Hitchens and Antitheism

[The Feral Underclass]

Despite the fact that Christopher Hitchens is now a former-Trotskyist, neo-conservative sympathising, Liberal hawk (which is what his wikipedia article implies) his views on religion and ultimately his confessed Antitheism is very inspiring.

I have just watched the 80 minute debate he had with a Christian somewhere in Texas (at a university presumably) and it was very interesting. I would suggest that people watch this debate if they're interested in understanding or reaffirming their antitheist beliefs.

This is the first part (they come in 8 ten minute parts). If you don't want to watch all of them, at least listen to the Hitchen's initial address:

Hitchens Vs Olasky debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o3GMO7G9ds&feature=related)

[Demogorgon]

It is funny how bigoted against religion this site has become that people can describe the very views that lead him to support bombing of as many middle eastern countries and call Bush the Greatest Living force for secularism "inspiring".

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:53 am
It is funny how bigoted against religion this site has become that people can describe the very views that lead him to support bombing of as many middle eastern countries and call Bush the Greatest Living force for secularism "inspiring".
But his analysis of religion and theism is very good and relevant. That is, a relationship between a person and the Judeo-Christian god is one of totalitarianism, no matter how you look at it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:53 pm
It is funny how bigoted against religion this site has become that people can describe the very views that lead him to support bombing of as many middle eastern countries and call Bush the Greatest Living force for secularism "inspiring".
That paragraph is so full of logical fallacies it makes me want to urinate.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:10 pm
That is, a relationship between a person and the Judeo-Christian god is one of totalitarianism, no matter how you look at it.
May well be, but the way Hitchens looks at it makes he also believe that a planned economy is necessarily totalitarian.

So I don't want to look at the relationship between people and YHWH the same way Hitchens looks at it, nor I thing any leftist should.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by lvleph+December 20, 2007 06:10 pm--> (lvleph @ December 20, 2007 06:10 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 11:53 am
It is funny how bigoted against religion this site has become that people can describe the very views that lead him to support bombing of as many middle eastern countries and call Bush the Greatest Living force for secularism "inspiring".
But his analysis of religion and theism is very good and relevant. That is, a relationship between a person and the Judeo-Christian god is one of totalitarianism, no matter how you look at it. [/b]
Which of course is precisely the point. His ideas on theism and religion in general is incredibly relevant to anyone wanting to fight the hegemony of the biggest untruth in the history of humanity.

His opinions on Iraq and on Bush are obviously repugnant, but of course there is absolutely no reason for me to make that distinction or defend my support of his antitheist ideas. Anyone attempting to link the two is clearly either an idiot or an opportunist - or both.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20, 2007 06:27 pm
it makes me want to urinate.
Go ahead, nobody is looking.

...

Or is this the problem?

Luís Henrique

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by lvleph+December 20, 2007 05:10 pm--> (lvleph @ December 20, 2007 05:10 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 11:53 am
It is funny how bigoted against religion this site has become that people can describe the very views that lead him to support bombing of as many middle eastern countries and call Bush the Greatest Living force for secularism "inspiring".
But his analysis of religion and theism is very good and relevant. That is, a relationship between a person and the Judeo-Christian god is one of totalitarianism, no matter how you look at it. [/b]
Not really. Some versions obviously have that element to them. But I can think of some forms of Protestant theology which does not have that kind of relationship.

And besides I think its a pretty sure bet that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist anyway, how can something that does not exist be totalitarian?

On a broader note, Hitchens is the living embodiment of everything that is wrong with anti-theism. It leads him to religious bigotry and neo-conservatism. How anyone can support that kind of nonsense is beyond me.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:49 pm
And besides I think its a pretty sure bet that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist anyway, how can something that does not exist be totalitarian?
Erm, because he's embodied in religious dogma's and institutions that effect the world. Surely that's blatantly obvious.

Why don't you actually watch the video clip, maybe you'll be educated a little?



On a broader note, Hitchens is the living embodiment of everything that is wrong with anti-theism.

Such as what?


It leads him to religious bigotry and neo-conservatism. How anyone can support that kind of nonsense is beyond me.

It leads him...? Does it then logically follow that it leads every antitheist to neo-conservatism? Of course it doesn't so your point is, in fact, pointless.

Being contemptuous of religious institutions and ideas is perfectly justifiable. If that is bigoted, then so be it.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20, 2007 06:53 pm
Erm, because he's embodied in religious dogma's and institutions that effect the world. Surely that's blatantly obvious.

Why don't you actually watch the video clip, maybe you'll be educated a little?


What makes God embody these things and not others? I have seen God being used to embody everything under the Sun. A very authoritarian outlook is one thing. But I have also seen God used to embody social justice through Liberation Theology. And of course the main thing God is used to embody is a sense of love. A lot of modern Christianity doesn't even see God as an authority figure after all. Hardly surprising given the social role religion plays. It is an escape from the not very nice realities of modern life, people don't often want something nastier as an escape. At any rate why say because God sometimes embodies authoritarianism that religion must be authoritarian? In that case you wuld have to say that religion can also be about social justice because sometimes God is used to embody social justice.
Such as what?Bigotry, authoritarianism, desire to forcibly change others views, tendency towards neo-conservatism
It leads him...? Does it then logically follow that it leads every antitheist to neo-conservatism? Of course it doesn't so your point is, in fact, pointless.Not every anti-theist is a neo-conservative right enough, but there is a strong pull in that direction and those that don't fall into neo-conservatism particularly will fall into similair traps.

I see a lot of comments on this board from so called Communists that sound like they come from the Murdoch press whenever islam comes up for example and there is a strong reluctance amongst many and outright hostility amongst a few towards tackling discrimination against Muslims.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:23 pm
[QUOTE=The Anarchist Tension,December 20, 2007 06:53 pm] Erm, because he's embodied in religious dogma's and institutions that effect the world. Surely that's blatantly obvious.

Why don't you actually watch the video clip, maybe you'll be educated a little?
I don't know, you tell me? My suspicion is the fact that these institutions and dogma's have been historically used and infact are presently used to exert control.


But I have also seen God used to embody social justice through Liberation Theology.

That doesn't make religion and the idea of god positively harmful.


And of course the main thing God is used to embody is a sense of love.

What a very strange thing to say considering the massive religious violence that exists all over the world. Of course there are examples of Priests or religious people being involved in socially conscious activity, but being religious and doing that is not a defence of religion. People should do that regardless of whether they believe in god or not, so I reject this concept that somehow god or religion is made legitimate because people love or do charitable work.

Moreover, religion is the basis for the majority of conflict around the world seeing the destruction of societies and the killings of millions of people.


At any rate why say because God sometimes embodies authoritarianism that religion must be authoritarian?

Because it is!

The idea and belief in god is authoritarian because of it's repressive nature of someones ability to understand their existence; despite that philosophical posturing god has set down for us a list of rules that we must abide by in order to gain his love and in order to qualify us as worthy of such respect he must monitor our every thought, our every action for now, while we are alive, and for eternity. If we deviate from that, we go to hell.


In that case you wuld have to say that religion can also be about social justice because sometimes God is used to embody social justice.

Anybody who uses god as an excuse to embody social justice should be looked at with contempt. We don't need nor should we need excuses to embody social justice.


Not every anti-theist is a neo-conservative right enough, but there is a strong pull in that direction and those that don't fall into neo-conservatism particularly will fall into similair traps.

Qualify this opinion!

How is being an antitheist a "pull" in the direction of neo-conservatism?


I see a lot of comments on this board from so called Communists that sound like they come from the Murdoch press whenever islam comes up for example and there is a strong reluctance amongst many and outright hostility amongst a few towards tackling discrimination against Muslims.

Why are defending Muslims more important than defending any other person who propagates religious ideas?

As a matter of fact, it is my opinion that the attack on Muslims is not a religious attack, but a racial and cultural one and our defence of people who happen to subscribe loosely to Islamic ideas, should be defended on the basis that they are being attacked for these very reasons.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20, 2007 09:06 pm
I don't know, you tell me? My suspicion is the fact that these institutions and dogma's have been historically used and infact are presently used to exert control.




It as and for a hell of a lot of other things as well. You are simply only picking the bad examples and trying to make them representative of the whole

Moreover, religion is the basis for the majority of conflict around the world seeing the destruction of societies and the killings of millions of people.
Idealist Rubbish. If the majority of conflicts around the world really are caused by differences in belief Communism is by definition so wrong that it can not be saved. Fortunately the basis of conflict is not religion. Rather it is an excuse.
The idea and belief in god is authoritarian because of it's repressive nature of someones ability to understand their existence; despite that philosophical posturing god has set down for us a list of rules that we must abide by in order to gain his love and in order to qualify us as worthy of such respect he must monitor our every thought, our every action for now, while we are alive, and for eternity. If we deviate from that, we go to hell.And what about all the religions that don't do that? Hell, even mainstream Catholicism no longer talks about Hell much, generally saying God forgives everyone no matter what.

Sure some religion hold such authoritarian beliefs, but just as many don't. It is ridiculous to claim all religion behaves in that way because some of it does. Claiming something as diverse and complicated as human religious belief is authoritarian by default because of your interpretation of one particular religion is frankly insane.
Qualify this opinion!

How is being an antitheist a "pull" in the direction of neo-conservatism?THey draw on almost exactly the same logic. Neo-conservatism seeks to impose its will on other people up to and including their belief structures. Anti-theism usually wishes to go as far as using force to change people's beliefs (which is absurd anyway). It is not exactly hard to see how they end up overlapping, especially when Neo-Conservativism has chosen to go for a certain religious group.
Why are defending Muslims more important than defending any other person who propagates religious ideas?

As a matter of fact, it is my opinion that the attack on Muslims is not a religious attack, but a racial and cultural one and our defence of people who happen to subscribe loosely to Islamic ideas, should be defended on the basis that they are being attacked for these very reasons.Muslims are perhaps the most stereotyped and discriminated against group in Western society at this moment in time. You are quite right mind you to say that it is essentially an issue of racism as it is not just the believers that are targeted. However plenty here will simply not respond to prejudice against Muslims. Refuse to acknowledge that there is a racial element and accuse anyone opposing the discrimination of pandering to religion. YOu see that in the CC all the time for example.

[Led Zeppelin]

Hitchens' arguments are, for the most part, very persuasive.

However he's unable to adequately reply to the line that keeps being spouted by the religious; "but atheists killed people too! Look at Stalin and Mao and Hitler!!"

In the case of Hitler he says: "Well, he was a catholic and not an atheist", that's fine. But then when it comes to Stalin and Mao, instead of explaining the actual causes of the deaths which occurred under those regimes (and of course refuting the bloated death tolls), causes which had nothing at all to do with their stance on religion, he repeats the weak line: "Show me a society based on the beliefs of Paine, Jefferson, Einstein etc. which lead to death and destruction, and we'll have an equal playing field."

What a weak "refutation" that is!

[Publius]

And besides I think its a pretty sure bet that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist anyway, how can something that does not exist be totalitarian?

1984 is totalitarian and fictional.



On a broader note, Hitchens is the living embodiment of everything that is wrong with anti-theism. It leads him to religious bigotry and neo-conservatism. How anyone can support that kind of nonsense is beyond me.

He was an anti-theist before he was a neo-conservative.

And religious bigotry? Whatever could that mean?

[Publius]

Hitchens' arguments are, for the most part, very persuasive.

However he's unable to adequately reply to the line that keeps being spouted by the religious; "but atheists killed people too! Look at Stalin and Mao and Hitler!!"

In the case of Hitler he says: "Well, he was a catholic and not an atheist", that's fine. But then when it comes to Stalin and Mao, instead of explaining the actual causes of the deaths which occurred under those regimes (and of course refuting the bloated death tolls), causes which had nothing at all to do with their stance on religion, he repeats the weak line: "Show me a society based on the beliefs of Paine, Jefferson, Einstein etc. which lead to death and destruction, and we'll have an equal playing field."

What a weak "refutation" that is!

I agree that his argument in this case is weak, but that being said, I think all the atheist arguments for it are "weak" from a rhetorical point of view.

Like it or not, this does discredit atheism in the eyes of many people, and there really isn't a good answer for it.

And to be fair, atheists do use the exact same tactics when debating Christians. If we can bring up the Inquisition and the Crusades, then they can bring up Stalin and Mao. Not Hitler though, that's just totally factually incorrect. Interestingly though, I learned that Stalin actually re-opened the Churchs during World War II, to use them in support of the war effort. So that sort of discredits the idea that he was some arch-atheist.

The standard refutation is "Yeah, but these atheists weren't killing people because OF atheism", which is really pretty hollow. I mean, they killed the clergy.

Really, I think this is actually a very damning argument, and I don't think a really good refutation exists. Of course, I don't think it needs to be refuted. Whether or not bad thigns have been done in the name of atheism is no statement at all on whether X is true or not. It's really totally irrelevant. I mean, if atheists HADN'T committed these crimes, would Christians be saying "Oh, atheism does sound pretty logical, I mean, nothing bad has been done in its name." Of course not. So the entire thing is quite diversionary, but is still damaging in the context of a debate.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:04 am
Like it or not, this does discredit atheism in the eyes of many people, and there really isn't a good answer for it.

And to be fair, atheists do use the exact same tactics when debating Christians. If we can bring up the Inquisition and the Crusades, then they can bring up Stalin and Mao. Not Hitler though, that's just totally factually incorrect. Interestingly though, I learned that Stalin actually re-opened the Churchs during World War II, to use them in support of the war effort. So that sort of discredits the idea that he was some arch-atheist.

The standard refutation is "Yeah, but these atheists weren't killing people because OF atheism", which is really pretty hollow. I mean, they killed the clergy.
Point out where in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky or even Stalin and Mao they call for the killing of clergy and religious people?

They don't, and any members of the clergy or religious people that were killed by the Stalinists regimes were killed for their political opposition to the regime, not for their religiosity.

Now, counterpose that with the killings of the inquisition, which were carried out for religious purposes, and you have an argument from the atheist perspective, and a non-argument from the religious perspective.

Religious people used their religion as a justification for their actions, communists, including Stalin and Mao, tried to use Marxism as a justification for their actions, not atheism.

This is why Marxism/communism has been tarnished by those experiences, and rightly so, but it has nothing to do with atheism at all. And for the sake of accuracy; their use of Marxism to justify their actions was flawed, as any person knowledgable on the issue of Marxism knows.

[Publius]

It as and for a hell of a lot of other things as well. You are simply only picking the bad examples and trying to make them representative of the whole

They do represent the whole.

Christianity, indeed all religion, is chock-full of ridiculous, barbaric, or outrageous nonsense.

Just because there's some sensible stuff tacked on doesn't make the other stuff not-bullshit.

There's probably at least two or three facts in L. Ron Hubbard's screeds -- does that imply that they have any worth?



Idealist Rubbish. If the majority of conflicts around the world really are caused by differences in belief Communism is by definition so wrong that it can not be saved. Fortunately the basis of conflict is not religion. Rather it is an excuse.

Religion can be, and often is, the basis for conflict.

How can you say, carte blanche, that it isn't?

Actually it probably doesn't cause "most" violence, but certainly a large segment of it.



And what about all the religions that don't do that? Hell, even mainstream Catholicism no longer talks about Hell much, generally saying God forgives everyone no matter what.

Yes, and Scientologists don't ever talk about Thetans and Xenu to the public, they just harp about all the great effects the cleansing has had on their lives.

So what? They're still full of shit.

And if they say that "God forgives everyone", they're just inventing facts. The Bible certainly doesn't say this. And if someone can just invent an idea that has no Biblical basis and call it representative of Christianity than you may as well call me a Christian. It makes about as much sense.

The real message you're telling us is: Christians can be good when they completely ignore their religion and make up something more sensible.

Well, I agree, but that's no good for Christianity.



Sure some religion hold such authoritarian beliefs, but just as many don't.

Yes, and most Christians ignore many of the precepts of their religion.


It is ridiculous to claim all religion behaves in that way because some of it does. Claiming something as diverse and complicated as human religious belief is authoritarian by default because of your interpretation of one particular religion is frankly insane.

The entire idea of religion is authoritarian, or at least the idea of organized religion, which is what we're discussing.



THey draw on almost exactly the same logic. Neo-conservatism seeks to impose its will on other people up to and including their belief structures.

Marxism seeks to impose its will on other people up to and including their belief structures.


Anti-theism usually wishes to go as far as using force to change people's beliefs (which is absurd anyway).

Christopher Hitchens supports FORCING people to change their beliefs?

Actually Hitchens say that religion can never be eradicated, and, I think he even said, some time or another, that he wouldn't like for it to away completely, just for it to be changed.



It is not exactly hard to see how they end up overlapping, especially when Neo-Conservativism has chosen to go for a certain religious group.

Oilians?



Muslims are perhaps the most stereotyped and discriminated against group in Western society at this moment in time.

Muslims, or Middle Easterners?

Don't conflate the two.


You are quite right mind you to say that it is essentially an issue of racism as it is not just the believers that are targeted.

How can it be an issue of "racism" when some Muslims are African, some are Arabian, some are Persian, some are Indian, and some are Indonesian?

Those are all distinct "ethnicities", and in fact most Muslims aren't even Middle Eastern.



However plenty here will simply not respond to prejudice against Muslims.

Which is it: Prejudice against Muslisms who just happen to be Middle Eastern, or prejudice against Middle Easterners who just happen to be Muslim?


Refuse to acknowledge that there is a racial element and accuse anyone opposing the discrimination of pandering to religion. YOu see that in the CC all the time for example.

There is, sometimes, a racial element. But I don't believe that Hitchens is a racist; are you implying that he is?

[Publius]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 22, 2007 06:11 am






Point out where in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky or even Stalin and Mao they call for the killing of clergy and religious people?

Point out where in Bible it commands Europeans to hack up Jews and Saracens? Or where it says "Throw Jews and Muslims on the rack."



They don't, and any members of the clergy or religious people that were killed by the Stalinists regimes were killed for their political opposition to the regime, not for their religiosity.

Yes, and the Crusades were largely about political and economic influence.

Furthermore, I think that you stretch credulity by saying the clergy were killed for their political views and not their religious views. First of all, those couldn't really be separated in Orthodox Russia. And it's impossible to argue that all of the clergy were of one political persuasion.



Now, counterpose that with the killings of the inquisition, which were carried out for religious purposes, and you have an argument from the atheist perspective, and a non-argument from the religious perspective.

Stalins purges could, rightly, be called an inquisition.



Religious people used their religion as a justification for their actions, communists, including Stalin and Mao, tried to use Marxism as a justification for their actions, not atheism.

Supposedly the two are inseperable.

Usually they get some quote from Marx saying "atheism is necessary for communism" or something to that effect.



This is why Marxism/communism has been tarnished by those experiences, and rightly so, but it has nothing to do with atheism at all. And for the sake of accuracy; their use of Marxism to justify their actions was flawed, as any person knowledgable on the issue of Marxism knows.

Yes, and any person knowledgable about atheism would know that is was not the real motivating factor either.

But the thing is, in a debate, it's all about rhetoric, and "Godless communism" is tarnished, in both respects.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:26 am
Point out where in Bible it commands Europeans to hack up Jews and Saracens? Or where it says "Throw Jews and Muslims on the rack."
I can point this out: link (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html)

Anyway that's not the point. Religion is not based on the Bible, it's not lucid and can be used to justify practically anything.

The fact that they used it to justify it means that religion caused it, the fact that Stalin, Mao et al. did not use atheism to justify their actions means that it didn't cause it.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to muddy the issue by equating the two positions, there is clearly a difference between the two.


Furthermore, I think that you stretch credulity by saying the clergy were killed for their political views and not their religious views.

No person was ever killed for their religious views. That's a ridiculous assertion and if you believe it I suggest you back it up with evidence.


First of all, those couldn't really be separated in Orthodox Russia.

What are you talking about? All of the clergy was politically active?

It was only the politically active ones that were at risk of being captured/executed, and those happened to be oppositionists, i.e., other atheists, at least during the Stalin years.


And it's impossible to argue that all of the clergy were of one political persuasion.

I didn't say they were, you implied that by suggesting that the clergy had religious views that were inseperable from their political views, and that they were all politically active.


Stalins purges could, rightly, be called an inquisition.

Against mostly other atheists based on their political views, hardly an argument to be used against atheism. I'm not sure why you're trying to defend that view.


Yes, and any person knowledgable about atheism would know that is was not the real motivating factor either.

But the thing is, in a debate, it's all about rhetoric, and "Godless communism" is tarnished, in both respects.

In a debate it's all about arguments and presenting them. The fact that Hitchens presents a weak argument to refute that claim, means that other people might consider him unable to refute it, and that harms our cause.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:58 am
1984 is totalitarian and fictional.

It isn't totalitarian. It is a description of totalitarianism. Certain idiots here want to simultaneously claim God is totalitarian and non existent, which is absurd.
He was an anti-theist before he was a neo-conservative.And look where his anti-theism led him.
And religious bigotry? Whatever could that mean?His prejudice against religious people to the extent he is willing to support extensive amounts of killing in the name of combatting them. As is shown by his neo-conservatism.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+December 22, 2007 01:57 pm--> (Demogorgon @ December 22, 2007 01:57 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 05:58 am
1984 is totalitarian and fictional.

It isn't totalitarian. It is a description of totalitarianism. Certain idiots here want to simultaneously claim God is totalitarian and non existent, which is absurd. [/b]
God is totalitarian in the same way as big brother. If you have a mental illness which leads you to believe that 1984 is reality and that you will actually be sent to room 101 if you don't live how Big Brother wants you to then you oppressed by him (as an idea). If you have a mental illness which leads you to believe that the Bible is reality and that you will actually be sent to hell if you don't live how Yahweh wants you to then you are oppressed by him (as a idea).


And look where his anti-theism led him.

Do you have any quotes anywhere where he declared he stopped being a communist because he wasn't sucking up to god botherers?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:10 pm
God is totalitarian in the same way as big brother. If you have a mental illness which leads you to believe that 1984 is reality and that you will actually be sent to room 101 if you don't live how Big Brother wants you to then you oppressed by him (as an idea). If you have a mental illness which leads you to believe that the Bible is reality and that you will actually be sent to hell if you don't live how Yahweh wants you to then you are oppressed by him (as a idea).



And if you don't have a mental illness and just happen to believe in God, who is oppressing you? Or if your belief in God does not include sinners being sent to hell are you oppressed?

And even leaving that aside. What is more oppressive, being left alone to believe as you wish or being forced to change your views as you want to do to people?
Do you have any quotes anywhere where he declared he stopped being a communist because he wasn't sucking up to god botherers?Don't you know anything about Hitchens? His entire split with the left was over religion.

He decied neo-conservatism was a better vehicle for his bigoted crusade.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+December 20, 2007 10:39 pm--> (Demogorgon @ December 20, 2007 10:39 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 20, 2007 09:06 pm
I don't know, you tell me? My suspicion is the fact that these institutions and dogma's have been historically used and infact are presently used to exert control.
It as and for a hell of a lot of other things as well. You are simply only picking the bad examples and trying to make them representative of the whole [/b]
There are no good examples. Religion is universally harmful. People who do good things in the name of religion or god should be looked at with suspicion if not contempt. They should not use a lie to justify fighting for social justice; we don't need excuses.



Moreover, religion is the basis for the majority of conflict around the world seeing the destruction of societies and the killings of millions of people.

Idealist Rubbish.

I don't see how that follows?


If the majority of conflicts around the world really are caused by differences in belief

I think you should re-read what I said.


Fortunately the basis of conflict is not religion. Rather it is an excuse.

Yes it's an excuse and that excuses finds its basis in religion. We're essentially saying the same thing.



The idea and belief in god is authoritarian because of it's repressive nature of someones ability to understand their existence; despite that philosophical posturing god has set down for us a list of rules that we must abide by in order to gain his love and in order to qualify us as worthy of such respect he must monitor our every thought, our every action for now, while we are alive, and for eternity. If we deviate from that, we go to hell.And what about all the religions that don't do that? Hell, even mainstream Catholicism no longer talks about Hell much, generally saying God forgives everyone no matter what.

Except in order to be forgiven you must submit to the will of the Church and the teachings of god...


Sure some religion hold such authoritarian beliefs, but just as many don't. It is ridiculous to claim all religion behaves in that way because some of it does.

Whatever religion you are referring to is clearly so esoteric that its relevance in this discussion is negligible. The vast majority of religions, if not all of them require the believer to submit to dogma's, rules and practices specifically designed to worship a higher being in order to find salvation.


Claiming something as diverse and complicated as human religious belief is authoritarian by default because of your interpretation of one particular religion is frankly insane.

That isn't what's happening here. Your inability to grasp the concepts being proposed by me or by anitheists is the reason for your misrepresentation our opinions.

I've been very specific in that I am asserting all religions are authoritarian and harmful and I have explained why. This is not simply about Judo-Christian religions, it is about the worship of a tyrannical, autocratic despot and this character features in practically every religion. In fact, in many cases there are several of these characters.



Qualify this opinion!

How is being an antitheist a "pull" in the direction of neo-conservatism?THey draw on almost exactly the same logic.

I fail to see how that makes every antitheist prone ot neo-conservatism.


Neo-conservatism seeks to impose its will on other people up to and including their belief structures.

The implication that because neo-cons may want this, it follows that antitheists are prone to being neo-cons is a very tentative piece of logic.

Antitheists don't necessarily want to impose their beliefs on anyone anymore than communists want to impose a communist society. This isn't about imposition, it's about struggle.


Anti-theism usually wishes to go as far as using force to change people's beliefs (which is absurd anyway).

You need to make the distinction between communists who are antitheists and antitheists who are not communists.


It is not exactly hard to see how they end up overlapping

You could say that about anything. It's of absolutely no significance as an argument.


Don't you know anything about Hitchens? His entire split with the left was over religion.

He decied neo-conservatism was a better vehicle for his bigoted crusade.

It does not follow, however, that every antitheist believes the same. I and Jazzratt and the dozens of other antitheist communists are living proof of that. Fait accompli!

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:18 am


Idealist Rubbish. If the majority of conflicts around the world really are caused by differences in belief Communism is by definition so wrong that it can not be saved. Fortunately the basis of conflict is not religion. Rather it is an excuse.

Religion can be, and often is, the basis for conflict.

How can you say, carte blanche, that it isn't?

Actually it probably doesn't cause "most" violence, but certainly a large segment of it.
The basis, rarely. Sometimes the catalyst, and often the excuse, but in most cases of religious violence you will see underlying reasons for the violence. the crusades, for instance, were about expansionism, while the violence for "god gold and glory" in the new world was primarily about feudal imperialism. Certainly some things are specifically about religion, but I think when religion is involved it is usually a catalyst, excuse or portion of the cause, not the primary reason for the violence.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 23, 2007 12:42 am

There are no good examples. Religion is universally harmful. People who do good things in the name of religion or god should be looked at with suspicion if not contempt. They should not use a lie to justify fighting for social justice; we don't need excuses.



That is ridiculous. It is easy to bring countless examples of religion doing good. Whether it is inspiring people to do good things, providing comfort to people or whatever. You are simply trying to make your own prejudices into fact and ignoring anything that works against your own case.
I don't see how that follows?You are saying people act on the basis of ideas in their heads and that wars are caused by theological differences rather than material causes.
Yes it's an excuse and that excuses finds its basis in religion. We're essentially saying the same thing.And if there was no religion these wars wouldn't happen?

Just to illustrate how ridiculous your point is, it is easy to point out many cases of religious people feeling compelled to oppose war. You will say that it isn't credit to religion that it stopped or helped prevent bloodshed there but you will give it full "credit" when you feel it is to blame. YOu are applying double standards.
Except in order to be forgiven you must submit to the will of the Church and the teachings of god...You are confusing Catholicism and Presbytarianism which does not indicate your level of understanding of religion is good enough for you to be making such blanket claims. The Catholic Church specifically states and has done so at least since the second Vatican Council that one does not need to be Catholic or submit to the Church to be forgiven by God.

Whatever religion you are referring to is clearly so esoteric that its relevance in this discussion is negligible. The vast majority of religions, if not all of them require the believer to submit to dogma's, rules and practices specifically designed to worship a higher being in order to find salvation.But may of them don't/ I have just pointed out to you that even Catholicism no longer requires that and it is one of the largest religions out there.
That isn't what's happening here. Your inability to grasp the concepts being proposed by me or by anitheists is the reason for your misrepresentation our opinions.I know perfectly well what you are saying. I used to be an anti-theist too before I grew out of it.

I've been very specific in that I am asserting all religions are authoritarian and harmful and I have explained why. This is not simply about Judo-Christian religions, it is about the worship of a tyrannical, autocratic despot and this character features in practically every religion. In fact, in many cases there are several of these characters.And again there are your own prejudices again. Few religious people see their God as an "autocratic tyrannical despot". They see their God as the ultimate good and the embodiment of such nice things as love, peace, happiness etc. You might not see God as that, but that is irrelevent. What is relevent is what religious believers think.
I fail to see how that makes every antitheist prone ot neo-conservatism.Just looking at how disproportionately prone to neo-conservatism anti-theists are is pretty good evidence to me
It does not follow, however, that every antitheist believes the same. I and Jazzratt and the dozens of other antitheist communists are living proof of that. Fait accompli!Well Jazzratt sure as hell isn't a Communist. He/she is some kind of bizzarre techno-utopian who seems to thrive on extreme ideologies and will no doubt go through several different ones over the next few decades. As for you, well you may well be a proper Communist, but you abandon your good Communist common sense whenever religion comes up and instead of seeing religion as the reflection of the world and people's desires that it is, you imagine it to be some kind of bizarre structure of control.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+December 23, 2007 04:01 pm--> (Demogorgon @ December 23, 2007 04:01 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 23, 2007 12:42 am

There are no good examples. Religion is universally harmful. People who do good things in the name of religion or god should be looked at with suspicion if not contempt. They should not use a lie to justify fighting for social justice; we don't need excuses.
That is ridiculous. It is easy to bring countless examples of religion doing good. [/b]
Religion isn't doing good, people are. They may or may not use religion as an excuse to do good, but it isn't a justification for its existence.


Whether it is inspiring people to do good things, providing comfort to people or whatever. You are simply trying to make your own prejudices into fact and ignoring anything that works against your own case.

I'm not going to be dragged into your usual tricks of ad hominem argumentation. Religion is an excuse to do good things, sure, but the fact that religious people do good things is not a justification for its existence.

Priests or Imams or whatever may inspire people to do good things, but that inspiration is based on a lie. They should be inspiring people to do social conscious things because it's the just thing to do, not because he has interpreted some fallacious book in a nicer way than many of his peers.



I don't see how that follows?You are saying people act on the basis of ideas in their heads and that wars are caused by theological differences rather than material causes.

No I'm not.



Except in order to be forgiven you must submit to the will of the Church and the teachings of god...
You are confusing Catholicism and Presbytarianism which does not indicate your level of understanding of religion is good enough for you to be making such blanket claims.

I'm not confusing anything. What I have said is neither untrue or confused. Whether it is through a church, leader, sect or god what I am asserting above is fact.


The Catholic Church specifically states and has done so at least since the second Vatican Council that one does not need to be Catholic or submit to the Church to be forgiven by God.

Yet one must still be forgiven. My point exactly. We must submit to god and do what he dictates in order to be "forgiven" and find his favour. It's despotic to say the least.



Whatever religion you are referring to is clearly so esoteric that its relevance in this discussion is negligible. The vast majority of religions, if not all of them require the believer to submit to dogma's, rules and practices specifically designed to worship a higher being in order to find salvation.But may of them don't/ I have just pointed out to you that even Catholicism no longer requires that and it is one of the largest religions out there.

If it is true that many religions in the world do not require a person to conform to a dogma, rule or practice designed to worship a higher being (which of course is patently not the case), you have conceded that one must find salvation through god by being asked forgiveness.

Either way my point stands.


Few religious people see their God as an "autocratic tyrannical despot". They see their God as the ultimate good and the embodiment of such nice things as love, peace, happiness etc.

So what? Nazi's look at Hitler as being the embodiment of love and happiness. Does that make his diktats, dogma's, rules and practices any less tyrannical, autocratic or despotic?


You might not see God as that, but that is irrelevent. What is relevent is what religious believers think.

I totally agree.



I fail to see how that makes every antitheist prone ot neo-conservatism.Just looking at how disproportionately prone to neo-conservatism anti-theists are is pretty good

That's not evidence that every antitheist is prone to neo-conservatism.


As for you, well you may well be a proper Communist, but you abandon your good Communist common sense whenever religion comes up and instead of seeing religion as the reflection of the world and people's desires that it is, you imagine it to be some kind of bizarre structure of control.

I am asserting that both of those things are true and furthermore positively harmful in [i]every[p/i] instance. As of yet you have failed in convincing me otherwise or adequately refuted my points.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 23, 2007 05:42 pm

Religion isn't doing good, people are. They may or may not use religion as an excuse to do good, but it isn't a justification for its existence.





Religion itself is not doing good (apart from providing comfort), people are doing it. Entirely correct. By the same token religion is not doing bad, people are doing bad. You can't have it both ways
but the fact that religious people do good things is not a justification for its existence.Can be re-written as " but the fact that religious people do bad things is not a justification for opposing its existence."
Priests or Imams or whatever may inspire people to do good things, but that inspiration is based on a lie. They should be inspiring people to do social conscious things because it's the just thing to do, not because he has interpreted some fallacious book in a nicer way than many of his peers.Is it a lie? I don't think so, I think in most cases it is an honest mistake. Priests and Imans are only operating on the basis of a lie if they know it to be untrue. They say a lot of the clergy in the Church Of England don't believe and also I have no doubt that in the Islamic theocracies non believers profess belief for the sake of power, but by and large they are not liars, they are mistaken.

Further many of them call on their followers to do good things simply because they are the just thing to do. There is no real difference between you doing good things (as I know you do) because of your anarchist principles and a Christian doing good things because of their Christian principles. You may say they are doing it out of reward, but Catholicism, and several other Christian groups as well state that acting out of desire for reward from God will get you nowhere.
I'm not confusing anything. What I have said is neither untrue or confused. Whether it is through a church, leader, sect or god what I am asserting above is fact.No, it isn't, few religious believers believe what you think they believe and as you state yourself it is their beliefs that matter here
Yet one must still be forgiven. My point exactly. We must submit to god and do what he dictates in order to be "forgiven" and find his favour. It's despotic to say the least.Not really. THe liberal strai in Catholic teaching (which dominates the Western Church) says you don't even need to believe in God. To a Liberal Catholic, you, un unbeliever, probably have all it takes for God to accept you so long as you aren't leading a life of mass murder or whatever. The same is true for plenty of other religions as well.

I am asserting that both of those things are true and furthermore positively harmful in [i]every[p/i] instance. As of yet you have failed in convincing me otherwise or adequately refuted my points.Your point is not hard to refute at all. Because you are saying that in EVERY instance religious belief is harmful all I have to do is find a single instance where religious belief hasn't hurt anyone. And there are no shortage of those around.

[RebelDog]

Can be re-written as " but the fact that religious people do bad things is not a justification for opposing its existence."

Yes. The fact that it is a total pile of human constructed bullshit should be enough to dissuade rational people.


Is it a lie? I don't think so, I think in most cases it is an honest mistake. Priests and Imans are only operating on the basis of a lie if they know it to be untrue. They say a lot of the clergy in the Church Of England don't believe and also I have no doubt that in the Islamic theocracies non believers profess belief for the sake of power, but by and large they are not liars, they are mistaken.

I don't think it really matters whether the church hierarchy believe the rubbish they spout or not. Religion is like a business. Whether the person has belief in what they are saying and doing is correct, is irrelevant. Their self interests lie in the 'business' surviving and thus them. If people charge 100 pounds an hour to heal illness with a magnet or crystals whether they believe they work or not is irrelevant. In personal survival terms it is silly to give that up for minimum wage in a factory.


Not really. THe liberal strai in Catholic teaching (which dominates the Western Church) says you don't even need to believe in God. To a Liberal Catholic, you, un unbeliever, probably have all it takes for God to accept you so long as you aren't leading a life of mass murder or whatever. The same is true for plenty of other religions as well.

Which reinforces my above statement. The church is adapting to survive in its changing environment. Who goes to heaven, the bigot who lives by the old testament or the new age Christian who accepts gay marriage, women priests etc? The pope has just decreed the end of limbo as it is an evil god-dictated concept that doesn't fit in with modern thinking. The church is moving with the times simply to survive in the face of growing atheism and materialism.


Your point is not hard to refute at all. Because you are saying that in EVERY instance religious belief is harmful all I have to do is find a single instance where religious belief hasn't hurt anyone. And there are no shortage of those around.

Religion is not practiced by materialist, rational people and thus it is (and has always been) a brake on human progress.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:42 pm
And if you don't have a mental illness and just happen to believe in God, who is oppressing you?
How can you not have a mental illness if you believe that the world was created and is watched by a fictitious entity?


Or if your belief in God does not include sinners being sent to hell are you oppressed?

Ultimately you still believe that you have to follow God's laws or else suffer and/or lose out. God (or at least those that wrote his lines) made thousands of rules, many of which are still upheld today and represent a lot of the most backward and repressive laws (Sharia for example or whatever it is fundie Christian nuts in America demand).


Well Jazzratt sure as hell isn't a Communist. He/she is some kind of bizzarre techno-utopian who seems to thrive on extreme ideologies and will no doubt go through several different ones over the next few decades.

The fact that leftism has moved on since the early 20th century may be a big and scary thought for you, but you'd do best to accept it rather than label everyone that doesn't belong to the Orthodox Church of St.Trotsky as a non-communist.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:54 pm

How can you not have a mental illness if you believe that the world was created and is watched by a fictitious entity?

Because they don't believe it is fictitious? Find some medical documentation showing that belief in God is a mental illness and then you might have a case
Ultimately you still believe that you have to follow God's laws or else suffer and/or lose out. God (or at least those that wrote his lines) made thousands of rules, many of which are still upheld today and represent a lot of the most backward and repressive laws (Sharia for example or whatever it is fundie Christian nuts in America demand).
And for the millions upon millions of believers who don't follow these things?
The fact that leftism has moved on since the early 20th century may be a big and scary thought for you, but you'd do best to accept it rather than label everyone that doesn't belong to the Orthodox Church of St.Trotsky as a non-communist.I am perfectly aware of how the left has moved on-and you would be advised to catch up incidentally. But it sure as hell hasn't gone in the direction of technocracy. Typing "technocracy" into google and first of all you only get one fiftieth on the returns you get on Communism and secondly most of the results are referring to technocracy in the bureaucratic sense such as the government of Italy in the early nineties. Not the kind you are interested in. Many of the other returns are simply from debates on obscure message boards, science fiction texts or background to RPGs people have come up with. That is not exactly good going for the movement you describe as being the new course the left has adopted.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+December 24, 2007 09:10 am--> (Demogorgon @ December 24, 2007 09:10 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 11:54 pm

How can you not have a mental illness if you believe that the world was created and is watched by a fictitious entity?

Because they don't believe it is fictitious? [/b]
People who believe that the royal family are shape shifting lizards don't believe that these shape shifting lizards are fictitious, but this doesn't make them real. Same thing with God.


Find some medical documentation showing that belief in God is a mental illness and then you might have a case

Depending on what the suffere believes a belief in God could easily be an example of a Querulant delusion (a(n incorrect) belief that the subject is being "picked on", persecuted or even just watched by an entity (in the case of god a fictional one, although not all querulan delusions involve fictional entities.).) and, naturally, it is quite often an example of induced psychosis (an induced psychosis is a delusion shared by two or more people) on a large scale.


And for the millions upon millions of believers who don't follow these things?

They still have to follow some laws they would not otherwise feel compelled to assuming a sound mind. Even moderate Muslim women have to wear some kind of headgear for example.


I am perfectly aware of how the left has moved on-and you would be advised to catch up incidentally. But it sure as hell hasn't gone in the direction of technocracy. Typing "technocracy" into google and first of all you only get one fiftieth on the returns you get on Communism and secondly most of the results are referring to technocracy in the bureaucratic sense such as the government of Italy in the early nineties. Not the kind you are interested in. Many of the other returns are simply from debates on obscure message boards, science fiction texts or background to RPGs people have come up with. That is not exactly good going for the movement you describe as being the new course the left has adopted.

[Placeholder, will be filled in when I'm not doing something more interesting.]

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:47 pm

People who believe that the royal family are shape shifting lizards don't believe that these shape shifting lizards are fictitious, but this doesn't make them real. Same thing with God.


Indeed, but as has been pointed out to ypou many times. Many religious people have very good reasons for believing in God. Rosa pointed that out to you a while ago and gave you a link showing an argument for God you would not be able to refute. Sure enough you didn't answer. You are determined to dismiss religion as being a lot simpler than it is and deal exclusively in strawmen when it comes to it. So long as you do that you will never understand it and never be able to provide a real refutation to religion. Ironically enough your attitude is exactly the kind vulnerable to religious fundamentalism.
Depending on what the suffere believes a belief in God could easily be an example of a Querulant delusion (a(n incorrect) belief that the subject is being "picked on", persecuted or even just watched by an entity (in the case of god a fictional one, although not all querulan delusions involve fictional entities.).) and, naturally, it is quite often an example of induced psychosis (an induced psychosis is a delusion shared by two or more people) on a large scale.I asked you for medical evidence, not cod science making ridiculous assumptions about the nature of religious belief.
They still have to follow some laws they would not otherwise feel compelled to assuming a sound mind. Even moderate Muslim women have to wear some kind of headgear for example. What makes you think they feel compelled to? I have plenty of religious friends and they don't feel compelled to do anything. When they choose to obey religious rules they aren't feeling compulsion and when they choose not to bother about them they don't feel as if they are going to be struck down by lightning. Incidentally as it happens, with the exception of certain religious fundamentalists, most religious people believe religious rules are created by the Church or equivalent institutions. Not God. You are aware that Christians (and Jews) don't imagine that God wrote or directly involved himself in writing the Bible or Torah, aren't you?
[Placeholder, will be filled in when I'm not doing something more interesting.]Don't worry, I am sure a robot will answer for you.

[Publius]

Indeed, but as has been pointed out to ypou many times. Many religious people have very good reasons for believing in God. Rosa pointed that out to you a while ago and gave you a link showing an argument for God you would not be able to refute. Sure enough you didn't answer.

Let me see it. I'll prove it wrong.

But be warned, if it's Christian presuppositionism, you get docked a week's pay for wasting my time.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:31 pm


Indeed, but as has been pointed out to ypou many times. Many religious people have very good reasons for believing in God. Rosa pointed that out to you a while ago and gave you a link showing an argument for God you would not be able to refute. Sure enough you didn't answer.

Let me see it. I'll prove it wrong.

But be warned, if it's Christian presuppositionism, you get docked a week's pay for wasting my time.
You may very well be able to refute it. Certainly Rosa could. And I am pretty sure I can as well. I can certainly see flaws in the argument and have a fair bit of education in that regard the point was Jazzratt would not be able to because s/he has such a weak understanding of the subject (but is under the impression s/he knows a great deal)

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

[KC]

Hitchens is the epitome of bourgeois atheism.

[Publius]

You may very well be able to refute it. Certainly Rosa could. And I am pretty sure I can as well. I can certainly see flaws in the argument and have a fair bit of education in that regard the point was Jazzratt would not be able to because s/he has such a weak understanding of the subject (but is under the impression s/he knows a great deal)

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html


What a massive non sequitur -- the universe has a cause, so the Christian God did it. I like how none of the body of his paper actually defends his conclusion, he just breezes through it in a paragraph is if it's obvious that it had to be a "personal" God.

Quoted:
Given the truth of premisses (1) and (2), it logically follows that (3) the universe has a cause of its existence. In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

Notice how he completely avoids the question of how God could be free from the same objections he made earlier when he defended his premises. In fact, he brought up Hume making this same point at the beginning of the paper.

Really, I would criticize this, but I can't; it just doesn't make a God damn bit of sense. There's nothing to even comment on. How can a man sitting for eternity will to stand up, any more than a man counting for infinity reach an end? He uses the same example, first to disprove an infinite cause, and then to affirm it. This sort of "philosophy" would be, rightfully, laughed out of any other branch of philosophy, even ethics. It really is that bad.

[Demogorgon]

Your criticism there says more about you than it does about the author. You missed the valid criticisms in favour of silly statements. It would be laughed out of any other branch of philosophy? No it wouldn't. I've studied philosophy for a good few years and you get this sort of stuff all the time and it isn't laughed out. That is a peer reviewed paper and nobody to my knowledge has laughed it out even if they have criticised it.

The flaw in it I think regards some of his conception of infinites. I'm also skeptical of his view that the cause of the Universe is neessarilly intentional. However your characterisation of his view is ridiculous. Nowhere does he claim the Christian God has anthing to do with it. He only seeks to demonstrate there was a cause that could be described as God. The ending paragraph simply asserts his view that this was a personal God, using the analogy that you didn't understand of the man sitting for eternity (a man sitting for eternity would not stand up, that is the point. Something, in this case himself, willed that to change. It would no longer be an eternity then. Hence the Universe could not emerge out of eternity because it would need something willing it to come into existence).

I don't agree with the article. I am not convinced by his discussion of infinites and reckon that the kind of creator he envisages would have to be finite too. I am also deeply skeptical of discussing causes of the Universe as well because we are talking about something meaningless to us.

However it is an excellent article that demonstrates that some theists are a lot more rational than certain people here. I am sorry if you missed the point of it, you were so eager to get an eager criticism it seems that you tried to criticise it for not proving something the author had no intention of trying to prove

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+December 24, 2007 03:03 pm--> (Demogorgon @ December 24, 2007 03:03 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 01:47 pm

People who believe that the royal family are shape shifting lizards don't believe that these shape shifting lizards are fictitious, but this doesn't make them real. Same thing with God.


Indeed, but as has been pointed out to ypou many times. Many religious people have very good reasons for believing in God. [/b]
No, they have a very good way of rationalising their unthinking delusions.


Rosa pointed that out to you a while ago and gave you a link showing an argument for God you would not be able to refute. Sure enough you didn't answer.

Not wading through a tired old page of metaphysical wank doesn't mean I can't refute it. Stop being such a ****.


You are determined to dismiss religion as being a lot simpler than it is and deal exclusively in strawmen when it comes to it.

This from the guy who declares that atheists are all bigoted, any attempt from you to call anything a strawman is fucking hilarious.


So long as you do that you will never understand it and never be able to provide a real refutation to religion. Ironically enough your attitude is exactly the kind vulnerable to religious fundamentalism.

No. You see I think unlike you trotskyite zombies and religious drones.


I asked you for medical evidence, not cod science making ridiculous assumptions about the nature of religious belief.

Look, it's quite simple by the definition of the two examples I gave you religious people need treating, people only ignore this fact because the psychosis is so deeply rooted in our society that any criticism of it brings up the kind of unthinking accusations of "bigotry" that people like you like to throw about.


What makes you think they feel compelled to?

They believe their sky daddy is telling them to.


I have plenty of religious friends and they don't feel compelled to do anything.

If they behave as if their is no god they are not religious.


When they choose to obey religious rules they aren't feeling compulsion and when they choose not to bother about them they don't feel as if they are going to be struck down by lightning.

SO basically they're atheists without the balls to drop their immature need to believe in a nig man in the sky that deals with all their problems?


Incidentally as it happens, with the exception of certain religious fundamentalists, most religious people believe religious rules are created by the Church or equivalent institutions.

You're either a) lying or b) stupid. Even those that believe the laws are the Church's they still believe the Church gets its ultimate authority from the sky fairy.


Not God. You are aware that Christians (and Jews) don't imagine that God wrote or directly involved himself in writing the Bible or Torah, aren't you?

You claim to have spoken to christians but you talk as if you've had less experience of them than me.


Don't worry, I am sure a robot will answer for you.

Since you were enough of a dick to reply to a place holder with this stupid shite any last drop of respect I might have had for you and your pro-religious moaning has dried up. On the other hand here is my pet robot with the reply :


I am perfectly aware of how the left has moved on

Statement likely false, evidence lacking. Statement originator still sucks on the cocks of dead white guys with his mates in the Sharia Wankers Party.


-and you would be advised to catch up incidentally.

Nonsensical given lack of veracity in previous statement: consider writing on to stone tablet and inserting into anal cavity. Sideways.


But it sure as hell hasn't gone in the direction of technocracy.

Statement originator misunderstands technocracy. Technocracy != an ideology. Technocracy is simply a theoretical economic system that can be used post revolution. Statement originator has a 45% chance of labouring under the delusion that "everyone sort of shares stuff, right" is a valid proposal for the distribution of goods, otherwise believes "my trotskyite central committee will hand things out fairly".


Typing "technocracy" into google and first of all you only get one fiftieth on the returns you get on Communism

Statement originator has suffered blow to the head and is suffering major brain damage, or else is a barely functioning retard - does not realise Communism is a much older ideology.


and secondly most of the results are referring to technocracy in the bureaucratic sense such as the government of Italy in the early nineties.

Irrelevant.


Many of the other returns are simply from debates on obscure message boards, science fiction texts or background to RPGs people have come up with.

Similarly irrelevant.


That is not exactly good going for the movement you describe as being the new course the left has adopted.

Statement relies on subject having described technocracy as the "new course" rather than simply identifying it as one of many major courses possible beyond statement originator's tiny worldview.

Recommendations: Die in a Fire.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:45 am
No, they have a very good way of rationalising their unthinking delusions.


Really? What about people who come from an atheistic standpoint to a theistic standpoint due to thinking about the subject? I think you are the one attempting to rationalise unthinking perceptions. In this case your bigoted attitude to religious people
Not wading through a tired old page of metaphysical wank doesn't mean I can't refute it. Stop being such a ****.Translated: "I didn't understand the article"

Either that or you are scared that you might see evidence that your belief all religious people are foolish is wrong.

YOu are in no position to criticise religious people for having a weak view when your own atheistic arguments are so weak. You have even had better ones pointed out to you, yet you still persist with your appalling arguments. Who is the deluded one?
This from the guy who declares that atheists are all bigoted, any attempt from you to call anything a strawman is fucking hilarious.Where did I say all atheists are bigots? I am an atheist after all, and not a bigot.
No. You see I think unlike you trotskyite zombies and religious drones.Think about what? Certainly you have never considered opposition to your own ideas in any detail which naturally means you can't have a strong grip on arguments for your own position. You are the very stereotype of the kind of person that will flit around various extremist ideologies throughout your life because they have never been able to ground themselves and think about things properly. What is it going to be next? The LaRouche movement? Objectivisim? Fundamentalist Christianity?
Look, it's quite simple by the definition of the two examples I gave you religious people need treating, people only ignore this fact because the psychosis is so deeply rooted in our society that any criticism of it brings up the kind of unthinking accusations of "bigotry" that people like you like to throw about.In other words it does not exist so you believe there is a conspiracy to silence it.

As it happens there is quite a lot of research into psychology into what causes religious belief. I am a bit hazy on the details but it has something to do with a certain part of the brain being stimulated by various things. It certainly indicates that there is nothing spiritual going on, but at the same time it is certainly not a mental illness by any definition of the term.

They believe their sky daddy is telling them to.I asked a friend a while back why he followed Christianity and he said it was because he believed it the best way to do good for people. Same thinking that led him to socialism actually. He believed it was pleasing God but he is under no delusions God told him anything. Religion isn't about hearing voices. Again you might want to try and understand something before you criticise it.
If they behave as if their is no god they are not religious.There are two problems with this. First of all where did I say they acted as if there was no God. They act as if your stereotype of a God doesn't exist, because they have a different conception of God. You would do well to try and understanding.

Secondly not believing in God does not even prevent someone from being religious. Many Bhuddist's for instance don't believe in God and that is certainly a religion.
SO basically they're atheists without the balls to drop their immature need to believe in a nig man in the sky that deals with all their problems?Well that is hardly what they believe, but as you are having difficulty understanding what anyone besides yourself thinks I am losing hope of you seeing that.
You're either a) lying or b) stupid. Even those that believe the laws are the Church's they still believe the Church gets its ultimate authority from the sky fairy.
In many cases that is the exact opposite of what they believe. A large part of the reformation was direct rebellion against the idea of the Church deriving authority through god. Presbytarianism, for instance, absolutely rejects the divine nature of a temporal institution like the Church. Again you simply did not know that. How do you expect to be taken seriously as a "rational" person when you have no grasp of the basic facts of what your are talking about.
You claim to have spoken to christians but you talk as if you've had less experience of them than me.I have plenty of experience of Christians. My whole family is Christian. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, several of my closest friends were Catholic. Stopped believing in God around fourteen or fifteen. Formally left the Church at seventeen, went through a spell of the childish anti-theism you indulge in until I noticed that none of the people I know ever remotely matched the stereotype of "nasty christians" you paint and came out the other hand a much more grounded person. I have plenty of experience of Christians. As for Christianity I am even more experienced there. Not only did I get a lot of education there but I even did a spot of theology at University to make sure I really knew religion. I wouldn't want to criticise anything I was not sure in my understanding of.
Statement originator misunderstands technocracy. Technocracy != an ideology. Technocracy is simply a theoretical economic system that can be used post revolution. Statement originator has a 45% chance of labouring under the delusion that "everyone sort of shares stuff, right" is a valid proposal for the distribution of goods, otherwise believes "my trotskyite central committee will hand things out fairly". Oh look. Another strawman! I have posted quite a lot on the subject of economics here and have gone into quite a lot of detail in laying out what I believe and I certainly am not a fan of central committees. Including committees made up of scientists doing undefined equations.

Show some evidence that technocracy works and then you might be able to make a point.

Statement originator has suffered blow to the head and is suffering major brain damage, or else is a barely functioning retard - does not realise Communism is a much older ideology. How dumb are you? Technocracy has been around since the twenties and peaked in popularity in the thirties. It long predates the internet. Communism has no headstart in the amount of time it should have had to build up interest and activity on the internet.
Irrelevant.

Similarly irrelevant.Hardly, it says a lot when most people are using the word used to describe your position for something else entirely and those using it in the sense you mean are using it in a fictional context.
Statement relies on subject having described technocracy as the "new course" rather than simply identifying it as one of many major courses possible beyond statement originator's tiny worldview.A major course? :lol:

Anyway I find it amusing that someone so determined to insult religious people can cling-religiously in fact-to something daft themselves.

Calling my worldview limited is the ultimate case of the pot calling the kettle black. Drop the childish trans-humanist fantasies a while and go and have a look at the world as it actually is and how people really think and perceive things and it will do you a world of good. Of course it will shake your faith in your views, but hopefully it will let you come up with a better leftist view. One that is a bit more robust

[Publius]

Your criticism there says more about you than it does about the author. You missed the valid criticisms in favour of silly statements. It would be laughed out of any other branch of philosophy? No it wouldn't. I've studied philosophy for a good few years and you get this sort of stuff all the time and it isn't laughed out. That is a peer reviewed paper and nobody to my knowledge has laughed it out even if they have criticised it.

"The universe cannot have an eternal cause, therefore the universe has an eternal cause."

In other words, the universe couldn't have come into existence by an infinite series of causes, or through an impersonal eternal cause, therefore, it must have come into existence by an eternal personal cause.

This is not a good argument.



The flaw in it I think regards some of his conception of infinites.

There's an error there, I agree.



I'm also skeptical of his view that the cause of the Universe is neessarilly intentional. However your characterisation of his view is ridiculous. Nowhere does he claim the Christian God has anthing to do with it.

"In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation that it is plausible that the universe began to exist. Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we have been led to conclude that the universe has a cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore, on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument, I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists."

I think he's talking about the Christian God.


He only seeks to demonstrate there was a cause that could be described as God.

Which it fails to do.


The ending paragraph simply asserts his view that this was a personal God, using the analogy that you didn't understand of the man sitting for eternity (a man sitting for eternity would not stand up, that is the point.Something, in this case himself, willed that to change. It would no longer be an eternity then. Hence the Universe could not emerge out of eternity because it would need something willing it to come into existence).

No. A man sitting from eternity would be sitting for an infinite amount of time.

Envision the set of negative integers on a number line, and say the man "wills" to stand up at zero. That's what the author is talking about here.

But wait. Earlier, he wrote this:

"Indeed, the idea of a beginningless [Note, he wrote "beginningness", but I think this is a typo] series ending in the present seems to be absurd. To give just one illustration: suppose we meet a man who claims to have been counting from eternity and is now finishing: . . ., -3, -2, -1, 0. We could ask, why did he not finish counting yesterday or the day before or the year before? By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he should already have finished by then. Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should already be done! In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at any point we reach he will have already finished. But if at no point in the past do we find him counting, this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. This illustrates the fact that the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition is equally impossible whether one proceeds to or from infinity."

And putting "will" in there doesn't somehow, magically, give you the ability to do the logically impossible.

So if God could "will" the universe into being after an eternity (infinity), then this objection must fail, in some way.

Given an eternity, this person will never reach the point where he or she "wills" to stop (say at zero, or at -61, or whereever; it doesn't matter) for the exact same reason presented here.

Whether the cause has will or not is irrelevent. Will can't magically solve this problem. If I told you to "will" yourself to stand after an eternal amount of time, would you ever get a chance do that? No. So it doesn't matter if you have will or not. He never even begins to demonstrate how this "will" (which is philosophically troublesome in its own own right) can give us this ability to do the impossible.



I don't agree with the article. I am not convinced by his discussion of infinites and reckon that the kind of creator he envisages would have to be finite too. I am also deeply skeptical of discussing causes of the Universe as well because we are talking about something meaningless to us.

Exactly. The only type of cause he reckons would have to be finite, because he spends most of his paper pointing out the absurdity of an actual infinity.

And then he claims God is actual, and is infinite.

That's a mighty big error.



However it is an excellent article that demonstrates that some theists are a lot more rational than certain people here. I am sorry if you missed the point of it, you were so eager to get an eager criticism it seems that you tried to criticise it for not proving something the author had no intention of trying to prove

Here's what came to mind: http://youtube.com/watch?v=vEXGKzH0F9c

Trust me, I've seen talented Christians debate. Theologyweb is a great forum, which some very intelligent Christians.

But this is not a good argument. If it were, I wouldn't be an atheist.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 20, 2007 11:06 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 20, 2007 11:06 pm)
And of course the main thing God is used to embody is a sense of love.
Of course there are examples of Priests or religious people being involved in socially conscious activity, but being religious and doing that is not a defence of religion. People should do that regardless of whether they believe in god or not [/b]
They should, but they don't. Like it or not, religion does motivate people to perform more acts of kindness than they would perform in the absence of religion. Perhaps they only do it out of fear of hell, but I don't care. I don't care WHY people do things as long as they DO them.

Atheists keep saying that religious acts of kindness are the right actions for the wrong reasons, and I will keep saying that actions are all that matters, not reasons.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> (The Anarchist Tension)Moreover, religion is the basis for the majority of conflict around the world seeing the destruction of societies and the killings of millions of people.[/b]
Wrong. Imperialism and class disparities are the basis for the majority of conflict around the world.


The Anarchist [email protected]
Anybody who uses god as an excuse to embody social justice should be looked at with contempt. We don't need nor should we need excuses to embody social justice.
Actually, we do. You might think that in some rose-tinted ideal world people support social justice for its own sake, but we don't live in that world. It's pretty damn hard to get people to support social justice, and we need every argument we can get. Religion happens to be an excellent argument.


The Anarchist Tension

Not every anti-theist is a neo-conservative right enough, but there is a strong pull in that direction and those that don't fall into neo-conservatism particularly will fall into similair traps.
Qualify this opinion!

How is being an antitheist a "pull" in the direction of neo-conservatism?
Just take yourself for example: Your antitheism led you to blame religion for most of the conflict and violence in the world, instead of seeing the real causes - capitalism, imperialism and class disparities.

From your position it is simple to jump to the conclusion that religion is the main enemy - not capitalism - and so we should ally ourselves with the capitalists - for example by supporting Bush and his imperialist wars - in order to rid the world of religion.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 22, 2007 04:10 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 22, 2007 04:10 pm) God is totalitarian in the same way as big brother. If you have a mental illness which leads you to believe that 1984 is reality and that you will actually be sent to room 101 if you don't live how Big Brother wants you to then you oppressed by him (as an idea). If you have a mental illness which leads you to believe that the Bible is reality and that you will actually be sent to hell if you don't live how Yahweh wants you to then you are oppressed by him (as a idea). [/b]
You can only be oppressed if you are doing something against your will. If you have a mental illness which leads you to believe that 1984 is reality and it's a great idea and Big Brother is a wonderful guy who deserves respect, then you are not oppressed by him, not even as an idea. Likewise, if you have a mental illness which leads you to believe that the Bible is reality and it's a great idea and God is a wonderful omnipotent being who deserves respect and love, then you cannot be considered "oppressed" under any definition of the word.

The thing with imaginary oppression is that the same idea can be oppressive or not oppressive depending on whether you're afraid of it or you believe it because you like it.

I would wager that very few Christians believe out of fear. If you're afraid of hell, you can just say that hell doesn't exist and be rid of it.


Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected]
Religion isn't doing good, people are. They may or may not use religion as an excuse to do good, but it isn't a justification for its existence.
[...]
Religion is an excuse to do good things, sure, but the fact that religious people do good things is not a justification for its existence.
Ok, in that case:

Religion isn't doing evil, people are. They may or may not use religion as an excuse to do evil, but it isn't a justification to oppose its existence.

Religion is an excuse to do evil things, sure, but the fact that religious people do evil things is not a justification to oppose its existence.


The Dissenter
Yes. The fact that it is a total pile of human constructed bullshit should be enough to dissuade rational people.
Perhaps so, but then you've just downgraded religion from "a source of great evil" to "just another false idea among many others." Certainly, the world is full of false ideas believed by large numbers of people. But if we concerned ourselves with refuting every false idea under the sun, there would be no time left for revolution or anything else. So, if religion is indeed just another false idea among all the others, then it follows that atheists should concern themselves with more important business - like, say, ending the exploitation of the working class. And you can't say that ending exploitation requires the destruction of all false ideas in the world. That's just plainly ridiculous, not to mention utterly impossible.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Religious belief is not a mental illness. It is more of a deep-seated socially accepted form of brainwashing. The fact that it is so widespread and has been going for so long dulls our objectivity, and it is considered normal for people to regularly get their brainwashing reinforced (in church, Sunday School, etc) by similarly brainwashed and sometimes specially trained individuals (clergy). This brainwashing is self-perpetuating and piggy-backs on the human inclination to believe the word of their parents.

[RebelDog]

Edric O

Perhaps so, but then you've just downgraded religion from "a source of great evil" to "just another false idea among many others."

No I haven't. Religion is a source of great evil and I do rank it alongside fairies in the garden, father christmas, leprechauns etc, etc. It is a false idea among these other beliefs.


But if we concerned ourselves with refuting every false idea under the sun, there would be no time left for revolution or anything else. So, if religion is indeed just another false idea among all the others, then it follows that atheists should concern themselves with more important business - like, say, ending the exploitation of the working class. And you can't say that ending exploitation requires the destruction of all false ideas in the world. That's just plainly ridiculous, not to mention utterly impossible.

That is simply an evasion technique. We have to address these issues because working class people are exposed to these ideas which are by definition conservative and have their interests in the status-quo and class, hierarchy, etc staying in society. The whole notion of god collapses when one rejects hierarchy or has a materialist outlook. What rational person would not want an end to all false belief? What rational person would tell people they cannot wear condoms in areas where aids has reached epidemic proportions? The answer is people who have faith and reject reason and in doing so increase the suffering of others and stifle human progress.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+December 30, 2007 02:36 am--> (The Dissenter @ December 30, 2007 02:36 am) No I haven't. Religion is a source of great evil and I do rank it alongside fairies in the garden, father christmas, leprechauns etc, etc. It is a false idea among these other beliefs. [/b]
Well, neither fairies in the garden nor father christmas nor leprechauns are sources of any evil at all. They are absolutely harmless and if someone actually believed in them, I would make no effort to convince them otherwise. Such ideas, although clearly false, are certainly no obstacles to the revolution. Neither is religion.

On that note, in the post I quoted you had agreed with the statement that "the fact that religious people do bad things is not a justification for opposing [the existence of religion]." So I assumed you agreed that religion is not a source of evil, but can be used as an excuse for evil (just as it can be used as an excuse for good or anything in between).


Originally posted by The Dissenter+--> (The Dissenter)That is simply an evasion technique. We have to address these issues because working class people are exposed to these ideas which are by definition conservative and have their interests in the status-quo and class, hierarchy, etc staying in society.[/b]
You are mistaken. Religious ideas are not by definition conservative, as evidenced by the existence of religious leftists today and the existence of many anti-establishment and anti-status-quo religious movements in the past (including, by the way, early Christianity, early Buddhism, some strands of the Protestant Reformation, some forms of Sufi Islam etc).


Originally posted by The Dissenter
The whole notion of god collapses when one rejects hierarchy or has a materialist outlook.
No. Just because I reject hierarchy between human beings doesn't mean I have to reject hierarchy between every thing in the universe. I believe no human being is superior to another human being, but a human being is superior to, for example, a fish, a lobster or a bunch of bacteria. By the same token I can believe that God is superior to human beings.

It is absurd to require a leftist to reject any and all hierarchy, even if it includes non-human objects or beings.

Regarding a materialist outlook: First, a materialist outlook is not strictly necessary in order to be a revolutionary leftist, to oppose capitalism or to support socialism. Second, if you believe that God exists but rarely intervenes in human society, you can have a mostly-materialist outlook on history and politics. That is to say, you can believe that human society naturally follows the path described by materialism unless an outside force intervenes, and since that force rarely intervenes, human society follows the path described by materialism most of the time.


The [email protected]
What rational person would not want an end to all false belief?
Any rational person who believes that some things in the world - such as human happiness or emancipation or the creation of a socialist society - are more important than truth.

Certainly truth is good (most of the time), but I don't think you would say that truth is the most important thing in the world. And if truth is NOT the most important thing in the world, then we should tolerate - and in some cases even encourage - false ideas in order to promote something that is more important than truth.


The Dissenter
What rational person would tell people they cannot wear condoms in areas where aids has reached epidemic proportions? The answer is people who have faith and reject reason and in doing so increase the suffering of others and stifle human progress.
Of course it is possible for faith to be used for evil ends, like you described, but it can just as easily be used for good ends. Let me turn the tables on you: What if you were in one of those areas where AIDS has reached epidemic proportions and the only way to get people to wear condoms was to tell them that God wants them to?

[RebelDog]

Edric O

Well, neither fairies in the garden nor father christmas nor leprechauns are sources of any evil at all. They are absolutely harmless and if someone actually believed in them, I would make no effort to convince them otherwise. Such ideas, although clearly false, are certainly no obstacles to the revolution. Neither is religion.

I equally rank all these things beside religion as complete codswallop. Whether they are considered evil or otherwise is irrelevant when we are talking in terms of reality. If a grown man/woman believes in fairies and leprechauns he is considered strange. God is also just a product of the human mind like leprechauns.


On that note, in the post I quoted you had agreed with the statement that "the fact that religious people do bad things is not a justification for opposing [the existence of religion]." So I assumed you agreed that religion is not a source of evil, but can be used as an excuse for evil (just as it can be used as an excuse for good or anything in between).

Religion makes me want to vomit and I would never baulk from opposing its position and creed, but I do understand that we need to enter a new historical epoch before it is gone forever. I think that humans first adopt religion to justify and protect a certain position in society (like kings) and that others who traditionally do not gain so much from this arrangement become followers through tyranny, social pressure, ignorance, self-interest etc. We can have a future materialist society without religion and we cannot have such a society and still have classes/rulers. If religion could be somehow wiped from every human brain today, it would return tomorrow in new forms, not because it is an immovable characteristic of the human mind, but because it is idiosyncratic to historical epochs that have classes, rulers, undeveloped science, scarcity, etc.

Yes religion is a convenient excuse for barbarity and as a materialist it would be silly of me to say that wars and social conflict have their roots in it. Religion is a symptom of a deeper conflict of the classes. Paradoxically, you cannot claim religion makes people do good things.


You are mistaken. Religious ideas are not by definition conservative, as evidenced by the existence of religious leftists today and the existence of many anti-establishment and anti-status-quo religious movements in the past (including, by the way, early Christianity, early Buddhism, some strands of the Protestant Reformation, some forms of Sufi Islam etc).

Religious belief is certainly by definition conservative as they have no flexibility for change and progression. You appear to be pretty progressive in your political ideology and mankind has developed such progressive ideas and actions over its evolution and we owe our current status to the destruction of old worn-out ideas that could no longer stand civilising human society. The idea that religion is anti-establishment is patently absurd, a few anecdotes don't change that. I wonder how many socialists walk around the Vatican city in black capes?


No. Just because I reject hierarchy between human beings doesn't mean I have to reject hierarchy between every thing in the universe. I believe no human being is superior to another human being, but a human being is superior to, for example, a fish, a lobster or a bunch of bacteria. By the same token I can believe that God is superior to human beings.

I think almost all humans would agree that we are superior to animals, that is very lame reasoning. I do reject hierarchy in all its forms. I have only read the christian bible and god appears as a sadistic, jealous, barbaric maniac who demands obedience and deference from his 'children' for no good reason than he gets off on it. That is a great reason to reject hierarchy on earth and in heaven and another clue that god is man made because the authors of the bible were not trying to con 21st century human beings. If by a gods actions one knows him I would not want a place in the house of such a tyrant that demands that all the innocent first-born of Egypt are slaughtered. It doesn't strike you that your god is a bit dodgy?


It is absurd to require a leftist to reject any and all hierarchy, even if it includes non-human objects or beings.

You might think it absurd but at least it is materially possible.


Regarding a materialist outlook: First, a materialist outlook is not strictly necessary in order to be a revolutionary leftist, to oppose capitalism or to support socialism. Second, if you believe that God exists but rarely intervenes in human society, you can have a mostly-materialist outlook on history and politics. That is to say, you can believe that human society naturally follows the path described by materialism unless an outside force intervenes, and since that force rarely intervenes, human society follows the path described by materialism most of the time.

A materialist outlook is not strictly necessary but it is the fate of religion to be destroyed by proletarian revolution. Thats a paradox you must deal with.

Now this is absurd: If you say god "interferes" rarely in human society it follows then that what is allowed to happen is OK by him. Auschwitz, famine, racism are allowed to happen when he has the power to stop them. That makes god a sadistic tyrant worthy of no human worship.


Any rational person who believes that some things in the world - such as human happiness or emancipation or the creation of a socialist society - are more important than truth.

They are not mutually exclusive, that is a poor argument.


Certainly truth is good (most of the time)

That is a statement that no moral, rational, decent human should ever accept.


but I don't think you would say that truth is the most important thing in the world. And if truth is NOT the most important thing in the world, then we should tolerate - and in some cases even encourage - false ideas in order to promote something that is more important than truth.

I cannot find the language to express how ridiculous and utterly wrong that statement is. I'm flabbergasted.


What if you were in one of those areas where AIDS has reached epidemic proportions and the only way to get people to wear condoms was to tell them that God wants them to?

If we had just agreed to leave it to medical science in the first place we would not be in such a mess and we could have eased suffering and stemmed the tide. If the pope said its OK to wear condoms does that mean his god has his quota of death and misery and is satisfied?

[The Feral Underclass]

Just take yourself for example: Your antitheism led you to blame religion for most of the conflict and violence in the world, instead of seeing the real causes - capitalism, imperialism and class disparities.

No it didn't. I have never uttered that opinion, ever.