For the atheïsts

[SacRedMan]

SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term “atheism” has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.

Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.

Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment, believed that atheism was “not at all to be tolerated” because, he said, “promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.”

That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims “never to doubt” the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating.

Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity’s needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the “beginning” or “creation” of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.

The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, “The God Delusion,” this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don’t know precisely how the Earth’s early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase “natural selection” by analogy to the “artificial selection” performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

6) Atheists are arrogant.

When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don’t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.

There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature’s laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.

From the atheist point of view, the world’s religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn’t have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.

9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as “wishful thinking” and “self-deception.” There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

If a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn’t make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.

:thumbup: or :thumbdown:?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Sam Harris is a religious nutter and an imperialist douche bag. He's as bad and sick as Hitchens.

[Kamos]

Most of it makes sense, although all of it is also fairly common sense for anyone with an IQ in the triple digits. I don't know who Sam Harris is, so I can't base my response upon that.

[Terminator X]

"New Atheist" has become the new code phrase for "Douchebag Atheist" - it is possible to be a complete and utter atheist (as I am) without shouting through a megaphone about how much religion sucks. Harris, Hitchens, et al. also walk a fine line between atheist and racist/imperialist/islamophobic scum. They also have no problem alienating a large portion of the working class (most of whom are religious in some way shape or form) with their comments. Some "Marxist" Hitchens is, eh?

[Ingraham Effingham]

Atheism, as a belief, is alright by me. I was one for years. Although I personally don't see it as an 'end-point' but as a stepping-stone.

The problem, however, is that many (especially in the west) who claim they are atheist are actually just 'anti-theist,' after been turned away from any form of spirituality by the logical fallacies and overall weirdness of abrahamic religions.

Many then become so resistant to any idea of 'god' that they stop searching and learning, and use the bible as an excuse to turn off that part of their brain. That, i am not so alright with. These are the types who tend to be as intolerant, militant, and hateful as any religious fundemental. A good one way to tell, i think, is when an 'atheist' does more to bash christianity and islam, and offer no further support than "show me proof" and "religion is a lie"

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The problem, however, is that many (especially in the west) who claim they are atheist are actually just 'anti-theist,' after been turned away from any form of spirituality by the logical fallacies and overall weirdness of abrahamic religions.

Turned away? Maybe we never had any interest in such nonsense.


Many then become so resistant to any idea of 'god' that they stop searching and learning, and use the bible as an excuse to turn off that part of their brain.

Part of the brain for interpreting nonsensical delusions of self-importance as being real, maybe.

[Ingraham Effingham]

Turned away? Maybe we never had any interest in such nonsense.


Part of the brain for interpreting nonsensical delusions of self-importance as being real, maybe.

By 'many' i meant 'not necessarily the "we" that Takayuki identifies with'

Not every concept of of god is species- or egocentric. This is my point: 'many' atheists do more to refute the abrahamic god than anything else.

I agree the 'god' that created man in his image, and speaks to people through miracles, holy books and prophets is a manifestation of the average person's need for validation in this world, with a narcissistic overtone. But this isn't the only conception of a supreme being that exists.

[Commissar Rykov]

I have never understood why people have an interest in anyone's religious and sexual views in the first place. Then again I have seen people on both sides of the political spectrum obsess over it.

[mikelepore]

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality

Of course, a statement that one is not-something will not provide a basis for morality. The statement that I'm not an astrologer, or the statement that I'm not an alchemist, or the statement that I'm not a ouija board or crystal ball soothsayer also do not establish a system of determining morality. Likewise, neither does the statement that I'm not a theist (that I'm an atheist).

[Thirsty Crow]

Atheism, as a belief, is alright by me.
Atheism does not represent a belief. Or in other words, if atheism indeed represents a set of beliefs, then I'm no atheist.

[Nolan]

Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

Nazism didn't kill 6 millions Jews and many more others because it was "dogmatic," it killed them because it's nazism and genocide is part of the point.

Any notion of a "political religion" is nothing but a promotion of liberal exceptionalism and it actually trivializes the nature of fascism, making it something seen only on some dogma scale rather than as an ideological and sociological phenomenon.

[Ingraham Effingham]

Atheism does not represent a belief. Or in other words, if atheism indeed represents a set of beliefs, then I'm no atheist.


It's important to maintain a distinction between knowledge and belief.
Knowledge is based on observation and evidence.
Belief is based on faith.

Since there is no empirical, definite of either the presence or absence of god, both theism and atheism are beliefs.

[Franz Fanonipants]

this list is counterrevolutionary because, like almost all "atheist" polemics it's stuck in a liberal, bourgeois idealist framework.

The list literally pins ideas as the cause of observable phenomena, entirely abandoning a base-superstructure critical approach. Essentially, it allows atheists to move in the idealist world of religion and liberal politics.

[Tenka]

It's important to maintain a distinction between knowledge and belief.
Knowledge is based on observation and evidence.
Belief is based on faith.

Since there is no empirical, definite of either the presence or absence of god, both theism and atheism are beliefs.

Atheism is just the lack of belief in any god. To say it's a belief itself is to suggest that belief in a deity is some sort of default, so that one has to "believe that god does not exist" rather than just not believe in god. Even if our brains are wired in such a way as to invent gods, no one is born believing in them. If Atheism for someone seems like some sort of faith-based denial of god(s), they must have been deeply indoctrinated or something.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Atheism is just the lack of belief in any god. To say it's a belief itself is to suggest that belief in a deity is some sort of default, so that one has to "believe that god does not exist" rather than just not believe in god. Even if our brains are wired in such a way as to invent gods, no one is born believing in them.

This is patently goddamn ridiculous, especially on a site focused on Marxist/other Leftist discourse.

You're telling me at once that no one is born believing in invented Gods, which I agree with. At the same time, no one is born not believing in invented Gods. All of the cultural weight or belief/non-belief does not come perfectly formed from some religious or logical plain, but from our interactions with the material world.

Furthermore, you completely dodged my point, which is that this list puts atheists in a discourse with liberal idealism, the same kind of shit that allows capitalists to invoke "human rights" while bombing Afghan weddings.

[Tenka]

This is patently goddamn ridiculous, especially on a site focused on Marxist/other Leftist discourse.

You're telling me at once that no one is born believing in invented Gods, which I agree with. At the same time, no one is born not believing in invented Gods. All of the cultural weight or belief/non-belief does not come perfectly formed from some religious or logical plain, but from our interactions with the material world.

Furthermore, you completely dodged my point, which is that this list puts atheists in a discourse with liberal idealism, the same kind of shit that allows capitalists to invoke "human rights" while bombing Afghan weddings.
What's ridiculous? I haven't anywhere denied the influence from interactions with the material world. Also, I was only addressing the part where you called atheism a "belief", which it plainly is not.

EDIT: wait, wait... I wasn't even replying to you!

[Luisrah]

Well, atheist is someone that denies that god exists right? I suppose there is no proof that god exists, but there isn't proof that he/she/it exists either right?

That's why I like to call myself and agnostic (or agnosticist, whatever) because it is impossible to know if god exists or not. I just really think it doesn't exist, but I don't think we can be sure it doesn't

[Ingraham Effingham]

Well, atheist is someone that denies that god exists right? I suppose there is no proof that god exists, but there isn't proof that he/she/it exists either right?

That's why I like to call myself and agnostic (or agnosticist, whatever) because it is impossible to know if god exists or not. I just really think it doesn't exist, but I don't think we can be sure it doesn't


There's a point. Athiesm is faith-based just as much as any religion, in that they are basing beliefs on zero empirical evidence. Agnosticism(-arianism?) is the only doctrine that is based totally on empirical data and no faith.

Many self-described atheists are actually agnostic, or anti-theists, turned that way by the logical fallacies, potential for abuse, and overall weirdness of abrahamic religions.

Problem is, when faith is involved, adherents tend to misinterpret 'belief' as 'knowledge,' on both sides of the god question. False knowledge, as we all know, can very dangerous, which i think hits main point of this thread.

As a type of deist, I do believe there is a a divine state of being, and a divine creator, but it doesn't meddle in human affairs with holy books, miracles, and prophets, and is outside the realm of human perception and refute.

[punisa]

But atheism is much more cunning choice :cool:
It's simple really ... if you believe there is a god and spend your life waiting for his sign, chances are you'll probably die before it happens. On the other hand, as an atheist you believe there will be no sign of any deity showing up in the near future and you'll probably live your life without this taking place.

People who do believe in god will often make some ridicules claims as "how do you KNOW that 1 + 1 = 2 ?", but I personally think that atheism (especially if you become an atheist by simply thinking about the whole topic) is much harder to knock out of someone's head when comparing it to one's religious views.

[Kuppo Shakur]

I'm not an atheist because I "don't think god can be proved" or anything like that.
That's stupid.
I'm an atheist because, whether or not god exists, religion is still mostly harmful to progress. Social occurrences happen because people make them happen. Taking the successes and failures of humans and giving them to a god makes these occurrences lose their bearing on the human world. How are we, as socialists, supposed to revolutionize our socio-economic system, when we think that it's god that makes it happen? Why do we protest injustices and try to change the world for the better, when we can just stay home and pray? It's not helpful to think that it's god that makes the world the way it is. It's the people living in that world that make it that way.
So jesus christ or whoever deity, it doesn't matter, can descend from heaven and land right next to me and say "Here I am!", it wouldn't change a thing. I would reply, "Fix our world, or leave it the fuck alone and we'll fix it ourselves!"

[Phonic]

1 Humanity is imperfect
2. therefor it's creator is imperfect
3. God is imperfect
4. He is not a god, god's are perfect
5. there is no god

OR

1. Humanity is imperfect
2. humanity is imperfect because of satan and Eve
3. since everything was created by god, then Satan was created by god
4. God created evil5
5. God's cant; be evil
6. He is not a god
7. There is no god

ammi doin it rite?

[graymouser]

There's a point. Athiesm is faith-based just as much as any religion, in that they are basing beliefs on zero empirical evidence. Agnosticism(-arianism?) is the only doctrine that is based totally on empirical data and no faith.
That's not true at all. In the modern discussion, there are two atheistic stances: weak atheism and strong atheism. Strong atheism is the stance that "there is no god" - based either on atheological arguments (problem of evil and so on) or on noncognitivism, which states that the term "god" is meaningless. Weak atheism states that the individual does not believe in any god or gods. In this sense, atheism is a lack of faith, not the other way around. Neither sense actually involves "faith," strong atheism just has a commitment to one of two arguments.

I think this position "it's all faith" is entirely wrong, and a false equivalence. There is no good reason to believe in a god, so weak atheism should be the default position.

[Zanthorus]

It's not correct to say that all forms of noncognitivism are forms of atheism. That would depend on why one was a noncognitivist. I am a noncognitivist, but I would not say that I am an 'atheist', or at least not in the sense you describe, since I don't believe that the statement 'There is no God' has any sense to it.

[Lanky Wanker]

lol and there was me thinking atheism was the fire exit in the whole "Islam is terrorism!" and "Christians are evil!" crap. Atheism focuses on the reality of now, not fantasy.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Since there is no empirical, definite of either the presence or absence of god, both theism and atheism are beliefs.

Not all beliefs are equally valid. See proofs of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn) and Bertrand Russell's Interplanetary Teapots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot).

Rejecting the belief in something for which there is no evidence is more valid than believing in something for which there is no evidence.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Shouldn't this thread be moved to Religon?

[ZeroNowhere]

Not all beliefs are equally valid. See proofs of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn) and Bertrand Russell's Interplanetary Teapots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot).

Rejecting the belief in something for which there is no evidence is more valid than believing in something for which there is no evidence.
In which case presumably if there is no evidence that there is no God, then theism is more valid than the rejection of God's existence while simultaneously being less so.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

In which case presumably if there is no evidence that there is no God, then theism is more valid than the rejection of God's existence while simultaneously being less so.

There is plenty of evidence that there is no God. Physics, Biology, the sciences. Everything we discover exists without the existence of God.

Consider the "Lazy God" proof. What would a god need to do to create and sustain the universe? Science one by one eliminates every task until there are none left and nothing for God to do. God has created no effected in the history of the universe. Every effect has a cause. No effects, no cause.

[Rafiq]

]I'm not an atheist because I "don't think god can be proved" or anything like that.[/B]
That's stupid.
I'm an atheist because, whether or not god exists, religion is still mostly harmful to progress. Social occurrences happen because people make them happen. Taking the successes and failures of humans and giving them to a god makes these occurrences lose their bearing on the human world. How are we, as socialists, supposed to revolutionize our socio-economic system, when we think that it's god that makes it happen? Why do we protest injustices and try to change the world for the better, when we can just stay home and pray? It's not helpful to think that it's god that makes the world the way it is. It's the people living in that world that make it that way.
So jesus christ or whoever deity, it doesn't matter, can descend from heaven and land right next to me and say "Here I am!", it wouldn't change a thing. I would reply, "Fix our world, or leave it the fuck alone and we'll fix it ourselves!"

I disagree. How is that stupid?

[mikelepore]

Athiesm is faith-based just as much as any religion, in that they are basing beliefs on zero empirical evidence. Agnosticism(-arianism?) is the only doctrine that is based totally on empirical data and no faith.

The problem with that explanation is that belief in a god usually calls for taking some kind of action, whereas lack of a belief doesn't. I can't prove that there isn't an invisible elf under my bed, but, even if there is one, I'm not aware of it having any implications, and there is nothing in particular that I need to do about it. Likewise with the god hypothesis, the believer is usually impelled to perform a list of actions: recite incantations from a book, sing the prescribed songs, go to a special building for lighting candles on the correct day, either put on or take off a special hat as required. The atheist and the agnostic are in the same position, for all practical purposes -- there is nothing special that has to be done, due to this position, and we can go on living as though a lot of rules that other people are driven to follow don't apply to us. Therefore, the situation isn't quite as symmetrical as you describe it. As an exercise in logic, what you said is correct, but, to have some sort of guide to living, the atheist and the agnostic are in the same position.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Wait, since when was Hitler an atheist?

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out"


The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.


What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race...so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe...Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence.

[Ingraham Effingham]

There is plenty of evidence that there is no God. Physics, Biology, the sciences. Everything we discover exists without the existence of God.

Consider the "Lazy God" proof. What would a god need to do to create and sustain the universe? Science one by one eliminates every task until there are none left and nothing for God to do. God has created no effected in the history of the universe. Every effect has a cause. No effects, no cause.

If every effect has a cause, and a causal loop or an infinite causal chain can't exist, what was the first cause?

the concept of 'god' cannot have human traits, as they are commonly applied. "Created" in the sense of "sourced" makes sense logically, but terms like "sustained," "tasks," and "do" applies to a spaghetti monster or pink ungulate of some kind, not any logically-sound divine source of creation.

[MaximMK]

i say good job :thumbup:

[Ingraham Effingham]

The problem with that explanation is that belief in a god usually calls for taking some kind of action, whereas lack of a belief doesn't. I can't prove that there isn't an invisible elf under my bed, but, even if there is one, I'm not aware of it having any implications, and there is nothing in particular that I need to do about it. Likewise with the god hypothesis, the believer is usually impelled to perform a list of actions: recite incantations from a book, sing the prescribed songs, go to a special building for lighting candles on the correct day, either put on or take off a special hat as required. The atheist and the agnostic are in the same position, for all practical purposes -- there is nothing special that has to be done, due to this position, and we can go on living as though a lot of rules that other people are driven to follow don't apply to us. Therefore, the situation isn't quite as symmetrical as you describe it. As an exercise in logic, what you said is correct, but, to have some sort of guide to living, the atheist and the agnostic are in the same position.


Not every believer in god adheres to a religion. Holy books, prophets, rituals, "miracles" are present only in the most ego-centric conceptions of god, where "he" has a special little place for everyone, and can smite, end the world, love, hate, etc. As if a pie in the sky cares what humans do and believe... This type of thinking is from 2 centuries ago, and used and abused to control people

Using logic and philosophy, the greatest minds (einstein, heisenburg, lincoln, founding fathers, plato, hawking, countless others) all tend to believe in a 'natural religion,' outside of day-to-day rituals, but still in the philisophical concept of a "first cause"

[Inquisitive Lurker]

If every effect has a cause, and a causal loop or an infinite causal chain can't exist, what was the first cause?


That's the point, there is no first cause. Because the first cause would have to have it's own cause. You either have infinite regression or a loop, and though personally I prefer a loop, infinite regression seems more likely.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Using logic and philosophy, the greatest minds (einstein, heisenburg, lincoln, founding fathers, plato, hawking, countless others) all tend to believe in a 'natural religion,' outside of day-to-day rituals, but still in the philisophical concept of a "first cause"

Misrepresentation.

Einstein did not believe in a deity, nor a religion, nor in the supernatural. "Einstein's God" was the beauty of the order and laws of the universe. Same goes for Hawking, except Hawking does not believe in a "first cause." He's got half a dozen other explanations.

The founding fathers you mentioned, some were Deists, as was Lincoln.

Of Plato we have no knowledge of his theological beliefs.

Heisenberg was a Lutheran.


Did you just pick these names at random?

[Octavian]

In which case presumably if there is no evidence that there is no God, then theism is more valid than the rejection of God's existence while simultaneously being less so.
Wrong. The claim of god is a positive claim. It is up to who ever makes the positive claim to provide sufficient evidence suggest that said claim is valid. There for atheism is the strongest belief logically.

[Ingraham Effingham]

Misrepresentation.

Einstein did not believe in a deity, nor a religion, nor in the supernatural. "Einstein's God" was the beauty of the order and laws of the universe. Same goes for Hawking, except Hawking does not believe in a "first cause." He's got half a dozen other explanations.

The founding fathers you mentioned, some were Deists, as was Lincoln.

Of Plato we have no knowledge of his theological beliefs.

Heisenberg was a Lutheran.


Did you just pick these names at random?

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing."[ - direct quote from hawking, sounds like a first cause. the BBT itself is a type of first cause, at least as far as the known universe is concerned.

Einstein's god WAS harmony and oneness of the design of the universe. The beauty of how the world is structured. This is a direct shout-out to the beauty of the world as a whole, a kind of pantheism. This is somewhat akin to deistic beliefs, like the FFs had. Maybe not necessarily recognizing an event as a 'first cause' but the world as a direct effect of a first cause, ie, what ever it is that causes the world to be structured in the way we see it.

When asked if he believed in god heisenberg said ""Can you, or anyone else, reach the central order of things, or events, whose existence seems beyond doubt, as directly as you can reach the soul of another human being? I am using the term 'soul' quite deliberately so as not to be misunderstood. If you would put the question like that, the answer is yes." - he speaks again of the natural central order and events, implying a divine cause. no mention of jesus's dad or the bible. he was labeled a lutheran but clearly did not identify with their beliefs

plato (and aristotle) envisioned god as 'the supreme architect" - deist. Although the labels assigned to them are not the same, the common factor in all of these people's outlooks is the 'natural order" our "architecture" or the universe as paramount. Maybe not a first cause per se, but definitely a "first order" of things

[Leftsolidarity]

I am an atheist through and through but I've never understood why people need to shit on each other's religious beliefs. I might poke fun but I find nothing wrong with others having their own views on that stuff. If it is not harming anyone than let it be.

Also, not to sound like a defeatist but I think it is a foolish notion to think that we could rid the world of religious beliefs.

[mikelepore]

Not every believer in god adheres to a religion. Holy books, prophets, rituals, "miracles" are present only in the most ego-centric conceptions of god, where "he" has a special little place for everyone, and can smite, end the world, love, hate, etc.

Why are they using the word "god" instead of making up a new name? We have to judge the god hypothesis according to what most people mean by the word.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Not every believer in god adheres to a religion.

At least 85.91% of them do.

[Ingraham Effingham]

At least 85.91% of them do.

I know, and that vocal, violent majority gives spirituality a bad name...

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

pretty much sums up atheist beliefs. good find:thumbup1:

[Inquisitive Lurker]

I know, and that vocal, violent majority gives spirituality a bad name...

Should spirituality have a good name? Is it something with merit?

[Ingraham Effingham]

Should spirituality have a good name? Is it something with merit?


I think it's something not necessarily without merit, but hey, to each his own.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Atheists have rarely if ever had any good press in the US. Why is this even remotely surprising?

Then of course there are those dreadful New Atheists, who never sit down, shut up and refrain from rocking the boat like the "Old Atheists" used to.

It's no surprise that with modern atheists' increasing willingness to speak up and not be cowed by religious privilege, the clergy and true believers are scrabbling and clutching at straws as best they can.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Then of course there are those dreadful New Atheists, who never sit down, shut up and refrain from rocking the boat like the "Old Atheists" used to.

lol

those dreadful new atheists who are devoted to working for the heritage foundation, embracing fascist politics, and justifying global capital's current war on islam.

[Black Sheep]

Sam Harris is a religious nutter and an imperialist douche bag. He's as bad and sick as Hitchens.
your arguments are mind-blowing,congratulations

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

lol

those dreadful new atheists who are devoted to working for the heritage foundation, embracing fascist politics,

Atheists are a mixed bunch when it comes to politics. Lack of belief in god is the only thing which unites atheists by definition.

But since we seem to be in the business of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, why not use the fact that homosexuality does not rule out reactionary politics as an excuse to tar all homosexuals with the same brush?


and justifying global capital's current war on islam.

Don't tell me you take that "clash of civilisations" crap seriously, do you? With over a billion Muslims in the world, it's kind of inevitable that some of them will be ruling class, just like Christianity.

What's going on is that some elements of the ruling class are using Muslim terrorist boogymen to scare the peons for political expediency. What is not going on is some Manichean power struggle between two alien civilisations, which incidentally is a popular belief among right-wing conservatives.

Which means if your rhetoric is anything to go buy, you've bought into their false dichotomy, only you've gone for the percieved "underdog".

Shame on you!

[Queercommie Girl]

lol

those dreadful new atheists who are devoted to working for the heritage foundation, embracing fascist politics, and justifying global capital's current war on islam.


No, the fundamental line is drawn along class and ideological lines, not religious or cultural ones, which would be cultural essentialist non-sense.

There are plenty of Muslims who are very pro-capitalist too. They might be against Western capitalism, but they still support their own "Islamic capitalism".

Islam is intrinsically neither better nor worse than any other religion, and it's stupid to think otherwise.

[Queercommie Girl]

Don't tell me you take that "clash of civilisations" crap seriously, do you?

It's funny because most of the people who take the "clash of civilisations" (mainly between the West, Islam and China) thing seriously are actually crazy neo-conservative types in the West.

In the Islamic world itself, this kind of sentiment is actually much less, and there are many Islamic secularists fighting against brutal reactionary theocratic rule and many Muslim socialists who are risking their lives to fight against capitalist oppression.

So this whole "clash of civilisations" myth is nothing more than a neo-Orientalist idea forcefully imposed on non-Western cultures by right-wing neo-conservatives and hawks in the West. I wonder who is the "fascist" then? :rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

It's funny because most of the people who take the "clash of civilisations" (mainly between the West, Islam and China) thing seriously are actually crazy neo-conservative types in the West.

In the Islamic world itself, this kind of sentiment is actually much less,

Err.... there are plenty of sections in the Islamic word that constantly talk about the "Crusaders" the evil Jews and destroying the evil and immoral West and usually list things like women's rights and LGBT issues as signs of moral decadence.

It's just that fanatical groups on all sides seem to get the majority of air time and lunatic social network groups....:rolleyes:

[Inquisitive Lurker]

...and usually list things like women's rights and LGBT issues as signs of moral decadence.

Random interesting fact:

In Iran, homosexuality is a sin and a crime.

But trans-gender issues and gender identity disorders are viewed as a legitimate illness. And the government hospitals will do gender reassignment.

Weird, no?

No LGB, but T is OK.

[Queercommie Girl]

Random interesting fact:

In Iran, homosexuality is a sin and a crime.

But trans-gender issues and gender identity disorders are viewed as a legitimate illness. And the government hospitals will do gender reassignment.

Weird, no?

No LGB, but T is OK.

Are you transphobic? There is nothing wrong with transgenderism at all, and trans people deserve the same kind of rights as LGB people.

It's not even just full-scale sex change, but people (straight or gay) should have the right to "cross the gender line" anyway, it's quite reactionary to believe that men and women must have fixated gender roles and clothing styles and cannot cross the gender line.

In Iran, transgendered surgery is allowed, but the government doesn't actually pay for all of it, unlike in Cuba or in many European Union countries. Also, in Iran it's sometimes used as an excuse to force non-trans gay people to change sex. Plus Iran is the odd one out in the Islamic world regarding this, most other Islamic countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) do not tolerate transgenderism at all.

[Mather]

"New Atheist" has become the new code phrase for "Douchebag Atheist" -

Amazing. Just because some New Atheists have shite and reactionary political views (Harris and Hitchens), you go on to claim that all New Atheists are the same as them. Now if I were to use this line of 'reasoning' and say that all Muslims were reactionary "douchebags" based upon the statements and/or actions of a few Islamic fundamentalists, I would be criticised for it and rightly so.

Amongst New Atheists, you will find people who are progressive/revolutionary as well as coming across others who are reactionary. Just because there are individual New Atheists who are reactionary doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water and mute ourselves in criticising religion and the very harmful and lethal consequences it has on people and society.


it is possible to be a complete and utter atheist (as I am) without shouting through a megaphone about how much religion sucks.

Can I ask why?

If your generally indifferent and apathetic towards religion, then fair enough as that can apply to many atheists.

If however you hold back on your criticisms of religion because you feel it would 'cause offence' and that religion is somehow above the normal standards of criticism, enquiry and debate that other ideas and ideologies are subjected to, again I would like to ask why?


Harris, Hitchens, et al. also walk a fine line between atheist and racist/imperialist/islamophobic scum.

Agreed, both Harris and Hitchens are reactionaries who supported imperialism by voicing their support for the invasion of Iraq.

Yet Richard Dawkins, another prominent New Atheist, opposed the invasion of Iraq.


They also have no problem alienating a large portion of the working class (most of whom are religious in some way shape or form) with their comments.

By "they" do you mean Hitchens and Harris or New Atheists in general?

Also why do you think that working class people would be more 'offended' by New Atheism than people who are members of other classes?


Some "Marxist" Hitchens is, eh?

Hitchens is as much a marxist as todays China is 'communist'.

I really wouldn't read too much into what that windbag likes to call himself.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

your arguments are mind-blowing,congratulations

On the other hand I don't remember presenting any or making any attempts to argue about it...

He's an admitted religious nutter; he did those ravings about torture, and he is a fan of the "clash of the civilisations" rubbish. What's there to argue about?

[Mather]

Atheism, as a belief, is alright by me. I was one for years.

Once again, atheism is not a belief (an idea based upon pure faith) but a worldview that rejects belief and faith in favour of empiricism and the study of the natural world based upon evidence and reason.


Although I personally don't see it as an 'end-point' but as a stepping-stone.

What do you mean by that?

A stepping-stone to what?


The problem, however, is that many (especially in the west) who claim they are atheist are actually just 'anti-theist,'

Well yes, not believing in a god/gods is central to atheism. Please explain to me how an atheist can be anything other than an anti-theist?


after been turned away from any form of spirituality by the logical fallacies and overall weirdness of abrahamic religions.

What are these other forms of spirituality?

Chances are that they will have as many logical fallacies and be just as weird as the abrahamic religions.


Many then become so resistant to any idea of 'god' that they stop searching and learning, and use the bible as an excuse to turn off that part of their brain.

Atheists do not "stop searching and learning", they search for answers and learn with science and evidence based enquiry.


That, i am not so alright with. These are the types who tend to be as intolerant, militant, and hateful as any religious fundemental.

What a load of bullshit!

Here is a short list of what religious fundamentalists (of all religions) have been up to in the last two decades:

Terrorism.
Bombing.
Suicide bombing.
Sectarianism/racism.
Throwing acid into the faces of girls who go to school.
Blocking LGBT civil rights and gay marriage in the USA.
Causing LGBT teenagers and kids to commit suicide through inhumane 'ex-gay' therapies.
Significantly contributing to the AIDS epidemic in Africa by campaigning against contraception and sex education.
Supporting the 'kill the gays' bill in Uganda.
Covering up the abuse and rape of children in the Catholic Church.

And like I said, this is a very short list as I could write an entire book on what damage and harm religious fundamentalists have caused to both people and society.

Do you still stand by your stupidly ill informed comments?


A good one way to tell, i think, is when an 'atheist' does more to bash christianity and islam, and offer no further support than "show me proof" and "religion is a lie"

So asking for proof/evidence when a religious person makes his/her point makes atheists as intolerant and as hateful as a religious fundamentalist?

Do you really equate asking questions and seeking proof/evidence as being the same as the worst actions and atrocities committed by religious fundamentalists?

Also, the burden of proof is with and should fall upon the religious, for they are the ones making the claim that god exists, not us atheists.

If your a scientist or a prosecutor in a court of law, you have to have evidence (proof) to back up your claims, why should it be any different for the religious?

[Revolution starts with U]

Would you fault me if I "stopped searching and learning" about unicorns?

[ComradeMan]

....

It's pretty grim reading but wait....

Here is a short list of what political fundamentalists (left and right) have been up to over the last century:

Terrorism.
Bombing.
Suicide attacks.
Sectarianism/racism.
Holocaust.
Gulags.
Invasions.
Blocking LGBT rights in countries such as.... Cuba.
Killing fields.
Genocide/Ethnocide.
Stockpiling nuclear weapons

and...

collaborating with religious fundamentalists!

What about if communists/leftists were accused of having to bear the burden of truth in order to defend their ideals seeing as most countries that have had communists revolutions have ended up seriously fucked up?

NB "Significantly contributing to the AIDS epidemic in Africa by campaigning against contraception and sex education"- Catholic countries in Africa have lower rates of AIDS.

[Kadir Ateş]

I've always liked what Gilles Dauve said about religion (which is rooted in Marx's own critique). In his essay "The continuing appeal of religion (http://libcom.org/library/the-continuing-appeal-of-religion-troploin)", Dauve notes that the problem with bourgeois critiques of religion, i.e., those like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, is that they fail to understand that religion is not only a worldview, but also a community:

"Rationalism may refute the “falseness” of religion, but it will never be able to understand the communal and social phenomenon that religion is."

Also, I don't think it is really worth the energy and effort for Marxists to critique religion.

[Octavian]

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing."[ - direct quote from hawking, sounds like a first cause. the BBT itself is a type of first cause, at least as far as the known universe is concerned.

Einstein's god WAS harmony and oneness of the design of the universe. The beauty of how the world is structured. This is a direct shout-out to the beauty of the world as a whole, a kind of pantheism. This is somewhat akin to deistic beliefs, like the FFs had. Maybe not necessarily recognizing an event as a 'first cause' but the world as a direct effect of a first cause, ie, what ever it is that causes the world to be structured in the way we see it.

When asked if he believed in god heisenberg said ""Can you, or anyone else, reach the central order of things, or events, whose existence seems beyond doubt, as directly as you can reach the soul of another human being? I am using the term 'soul' quite deliberately so as not to be misunderstood. If you would put the question like that, the answer is yes." - he speaks again of the natural central order and events, implying a divine cause. no mention of jesus's dad or the bible. he was labeled a lutheran but clearly did not identify with their beliefs

plato (and aristotle) envisioned god as 'the supreme architect" - deist. Although the labels assigned to them are not the same, the common factor in all of these people's outlooks is the 'natural order" our "architecture" or the universe as paramount. Maybe not a first cause per se, but definitely a "first order" of things
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion
Einstein said a belief in god was childish. He didn't believe in the man in the sky god. No matter how much you or other people want to twist and define god into existence it wont make any current religions god valid.

[∞]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/customavatars/avatar25756_2.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=25756) Luisrah (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=25756) http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/statusicon/user_offline.gif
Marxist-Leninist
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Azores, Portugal
Posts: 430
Rep Power: 4
Reputation: 248
http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/reputation/reputation_pos.gif


http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/icons/icon1.gif
Well, atheist is someone that denies that god exists right? I suppose there is no proof that god exists, but there isn't proof that he/she/it exists either right?

That's why I like to call myself and agnostic (or agnosticist, whatever) because it is impossible to know if god exists or not. I just really think it doesn't exist, but I don't think we can be sure it doesn't

However, why give "god" such a high probable output? Sure there "might" be a god, but there "might" be invisible pink fairies floating around ejaculating invisible cum in our ears.
There is just as much proof for the latter. So believing there might be a god is more an act of faith than assuming that there is no god since there is not even a small amount of evidence for it.
As an atheist I will not get myself to believe in god , until I witness a phenomena that occurs in the universe that must've involved a divine creator, and it has to make sense.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Would you fault me if I "stopped searching and learning" about unicorns?

Theists can stop having to learn about Invisible Pink Unicorns and Interplanetary Teapots the day Atheists no longer have to be socially bombarded by religion.

The day the last religious billboard is torn down will be a great day.

The day the last church is converted into a meeting hall with interesting outdated artwork will be an even greater day.

Architecturally, churches beg to be converted into meeting halls. Raised dais for the chairpersons, elevated speaking podiums, good PA systems, good acoustics. Huge capacity.

[ComradeMan]

Theists can stop having to learn about Invisible Pink Unicorns and Interplanetary Teapots the day Atheists no longer have to be socially bombarded by religion.

Oh give me a break please. Unless you live in Saudi Arabia or the Islamic Republic of wherever or perhaps live and work in the Vatican then WTF are you exaggerating. I get bombarded by tonnes of shit everday- it's easy- I ignore it.



The day the last religious billboard is torn down will be a great day.

Why? Does anyone force you to read it? I drive around and see hundreds of billboards everyday, everything from "Kitchen World" to "Enjoy Coca-Cola" to vote for whoever.... so what?


The day the last church is converted into a meeting hall with interesting outdated artwork will be an even greater day.Architecturally, churches beg to be converted into meeting halls. Raised dais for the chairpersons, elevated speaking podiums, good PA systems, good acoustics. Huge capacity.

What about synagogues, mosques, ashrams, or temples? Why are you singling out one particular religion? Wouldn't you see the day the last bank is closed or the last supermarket closed down would be better?

Quite honestly I enjoy visiting places of religious significance, even if I do not share the religion so to speak.

Whatever the case, you sound like a bigot.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Church is a generic term. And coming from a country that is 78.5% Christian, it is the first word that springs to mind.

Also, banks do not necessarily need to be abolished. Take J.J. Rousseau's People's Bank, operating at 1% interest.

And no, I would not want to see supermarkets shut down. I would want to see them collectivized or turned into co-ops. There's nothing wrong with going to one big place to do all of your shopping. It's called efficiency. And it goes back historically and currently to the City Market. You might as well say don't you want all the Farmer's Markets shut down, because they are growing too large. The one in Madison is huge.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Quite honestly I enjoy visiting places of religious significance, even if I do not share the religion so to speak.

Whatever the case, you sound like a bigot.

I only enjoy the old ones with great architecture, artwork, and stained glass. Modern ones are just meeting halls to be. Dull, lifeless. Ever been in a Mormon hall? Dullest of them all.

You can still visit these places after they've been converted to meeting halls to admire the historical artwork. The Basilica of St. Josephat back in Milwaukee is a great example. It is a work of art, waiting to become a meeting hall.

I've been to plenty of synagogues, temples, and mosques, and they are uniformly dull, likely due to the prohibition against graven images. They don't have the integration of art that other buildings do, especially the Catholics. Ever been to Rome / Vatican City? Or, to a lesser extent, Paris?

When I was in Rome, it was summer and hot, and I was wearing shorts. I went to go into the Vatican City, and was told by the guards I had to be wearing pants (and women full length dresses or skirts). So I had to haul ass across town to my hotel, change, and come back. I was only in Rome for one day, as part of a train journey across Europe. But I was able to see all the big must-sees in that one day. This was back in the day when I was young and reckless. The one thing I wish I could have seen was the "Secret Archives" which are no longer secret. But to get in you usually have to be a researcher and have a letter of introduction from a Catholic priest. Or was it a bishop? And it has to be approved in advance.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Why? Does anyone force you to read it? I drive around and see hundreds of billboards everyday, everything from "Kitchen World" to "Enjoy Coca-Cola" to vote for whoever.... so what?

These boards are trying to tell you what to buy. Religious boards are trying to tell you what to believe or think.

[Revolution starts with U]

I've always liked what Gilles Dauve said about religion (which is rooted in Marx's own critique). In his essay "The continuing appeal of religion (http://libcom.org/library/the-continuing-appeal-of-religion-troploin)", Dauve notes that the problem with bourgeois critiques of religion, i.e., those like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, is that they fail to understand that religion is not only a worldview, but also a community:

"Rationalism may refute the “falseness” of religion, but it will never be able to understand the communal and social phenomenon that religion is."

Also, I don't think it is really worth the energy and effort for Marxists to critique religion.
I agree with all of this.


[Oh give me a break please. Unless you live in Saudi Arabia or the Islamic Republic of wherever or perhaps live and work in the Vatican then WTF are you exaggerating. I get bombarded by tonnes of shit everday- it's easy- I ignore it.
At your next family gathering tell them you MIGHT not believe in God.
Religious bigotry runs far deeper than commercialism.

[ComradeMan]

At your next family gathering tell them you MIGHT not believe in God. Religious bigotry runs far deeper than commercialism.

That's more a problem with the family than the religion, in my family we have Christians (Orthodox and Catholic), Jews and recently through marriage a Muslim. No issues and no problems.

[Revolution starts with U]

Notice you didn't say atheists...
If there's anything a religious person trusts less than a member of another religion... it's one with no religion at all.

[ComradeMan]

I've been to plenty of synagogues, temples, and mosques, and they are uniformly dull, likely due to the prohibition against graven images. They don't have the integration of art that other buildings do, especially the Catholics. Ever been to Rome / Vatican City? Or, to a lesser extent, Paris?

Never been to the Blue Mosque then? The Hindu temples dull? The great synagogues of Europe? :confused:


I was only in Rome for one day, as part of a train journey across Europe. But I was able to see all the big must-sees in that one day.

Rome in ONE day......? :lol:

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Rome in ONE day......? :lol:

It was a famous day in my family stories. Running all over the place, zipping through the sites, seeing everything major. Ah it was fun.

[Mather]

By 'many' i meant 'not necessarily the "we" that Takayuki identifies with'

Not every concept of of god is species- or egocentric.

Does it really matter if every concept of god is egocentric or not? It still does not alter the fact that there is not even a single shred of evidence to even hint (let alone prove conclusively) that god or gods exist, egocentic or otherwise.


This is my point: 'many' atheists do more to refute the abrahamic god than anything else.

That is probably because the abrahamic religions are the largest and at present most dangerous, destructive and violent of religions. Hence they attract most of the critical attention of atheists.


I agree the 'god' that created man in his image, and speaks to people through miracles, holy books and prophets is a manifestation of the average person's need for validation in this world, with a narcissistic overtone. But this isn't the only conception of a supreme being that exists.

And all the other concepts of god/a supreme being are just as delusional and as unproven as the abrahamic god.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

...that god or gods exist, egocentric or otherwise....
Do you mean anthropomorphic?


That is probably because the Abrahamic religions are the largest and at present most dangerous, destructive and violent of religions. Hence they attract most of the critical attention of Atheists.Specifically 54.7% of the world is Abrahamic (I included the Baha'is, if you don't agree subtract 0.12%). And they are the power-brokers. Christians in the West, Jews (for some bloody reason despite their tiny size) in the Near East, and Muslims in North Africa and the Middle East.

[ComradeMan]

Do you mean anthropomorphic?

Specifically 54.7% of the world is Abrahamic (I included the Baha'is, if you don't agree subtract 0.12%). And they are the power-brokers. Christians in the West, Jews (for some bloody reason despite their tiny size) in the Near East, and Muslims in North Africa and the Middle East.

And.. Hindus in India and Dharmic/Taoist religions in China- arguably the two fastest growing economies, biggest population nations and in the case of China, probably the most powerful nation of the 21st century.

[Queercommie Girl]

And.. Hindus in India and Dharmic/Taoist religions in China- arguably the two fastest growing economies, biggest population nations and in the case of China, probably the most powerful nation of the 21st century.

Hinduism is technically also a Dharmic religion.

Chinese religion is the syncretism between Daoic and Dharmic faiths. (Confucianism, Daoism and Chinese Buddhism being the traditional Chinese religions. More specifically Chan or Zen Buddhism is a fusion of Buddhism and Daoism) But there are a lot of intrinsic similarities between Dharmic and Daoic religions anyway, even before there was any contact between them. (From a Marxist perspective it's probably partly based on the fact that both China and India were based on a similar mode of production - relatively peaceful, non-expansionist Asiatic agarianism) And the influence is actually two-way: just as Buddhism spread from India and Central Asia to China, Daoism also reached India from China (even Hindu nationalists in India admit this), where it was absorbed by Hinduism. Though it's true that Buddhism had a greater influence in China than Daoism in India.

[ComradeMan]

Hinduism is technically also a Dharmic religion....

Thanks for telling us what we knew... and your point?

[Queercommie Girl]

Thanks for telling us what we knew... and your point?

Just pointing out a fact, that's it. You were talking about Hinduism and "Dharmic religions" as if they were different things.

Jesus, do you have to be so confrontational all the time? Doesn't seem to fit with your apparent interest in the wisdom religions of Asia...

[Mather]

It's important to maintain a distinction between knowledge and belief.

Knowledge is based on observation and evidence.
Belief is based on faith.

A pity then that you fail to make this very distinction in any of your posts when you repeatedly assert that "atheism is just another belief".


Since there is no empirical, definite of either the presence or absence of god, both theism and atheism are beliefs.

Wrong.

A substantial amount of our scientific knowledge, ranging from the study of the early universe to how the universe works now and our knowledge of the process of evolution and the human genome to name a few examples, all have proven that there is no 'intelligent design' or 'master plan' in either the formation of the universe or the evolution of all the different species (humans included) within it. All of this knowledge, collected over the course of our history, is emperical and a lot of it (the study of the human genome for example) was peer reviewed.

So given that there is scientific evidence to disprove 'intelligent design' in the evolution of species and in the creation of the universe, are you at least going to retract the absurd assertion you made that "both theism and atheism are beliefs"?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Agnosticism serves to legitimise religious belief by presenting it as something equaly valid as the null hypothesis, i.e atheism.

But agnostics are strangely inconsistant about this. Why not give equal weight to the idea that the moon is made of cheese, that a teapot orbits the Sun between Earth and Mars, or that there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn?

[Mather]

There's a point. Athiesm is faith-based just as much as any religion, in that they are basing beliefs on zero empirical evidence.

I'll say it again.


A substantial amount of our scientific knowledge, ranging from the study of the early universe to how the universe works now and our knowledge of the process of evolution and the human genome to name a few examples, all have proven that there is no 'intelligent design' or 'master plan' in either the formation of the universe or the evolution of all the different species (humans included) within it. All of this knowledge, collected over the course of our history, is emperical and a lot of it (the study of the human genome for example) was peer reviewed.

There is plenty of evidence out there, you just seem to (conveniently?) ignore it.

As you keep going on about the supposed "lack of evidence", I would like to ask you what type of evidence do you think atheists need to produce?


Agnosticism(-arianism?) is the only doctrine that is based totally on empirical data and no faith.

Utter nonsense.

Show me at least one piece of this supposed evidence/emperical data that backs up agnosticism?


Many self-described atheists are actually agnostic, or anti-theists, turned that way by the logical fallacies, potential for abuse, and overall weirdness of abrahamic religions.

All superstitious beliefs from organised religion to homeopathy and astrology possess logical fallacies, are open to abuse and are generally weird. Whilst the abrahamic religions score highly on this, they are not the only ones.


Problem is, when faith is involved, adherents tend to misinterpret 'belief' as 'knowledge,' on both sides of the god question.

Again no. Atheists reject God's supposed existence based on many bits of evidence found throughout science and our understanding of the natural world and applying that knowledge with reason and logic.

The same cannot be said for any of the theists.


False knowledge, as we all know, can very dangerous, which i think hits main point of this thread.

Which is why the question of God can only be settled on an evidence based criteria and given that there is not one single theist who has one single piece of evidence to back their claims up, it is the theists who propagate false knowledge, not us atheists.


As a type of deist, I do believe there is a a divine state of being, and a divine creator, but it doesn't meddle in human affairs with holy books, miracles, and prophets, and is outside the realm of human perception and refute.

How do you know any of this? Did this particular deity tell you any of this?

Why should anyone have to either accept or believe that nonsense you came out with if you fail to provide evidence to back any of that up?

[Mather]

I am an atheist through and through but I've never understood why people need to shit on each other's religious beliefs.

This idea that atheists are somehow 'oppressing' the religious or "shitting on their beliefs" is nonsense.

The religious always pull this trick when they are losing a debate. Instead of trying to answer questions or debate in a rational and critical way, they will simply revert to the "I'm being persecuted" trick. And it is a trick because the idea that Christians are somehow persecuted and disenfranchised, especially in a country like the USA, is nothing short of a bad joke.

Seriously, does asking questions and demanding that the religious provide evidence whenever they claim that god exists or that evolution is wrong, constitute as being offensive?


I might poke fun but I find nothing wrong with others having their own views on that stuff.

No one is denying the right of people to believe whatever they want, religious or otherwise.

One of the demands of New Atheism would actually be very beneficial to the religious, to enact legislation that guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from religion. That is the state will be strictly secular, but all religions can practice and preach freely but at the same time the state will defend the rights of the non-religious/atheists from religion.


If it is not harming anyone than let it be.

Religion is rarely harmless. It harms many millions of people everyday from the USA to the Middle East and beyond.


Also, not to sound like a defeatist but I think it is a foolish notion to think that we could rid the world of religious beliefs.

People used to believe in Zeus, dragons and that the Earth was flat. Now hardly anyone does.

The same could be the case for religion in the future, especially as our understanding of science keeps on growing and developing, thus turning peoples minds away from the superstitious towards reason and logic.

[Revolution starts with U]

, Jews (for some bloody reason despite their tiny size) in the Near East.

I'm surprised everyone let this little gem pass them by :rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

I'm surprised everyone let this little gem pass them by :rolleyes:

Don't worry- it was noted.

[ComradeMan]

, Jews (for some bloody reason despite their tiny size) in the Near East, and Muslims in North Africa and the Middle East.

This smells a little anti-semitic to me.

[ZeroNowhere]

A substantial amount of our scientific knowledge, ranging from the study of the early universe to how the universe works now and our knowledge of the process of evolution and the human genome to name a few examples, all have proven that there is no 'intelligent design' or 'master plan' in either the formation of the universe or the evolution of all the different species (humans included) within it. All of this knowledge, collected over the course of our history, is emperical and a lot of it (the study of the human genome for example) was peer reviewed.God is supposed to exist and act in the realm of necessity, and through the form of necessity, not of chance except insofar as it is a manifestation of necessity, so this doesn't really prove much at all.


Also, I don't think it is really worth the energy and effort for Marxists to critique religion.You don't think it's really worth the energy and effort for Marxists to critique idealism? In any case we have to criticize the religious character of everyday life.

[ComradeMan]

Just pointing out a fact, that's it. You were talking about Hinduism and "Dharmic religions" as if they were different things.

Jesus, do you have to be so confrontational all the time? Doesn't seem to fit with your apparent interest in the wisdom religions of Asia...

Perhaps you misread, Hinduism and Dharmic/Taoist traditions in China- seeing as in India Hinduism is dominant and even Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism are dharmic- whereas in China there is a mixture.

You only see it as confrontational because you deal in dualism.
:tt2:

[Inquisitive Lurker]

This smells a little anti-semitic to me.
I'm anti-Zionist. And very much opposed to the influence that the country of Israel has over regional affairs. As for their religion, I hate it no more or no less than any other religion.

[ComradeMan]

I'm anti-Zionist. And very much opposed to the influence that the country of Israel has over regional affairs. As for their religion, I hate it no more or no less than any other religion.

So your equating Zionism with Jewishness despite the fact that not all Zionists are de facto Jews and that many Jews are not Zionists and also, if one were to take ultra-orthodox Judaism as an example, the creation of the modern state of Israel isn't all that kosher.

So equating Zionism with Jewishness, de facto, is suspiciously similar to theories about how the Jews, despite their small number, run the world or at least are trying to etc etc and we go down that line.....:thumbdown:

Well done- Gold Medal for Meshugganess.

As for "hating" religions and cultures. Why? Hate doesn't get you anywhere fast in this world brother.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

God is supposed to exist and act in the realm of necessity, and through the form of necessity, not of chance except insofar as it is a manifestation of necessity, so this doesn't really prove much at all.

Any deity worth worshipping, or hell, any deity worth acknowledging the existence of, will have some kind of measurable effect on the material universe, and thus would be amenable to scientific investigation.


You don't think it's really worth the energy and effort for Marxists to critique idealism? In any case we have to criticize the religious character of everyday life.

Just because Marxists don't take idealistic concepts seriously (supposedly), doesn't mean that nobody else does.

Problems do not got away by dismissing them as "idealism".

[Queercommie Girl]

You only see it as confrontational because you deal in dualism.
:tt2:


Maybe my spirit has been tainted too much by Abrahamic absolutism...:crying::lol:

Just saying, the actual details in both China and India are somewhat more complex. In both cases it's actually the fusion of a "northern" religious tradition with a "southern" one. In India ancient Hinduism was the fusion between the religious customs of the Indo-Aryans (not to be confused with the "Aryan" in Nazi ideology) and those of the Indus Valley civilisation. In ancient China, Confucianism originated on the North China Plain, while Daoism originated in the Yangtze region (what was during the Zhou Dynasty the State of Chu). Confucianism actually has more affinities with the shamanic Tengrist traditions of North Asia (e.g. in Mongolia and Manchuria) intrinsically speaking than with Daoism, the Confucian Highest God "Tian" (probably pronounced as "T'en" in Old Chinese) is believed to be linguistically linked to the North Asian Highest God "Tengri", and Confucianism is like a more intellectually developed and sophisticated version (one that is literate rather than illiterate) of the oral religious traditions in North Asian Tengrist shamanism.

For the most culturally developed manifestation of the Heaven-worship religious tradition, see the Temple of Heaven in Beijing, China:

http://www.china.org.cn/images/49230.jpg

So Traditional Chinese Religion is actually the fusion of 3 local traditions: Heaven-worship from North China and North Asia, Daoic religion from South China, and Dharmic traditions from the Indian sub-continent and Central Asia. (Mahayana or Great Vehicle Buddhism first reached China not from India directly, but from Central Asia)

Confucianism, Daoism and Chinese Buddhism.

[ZeroNowhere]

Just because Marxists don't take idealistic concepts seriously (supposedly), doesn't mean that nobody else does.

Problems do not got away by dismissing them as "idealism".I'm pretty sure that that should be addressed to the person whom I was quoting, if anyone.


Any deity worth worshipping, or hell, any deity worth acknowledging the existence of, will have some kind of measurable effect on the material universe, and thus would be amenable to scientific investigation.Correct, but, as I said, this would be in the realm of necessity. A god would not exist within the realm of finite causality, or finite concepts in general, and as such while science would reveal truths about god for a theist, insofar as it reveals the necessary and hence infinite, god would not take the form of a finite cause and hence could not be investigated as such. If the world is really to be subsumed under god, as it is in theism insofar as it does not reduce god to merely a big alien with a beard, then a god could not be found in any specific, physical cause at some point in the world's lifetime as differentiated from others, but rather in infinite necessity.

[Queercommie Girl]

If the world is really to be subsumed under god, as it is in theism insofar as it does not reduce god to merely a big alien with a beard,


I'm pretty sure that's how most cultures envisioned God earlier in their histories, before more sophisticated philosophical concepts like Logos, Dharma and Dao emerged. :lol:



then a god could not be found in any specific, physical cause at some point in the world's lifetime as differentiated from others, but rather in infinite necessity.
There is actually an empirical way to approximate this kind of idea, but without using any metaphysical concepts. It's a concept called ontological transcendence, namely that a super-advanced alien civilisation would be intrinsically impossible to even conceptualise for humanity, in the same way that insects can never comprehend human civilisation.

Hypothetically God could be a form of intelligence so advanced it is utterly impossible for humans to even conceptualise, since we simply don't have a central nervous system that is developed enough for the task. (Just like ants do not have the necessary biological features to ever have any understanding of human mathematics) If so, then the only way humans can interact with God is if God chooses to reveal Itself to us, and any kind of philosophical or empirical speculation about God and theology would be utterly futile. The communication between God and humans would be an one-way one only and solely based on God-to-human divine revelation.

[Ingraham Effingham]

I'll say it again.



There is plenty of evidence out there, you just seem to (conveniently?) ignore it.

As you keep going on about the supposed "lack of evidence", I would like to ask you what type of evidence do you think atheists need to produce?



Utter nonsense.

Show me at least one piece of this supposed evidence/emperical data that backs up agnosticism?



All superstitious beliefs from organised religion to homeopathy and astrology possess logical fallacies, are open to abuse and are generally weird. Whilst the abrahamic religions score highly on this, they are not the only ones.



Again no. Atheists reject God's supposed existence based on many bits of evidence found throughout science and our understanding of the natural world and applying that knowledge with reason and logic.

The same cannot be said for any of the theists.



Which is why the question of God can only be settled on an evidence based criteria and given that there is not one single theist who has one single piece of evidence to back their claims up, it is the theists who propagate false knowledge, not us atheists.



How do you know any of this? Did this particular deity tell you any of this?

Why should anyone have to either accept or believe that nonsense you came out with if you fail to provide evidence to back any of that up?


I agree with you about the logical fallacies of manmade superstitions and organized religions. I also concur that there is zero emprical evidence. However, the cosmoligcal argument is both a philosophical question, and a scientific one; meaning that hard evidence and logic are useful. Logically thinking (regardless of evidence perceivable by humans) the following rings true (to me anyway):

-Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
-A causal loop cannot exist.
-A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
-Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

Einstein, and other afore-mentioned thinkers all believed that the very fact that the universe is structured the way it is, is indicative of a "supreme architect" "divine builder" "first creator" or whatever the hell you want to call it. This is without picking a specific item or occurence that "proves" anything. The universe is 'proof' enough, in a way.

I think you have stuck in your head, when the word "god" is used, the thunder-tossing sky man, who controls everybody through divine revelations and holy books. Also, you have the word "believer" pegged as a prosyletizing, book-burner, that bombs and hates everything. It's understandable, considering that its seems like 90% of relgious attitudes and people ARE like that. But, it's something also many anti-theists get limited by conceptually (meaning, the stepping stone i mentioned before) when real, logical cosmoligical debates are past this ancient idea.

Over-simplifying and generalizing are not the methods of scientists, but of zealots.

[Revolution starts with U]

-Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
-A causal loop cannot exist.
-A causal chain cannot be of infinite lengthNone of these are necessarily true. They are assumptions.
Also notice you had to say "every finite and contingent" because it's the only way you can wiggle God into the issue.

-Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist. Why would this not apply to God?


Einstein, and other afore-mentioned thinkers all believed that the very fact that the universe is structured the way it is, is indicative of a "supreme architect" "divine builder" "first creator" or whatever the hell you want to call it. This is without picking a specific item or occurence that "proves" anything. The universe is 'proof' enough, in a way.
Einstein actually believed in an infinite universe/time, and rejected the Big Bang. He's not the best person to use in favor of the cosmological argument.

[Queercommie Girl]

Even if such a "first cause" exists, there is still no reason to suppose that it must be identical or even related to any of the gods people talk about in the major religions. There is no reason such a "first cause" must necessarily have a self-identity, self-awareness, intelligence or will. The "first cause" could be purely mechanical, like a quantum mechanical event that first initiated the Big Bang, for instance. And for all practical purposes, this "first cause" would have no meaningful relations to any human society, and therefore has zero use. It might as well not exist, because its existence has absolutely no bearing on anything we do today.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Even if such a "first cause" exists, there is still no reason to suppose that it must be identical or even related to any of the gods people talk about in the major religions. There is no reason such a "first cause" must necessarily have a self-identity, self-awareness, intelligence or will. The "first cause" could be purely mechanical, like a quantum mechanical event that first initiated the Big Bang, for instance. And for all practical purposes, this "first cause" would have no meaningful relations to any human society, and therefore has zero use. It might as well not exist, because its existence has absolutely no bearing on anything we do today.

The problem with the "First Cause" or "Unmoved Mover" is that the argument disproves itself. It is based on the statement that every event has a cause, so there must be a first cause to start the dominoes falling. Except that by its own definition, the first cause must also have a cause. Infinite regression. Some try to get around this by moving the "Unmoved Mover" to anther level of existence, but that just moves the infinite regression to this new dimension.

As a theory, it is totally discredited. Ironically, by its own arguments. Conclusion contradicts antecedent.

[ComradeMan]

The problem with the "First Cause" or "Unmoved Mover" is that the argument disproves itself. It is based on the statement that every event has a cause, so there must be a first cause to start the dominoes falling. Except that by its own definition, the first cause must also have a cause. Infinite regression. Some try to get around this by moving the "Unmoved Mover" to anther level of existence, but that just moves the infinite regression to this new dimension.

As a theory, it is totally discredited. Ironically, by its own arguments. Conclusion contradicts antecedent.

What do you propose then?

[Revolution starts with U]

I propose people stop trying to make truth judgments upon things of which we have no evidence :thumbup1:

[ZeroNowhere]

I existed before time. It took a while before time was brought into being, and that was quite a dull wait because nothing much happened. It's unfortunate that there had to be a time prior to which time did not exist, but what can you do. I'm still not sure how they created spatial dimensions, though.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

What do you propose then?

I propose an infinite regression. The flaw that kills the "First Cause." I say this has been going on forever, beginning and ending being one. But for more of that, you'll have to see the Cosmology and Astrophysics thread in the Science forum.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What do you propose then?

THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question)

Seriously. Some maths says that non-existence is unstable or something like that, but that hasn't been observed or demonstrated in an experiment. Personally I like the idea of an infinite multiverse, but the truth could be even stranger than that.

Whatever the truth is, it will be discovered by scientists, and not theologians or philosophers.

[ComradeMan]

You are all of course aware of the problems with infinity from a mathematical point of view....;)

[Revolution starts with U]

BUt that's as much an argument against a mulitverse, as god. There may well be a time before time, an infinite universe... but we currently have not the technological capacity to measure anything like that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are all of course aware of the problems with infinity from a mathematical point of view....;)

What problems? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Mathematics) In any case, even if there were "problems" with infinity in mathematics, that does not rule out an infinite multiverse, because the map is not the territory, so to speak.

[ComradeMan]

What problems? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Mathematics) In any case, even if there were "problems" with infinity in mathematics, that does not rule out an infinite multiverse, because the map is not the territory, so to speak.

You've never heard of finitism?

This would argue that a mathematical object can only exist if it is created from natural numbers in a finite set of steps.

Where is the empirical evidence for a multiverse?

[Pioneers_Violin]

Everyone seems to be missing out on the important question:

If the invisible pink faeries are pink, are they really invisible? Or pink?

Answer: How on Earth should I know? Do I look like the Oracle of Delphi? :confused:

Thanks for a fun debate,
PV

PS. No "anti-semitism" detected by me.

PPS. The "God" of Abraham can accurately be called "The Hebrew War God"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You've never heard of finitism?

This would argue that a mathematical object can only exist if it is created from natural numbers in a finite set of steps.

The universe isn't a mathematical object. Mathematics can help us to understand it, in the same way that a map helps find our way around an island. But it's a mistake to assume that the map is a completely faithful representation.


Where is the empirical evidence for a multiverse?

None at the moment. It's a hypothesis. It is possible to entertain an idea without embracing it as truth. Where's the evidence for god/s?

[ComradeMan]

The universe isn't a mathematical object. Mathematics can help us to understand it, in the same way that a map helps find our way around an island. But it's a mistake to assume that the map is a completely faithful representation.

Sacrilege! But let's not go down the mathematics road again...


None at the moment. It's a hypothesis. It is possible to entertain an idea without embracing it as truth. Where's the evidence for god/s?

Aha... so religious/spiritual people can also therefore entertain there "philosophies" on that basis.... without being branded as mentally ill or whatever else...

;)

[Octavian]

Aha... so religious/spiritual people can also therefore entertain there "philosophies" on that basis.... without being branded as mentally ill or whatever else...

;)
The difference is that considering the hypothesis of a multiverse doesn't cause people to enforce ridiculous beliefs that have life changing consequences if followed.

[ZeroNowhere]

BUt that's as much an argument against a mulitverse, as god. There may well be a time before time, an infinite universe... but we currently have not the technological capacity to measure anything like that.What, to measure that space and time are infinite?

[ComradeMan]

The difference is that considering the hypothesis of a multiverse doesn't cause people to enforce ridiculous beliefs that have life changing consequences if followed.

Fairpoint if this were a forum in which the religious/spiritual where fundamentalists or fanatics hell-bent on issuing fatwahs..... :lol: .... but last time I looked it wasn't....

[Octavian]

Fairpoint if this were a forum in which the religious/spiritual where fundamentalists or fanatics hell-bent on issuing fatwahs..... :lol: .... but last time I looked it wasn't....
My only issue with moderate religious people is that them believing validates the beliefs of the fundamentalists and them I have a problem with.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sacrilege! But let's not go down the mathematics road again...

An example would be the ideal gas law. It's useful at scales where gravitational effects are negligable, but at planetary and larger scales collections of gas condense into discrete objects rather than spreading out as the ideal gas law describes. To continue the map analogy, it's like how it describes an island but not the archipelago.


Aha... so religious/spiritual people can also therefore entertain there "philosophies" on that basis.... without being branded as mentally ill or whatever else...

;)

Please, you and I both know that god/s are more than idle speculation to the vast majority of theists.

[Mather]

It's pretty grim reading but wait....

Here is a short list of what political fundamentalists (left and right) have been up to over the last century:

Terrorism.
Bombing.
Suicide attacks.
Sectarianism/racism.
Holocaust.
Gulags.
Invasions.
Blocking LGBT rights in countries such as.... Cuba.
Killing fields.
Genocide/Ethnocide.
Stockpiling nuclear weapons

You have missed the point completely.

No one is denying that all of the above horrors have been committed in the name of a political ideology, of either the left or right.

But my point was in response to Ingraham Effingham's idiotic statement that:


That, i am not so alright with. These are the types who tend to be as intolerant, militant, and hateful as any religious fundemental.

So until the day we see New Atheists comitting these horrors in the name of atheism, my point still stands.



and...

collaborating with religious fundamentalists!

Yes, most people are aware of this, for example the support given to Al Qaeda and the Afghan 'Mujahideen' by the US government and the CIA in the 1980s.

How is that point relevant to the topic on hand?


What about if communists/leftists were accused of having to bear the burden of truth in order to defend their ideals seeing as most countries that have had communists revolutions have ended up seriously fucked up?

Beacuse social revolution and advocating and struggling for communism are not just exercises in intellectual inquiry, but part of a day to day process of class war and struggle. The two could not be more different if you tried and thus your point in comparing the two is irrelevant.


NB "Significantly contributing to the AIDS epidemic in Africa by campaigning against contraception and sex education"- Catholic countries in Africa have lower rates of AIDS.

I urge you to re-read my post, because I never mentioned the Catholic Chruch in relation to Africa.

Religion in general has made the AIDS situation in Africa worse, be it from the Catholic Church, protestant christianity, islam, local 'witchdoctors' or any other source of superstition and reaction.

As for the Catholic countries having lower AIDS rates, well all that proves is that the good people of these countries seem to have more sense in trusting the advice of their doctors over the 'advice' of priests and bishops and are using contraception. After all if the people of these countries followed the advice of the Vatican, the rate of people suffering from AIDS would be a lot higher.

[Mather]

I agree with you about the logical fallacies of manmade superstitions and organized religions. I also concur that there is zero emprical evidence. However, the cosmoligcal argument is both a philosophical question, and a scientific one; meaning that hard evidence and logic are useful. Logically thinking (regardless of evidence perceivable by humans) the following rings true (to me anyway):

You seem to have this idea that all the big questions such as the creation of the universe must be answered at the same time both scientifically and philosophically (correct me if I'm wrong).

Philosophy has it's place but you cannot ignore empircal evidence if it contradicts or goes against a given philosophical point of view, the rational and logical approach would be to change the philosophy to match the evidence rather than the other way around.

Past philosophy was based on the idea that our world was the centre of the universe and that the Sun orbited us rather than the other way round. That view was then challenged by evidence which proved that philosophical point of view was wrong and now most people accept that it was wrong.

You cannot place philosophy on the same level as empirical inquiry and evidence as the former can never be as conclusive as the latter.

A more rational approach would be to use empirical inquiry and scientific investigation to answer questions and then upon having an answer based on evidence based fact, philosophy can be used to build upon those facts and ideas.


-Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
-A causal loop cannot exist.
-A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
-Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

I see you have raised this 'first cause' point a number of times. Many people have then asked you what caused the 'first cause', as your line of thinking on this ends up disproving itself.


Einstein, and other afore-mentioned thinkers all believed that the very fact that the universe is structured the way it is, is indicative of a "supreme architect" "divine builder" "first creator" or whatever the hell you want to call it.

Wrong again.

As Inquisitive Lurker put it:


Misrepresentation.

Einstein did not believe in a deity, nor a religion, nor in the supernatural. "Einstein's God" was the beauty of the order and laws of the universe. Same goes for Hawking, except Hawking does not believe in a "first cause." He's got half a dozen other explanations.

The founding fathers you mentioned, some were Deists, as was Lincoln.

Of Plato we have no knowledge of his theological beliefs.

Heisenberg was a Lutheran.


Did you just pick these names at random?

Even if that list of people was applicable to the topic at hand, people like Plato, Abraham Lincoln and the founding fathers are terrible examples.

The first was a reactionary philosopher from ancient Greece and the others are leading political figures from 18th and 19th century America. None of them were scientists and all of them lived in a time when we barely understood how our own planet worked let alone the universe, so none of them were able to base their views on scientific evidence and so they simply stated things according to their own idealised version of reality.

Then there is the little fact that the vast majority of scientists today, especially physicists and biologists, are atheist.

Who here has more weight, an odd and inaccurate list of politicians, a philosopher and three scientists or the many thousands of scientists today, with all the access to the technology and knowledge we have today, who have stated that they do not believe in a god/gods on the basis of there being no evidence whatsoever to prove such a claim?


This is without picking a specific item or occurence that "proves" anything.

ie; No evidence.


The universe is 'proof' enough, in a way.

Care to show us this proof?

And this time actual empirical proof, not evidence free assertions on the 'first cause' or whatever.


I think you have stuck in your head, when the word "god" is used, the thunder-tossing sky man, who controls everybody through divine revelations and holy books.

No.

I'm aware that only applies to the concept of god in the abrahamic religions, but your point is utterly irrelevant.

Whether that concept of god or any other, I'm opposed to them all. The Hindu gods, the old pagan god and any contemporary new age ideas of god are just as baseless and as nonsensical.


Also, you have the word "believer" pegged as a prosyletizing, book-burner, that bombs and hates everything. It's understandable, considering that its seems like 90% of relgious attitudes and people ARE like that.

You can be irrational and superstitious yet at the same time harmless and nice, take the Amish or the Salvation Army for example. But just because these people refrain themselves from the violence and the horrors that other religions are guilty of, does not validate their beliefs.


But, it's something also many anti-theists get limited by conceptually (meaning, the stepping stone i mentioned before) when real, logical cosmoligical debates are past this ancient idea.

What do you mean by a stepping stone, to what exactly?

The only "real, logical cosmoligical debates" being held are by those who have long since rejected any concept of god/gods and any other superstitious fairytales.


Over-simplifying and generalizing are not the methods of scientists, but of zealots.

Scientists work according to logic and evidence, so what should a scientist do if the evidence leads to a pretty generalised and simplified answer?

Should the scientist then reject that said evidence? Would that then not be the actions of a zealot?

[ComradeMan]

Religion in general has made the AIDS situation in Africa worse, be it from the Catholic Church, protestant christianity, islam, local 'witchdoctors' or any other source of superstition and reaction.

As for the Catholic countries having lower AIDS rates, well all that proves is that the good people of these countries seem to have more sense in trusting the advice of their doctors over the 'advice' of priests and bishops and are using contraception. After all if the people of these countries followed the advice of the Vatican, the rate of people suffering from AIDS would be a lot higher.

Source? If religion makes the situation worse how do you explain the former Soviet Union and the PRC having the highest rates of infection after the USA and some African countries? Saudi Arabia has the lowest rate along with Afghanistan and if you look at a map of Africa the Islamic and Catholic bits tend to have a lower rate of infection than others.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Source? If religion makes the situation worse how do you explain the former Soviet Union and the PRC having the highest rates of infection after the USA and some African countries? Saudi Arabia has the lowest rate along with Afghanistan and if you look at a map of Africa the Islamic and Catholic bits tend to have a lower rate of infection than others.

Since you're asking for sources, if you're going to be making claims as well, I think you should provide sources yourself. Only fair.

[ComradeMan]

Since you're asking for sources, if you're going to be making claims as well, I think you should provide sources yourself. Only fair.

It was on Wikipedia- look at the maps--- :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Map-of-HIV-Prevalance-in-Africa.png

[Ingraham Effingham]

You seem to have this idea that all the big questions such as the creation of the universe must be answered at the same time both scientifically and philosophically (correct me if I'm wrong).

Philosophy has it's place but you cannot ignore empircal evidence if it contradicts or goes against a given philosophical point of view, the rational and logical approach would be to change the philosophy to match the evidence rather than the other way around.

Science is used to collect data about the world we live in; philisophy and logic are used to interpret the ramifications of the data. Can't have biology without chemistry, can't have chemistry without physics, can't have physics without math, cant have math without logic, cant have logic without philophical dialectic.

My personal belief, (i say 'belief' since i dont profess it as knowledge. after all there is no firm evidence) is that the structure and order of the universe more closesly resembles the creation of an outside, intelligent force, rather than just spontaneously existing. Whether this force is a computer program (ala matrix) or a grand deceiver (ala descartes) who knows?

I did not cite these historical names at random, i chose them because they were all enlightened folks that (regardless of doctrine label or profession) see the divine in the "grand architecture" of things.

I know the burden of proof lies on the positive claim, but can you cite evidence that refutes the idea that the physics of the entire universe was designed by someone/something outside of our perception?

[Nofuture]

Atheism would not be so bad if it had not become so significantly scientific in its demands..what I mean to say is that the atheism of Marquis De Sade is to me greater than the atheism of Hitchens..simply because to blaspheme against a powerful church rather than admonish a theoretical group of true believers as Hitchens does accomplishes more, if you ask me. New Atheism is preaching to the choir..people like Hitchens only wish they would be locked away..they are like children who do some nasty thing and eagerly await the punishment..real pathological if you ask me..the most fantastic atheists today are probably Westboro Baptist Church..honestly atheism is a lot more conducive to the current Capitalist spectacle than religious zealotry..I think political forces attempt to normalize and reify the religious urge anyway they can (by limiting it to issues like abortion and gay marriage) in reality the Western states are just as afraid of the religious urge as Eastern states, although their techniques are really different..honestly I think what we do in the west by commodifying religion is a lot more effective for repression than what they do in China by locking religious people up..

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Atheism would not be so bad if it had not become so significantly scientific in its demands..what I mean to say is that the atheism of Marquis De Sade is to me greater than the atheism of Hitchens..simply because to blaspheme against a powerful church rather than admonish a theoretical group of true believers as Hitchens does accomplishes more, if you ask me.

Oh you mean like this? (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php)


New Atheism is preaching to the choir..

Bullshit. Anyone can attend their talks (or watch them on YouTube) or read their books. The atheist communities I have been to have been very welcoming as long as you aren't there to simply preach.


people like Hitchens only wish they would be locked away..they are like children who do some nasty thing and eagerly await the punishment..real pathological if you ask me..

Oh for fuck's sake, stop projecting. Atheists are one of the least trusted minorities in the US, but it's the Christians who whine about being persecuted despite being a majority.


the most fantastic atheists today are probably Westboro Baptist Church

Are you fucking high? Because only someone extremely intoxicated or terminally fucking dense would say such a fucking stupid thing.


..honestly atheism is a lot more conducive to the current Capitalist spectacle than religious zealotry..I think political forces attempt to normalize and reify the religious urge anyway they can (by limiting it to issues like abortion and gay marriage)

It's not "limited" to abortion and gay marriage, rather those are the percieved "battlegrounds" for religious believers. It's not politics to these guys - it's spiritual warfare.


in reality the Western states are just as afraid of the religious urge as Eastern states, although their techniques are really different..honestly I think what we do in the west by commodifying religion is a lot more effective for repression than what they do in China by locking religious people up..

There are good historical reasons why China does not use religion as part of its arsenal of control.

However, in other parts of the world religion is a much more favoured tool of the ruling classes.

As an atheist and a communist I wish to deprive them of such tools.

[Mather]

Source?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/katineblog/2008/oct/13/sexandreligion

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/public-health-and-religion-aids-america-abstinence-480593.html

Uganda is a good (yet depressing) example.

Up until the early 2000s, the Ugandan government worked with programmes on contraception, birth control, impartial sex education and offering non-judgemental advice and support to those who suffer from HIV/AIDS. In doing this Uganda brought the situation under control.

Then the Christian fundamentalists and the evangelicals (both local and foreign) moved in and fucked it all up. Having gained influence amongst Uganda's political elite, these religious forces have diverted the government away from proven and effective measures to deal with HIV/AIDS and into supporting things that will only make things worse such as abstinence only 'education'.

Then of course there is the issue of Uganda's LGBTs. Christians (both local and foreign) have been at the forefront of efforts to pass the now infamous "Anti-Homosexuality Bill" before parliament. Should this horrific bill pass, LGBT Ugandans will face life imprisonment and this is the watered down version! The original draft called for the death penalty for homosexuality.


If religion makes the situation worse how do you explain the former Soviet Union and the PRC having the highest rates of infection after the USA and some African countries? Saudi Arabia has the lowest rate along with Afghanistan

Religion isn't the only factor in determining the rate of HIV/AIDS, there are many more factors besides. However that does not mean that religion and the influence of religion are not factors or that they have no negative effect with regards to rates of HIV/AIDS. Besides religion there are many more factors such as access (or lack of) to healthcare, rate of womens freedom/rights, literacy, poverty, infrastructure and economic development.

These other factors apply in the example you used of the former Soviet Union. After the collapse of 1991, Russian society (especially the poor and working class) suffered economic and social devastation. Russia was literally plundered by it's new ruling class, the oligarchs and imperialist interests. Since 1991 drug use (especially hard drug use) has increased dramatically and the sharing of needles has been a significant factor in increasing the HIV/AIDS rate in Russia. This example does not really apply to either side of this debate as religion was not a factor in this case to begin with.

Also your wrong on China. The HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate in China is 00.10% whereas the USA has a rate of 00.60%.


and if you look at a map of Africa the Islamic and Catholic bits tend to have a lower rate of infection than others.

Actually, it shows a mixed picture for the Christian part of Africa. The Republic of Congo, Gabon, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Cote d'Ivoire and Mozambique are all Catholic and all have high rates of between 5-15%. As for North Africa, these countries have much better health systems than Sub-Saharan Africa, in the case of Libya it free at a basic level. They are also richer, more developed and have higher rates of literacy. I grew up in Morocco and I do know that the authorities there have promoted contraception and education campaigns about HIV/AIDS.

Saying all of that, my original point was that religion and religious influence can have an effect on the rate of HIV/AIDS. I never went off saying Catholic African countries were worse off than Protestant and Islamic African countries. Because of all the other factors in determining the rate of HIV/AIDS, your map does not apply. Simply because I never claimed anything other than the claim that religion can be a factor and when it is it, is a negative one.

[Ingraham Effingham]

Atheism would not be so bad if it had not become so significantly scientific in its demands..what I mean to say is that the atheism of Marquis De Sade is to me greater than the atheism of Hitchens..simply because to blaspheme against a powerful church rather than admonish a theoretical group of true believers as Hitchens does accomplishes more, if you ask me. New Atheism is preaching to the choir..people like Hitchens only wish they would be locked away..they are like children who do some nasty thing and eagerly await the punishment..real pathological if you ask me..the most fantastic atheists today are probably Westboro Baptist Church..honestly atheism is a lot more conducive to the current Capitalist spectacle than religious zealotry..I think political forces attempt to normalize and reify the religious urge anyway they can (by limiting it to issues like abortion and gay marriage) in reality the Western states are just as afraid of the religious urge as Eastern states, although their techniques are really different..honestly I think what we do in the west by commodifying religion is a lot more effective for repression than what they do in China by locking religious people up..


Both atheism AND religion are easily marketable. That's my number 1 beef with capitalisms: it prostitutes EVERYTHING. Cheapens and dilutes every concept out there by putting a price tag on it, or by attaching it to a bunch of ads...
I see what you mean about this method being oppresive, but i would not say that its more effective than chucking people in jail or executing them for their beliefs.
Ultimately, it is the individual's responsibility to decide what to think or believe, so they deserve at least the CHANCE to make a choice and convince others. Given the freedom, many do. Even the very existence of a site like this shows what is still possible.
Capitalism convolutes and obstructs free will very well, but fascism destroys it.

[ComradeMan]

... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/katineblog/2008/oct/13/sexandreligion).

There are many factors involved- therefore blaming religion is silly-and that's what I was trying to highlight.

"A short examination, however, of the HIV/AIDS rates of those African countries that have a large Catholic population shows that the Church’s accusers have not done the homework or are deliberately misreporting the facts. The available statistics show that countries with a large Catholic percentage population, show significantly lower rates of HIV/AIDS infections than countries with mostly non-Catholic populations.

2003 statistics from the World Factbook of the US Central Intelligence Agency, shows Burundi at 62% Catholic with 6% AIDS infection rate. Angola’s population is 38% Roman Catholic and has 3.9% AIDS rate. Ghana is 63% Christian, with in some regions as much as 33% Catholic and has 3.1% AIDS rate. Nigeria, divided almost evenly between the strongly Muslim north and Christian and "animist" south, has 5.4% AIDS rate. "
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/mar/07030610

Regarding the stats- remember that percentages are percentages- in terms of total numbers you have to remember the size of China's population compared to the usa:
China

"There are currently an estimated 740,000 people living with HIV (http://www.avert.org/hiv.htm) in China.1 (http://www.avert.org/aidschina.htm#) During 2009 around 26,000 people died from AIDS (http://www.avert.org/aids.htm).2 (http://www.avert.org/aidschina.htm#) These numbers must be considered in the context of China's extremely large population which is estimated at around 1.3 billion.3 (http://www.avert.org/aidschina.htm#) Although China’s HIV epidemic remains one of low prevalence overall (0.1% among adults),4 (http://www.avert.org/aidschina.htm#) there are pockets of high infection among specific sub-populations and the danger of the epidemic spreading further into the general population persists.5 (http://www.avert.org/aidschina.htm#) This became particularly evident in 2009 when China reported that AIDS had become the country’s leading cause of death among infectious diseases for the first time ever, surpassing both tuberculosis (http://www.avert.org/tuberculosis.htm) and rabies.6" (http://www.avert.org/aidschina.htm#)

http://www.avert.org/aidschina.htm

See this map
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/HIV_Epidem.png

[Mather]

There are many factors involved- therefore blaming religion is silly-and that's what I was trying to highlight.

I'll say it again!


Saying all of that, my original point was that religion and religious influence can have an effect on the rate of HIV/AIDS. I never went off saying Catholic African countries were worse off than Protestant and Islamic African countries. Because of all the other factors in determining the rate of HIV/AIDS, your map does not apply. Simply because I never claimed anything other than the claim that religion can be a factor and when it is it, is a negative one.

Got that?

I am not saying religion is the cause of high rates of HIV/AIDS, just one of many.

To deny that religion has no negative effect on the rates of HIV/AIDS is as absurd as stating that religion is the only factor in this instance.

PS: Nice to see you conveniently ignore the example of Uganda that I provided.


http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/mar/07030610
(http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/mar/07030610)

Nice to see that your link Lifesitenews is a right-wing Christian site, filled with hate filled articles ranting against abortion and homosexuality.

Did you even have a look at the website and see what it was about?

I'm not even going to respond to that because such a pathetic and unreliable link does not deserve one.


See this map
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...HIV_Epidem.png (http://www.anonym.to/?http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/HIV_Epidem.png)

That link simply backs up my point, that the USA has a higher rate of HIV/AIDS than China.

[Mather]

My personal belief, (i say 'belief' since i dont profess it as knowledge. after all there is no firm evidence) is that the structure and order of the universe more closesly resembles the creation of an outside, intelligent force, rather than just spontaneously existing.

Well just don't act all surprised when people dismiss that on the account of you being unable to back any of that up.

Many scientists and astronomists have pondered the universe and the vast majority of them have not come to the conclusion that the universe has a creator or an intelligence behind it. Why should I take your "belief" over the work and study of numerous scientists and astronomists?


Whether this force is a computer program (ala matrix) or a grand deceiver (ala descartes) who knows?

Or it could be the spaghetti monster.

And please don't tell me you take Descartes seriously?


I did not cite these historical names at random, i chose them because they were all enlightened folks that (regardless of doctrine label or profession) see the divine in the "grand architecture" of things.

It seems you have cited these names at random, as others have rightly pointed out.

Stephen Hawking does not think god or any other intelligence created the universe.

Here is a quote from his book The Grand Design:


Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/stephen-hawking-there-is-no-heaven/2011/05/16/AF6hNs4G_blog.html

As for Plato, why should I take his view of the universe which is out of date by 2400 years, over the numerous scientists and astronomists who have been able to study the universe in ways Plato could not even imagine?


I know the burden of proof lies on the positive claim, but can you cite evidence that refutes the idea that the physics of the entire universe was designed by someone/something outside of our perception?

Evolution by natural selection.

Now, over to you.

[Octavian]

1.My personal belief, (i say 'belief' since i dont profess it as knowledge. 2.after all there is no firm evidence) is that the structure and order of the universe more closesly resembles the creation of an outside, intelligent force, rather than just spontaneously existing. Whether this force is a computer program (ala matrix) or a grand deceiver (ala descartes) who knows?

1. Belief is simply holding a proposition to be true or not true. You're referring to faith. Holding a proposition to be true despite lack of or evidence against said proposition to be true.
2. How do you discern designed from not designed. For instance I can tell that a computer is designed only by the fact that I have never seen one naturally occur.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Well, atheist is someone that denies that god exists right? I suppose there is no proof that god exists, but there isn't proof that he/she/it exists either right?

no way to know till we rot in the ground, Right?
BTW if there is a god, at least at least if i do go to hell, ill get to spend eternity with Stalin, Karl, and Vladimir

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Science is used to collect data about the world we live in; philisophy and logic are used to interpret the ramifications of the data. Can't have biology without chemistry, can't have chemistry without physics, can't have physics without math, cant have math without logic, cant have logic without philophical dialectic.

My personal belief, (i say 'belief' since i dont profess it as knowledge. after all there is no firm evidence) is that the structure and order of the universe more closesly resembles the creation of an outside, intelligent force, rather than just spontaneously existing. Whether this force is a computer program (ala matrix) or a grand deceiver (ala descartes) who knows?

I did not cite these historical names at random, i chose them because they were all enlightened folks that (regardless of doctrine label or profession) see the divine in the "grand architecture" of things.

I know the burden of proof lies on the positive claim, but can you cite evidence that refutes the idea that the physics of the entire universe was designed by someone/something outside of our perception?

in order for the universe to exist, by your theory, what created the thing that created the thing that created the universe. its all in rolling galactic dice.



42

[Philosopher Jay]

And don't forget this, my favorite Hitler Christian quote:


09:53 PM on 6/19/2011
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

[ComradeMan]

I'm not even going to respond to that because such a pathetic and unreliable link does not deserve one.

Why?

Or is it because you might be wrong......? :laugh:

[Mather]

Why?

Did you have a look at the website?

Do you think a right-wing Christian fundamentalist website is a reliable source of information?


Or is it because you might be wrong......?

Stop being a dick.

[ComradeMan]

Did you have a look at the website?

Do you think a right-wing Christian fundamentalist website is a reliable source of information?



Stop being a dick.

Are the stats wrong? There are plenty of other sources of information.

Do you think an militant-atheist website would be reliable when it comes to religious matters?

You have to look at facts from 360 degrees sometimes...

You are the one being a dick- because you can't back up your claims whatsoever.

[Pioneers_Violin]

And don't forget this, my favorite Hitler Christian quote:

I almost forgot that one! Hitler, the Nice Christian Boy.
Interesting how Adolph had the support of two different Popes during the war but after he lost all of a sudden:

1- The Church (and Popes) had been fighting against him all along and...
2- Hitler turned into an Atheist!
Presumably he made the switch AFTER his supposed death without an identifiable corpse.

I first noticed this decades ago..... an antique shop had WW2 souvenirs on display and some of the belt buckles read "Gott Mit Uns" or "God Is With Us" At the time I thought it was odd that an Atheist regime would allow such a thing. :confused:
As it turned out, the metal (belt buckles) wasn't lying... my Teachers were!

PS. A "militant-Atheist" website is bound to be extremely reliable on religious matters. A lot of us became Atheists by studying religion extensively.

[ComradeMan]

I almost forgot that one! Hitler, the Nice Christian Boy.
Interesting how Adolph had the support of two different Popes during the war but after he lost all of a sudden:

1- The Church (and Popes) had been fighting against him all along and...
2- Hitler turned into an Atheist!
Presumably he made the switch AFTER his supposed death without an identifiable corpse.

I first noticed this decades ago..... an antique shop had WW2 souvenirs on display and some of the belt buckles read "Gott Mit Uns" or "God Is With Us" At the time I thought it was odd that an Atheist regime would allow such a thing. :confused:
As it turned out, the metal (belt buckles) wasn't lying... my Teachers were!

PS. A "militant-Atheist" website is bound to be extremely reliable on religious matters. A lot of us became Atheists by studying religion extensively.

'Hitler's Pope' saved thousands of Jewish lives...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/7874740/Hitlers-Pope-saved-thousands-of-Jewish-lives.html

The German army (amongst others) had "God with us" as a motto long before Hitler.

"A "militant-Atheist" website is bound to be extremely reliable on religious matters. A lot of us became Atheists by studying religion extensively."

No it isn't, because it's whole raison d'etre is to prove religion wrong etc- so there is too much of a heavy confirmational bias.

[Mather]

Are the stats wrong? There are plenty of other sources of information.

Besides the fact that your link is a nasty right-wing Christian website, there is nothing in that article which addresses the point I was making.

My point was that religion (not just Catholicism) has had a negative impact in the fight against HIV/AIDS. I have told you this three times already yet you keep ranting on about this issue of Catholic African countries.


Do you think an militant-atheist website would be reliable when it comes to religious matters?

A lot more reliable than some Christian fundamentalist website. Unlike Christian fundamentalists who have made up the most outrageous lies about LGBT people, atheists don't need to lie or make up stuff about religion, as the fundamentalists provide us with plenty of ammunition for us to attack them honestly.


You have to look at facts from 360 degrees sometimes...

Oh well in that case are you going to start using Stormfront when discussing the Holocaust, for example?


You are the one being a dick- because you can't back up your claims whatsoever.

Resorting to lies to compensate for your complete inability to debate properly. How pathetic!

I gave you two sources to back up my claim about Uganda and I notice that you still have not responded to that.

[Queercommie Girl]

Source? If religion makes the situation worse how do you explain the former Soviet Union and the PRC having the highest rates of infection after the USA and some African countries? Saudi Arabia has the lowest rate along with Afghanistan and if you look at a map of Africa the Islamic and Catholic bits tend to have a lower rate of infection than others.

Having lower rates of AIDS cannot justify theocracy, oppression of women and queerphobia.

Technically you could even argue that homosexuality would theoretically increase the rates of AIDS, which is one reason why it's not a good thing. (Some atheist "scientific" homophobes in China do make such arguments) But there is a lot more to life than merely "staying alive". What is life without even basic freedoms?

Alcohol is strictly a drug too, does it mean it should be banned?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Having lower rates of AIDS cannot justify theocracy, oppression of women and queerphobia.

Technically you could even argue that homosexuality would theoretically increase the rates of AIDS, which is one reason why it's not a good thing. (Some atheist "scientific" homophobes in China do make such arguments) But there is a lot more to life than merely "staying alive". What is life without even basic freedoms?

Alcohol is strictly a drug too, does it mean it should be banned?

Except that argument is flawed (though I'm sure you know that) since it's based on assumptions which have no connection to the sexual orientation of the people involved.

(on a side note: alcohol should be banned, even Lenin oversaw a ban on it).

[Queercommie Girl]

A lot more reliable than some Christian fundamentalist website. Unlike Christian fundamentalists who have made up the most outrageous lies about LGBT people, atheists don't need to lie or make up stuff about religion, as the fundamentalists provide us with plenty of ammunition for us to attack them honestly.


Just pointing out also that directly quoting from a religious fundamentalist website could be reason for a verbal warning or even suspension in some cases on RevLeft.

[Queercommie Girl]

Are the stats wrong? There are plenty of other sources of information.

Do you think an militant-atheist website would be reliable when it comes to religious matters?

You have to look at facts from 360 degrees sometimes...

You are the one being a dick- because you can't back up your claims whatsoever.

At least Mather isn't quoting from a website that is explicitly reactionary.

[Queercommie Girl]

(on a side note: alcohol should be banned, even Lenin oversaw a ban on it).

I disagree. I'm no lover of alcohol myself, just a light social drinker, but in principle I support cultural democracy. Banning alcohol isn't something for the "vanguard elite" to decide.

[bcbm]

Stop being a dick.


You are the one being a dick

please don't flame

[ComradeMan]

At least Mather isn't quoting from a website that is explicitly reactionary.

To be honest I don't know anything about that website, but if it is reactionary I apologise, however it's not the only website that has similar information..... :crying:

However I will add that the whole cringe thread in the Member's Forum about this link completely mispresented my point-of-view. Whereas I was stating that I feel it's false to say religion is responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa and provided this link (amongst others) it became twisted into ComradeMan supporting religion as a way of combatting the spread of HIV/AIDS by Iseul. That's not fair and that was not my position on the matter at all. I was just pointing out that the statistics do not support the notion of religion exacerbating the HIV/AIDS situation in Africa, whether it be in the predominantly Catholic (the usual scapegoat) or Islamic areas.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I disagree. I'm no lover of alcohol myself, just a light social drinker, but in principle I support cultural democracy. Banning alcohol isn't something for the "vanguard elite" to decide.

It's not about culture, nor would it necessarily come about as a legal response, the important thing is that utilisation of alcohol be decreased by whatever means most effective, for reasons of public physical and social health. Same with smoking (though smoking in any public place, including balconies, ought to be disallowed entirely). This could entail everything from improving material conditions to propaganda.

[ComradeMan]

It's not about culture, nor would it necessarily come about as a legal response, the important thing is that utilisation of alcohol be decreased by whatever means most effective, for reasons of public physical and social health. Same with smoking (though smoking in any public place, including balconies, ought to be disallowed entirely). This could entail everything from improving material conditions to propaganda.

Yeah... everyone's going to vote for your party then.... :lol:

[Queercommie Girl]

To be honest I don't know anything about that website, but if it is reactionary I apologise, however it's not the only website that has similar information..... :crying:

However I will add that the whole cringe thread in the Member's Forum about this link completely mispresented my point-of-view. Whereas I was stating that I feel it's false to say religion is responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa and provided this link (amongst others) it became twisted into ComradeMan supporting religion as a way of combatting the spread of HIV/AIDS by Iseul. That's not fair and that was not my position on the matter at all. I was just pointing out that the statistics do not support the notion of religion exacerbating the HIV/AIDS situation in Africa, whether it be in the predominantly Catholic (the usual scapegoat) or Islamic areas.

What does "cringe thread" actually mean? English isn't my first language.

Objectively I don't think religion is the main reason for the spread of AIDS, but it is a factor. The main issue I had with you is quoting from a right-wing Christian website and the fact that you seem to be completely ignoring the plight of LGBT people in theocratic countries and countries dominated by religious fundamentalism. However, I did also state that ComradeMan was not being explicitly queerphobic, so I never put you on the same level as the likes of Thomas Sankara.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's not about culture, nor would it necessarily come about as a legal response, the important thing is that utilisation of alcohol be decreased by whatever means most effective, for reasons of public physical and social health. Same with smoking (though smoking in any public place, including balconies, ought to be disallowed entirely). This could entail everything from improving material conditions to propaganda.

There is no evidence that light to moderate drinking has any long-term negative effects on health. In fact, several studies have shown that light drinking of wine may actually decrease the chance of getting heart disease. I agree that heavy drinking or binge drinking should be discouraged, though.

But if you want to be really pedantic about this kind of thing in a reductionist sense, you could argue that homosexuality is bad because it decreases the rate of population increase. In fact, this was probably one of the reasons Stalin banned homosexuality, because he wanted Russia to increase in population significantly. (This was also partly why he banned abortions)

It shows that these things cannot be approached in a purely reductionist way, because humans are not simply machines and efficiency is not the only or even primary consideration in many situations.