to the point; "Is there any evidence the Koran, the Bible, etc., are literally the word of God?" This dichotomy you're presenting doesn't actually exist.

Also, I really haven't studied Lennox, I just know about the debates.

[Adi Shankara]

This is mistaken. My 'faith' in reason is not comperable t religious 'faith', they are fundamentally different. In fact you actually hit on one of the differences, that science is subject to change, because it's based on evidence, therefore as new evidence is discovered, the picture becomes clearer. Religion is static, it's conclusions are immediately presented and accepted as the complete truth, at face value. That's what religious 'faith' is. I'm not holding any principle, here, the issue is "Is there any evidence of an omnipotent creator?" or more to the point; "Is there any evidence the Koran, the Bible, etc., are literally the word of God?" This dichotomy you're presenting doesn't actually exist.

Also, I really haven't studied Lennox, I just know about the debates.

Science isn't based entirely on fact though; as much as I believe in evolutionary theory or the theory or M-theory, there is still a slight chance evolutionary theory may be wrong or incomplete; so goes the same with the big bang. and disproving faith using widely accepted and highly probable, but still not indisputably evident is a little risky, wouldn't you agree?

[NGNM85]

Science isn't based entirely on fact though; as much as I believe in evolutionary theory or the theory or M-theory, there is still a slight chance evolutionary theory may be wrong or incomplete; so goes the same with the big bang. and disproving faith using widely accepted and highly probable, but still not indisputably evident is a little risky, wouldn't you agree?

Uhh, evolutionary theory is about as solid as gravity. M-Theory is a little less solid. Some variant of String Theory will most likely turn out to be true, the issue is the details, which we don't totally have yet, but might have, conceivably in the next few years, depending on the findings from the LHC, etc. I don't put absolute faith in any of these things, really. I mean, gravity is pretty much indisputable, but the difference is religious faith is unconditional, my belief in relativity or quantum mechanics is not. The only thing I'm absolutely totally wedded to is the belief that the rigorous application of logic, critically looking at the evidence, is absolutely the best way to arrive at truth, or the closest approximation possible. I totally stand by that assertion.

[black magick hustla]

radical empiricism is the elevation of method to an object of worship. especially with the history of the West basically using said "rationality" and empiricist thinking to justify unequal material conditions. furthermore since empiricism IS just a method, it does continually evolve and as a result cannot be held as entirely airtight.

it obv. isn't exactly the same as religion but the processes of unquestioning loyalty to one era's empirical progress is about as uncritical as believing in that old "sky fairy."


i dont think you know what empiricism is. it has actually very little to do with western enlightment thought at all.

for example, the problem of induction is a classical empiricist point:

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

you cannot justify unequal material conditions "empirically", an ought does not come from an is.

anyway of course science is way better at assessing the world than any other method. of course science cannot answer every question, but it is not meant to. For example, science cannot tell you if killing is wrong, or racism is a-ok. nor it can tell you whether a painting is beautiful. however, science is probably more apt at explaining why we get stomach aches than the bible.

[Adi Shankara]

For example, science cannot tell you if killing is wrong, or racism is a-ok. nor it can tell you whether a painting is beautiful. however, science is probably more apt at explaining why we get stomach aches than the bible.

I'd agree with this. I don't think of a higher power in material terms. I think of a higher power as the consciousness we all collectively experience, that binds us all, and thus is creation itself.

[Magón]

In all the countries I've visited, and the people I've seen, and just their whole religious agenda. I'm not really sure I could ever believe in a higher power that restricts me for doing what I want to do, not what the higher power wills me to do. Looking at places like Mexico, and other Latin American countries I've been to, it seems that religion is just a means to suppress and put fear into people's hearts. Everyone at some point in time has been worried where they go when they die, right? But I find that those who really truly believe in a power that will either accept them or not for who they are, are a bit crazy. I mean, if you believe in God or Mohammed, fine, I don't really care. But I find that your inability to follow what you yourself may find right or wrong, but goes against what your God finds right or maybe wrong is ridiculous.

And I find that the need to brainwash children who have no idea of a God or not yet, and don't seem to have or care what happens when they die, is a bit oppressive too.

[Adi Shankara]

In all the countries I've visited, and the people I've seen, and just their whole religious agenda. I'm not really sure I could ever believe in a higher power that restricts me for doing what I want to do, not what the higher power wills me to do. Looking at places like Mexico, and other Latin American countries I've been to, it seems that religion is just a means to suppress and put fear into people's hearts. Everyone at some point in time has been worried where they go when they die, right? But I find that those who really truly believe in a power that will either accept them or not for who they are, are a bit crazy. I mean, if you believe in God or Mohammed, fine, I don't really care. But I find that your inability to follow what you yourself may find right or wrong, but goes against what your God finds right or maybe wrong is ridiculous.

And I find that the need to brainwash children who have no idea of a God or not yet, and don't seem to have or care what happens when they die, is a bit oppressive too.

I understand that religion can be used for fear mongering, but it has also been used for good; it helped defeat the British in India, helped the Sandanistas fight off the capitalist contras, the Catholic church in Poland organized many of the resistance groups against the Nazis...

I haven't been to Latin America, but I grew up near a large population of Khmer and other Asians, and since their religion didn't promise eternal damnation or everlasting life, they didn't have those similar fear/guilt complexes that others may experience through their beliefs.

and the word "brainwashing" is really inappropriate, as not every religious person forces religion onto others.

[Magón]

I understand that religion can be used for fear mongering, but it has also been used for good; it helped defeat the British in India, helped the Sandanistas fight off the capitalist contras, the Catholic church in Poland organized many of the resistance groups against the Nazis...

I haven't been to Latin America, but I grew up near a large population of Khmer and other Asians, and since their religion didn't promise eternal damnation or everlasting life, they didn't have those similar fear/guilt complexes that others may experience through their beliefs.

and the word "brainwashing" is really inappropriate, as not every religious person forces religion onto others.

No, but I think at some point, brainwashing is a correct term really. I mean, when you're born, and then Christened, you don't know what your parents are getting you into. You're being forced against a will you're not even aware of yet, into something that might evidently get you killed somewhere else. I mean, when I heard for the first time some 6 year old kid tell me as an adult whether I believe in God, I told him no, and he said I'd be going to hell. I thought, really kid? Because I could see there was no way at that age, he could be told something else. And for years, his parents had been telling him that God was the only way, and what God willed the kid should probably do.

That is a form of brainwashing, no matter what anyone says. And even I wasn't brought up an Atheist. I wasn't anything till I was about ten, and I learned from an aunt in Mexico about God, and my Father about Atheism. The whole God factor just didn't appeal to me, because I thought that such a person couldn't have all that power, etc. etc. Anyway, I find that it's all religious groups who brainwash their kids. And if there's a better word, I haven't found it yet?