The Satanic quality of the Internet

[Skybird]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/how-the-web-is-killing-faith/2012/05/24/gJQAMHgLnU_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/how-the-web-is-killing-faith/2012/05/24/gJQAMHgLnU_blog.html)

This is why the freedom of the internet must be defended at all cost against attempts to gag it, to censor it, to control it, to ban it. When in the 60s the anti-Vietnam and the Hippy-movement in America and the reform-pedagogues and the so-called 68ers in Germany/Europe started to revolt not only against petrified and indeed misled moral crusts and value-monuments, they not only started to breath fresh air into the space occupied by these, but they started to deconstruct constructive things and what in principle is good quality in our societies as well. The aftermath of this in Europe and especially in Germany maybe are more alive still than in America, I do not know for sure about the US. But a result of this deconstruction of the moral fundament was that the counter-revolution by the religious establishements also started going, having come greater power again since let'S say the past 20 years while they claim that secularism is a great threat to the world and needs to be replaced with obedience to the church's dogma (that is what the pope also told America when he visited the US, wasn't it: that the primary duty of the believers shall be obedience to the church).

This counter-revolution of the parasite clergy has led to some remarkable successes in its attempt to revive some of the claims it has lost since the church lost in influence since the rennaissance and enlightenment.

But the plan does not go as smooth as planned anymore. Churches are emptying in Europe, which is good in principle. Unfortunately, mosques multiply, which is not good at all. And the church helps the Islamisation becausue it hopes to benefit from Islam'S success, and a society it needs to share with Islam'S dogma still is better to the church than a society that is truly secular and independent from the church, and does not want and does not need it. The power and control, the influence and the wealth of clergy needs the weakness and lacking education of the sheep it tries to convince that they must accept being herded by the clergy, else....

That it doe snot go that smooth anymore is due to the slow spread of scientific information, general education, contact to other, less sadistic religions that before existed in global isolation somewehre else - and since one decade also due to the internet.

And neither churches nor offended Muslims, not polticians and parties nor governments and secret services shall be allowed without bitterly resisting to them to gag and censor and limit freedom of speech on the web. So watch out especially against the cowardish dhimmies of the EU and the Christian fundamentalists in American politics. They will - and already do - push hard for bringing the web under control of their dogmas, and they will have no scruples to deceive and to lie over the intention, if that helps their cause. The best weapon against fanatic religious ideology is education, and the spreading of counter-evidence to dogmatic claims, and raising challenges to claims that in past centuries just passed by unchallenged, with all the intimidation and submission that followed in their wake.

We shall not give up this freedom, never.

[Dowly]

Indeed :salute:

[Sailor Steve]

We shall not give up this freedom, never.
Amen, brother! :rock:

[the_tyrant]

In my opinion, on the internet you get the exact same amount of rights and freedoms as in real life, no more, and no less.

There will be regulations and everything just like in real life.

I think of the internet like the wild west. sure, it starts lawless. But someday the sheriff would come and clean the place up.

[MH]

Its not all that simple...

Internet threat unites divergent Orthodox streams

Haredi Jews seek way of positively channeling the Internet, as they use it to conduct business, communicate with each other and even promote Jewish observance.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/internet-threat-unites-divergent-orthodox-streams-1.432083

(not sure you will be able to see that due to new haaretz policy:damn:.)

[Sailor Steve]

Please post no more than one paragraph of an article, and use a link for the rest. Subsim.com risks charges of plagiarism otherwise.

[MH]

Please post no more than one paragraph of an article, and use a link for the rest. Subsim.com risks charges of plagiarism otherwise.

Fixed

[Sailor Steve]

Danke. :sunny:

[kiwi_2005]

The internet is not killing religious faith its killing the cowboy preachers. The internet has help spread the faith of all religions including that rogue religion - Satanism. The best part of it is anyone can now question and look it up to see if that self proclaim preacher online is the real thing or just another cowboy preacher. IMO the internet is like an open book when it comes to religious faith. You don't even need to own the bible or Koran whatever your faith may be its all there on the internet. The internet is the new cross or fork...

Mark 13:10
But first, the Good News must be spread to all nations

Anyway im off to search online for more updates on Diablo 3 and his demon buddies :haha:

[u crank]

But the plan does not go as smooth as planned anymore. Churches are emptying in Europe, which is good in principle. Unfortunately, mosques multiply, which is not good at all.



Am I the only one who sees the irony in this? Is this a case of 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't'? Or , 'be careful what you wish for'.

I agree with Kiwi_2005. The internet will not put an end to religious faith. If anything it will make it more accessible. Of course this applies to any sort of dogma, including Atheism and yes Satanism. Although there are truth seekers out there, I would wager that most people who visit websites such as these are doing so to confirm beliefs they all ready hold. It is easy to check facts and statements but this cuts both ways. To believe that any one person or organization has a lock on truth is dangerous to be sure , but surfing the internet believing what you find is unbiased opinion is foolhardy.

I find it hard to believe that in a world where big money and government control almost everything else, the internet won't fall under their influence. Speaking only for my self of course , I would have to be naive to think other wise. I hope it doesn't happen, but I've been around long enough to know better. It has little to do with "fanatical religious ideology" Skybird. "Money doesn't talk, it swears". I believe a Jewish entertainer said that.:DL

As to "We shall not give up this freedom, never." , I'm right there with you buddy. Without freedom of thought and expression what is there?

[Skybird]

I love it when a quote of mine gets put into a different context and thus the content is given a completely different twist.

No, this is not a case of 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't'.

And I think that is clear by what I originally said. And what I originally said is not that I do favour the one over the other, but that I despise both. If chruches, mosques and synagogues would get burnt dopwn and Bible Quran and Thora gets destroyed for once and forever, the world woul become a much better, less hateful place.

I recommend to read chapter 7, sub-section 3 (chapter headlines in the German edition would be "Das 'gute' Buch und der wandelbare ethische Zeitgeist - Liebe Deinen Nächsten") of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" where he summarises the experimental results from psychological research done by Israeli psychologist George Tamarin. The way that religious indoctrination already present in the heads of small kids decides on whether genocide is recognised by over a thousand school kids he questioned in his experiment as a moral abjection or a cause that can be morally justified, is a revelation.

The whole book is.

[Skybird]

P.S.

On the story about George Tamarin (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/faith--reason-how-joshua-claimed-a-20thcentury-victim-1288505.html). His university sacked him over the project.

[u crank]

It was not my intention to misquote you but to point out an ironic situation. Although the larger and more 'secular' forms of Christianity may concede ground to Islam, fundamental Christianity is directly opposed to it. It was supposed to be funny unlike this:


And I think that is clear by what I originally said. And what I originally said is not that I do favour the one over the other, but that I despise both. If chruches, mosques and synagogues would get burnt dopwn and Bible Quran and Thora gets destroyed for once and forever, the world woul become a much better, less hateful place.



Or your version of a less hateful place.

If this is your vision of a better tomorrow, to hope for the eradication of thousands of years of history, literature and architecture, count me out. I miss judged you. If these people insist on their belief even after their books and buildings are destroyed what's next? Break a little glass. Perhaps a camp here and there.

Your view of unlimited internet freedom is somewhat tainted by this desire to suppress other peoples thoughts and beliefs.

I'm disappointed. And I take it back. If this is your version of freedom of speech, it's somewhat corrupt and I won't stand with you.

[Skybird]

It was not my intention to misquote you but to point out an ironic situation. Although the larger and more 'secular' forms of Christianity may concede ground to Islam, fundamental Christianity is directly opposed to it. It was supposed to be funny unlike this:



Or your version of a less hateful place.

If this is your vision of a better tomorrow, to hope for the eradication of thousands of years of history, literature and architecture, count me out. I miss judged you. If these people insist on their belief even after their books and buildings are destroyed what's next? Break a little glass. Perhaps a camp here and there.

Your view of unlimited internet freedom is somewhat tainted by this desire to suppress other peoples thoughts and beliefs.


The church financed some arts, yes, but that does not make it the author or originator of it. Many arttists needed to make some living, and thuds had to accept to do ordered arts as well. And who else should have payed for them, if not the church? For centuries, the church was, beside the corrupt aristocracy, the only possible maecenas, since frarmer and odinary people were pressed out quite hefty by clergy and kings and lords as well.

Most of the cultural developement and arts last but not least comes from sources that were not patronised by the ch8urch,k but that the church bitterly fought against. Also, all our current freedoms and ideas about justice, humanism, sceluarism, did not appear because the church helped in them, but they appeared after centuries of bitter fight against the church that wanted to supress them, and did so mit unimaginably cruel means for long time. Our modern liberties have been wrested from the church against it bitter resistence. Heck, it is not even 20 years ago that the church, still growling, rehabilitated Gallileo Gallilei, and it has been only a few years that, as I already quoted, the pope told the American public that the Chriostian believers first and most impoortant duty is that he owes obedience - not to the teahcing of Jesus, not to thre semron of the mount, not to God no matter how you nimagine, no - your first and most imporetant duty is that you owe obedience to the church.

What part exactly is it that makes you wonder why I have a problem with this church...???

I stand by it, without these evil sadistic three desert dogmas Judaism, Christinaity, and Muhameddanism, the world would be a better world, with less hate, less ointolerance, less violence. There would be less evil caused by relgious beliefs, legitmised by relgious beliefs, and carried out int her name of relgious beliefs. Beliefs that until today stand completely untested, always demand, want respect where there is nothing they would deserve it for, and carry out a lot of censorship and repression against those not agreeing with them.

Not depending on these, makes oyu a more moral being. Not depending on these, makes you a more reasonable being. Not depending on these makes you a more tolerant and kind being. Not depending on these makes oyu a person able to use its mind, while relgion wants to prohibit you to do just that.

So yes, let all churches, mosques and synagogues burn, burn Jerusalem and Bethlehem, Mekka and Medina and Vatican city. Consider it to be liberation day after 2000 years and more of bitter, inhumane tyranny. Consider it to be leaving intellectual slavery and abuse behind. A world not ruled by religious dogmas and theistic psychopaths in the sky that have made sadism there most favourite hobby, is a sane world, and a sane world is a better world, and it is a world that is more free, with better chances for the young who no longer get infested with the brain poison of guilt, submission, hate and fear.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=194878

I'm disappointed. And I take it back. If this is your version of freedom of speech, it's somewhat corrupt and I won't stand with you.
Don't be mistaken, if the talking about freedom of speech for you means to exclude religion from it since it deserve this precious "respect" that even free speech has to bow to, than you never have stood on my side at all. ;) Understand this: my freedom and the freedom of anybody who can appreciate the value of freedom is a thousand times more precious and important than the claim of any religion to be excluded from criticism or claims for respect that eligion wants, but does not deserve. The history of christian relgion, Judaism and Islam is a history of war after war, killing, murder, genocide, more war, torture, persectuion, supression, again some wars inbetween, discrimination, hate preachings, intimidation, some more wars to make it a round package, and above all the floating entity of the big eye in the sky that thratens even more of all this in case his excentric orders and commands for all this are not followed to the point. Speaking of being screwed no matter what you do!

[u crank]

Okay, now I understand, maybe. I should have caught on sooner. This church that you speak of is the one with the funny hats. There is a difference. This church in no way represents millions of Christian believers and it does not represent me. They don't speak for me nor I for them. I know this church as I was born into it but have been a 'protester' for many years. Surely you understand the difference. Some of your criticisms of it I might even agree with.







Not depending on these, makes oyu a more moral being. Not depending on these, makes you a more reasonable being. Not depending on these makes you a more tolerant and kind being. Not depending on these makes oyu a person able to use its mind, while relgion wants to prohibit you to do just that.

Really, Skybird. You believe this? This reasoning, taken to it's logical conclusion can only mean that a person of faith cannot be a moral, reasonable, tolerant and kind being. This is nonsense my friend. Pure atheist dogma. This can be so easily disputed it's not worth talking about.


Don't be mistaken, if the talking about freedom of speech for you means to exclude religion from it since it deserve this precious "respect" that even free speech has to bow to, than you never have stood on my side at all. ;)

I think it is you who may be mistaken. If you can in any way infer from my posts the idea that religion or for that matter anyone or anything is above criticism please quote me on it. Far from it I believe that when it comes to free speech everything is on the table. Your version seems to include the destruction of other people's thoughts and ideas that you don't like. I guess you are right. I was never on your side.

[Skybird]

Okay, now I understand, maybe. I should have caught on sooner. This church that you speak of is the one with the funny hats. There is a difference. This church in no way represents millions of Christian believers and it does not represent me. They don't speak for me nor I for them. I know this church as I was born into it but have been a 'protester' for many years. Surely you understand the difference. Some of your criticisms of it I might even agree with.

I do not care what somebody believes in as longas he keeps it in his private closet like I also want people to keep their sexual obessions in their bedrooms - and not posing with the one or the other in public.


Really, Skybird. You believe this? This reasoning, taken to it's logical conclusion can only mean that a person of faith cannot be a moral, reasonable, tolerant and kind being. This is nonsense my friend. Pure atheist dogma. This can be so easily disputed it's not worth talking about.
I am not your friend. And the issue is worth talking about and I cannot see you being able to diuspute about it - you just act like any relgiouzs person, while claiming you do not belong to the club. And in this thread ( and the other thread I have mentioned and linked to above) I mentioned and linked to three different more systematic examinations on the issue on how atheism and religious faith effects the morality and intelligence of people for the worse and the better. And this are just two such examples I linked two - I could quote more but I see no point in drownign you in quotes (that I need to type, btw) from for example Dawkins, or Hitchens. Still, I already lead in explanations and giving reasonbs, while you, as any brave believers always does, just dismiss it as irrelevant and imply that you on your behalf must not explain and answer anything.

edit: just for you, since you have missed them apparently:
link1 (http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/04/25/1948550612444137.abstract)
link2 (http://freethinker.co.uk/2012/05/26/atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-religious-people/)(good idea to actually read it to the end before blowing up)
link3 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=194878)
link4 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/faith--reason-how-joshua-claimed-a-20thcentury-victim-1288505.html)

It does not make much of a diffrence then whether you are member of the church, formally, or not.


I think it is you who may be mistaken. If you can in any way infer from my posts the idea that religion or for that matter anyone or anything is above criticism please quote me on it. Far from it I believe that when it comes to free speech everything is on the table. Your version seems to include the destruction of other people's thoughts and ideas that you don't like. I guess you are right. I was never on your side.
Religious dogma is not in the free speech business, that is not its branch. Far the opposite is true, relgious dogma expects acceptance for limiting free speech and reaosnable questions and examinations of dogma. And that's why I do not tolerate it and wants is structures and symbols of power destroyed, becasue the freedom a dogma allows is always a limited freedom only, a freedom peppered with exceptions for dogma, a special status for dogma, and an implicit demand for dominance of dogma over freedom.

Because where there is free thought and free speech and free opinion and freely run analysis, there cannot be dogma. Dogma replaces free speech and free thought and free opinion and freely conducted anaxlsis. That is the very purpose of dogma.

that'S why you must chose. It's either the one or the other, and always totally. You cannot have both.

And this is the reaosn why nothign else in the history og manklind as we can follow it back over the past at least 2.5 thosuand years has caused more violence, hate, intolerqance, supression discrimination, than religions. With the monotheistic three desert dogmas being the worst of all, considering history, and bringing out not the best but the worst in man.

Freedom is the natural enemy of religious dogma, since inj the light ofd freedom dogma cannot survive. That simple it is. And thats why religious dogma has fought against freedom - at all times, and today.

Some summarising but essential readings, all available in English and German as well. Refering to these would save me from the need to always quote from them or referring to them:

link 1 (http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338067675&sr=8-1) (watch the video there)
link 2 (http://www.amazon.com/God-Is-Not-Great-Everything/dp/0446697966/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1338067675&sr=8-2)
link 3 (http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Ecology-Spirituality-Evolution-Edition/dp/1570627444/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338067870&sr=8-1)

The first book demasks especially creationist and fundamentalist claims by which they try to infiltrate science and education and erode and compromise them from within, it counters false claims made and religiuous pseudoscience by giving solid scientific arguments to show the many flawed claims and basic thinking errors there. The second book focusses more on the disastrous record of crime, violence and brutality caused by religion in human history, and uses not scientific evidence or theory like Darwin, but logical and reasonable thinking and argument to rip of the mask of religious dogma. Hitchens is more aggressive than Dawkins, but he is so with a mind formed of laserbeams, I sometimes think. The third book does not engage in the battle between religion and atheism at all, but offers a culture-free alternative attitude towards life and existence and does so by reducing all dominant theories, traditions, schools, arts, philosphy, science etc to the lowest common denominator with an accent set on Buddhist models of mind and consciousness, then examines what this lowest common denominator is. This is probably the most friendly of the three books, which should not mean it makes compromises with dogmas, but it also is the most abstract in the beginning, and the most difficult and demanding to read. After the first third, when needed theoretic conceptions and terms have been dealt with and got sufficiently explained and interlinked, the book becomes easier and more comfortable to read.

[u crank]

I do not care what somebody believes in as longas he keeps it in his private closet

You are expressing your beliefs here quite plainly. You are some how above your own rules.


I am not your friend. And the issue is worth talking about and I cannot see you being able to diuspute about it

Your choice. I am disputing it. I'll put it in the form of a question. Can a person of faith be a moral, reasonable, tolerant and kind person? Yes or no. You seem to avoid the most obvious points of a discussion to post links from somewhat biased sources. You may have noticed that I refrain from that. Despite what you think I speak for myself. Can you say the same? Quoting Dawkins and other atheist bishops is not impressing me. You can stop any time. I was an atheist for twenty years. Please don't lecture me on their beliefs.


Religious dogma is not in the free speech business,

Because where there is free thought and free speech and free opinion and freely run analysis, there cannot be dogma. Dogma replaces free speech and free thought and free opinion and freely conducted anaxlsis. That is the very purpose of dogma.


I am not disputing this. But I do know this for certain; there are many forms of belief. Atheism is as dogmatic a belief system as any religion on this planet. I have no problem with that. You can believe or disbelieve whatever you choose. Question is will you afford others the same freedom.

This would suggest otherwise.


And I think that is clear by what I originally said. And what I originally said is not that I do favour the one over the other, but that I despise both. If chruches, mosques and synagogues would get burnt dopwn and Bible Quran and Thora gets destroyed for once and forever, the world woul become a much better, less hateful place.

This thread began on the subject of free speech on the internet and the fear that it might be restricted. I'll go on record to say that I believe in complete freedom of thought, speech and belief, regardless of my own personal belief.

If you, Mr. Skybird can say the same thing we're done.

[Skybird]

You are expressing your beliefs here quite plainly. You are some how above your own rules.
When i have explained it so much in detail what my "faith", my "belief", my "religion's content" is, then tell me: what is it: What is the relgion I subscribe to, eh, and that I want to impose on you poor haunted victim? You say I explained to you my belief and faith and relgion, so tell me all about me.

I give you a hint: I have none, and I leave the question "why are there things existing, why is there not just nothing?" unanswered, since I know that neither me nor nobody else has an answer to that. A knowledge somebody believes to have, is no knowledge, but 100% belief for sure. Knowledge must not be believed, but known.


Your choice. I am disputing it. I'll put it in the form of a question. Can a person of faith be a moral, reasonable, tolerant and kind person? Yes or no.
He can. But that is not due to his fiath, but despite of faith. The moral one would extract from the Bible, the Quran, the Thora, would make a being that the police usually tries to lock away immediately, as long as he does not defend himself by calling his immorality his "religion".

You seem to avoid the most obvious points of a discussion to post links from somewhat biased sources.
The studies I linked to are sociological-psyhcological studies, and before you call the auniversities behind them as biased becasue you do not like the findings, I demand your methodologically well-fuinded criticism. That is considered good academic tradition, you know.

Dawkins also bases his counter-arguments on scientific answers, espeically Darwinian evolution. To stick wioth a theorty as long as it is not replaced by a better one, or is proven wrong, is not biased, but again: well-estiablished academic method.

I would agree that hitchens is more aggressive in his publications and appearances, but again, he is on the basis of arguemnts and intellectual cleverness that you can either prove false, or you don't.

Nothing of the stuff I linked to, is biased in a meaning of being prejudiced from beginning on. It is basing on substantial matter that you either can counter, or you can't.


You may have noticed that I refrain from that. Despite what you think I speak for myself. Can you say the same? Quoting Dawkins and other atheist bishops is not impressing me. You can stop any time. I was an atheist for twenty years. Please don't lecture me on their beliefs.
Atheists do not have beliefs. They are in dismissal of beliefs - that'S what makes them atheists. Can't you see the absurdity of calling atheists believers?


I am not disputing this. But I do know this for certain; there are many forms of belief. Atheism is as dogmatic a belief system as any religion on this planet.
Evidence, please. This claim is often repted, But until today it is just a claim - and a pretty stupid one.


I have no problem with that. You can believe or disbelieve whatever you choose. Question is will you afford others the same freedom.

If their beleifs demand me to fall back and give them space, accept barbarity and violence, absue and supression of historically unmatched proportions, pay respect to their dogmas motivating these things and excusing them afterwards, then I am afraid I cannot promise that I will. The history of the three theistic desert dogmas is not a friendly or humane one, and I tend to judge them by their records of racism, brutality, genocide, intellectual suppression and mental abuse.


This thread began on the subject of free speech on the internet and the fear that it might be restricted. I'll go on record to say that I believe in complete freedom of thought, speech and belief, regardless of my own personal belief.

No. It began with pointing out that the internet helps in undermining faith'S dogmatism and claims for power (post #1). That was what the article I first linked is about. I further commented on that saying that this is an example for why the freeedom of speech non the web must be defended (#1). But the start made the vulnerability of dogmatism to free internet communication. The brawel now started in ypour post #10 where you took a quote by me out of context and put it into a very different one that twiosted it quite massively. And that was what I took queer. The rest is a consequence of that.

If you, Mr. Skybird can say the same thing we're done.
Does the use of the adress "Mr." mean that you wish to socially distance yourself from me?

[Tribesman]

Atheists do not have beliefs. They are in dismissal of beliefs - that'S what makes them atheists. Can't you see the absurdity of calling atheists believers?

Yet you believe in invisible writing hidden in treaties and secret conspiracies both in europe and the wider world some of which are frankly more crazily unbelievable than even the kookiest religion, you strongly repeately and very insistantly espouse beliefs that fly in the face of demonstrable fact and hold steadfastly that these beliefs of yours must really be true and should be accepted by others as real.

So does that mean Skybird cannot by his own standards be an atheist?:yep:

[P_Funk]

Yet you believe in invisible writing hidden in treaties and secret conspiracies both in europe and the wider world some of which are frankly more crazily unbelievable than even the kookiest religion, you strongly repeately and very insistantly espouse beliefs that fly in the face of demonstrable fact and hold steadfastly that these beliefs of yours must really be true and should be accepted by others as real.

So does that mean Skybird cannot by his own standards be an atheist?:yep:
Are you kidding? You're telling me a zombie carpenter of immaculate birth is more plausible than the CIA or the Mafis shot JFK?

What is it they say, people are willing to forgive the big lies more readily than the small ones?

Religion and the church are theoretically two separate things, but how many people hold a faith where they don't ascribe to the beliefs espoused by a particular church? Why do we need pastors and priests and fathers and imams and so on if faith can exist outside the church? Really, how many truly faithful chrsitians don't go to church? How much of modern religion is made up of positive moral attitudes versus the flat statement that to be faithful is to respect the church?

I believe that religion is a result of the rational human being confronting the irrational nature of the world. Why is the internet likely to damage religion? Because the access to knowledge and the open minded education of people always immediately places a rational mind at odds with the fabrications sold to the followers of a faith.

If religion has such value to us then why is it the bastion of narrow mindedness? Why is it that the body of power that must be fought for freeing most of our modern attitudes is usually centred in our old religions?

I'm not going to say that we don't owe a great deal of our identity to the history as it was propelled forward through a christian, jewish, or muslim light. I would not undo the great basilicas that litter Europe or forget the stories of gallant knights and all that. But thats not justification for letting it direct us once we've outgrown it.

The church is a power base. Its no different than Stalinist Russia. Its a means toward control. How much of Christianity is merely a construct devised to absorb control of the major elements of daily life? For centuries in Europe marriage was a tribal rite, something altogether secular, entirely political or perhaps romantic. It was only cneturies after Christ was allegedly crucified that the Church appropriated that institution for itself. Today Christians would have you believe they invented it.

I may admire some religious people, I may respect them as people, but whatever merit religion has is easily outweighed by the terrible toll of human suffering its inflicted in the name of "Faith in God".

I personally much more admire the polytheistic pagan culture of pre-Christ. The greeks were far more interesting in their beliefs. The gods were just like people, filled with emotion, conflicted, great and terrible, an excellent example how religion is borne of the relationship between man's rational mind and the irrational world and our need to make the two meet up. However, the inevitable result of religion is that it centres itself in a powerful institution that seeks to maintain its control with no respect towards even the values that it itself purports to hold majesty over.

Monotheism just gives me a headache.

[MH]

Here is something about monotheism.....there must be something good about the book if religious person can come to such conclusions.
I guess maybe some people look for the wrong things...which always brings the issue back to the man not the religion in many cases...

Also burning synagogues or churches is not very pluralistic i think.

The Torah, based on the core of the teachings of Moses, rejects ancient ideas that had formed the basis of the religions of both Mesopotamia and Egypt. In their place, it substitutes new, revolutionary concepts concerning the understanding of the nature of God, the way in which God is worshiped, the role of the priests, the understanding of the nature and importance of human beings, the specific laws that govern daily life and the structure of society, and the importance of morality as opposed to ritual. Who was responsible for all of that, if not Moses, under divine inspiration? He was a great religious innovator with a broad view of the world and of humankind, and a vision, perhaps too utopian, of what a godly society should be.
The Torah is a revolutionary book that even now, some 3,000 years later, has not lost its radical flavor. It is a document that shattered old myths and formulated social laws, thus revolutionizing the concept of what an ideal human society should be. It was, and remains, one of - if not the - great humanistic documents of all time, freeing us from forces of darkness and foolish beliefs, and revising ancient laws in a liberal and humane fashion.
It teaches that humanity is one, as God is one. That magic and superstition are falsehoods. That humans are responsible for their actions and have the choice to do good or evil. That poverty and deprivation, slavery and hatred are evils that must be eradicated. That the earth is not ours to destroy. That love of others is a divine command.
I know of no other ancient or modern document that is so concerned with the welfare of the needy, with those who have no power. It boldly proclaims that God is their defender and protector. No society has come even close to achieving that vision. A society based on the principles of the Torah would revolutionize the world.
Rabbi Reuven Hammer is a former president of the Rabbinical Assembly of the Conservative/Masorti Movement, and author, most recently, of "The Torah Revolution: Fourteen Truths that Changed The World" (Jewish Lights ).


In my opinion politicized religion is a problem not religion itself because this is when religion becomes a tool not philosophy.
Again im atheist so what do i know....i can listen to Dawkins comedy and pretend that i'm smart though.


..............

[u crank]

When i have explained it so much in detail what my "faith", my "belief", my "religion's content" is, then tell me: what is it: What is the relgion I subscribe to, eh, and that I want to impose on you poor haunted victim? You say I explained to you my belief and faith and relgion, so tell me all about me.

If you reread my last post carefully you will see that I did not say you had a religion. I said " atheism is as dogmatic a belief system as any religion on this planet". And I repeat that you are expressing your beliefs in this system quite plainly. The proof is in the constant dogmatic statements you make about it.

And no I do not need a hint. The bright orange letters in your sig are more than obvious.


He can. But that is not due to his fiath, but despite of faith. The moral one would extract from the Bible, the Quran, the Thora, would make a being that the police usually tries to lock away immediately, as long as he does not defend himself by calling his immorality his "religion".

But despite his faith. Please. How can you make such a bold assumption about anyone else? Or me for that matter. Do you have special powers?

Oh wait I think the police just kicked in the door.


Nothing of the stuff I linked to, is biased in a meaning of being prejudiced from beginning on. It is basing on substantial matter that you either can counter, or you can't.

I challenge you to search any of the posted links, organizations etc a find any kind of opposing viewpoints. If you can I retract my statement. If not they are obviously biased.



Atheists do not have beliefs. They are in dismissal of beliefs - that'S what makes them atheists. Can't you see the absurdity of calling atheists believers?

This is a play on words. I did not call atheists believers. Apparently that's offensive. Atheists have a system of belief, a doctrine, that is well documented. You ascribe to it and believe it to be true. If you think that's absurd it's not my problem.

As to how this all started, let's review.

The first line of your first post: "This is why the freedom of the internet must be defended at all cost against attempts to gag it, to censor it, to control it, to ban it."

I agree with that statement.

My question to you is does this freedom include expressions of belief what ever they may be? Your subsequent statements about burning churches and books makes me question that first line. You need to clear that up in a definite way.
If this freedom of speech that you are defending is conditional then your cause is suspect.

I ended my last post with this:

"This thread began on the subject of free speech on the internet and the fear that it might be restricted. I'll go on record to say that I believe in complete freedom of thought, speech and belief, regardless of my own personal belief."

I ask you if you agree with it. You did not reply.


Does the use of the adress "Mr." mean that you wish to socially distance yourself from me?


No. It is in direct reference to your statement, "I am not your friend" It was an attempt at respect. Sorry if it offends you. I can't help it. My dogmatic belief system requires me to love and respect all the other humans.

[Skybird]

Are you kidding? You're telling me a zombie carpenter of immaculate birth is more plausible than the CIA or the Mafis shot JFK?

What is it they say, people are willing to forgive the big lies more readily than the small ones?

Religion and the church are theoretically two separate things, but how many people hold a faith where they don't ascribe to the beliefs espoused by a particular church? Why do we need pastors and priests and fathers and imams and so on if faith can exist outside the church? Really, how many truly faithful chrsitians don't go to church? How much of modern religion is made up of positive moral attitudes versus the flat statement that to be faithful is to respect the church?

I believe that religion is a result of the rational human being confronting the irrational nature of the world. Why is the internet likely to damage religion? Because the access to knowledge and the open minded education of people always immediately places a rational mind at odds with the fabrications sold to the followers of a faith.

If religion has such value to us then why is it the bastion of narrow mindedness? Why is it that the body of power that must be fought for freeing most of our modern attitudes is usually centred in our old religions?

I'm not going to say that we don't owe a great deal of our identity to the history as it was propelled forward through a christian, jewish, or muslim light. I would not undo the great basilicas that litter Europe or forget the stories of gallant knights and all that. But thats not justification for letting it direct us once we've outgrown it.

The church is a power base. Its no different than Stalinist Russia. Its a means toward control. How much of Christianity is merely a construct devised to absorb control of the major elements of daily life? For centuries in Europe marriage was a tribal rite, something altogether secular, entirely political or perhaps romantic. It was only cneturies after Christ was allegedly crucified that the Church appropriated that institution for itself. Today Christians would have you believe they invented it.

I may admire some religious people, I may respect them as people, but whatever merit religion has is easily outweighed by the terrible toll of human suffering its inflicted in the name of "Faith in God".

I personally much more admire the polytheistic pagan culture of pre-Christ. The greeks were far more interesting in their beliefs. The gods were just like people, filled with emotion, conflicted, great and terrible, an excellent example how religion is borne of the relationship between man's rational mind and the irrational world and our need to make the two meet up. However, the inevitable result of religion is that it centres itself in a powerful institution that seeks to maintain its control with no respect towards even the values that it itself purports to hold majesty over.

Monotheism just gives me a headache.
Two things.

First.

Religiosity, and spirituality. I may not use both terms in their precise verbal meaning as it is rooted the the origin of their languages, as a matter of fact I know for sure that I don't, but that'S why I explain how I use them, and I mjust give the idea behinbd my hijacking of thwem a form in order to verbally communicate. if i would invent new words, I nevertheless would need to explain them. So:

I understand spirituality to be the desire of a mind or consciousness, a living being that is, to answer the question of where it comes from, where it goes, how much time it has left, and why things exist instead of nothing. The big Why?-question, that is. This has an awareness for one's own existence and an understanding of oneself being mortal as a precondition. If you are not aware of yourself, if you do not have an idea of that one day what you consider to be existing will come to an end, inclduing your own existence, then you hardly come to asking these questions. You are driven by automatted insticnts and genetically encoded behaviour patterns instead, like many lower life forms for example. The more self-aware a mind is, the more spiritual in unavoidably is as well. The less self-aware it is, the less spiritual it can be.

Religion is dogma, is cult. The petrifying condensante of earlier rites and habits that got collected and desiogned to secure the power and priviliges of priesthood.Priesthood needs the people being dpeending on priests, else it has no basis for influence and priviliges granted anymore. Thus the discouragement of wanting to know for oneself, demonising secularism, scientiifc analsis, rational and reasionable examination -e specially of dogma. Dogma is not to be analysed, it is to be believed, and exlcusively so. Analsis would rip it apart, always. And dogma knows that! That'S why it is so hostile to intellectual analysis, scientific approach in examination claims made by dogma.

I am antireligious, nevertheless I am spiritual, and certainly I am atheist.

Second.

Why is man obviously so vulnerable to the desire of believing in relgions'S claims? The vast majroity of mankind walks into this trap. Why? The answer may be quite ironic both for believers and atheists, if they have some sense of humour left, though I think in general believers are seriously handicapped there. The vulnerability for wanting to believe in a metaphsiacal entity, justice, eye in the sky - probably is due evolution. :) I have read a good comparison that illustrates it, but I need to give a longer explanation to make the point clear.

The author talked about moths, and how they fly into open flames, killing themselves. This is a function of their behaviour that bases on a design process that has been formed by evolution, that is adaptation of moths to the world they live in since many hundreds of thosuands of years, giviong them the best design and set of features that in the time passed so far was possible to form up in the attanmpt to adapt better and better to the environment. Because they navigate, like many insects, by the sun, the moon, and also even by very bright stars, they watch them with their eyes - facette eyes. How are they constructed? Facette eyes (at least that is how they are called in German) are foprmed by a huge number of tubes of a slightly pyramidic shape, the inne rending bedeing narrow and the outer ending being wider. If you collect a huge amount of such tiny itenms, the outside forms the form of a spohere - the visible part of the insect'S eye. The eye then fixiates for example the moon, but the moon is visible only to a very small part of the many tunnels the eye is formed of, becasue the light needs to travel in a more or less straight line from the opoening down the tunnel to its inner ending. Its like fixiating an object through a straight, tube. Now if you look at the moon through such a tube it does not matter how far you run, a mile or a hundred miles, becasue the moon is so far away that yiour moevment doesn'T matter - you always have it at the same relative angle to your position (ignoring stellar movement for a moment...) But if you fixiate an objct, say a waste bin standing on the pavement, you need to turn your head when you change your position, because the object is so near that the change in relative position changes the angle from all beginning on. Same for the moth. It'S "viewing tunnel" (the facette in its eyes fixiating a light blip) gets fixiated not on the moon, but on a candle light. But the candle light is not 380 thousand kilometers away, but just two meters - the smallest movement of the moth chnages the facettes, the angle, chnages the way it sees it. But evoltuioin has dersigned it to fly a poath and navigate by keeping always the same facettes of its eyes fixiated on the - far far awar - light source. The candle light isnt, and so the moth has to fly a turn, a slight turn, to keep the same part of its eyes fixiated on the light source. It flies a spiral, and finall finds the spiral'S center - and it goes up in flames.

The author compares this to the vulnerablity of man for the authority of religious dogma. Evolution has sown our species by experience that it is wise if our young chiodren do not question the elder, but obey their warnings and orders. It may savbe their life if they get a snap at not to touch that poisenous snake, or to freeze in place with that leopard close by. Everybody having children knows that little children even tend to obey the authority of foreigners that give them an order. Often they are following these rules more willingkly, though intimidates, than orders by their parents! I have often witnessed that when visiting good friend of mine who have two little children. From a standpoint of evolutional adaptation, this make sense, obviously - else it would not have formed up in the first, and probably would have been altered.

Now comes Mr and Mrs priest and raise demands for being priviliged and they make claism and take an authoritarian pose. What do people do, esoeially the young ones whose minds are soft and unhardened, unexperienced and still klacking the independence to really think by themselves and form their own judgements, critically and distanced to expectations dircted at them? They believe them! What a surprise. And this also explains why relgion'S try to get influence over people'S minds even from cradle on. Once childhood is over, it ios so muczh more difficult to make peoplke submitting to dogma, and turnt hem into beloevers, since as adults their minds are stronger and more critical - at least that is to be hoped, isn't it. The probability to bind young minds to a religion is so much greater than the probability to turn adults who had grown up without being exposed to priesthoods and dogmas into converts.

So, when I say that evolution may be the reason of man's interest in falling for dogmas and beliefs, this does not necessarily mean that evoltuion wanted this effect tobe acchieved, like it also did not deisng moths to fly into open fire. Both are unwanted side effects that become a problem just short time ago, due to to new environmental factor arising that appeared just so short ago that evolution still had not time to alter the design over these new features, becasue this is a pricess that consumes a certainb ammount of time, and the adaptation thus always takes place with a delay.

Our vulnerability for religious - institutionalised, that is - authorities and dogmas thus is a sign of a still non-efficient, uncompleted adaptation process to these relatively new environmental factor. We are still little kids liostening to what the elder are telling them - that's it in a nutshell. Here is hope that once our evolution has progressed, we simply will have moved beyond this religious hokuspocus. The desire to find answers of the existential, metaphysical variety (the Why qustions I mentioned in the beginning), mjust not be effected by this, but could benefit from spirituality emancipaing itself from religiosity and relgious cult. I think that if we manage to survive beyond the next dercades and centuries, our relgions icnreaisngly will become more a culture of admiring the beuaty and evolutionary process that are laid before our eyes, and scientific reasonbiltiy and rational sanity will defeat superstitious hear-say and authoritarian dogmatic cult celebrated on the graves of millions and millions of innocent victims.

[MH]

Wow....evolution as contra argument to religion.
I think its time to move on...you are stuck and of course some religious preachers.
Common even the genesis reads sort of evolutionary...yet simplified;)

[Skybird]

If you reread my last post carefully you will see that I did not say you had a religion. I said " atheism is as dogmatic a belief system as any religion on this planet". And I repeat that you are expressing your beliefs in this system quite plainly. The proof is in the constant dogmatic statements you make about it.

And no I do not need a hint. The bright orange letters in your sig are more than obvious.
Yes, certain people may have a problem with that line. That'S why I set it up.


But despite his faith. Please. How can you make such a bold assumption about anyone else? Or me for that matter. Do you have special powers?
My only spoecial power I am aware of is my brain, and I intend to insist on the freedom to use it. I prefer to look at moral people being kind and ethical becasue that is a self-purpose, and imo even comes quite natrually all by itself if people are left unattacked by relgious domgas and fundamentalists. If they are moralistic only due to being afraid of god'S punishement or hellfire, then I am tempted to bet one penny on their morality. And the holy scriptures surely do not propaose an ideal exmaple of how a moral person or how ethical behaviour should look like. Quran, old and new testament alike are dripping of blood and stories on attack, war, calls for submission and obeidence,k racism, hate on women and their supression. The only few sane parts are in the preachings by Jesuus - but even there you find hints on that Jesus was anything but a actiividst onm behalf of women's rights. Then there are the many people, especially Paul, who distorted the words of Jesus, and oretty much added oil to the fire of corrupting relgion to benefit from that by winning more authority themselves. Is the semron on the mount reasonable? Of course it is, but there you have it: it is a quite naturally reasonable list of thoughts that not just the son of a god but any person with s sane mind could show up with - and as a matter of fact has shown up with time and again. Why this fixiation on this single man back then of whom we even cannot say for sure that he even ever existed, not to mention that the reprtts about him are highly subjective, selective, lack at least twice as many other gospels beside the four or five that had been chosen(!) to base on, the many contradictions between the four existing gospels, and the many people who since then and already in their creaiton have messed around with these gospels, amnipulatd, changed and distorted them! I respect some of what Jesus said - and for toher what he said I think he deserve a kick in the lower bottom and I am absolutely not sure that I would share a glass of beer with him, if he would finally fall down from heaven again. A couple of reasonable worlds alone don't make you already a saint, if you forgive the wordplay.


Oh wait I think the police just kicked in the door.




I challenge you to search any of the posted links, organizations etc a find any kind of opposing viewpoints. If you can I retract my statement. If not they are obviously biased.
I think since it is your claim they are biased it is your job and duty to give evidence for your claims. Your elgious people play thius part of the bgame always very clever, always demanding more unbiased info, and when it nis given, youj ignore it and claim just more. Of course you have never to show up with substantial material that could be analysed and examined yourself, since it is belief and faith you are about, and this just needs to be believed, it must not been proven, and it should not be analysed at all, since it would not stand the tests of reasonabilty.

That'S what makes relgious piety such an annoyance, I assume.

Anyway, there are some experimental studies (there are also more), and some books I referred to. Yopu want to disagree with them but ask ME to deliver you arguments for that position - and if I do not help ypou to think and form a stand by yourself, then I or these authors are "biased" ? Well, that is modern political correctness in action, if you give one argment, you also have to give the counterargument by yourslef, else your original argument is biased.

Not with me. I fear you have to explain your disagreeing with that material by yourself. I play for the other team, if you haven'T noticed.



This is a play on words. I did not call atheists believers.
Belief - believers, what is so difficult to see the link there...


Apparently that's offensive. Atheists have a system of belief, a doctrine, that is well documented.
Oh, is it? And there was me, always failing to see any such "well-documented" atheistic system of belief. Okay, I take the bait: show me the evidence that you've got, what is atheistic doctrine, what is the atheistic belief system?

I say atheism is nothing more than the absence of any theistic belief system and the rejection of any such doctrine.

Oh, wait, I have one "doctrine" indeed. That is Kant's Golden Rule. And my tolerance ends where my behaviour basing on it is not answered with according reciprocity - thats why I am hostile to the three desert religions and their institutions, priests, cults, temples.

So, and now I start to get tired of it all. Next time you quote me, quote me correctly - that would save me plenty of time.

[P_Funk]

@Skybird

Indeed I don't believe that spirituality need die in association with religion. I feel that there is an inherent truth to much spritual thinking, insofar as it pertains to the concept of perception and insight. In that sense the rational self aware atheist can easily call himself spiritual without sacrificing any of his good sense.

Also, I agree about the notion that our susceptibility towards this dogmatic thinking likely is a function of evolution. I however am apt to think this is all a byproduct of the evolution of the rational self aware mind and it being at odds with the pre-existing primal survival instinct, the one that tends towards conformism at the cost of the individual in favor of the group.

I think of self awareness like its some unfavorable mutation that has yet to find its equilibrium. Really it'd be so much better if we just could shut up and get on with the currents.

Really though its a very curious mutation. To be self aware and capable of essentially reaching a point of defining so much of what we are is both freeing and powerful but also entirely depending on so many factors that its a much messier way to be. Those that conform to the more dogmatic mindset obviously are the backbone of our species still, basically forming the survival-buoyancy necessary for us 'dreamers' to strive towards self improvement and expand our self awareness. What does a poet add to the human race that is substantially more valuable to survival that is not utterly eclipsed by the simple mundane product of the farmer? The insight into self in not necessary for the farmer to buoy the human race's continued existence, but the failure of the Poet has much less impact compared to the failure of the farmer. Yet you must turn around and say if there are no poets why bother farming? Where do we go from there? Even the most mundane of thinkers fully inculcated into the dogma of narrow conformism is in some way motivated by that essential desire for more than just survival.

So it comes to me the fact that those two elements of humanity, the animal; the survivor, and the thinker; the self aware creature, don't function as a whole the way most elements of a creature's evolutionary package do. Mostly one finds a tail bone, the vestigial marker of a previous form, yet this is hardly at odds with the new evolutionary form.

Basically, I think neurosis is the manifestation of the essential dysfucntional nature of our bizarre evolutionary model. More than any other creature we struggle to find our equilibrium. Other creatures struggle with surviving the elements and the biosphere, we struggle with surviving the argument over our own true nature.

Or, to be coy, I believe that answer to the meaning of life is that we're just a well and truly f**ked up evolutionary mistake.

[Skybird]

Wow....evolution as contra argument to religion.

What is so surprising there?

Evolution says the cosmos moves from simplicty (actually: nothingness) to complexity.

The Bible says complexity, intelligence, design has been there from all beginning on, it does not matter whether you have a creationist's view or subscribe to the idea of the blind watchmaker. In both cases, complexity has been there from all beginning on: in creation, and in form of it's creator.

Both concepts cannot be more antagonistic to each other!

Wilber gave a title to the book I linked, that is a formula representing evolution as well, the title in English is "Sex-Ecology-Spirituality", which the German publisher translated I think much better: "Eros-Kosmos-Logos". To speak it out: from Eros over Kosmos to final Logos. Complexity unfolding.

[Sailor Steve]

atheism is as dogmatic a belief system as any religion on this planet
The mistake you make here is that atheists are as widely varied as believers. True, some atheists are indeed dogmatic and devoutly believe there is no God. By-and-large they accept what others tell them without thinking, just like everybody else. Some, on the other hand, rationally analyze all the available data and come to the conclusion that there is no supportable evidence for the existence of any higher being. That is not belief, not dogma, but reason. I have yet to find a believer who can show any such evidence. That is the difference.

And yet, because I continually doubt my own judgement, I still don't consider myself an atheist.

[MH]

Simplicity...that no one really can wrap a mind around to complexity that blows the mind too.
All we really know is the basic laws and theorise about the rest to make sense of it all

I think that since still leaves a lot of space for religion and will long time to come.



.............

[Skybird]

@Skybird

Indeed I don't believe that spirituality need die in association with religion. I feel that there is an inherent truth to much spritual thinking, insofar as it pertains to the concept of perception and insight. In that sense the rational self aware atheist can easily call himself spiritual without sacrificing any of his good sense.

Sounds like you wish to give a reference to Buddhist concepts of human mind, or is that by coincidence only?! Buddhism is atheistic and imo not even a religion like the others more an attitude towards life and how to live it, and nthat again has much in common with what Kant said in the Golden Rule. Now, a confessing Christian or Jew or Muslim can live in accordance with the golden Rule, yes. I never denied that. What IU deny is that the Golden Rule and the morals that give skin and flesh to it derive from any of the three desert dogma and their scriptures. Ol' jahwe, the God of the old testemant and much of the new, Allah, they all are not that pleasant and kind at all. They make humans like Stalin or Tamerlan, Hitler or Saddam look like liberal, humanistic amateurs in the business of how to terrorise mankind, or the indovodual hero in a given story as well. Fathers told to buthcer their sons, leaders being told to conmquer that forign land and wipe out every triobe living there, not saving anyone, all life on earth being exterminated due to some animosity God had for the behaviour of his creature that he had designed by his own image, and time an again the displays of extreme hostility against women, and disrespect for their existence: stories on men preferring to hand over their daughters to a mob for gang rapes over sending away foreigners under their roof who - by chance I'm sure! - all happen to be precious males... Lovely book. Puts all authors of war and crime novels to shame. If God is perfect, and created us by his image, why do we fail and get punished by him then? Is god not poerfect then? Or is he just a sadist misdesigning us intentionally so that he can have his fun with us when punishing us for being what he made us to be?


Also, I agree about the notion that our susceptibility towards this dogmatic thinking likely is a function of evolution. I however am apt to think this is all a byproduct of the evolution of the rational self aware mind and it being at odds with the pre-existing primal survival instinct, the one that tends towards conformism at the cost of the individual in favor of the group.
You say vulnerability to religious dogma/authority is a byproduct of the evolution of self-aware mind. A categorical adaptation mismatch, you mean? How does that work exactly? The argument I gave in my explanation of the term spirituality over religion (some posts above), as well as the example on the moth and how that may serve as an example of human children's behaviour serving a survival task but making them vulnerable to religious authority, would argue differently.


I think of self awareness like its some unfavorable mutation that has yet to find its equilibrium. Really it'd be so much better if we just could shut up and get on with the currents.
Why do you think so? And what do you say to the apparent trend for increasing complexity we see in evolution of life on earth, and in physical, chemical, ecological, astronomical systems as well? In the models on how matter aggregades to form solar systems, to observations of how an individual life form gets formed up after fertilzation, or the evolutionary design of the race'S characteristc features? I would say the trend from simplicty to complexity is almost omnipresent where life and existence unfolds - and it is reverse were it dies. When a life form dies, the higher and more complex functions of the body die first, the basic, vital ones late. When an eco system collapse, the more advanced lifeforms in the hierarchy are threatened first, the rudimentary, simple forms hold out the longest time.

I cannot prove it, but by how I see things in the universe moving I think evolution means a trend from simplicity to increasing complexity, and that the universe by this process in the end becomes more and more aware of itself. Developing mind (in a wide meaning of the word and surpassing the limited reference to man and his intellect) maybe is the real drive. But that is just a subjective opinion of mine.


Really though its a very curious mutation. To be self aware and capable of essentially reaching a point of defining so much of what we are is both freeing and powerful but also entirely depending on so many factors that its a much messier way to be.

You are a candidate for Wilber'S model of "holon hierarchies". It includes this basic principle, that the construction of systems of higher complexities always come at the price of forming new problems that on lower levels of complexity did not exist. The solution of problems emerging on a given complexity level leads the system to transformation where the solution gets realised, a structure of higher order and complexity forms up, where the problems of the level before can be solved and have been solved - but new problems emerged.

Romanticising a bit here, couldn'T this also be seen as a drive and motor of evolution?


Those that conform to the more dogmatic mindset obviously are the backbone of our species still, basically forming the survival-buoyancy necessary for us 'dreamers' to strive towards self improvement and expand our self awareness. What does a poet add to the human race that is substantially more valuable to survival that is not utterly eclipsed by the simple mundane product of the farmer? The insight into self in
Well, the Darwinian model would claim that no features exist for whose existence there have not been a good reason. Poetry may be a sideeffect of another evolutionary feature design, but we cannot be sure that it is this way, or any other way. Maybe it is a by-product of our intellect unfolding that enabled us instrumentally to master our environment. Maybe it serves a deeper function in itself. However, good poetry, music, arts, are a pleasurable and satisfying experiences - experiences without which life for a horse or a dog may not be different, but for us is makes a difference. Or wouldn'T you miss it? With our level or self-reflection and self-awerness, there can be more than just feeding the physical body. I would even say: there must be more.

not necessary for the farmer to buoy the human race's continued existence, but the failure of the Poet has much less impact compared to the failure of the farmer. Yet you must turn around and say if there are no poets why bother farming? Where do we go from there? Even the most mundane of thinkers fully inculcated into the dogma of narrow conformism is in some way motivated by that essential desire for more than just survival.

So it comes to me the fact that those two elements of humanity, the animal; the survivor, and the thinker; the self aware creature, don't function as a whole the way most elements of a creature's evolutionary package do. Mostly one finds a tail bone, the vestigial marker of a previous form, yet this is hardly at odds with the new evolutionary form.

As I indicatd I tend to think that mind is a higher goal of evolution than just physical life, the latter is just a necessary fundament for the first, maybe. Seen that way I cannot follow you when you differ between farmer-necessary, poet-not necessary for survival. I must admit I fail to see the conflict you describe, but that is because I think evoltution aims at something higher than just biological life. And I wonder if there is a cap, an upper limit to what evolution of the universe is going for. I don'T think so, and if there is such a limit, then we probably cannot imagine it, because it is too high above our current level. The wannabe-novelist in me just voiced his idea that maybe life/we are aiming at finally turning into god. I admit that queer thought makes me giggle.


Basically, I think neurosis is the manifestation of the essential dysfucntional nature of our bizarre evolutionary model. More than any other creature we struggle to find our equilibrium. Other creatures struggle with surviving the elements and the biosphere, we struggle with surviving the argument over our own true nature.

Wowh, and people call me a pessimist! I think our evolutionary design is like it is becasue until here it worked pretty well. Maybe it is not poerfect, yes. Maybe a shark is more perfect in being a shark, and indeed he is a marvellous design. I admire it absolutely. But a shark also is what he is, and that is a relativley low life form, that has not changed since how long it was? 7 million years? I do not remember, but it was a damn long time, I'm sure A shark cannot manipulate his environment, cannot leave his element, cannot reflect about himself, and when a new meteor hits Earth and kills all life on it, then he will suffer what he must becasue he has not the intellect to try finding ways to escape. Needless to say, sharks also do not write poetry, since we have been there two paragraphs earlier. The develoepment line of sharks gives the imporession to be somewhat the end product of that line. It will not go any further from there. We have the freedom to allow that - we have a choice,m we can chose for self-destruction, or for adaptation and adressing factors vital for our world'S future. A shark does not do that.

And the ultimate differences: we can choose to care for the interests of sharks, and other animals. while I do not know a single animal developed enough to make the same stand regarding us. And second, we can leave our environmental habitat to some degree. Technology is our way to transcend the limits of our biological design. It is a two-sided sword, I admit. We can spell disaster by abusing it, we can do marvellous things with it if we become wise enough. Anyhow, I more and more believe that technology is part of human evolution, in the meaning of enabling man to expand the limits of his biologial design. And that is what really sets us apart from any other life form on this planet.

As I said in the holon-hierarchy model, each level of complexity has cures for problems of earlier stages, but introduces new problems as well. that we can be overwhelemed by the problems of your developement stage should not make us doubt that we are on a higher complexity level than a shark nevertheless.

Or, to be coy, I believe that answer to the meaning of life is that we're just a well and truly f**ked up evolutionary mistake.
Answer rejected. :) Too simple. ;)

[Skybird]

Simplicity...that no one really can wrap a mind around to complexity that blows the mind too.
All we really know is the basic laws and theorise about the rest to make sense of it all

I think that since still leaves a lot of space for religion and will long time to come.

We have something better already. Maths. It is our means to make - by limited and finite means - precise statements about the infinite. I hate that I suck at maths. In a way it is the most noble language man has ever spoken.

[Skybird]

And yet, because I continually doubt my own judgement, I still don't consider myself an atheist.
Since I like to split hairs with you, in a way you and me even cannot be atheists, nor can anyone else. :D Because it is a known statement in logics that the non-existence of something cannot be proven. That makes the question of whether to believe or not that God exists, a question of probabilities, because an atheist necessarily in last consequence cannot ever be an atheist but only is an agnostic who shows higher or not so high confidence that God indeed does not exist. What we call an atheist denying the existence of God then is, is an agnostic who is to 99.99999999......% certain that God does not exist. The rest of a chance tends to move towards the mathematical infinite minimum.

:O: To precise my statement then: I consider it to be infinitely unlikely that God does exist.

Of course I also see no explanatory value in assuming that a god exists.

[MH]

We have something better already. Maths. It is our means to make - by limited and finite means - precise statements about the infinite. I hate that suck at maths. In a way it is the most noble language man has ever spoken.

Yes math is good but still can get very abstract and trippy as far as i know(i don't know much on the issue) and in other cases breaks down.


That's way scientists may be still looking for particles faster than light for example?



............

[Skybird]

Yes math is good but still can get very abstract and trippy as far as i know and in other cases breaks down.
That may be because it still is not in final perfect shape (can it ever be?) but gets developed, too. That it is abstract, just lies in the nature of the matter. When you deal with infinity, don'T be surpsied that thing sbecome so cojmplex that you perceive them as being slightly complex. :)

There is talking in the concept of dissipative systems about self-emerging structures, a term that matches into the holon-conceot I mentiuoned as well as it is used in several other scientific branches and theories, including systemtic and chaos theories. I think that maybe all in universe, and in uman thinking, imaginationk, and model-building, includes a component of self-emerging structure, too, turning any system - physical or theoretical - into a system with the potential to always form up something new, answering some questions, while opening other, new questions, and hinting at possible ways to approach these.

Maybe maths is no exception.

Somebody once said that life is art, and living means the art of interacting with the universe via imagination, which is an art because both are infinte in time and space. Sometimes, for a split of a second, something lights up in my mind, and then it is gone again, but I had the feeling afterwards that for that split of a moment, barely visible to my awareness, I understood in full what that somebody meant by these words, and understood all. Like a snip of the finger that wakes me up - and the moment I realised it has snipped, it already is gone again.

Should that make me cry or smile now? :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

Are you kidding? You're telling me a zombie carpenter of immaculate birth is more plausible than the CIA or the Mafis shot JFK?

No, I am saying he pushes several conspiracies as true and espouses absolute faith in those theories no matter how ludicrous they are.
I am saying his belief in those puts him exactly on par with those he is railing against.

[u crank]

Yes, certain people may have a problem with that line. That'S why I set it up.

I don't have a problem with it. I just said it was obvious.



I think since it is your claim they are biased it is your job and duty to give evidence for your claims.


The evidence in this case is not there. I have searched in vain for it. The balanced viewpoint is absent. Only one side of the argument is presented. I understand why, but it doesn't change it's nature. Of course the other side makes similar one sided claims without presenting a balanced view. This is why I refrain from doing it.



Oh, is it? And there was me, always failing to see any such "well-documented" atheistic system of belief. Okay, I take the bait: show me the evidence that you've got, what is atheistic doctrine, what is the atheistic belief system?


Okay. Enough already. You seem like a well educated and intelligent person. You may have an advantage there. I'm not well educated and my intelligence has been questioned more than once.

Let's try this. Google search, atheism. I get 26,700,000 hits.

There it is. Books, magazine articles, forums, web sites, many web sites. What are they discussing? What are they proclaiming? Are they not actively trying to change peoples mind about the present world view? Maybe I'm missing something. Of course the is no codified set of rules or conditions. That would mean it's a religion, and we can't have that. What you believe in is your doctrine. You are an Atheist. You have to have a doctrine. Why deny it? I would think you would be proud of it.

So yea I'm tired of it to. Your refusal to answer my question on free speech disturbs me far more than anything else you have said.

So I'm done. Happy trails, good luck.

[Skybird]

:har: :har:
The evidence in this case is not there. I have searched in vain for it. The balanced viewpoint is absent. Only one side of the argument is presented. I understand why, but it doesn't change it's nature. Of course the other side makes similar one sided claims without presenting a balanced view. This is why I refrain from doing it.


:haha::haha:
Your religious guy's "logic" surprise me time and again.

To make this clear. You cannot counter the studies' and experiment'S results, which had been run by scientific standards, btw. You even admit you did not find countering arguments or hints or any material falsifying their results. But you still claim they are biased, and what is even worse: you still claim you know it better - but you just weasel around to get away with wanting to be seen as a valid challenger to them without having anything to offer.

This will most likely reward me an infraction and maybe even brig time, I know and I accept it: but I just cannot help myself, I simply must call you an idiot. What'S more, a blindly believing, dogmatic idiot who wants to tell me he is neither blindly believing, nor dogmatic, he has no material, argument, hints, findings to counter studies and arguments, but makes claims that he nevertheless knows it better. :haha:

u_crank, the truth is simple: you are a dogmatic believer not wanting to be called that, and you have nothing.

Okay, Neal, Neon, bring it on, if you want, I don't resist nor protest.

Your refusal to answer my question on free speech disturbs

That is the cream on top! :DL :haha: :har:

[Sailor Steve]

Since I like to split hairs with you, in a way you and me even cannot be atheists, nor can anyone else.
I understand your reasoning and even agree, at least where I am concerned, but there are atheists by that definition, in the respect that there are indeed people who absolutely insist there is no God and tell you you're a fool if you believe in one. They are the ones I call hardcore atheists and no, I could never be like that.

On the other hand I have to agree that as far as I can see there is no verifiable evidence at all. Yet I don't even call myself an agnostic. Just because I see no evidence doesn't mean I'm convinced I'm right. I'm still waiting for somebody to show me something. Anything. But maybe someday somebody will.

[Skybird]

I understand your reasoning and even agree, at least where I am concerned, but there are atheists by that definition, in the respect that there are indeed people who absolutely insist there is no God and tell you you're a fool if you believe in one. They are the ones I call hardcore atheists and no, I could never be like that.

I admit that thoi8ugh I do not actively ring bells and try to convince people in advance that there is no God, I give people certainly a fight for their money when they get the show started. BTW, I was pulling your leg in the posting earlier. a probability of 99.999999...to eternity percent means nothign else as that 100% is what is really meant. The reference to logics and that nonexistence of something cannot be proven, is just a formal issue, so to speak.

:DL


On the other hand I have to agree that as far as I can see there is no verifiable evidence at all. Yet I don't even call myself an agnostic. Just because I see no evidence doesn't mean I'm convinced I'm right. I'm still waiting for somebody to show me something. Anything. But maybe someday somebody will.You remind me of a person using a Star Trek transporter and then gets locked in transport. Not being materialised, this person hangs between "here" and "there" in the transport buffer, can'T do anything, does not live a life.

Trust your reasonability, Steve, some portion of ordinary common sense. You have not heared, smelled, tasted, seen, felt any hint indicating there is the great eye of the sky. You are how old? 55? Somewhere in that range I think. Time to put a quarter in the machine and dance. I think Pat'S uncomplicated advise is a good recipe there. If you are not bothered by religion, have FUN! Stop bothering for ifs, and maybes, and just-in-cases. Stop the fear. Come to your senses. And just in case there is a god existing somewhere, either he is that sicki psychopath that the scriptures dexfibe hgim as, than feel produ that you have spit in his face, since he would kick ypou down to hell anyway. And if he is the allknowing, wise, friendly Uncle, he already understands you and will smile while you dance.

So why the worries? :D

Me, I believe in the flying spaghetti monster. When I have died, I have a date with God. Then i will eat him up. Ramen! :yeah:

[Sailor Steve]

You remind me of a person using a Star Trek transporter and then gets locked in transport. Not being materialised, this person hangs between "here" and "there" in the transport buffer, can'T do anything, does not live a life.
Hmm. You seem to know me too well. I think I need to put out a contract on you. :stare:

On the other hand, while that describes my real life quite well, it misses the point of my philosophy. I don't obsess over this doubt or waste time thinking about it, I just look at it and accept it.

Trust your reasonability, Steve, some portion of ordinary common sense. You have not heared, smelled, tasted, seen, felt any hint indicating there is the great eye of the sky. You are how old? 55? Somewhere in that range I think.
Sixty-two, actually.

Time to put a quarter in the machine and dance. I think Pat'S uncomplicated advise is a good recipe there. If you are not bothered by religion, have FUN! Stop bothering for ifs, and maybes, and just-in-cases. Stop the fear. Come to your senses.
Unfortunately I'm limited by other things than religion, and certain kinds of enjoyment seem to elude me. But that's me talking about me again, and I have a therapist for that, and a couple of close friends.

So why the worries? :D
No worries, at least where God is concerned. I just state what I see.

I was a devout believer for awhile, but I've come full circle to what I used to be, only with a lot more awareness. One of of my favorite lines of all time comes from the old Blood, Sweat & Tears song 'And When I Die': "I can swear there ain't no heaven, but I'll pray there ain't no hell."

[MH]

I admit that thoi8ugh I do not actively ring bells and try to convince people in advance that there is no God, I give people certainly a fight for their money when they get the show started. BTW, I was pulling your leg in the posting earlier. a probability of 99.999999...to eternity percent means nothign else as that 100% is what is really meant. The reference to logics and that nonexistence of something cannot be proven, is just a formal issue, so to speak.



Now, i would like to see the math behind this.:haha:

Come to your senses. And just in case there is a god existing somewhere, either he is that sicki psychopath that the scriptures dexfibe hgim as, than feel produ that you have spit in his face, since he would kick ypou down to hell anyway. And if he is the allknowing, wise, friendly Uncle, he already understands you and will smile while you dance.


That's the attitude.
But he might be neither of those...which still means that you can dance i guess.



..............

[Tribesman]

I admit that thoi8ugh I do not actively ring bells and try to convince people in advance that there is no God, I give people certainly a fight for their money when they get the show started.
such utter bull:doh:

This will most likely reward me an infraction and maybe even brig time
Actually it just illustrates you for what you are and highlights your inability to realise you are exactly the same as that you wish to condemn but cannot see it, though in fact you are probably worse than those you wish to condemn due to the zealous nature in which you hold and express your beliefs and fantasies.


That is the cream on top!
It is, but you can't see it.
That simple question he put highlights the self contradicting nature of your zealotry:yep:

[CaptainMattJ.]

Yes math is good but still can get very abstract and trippy as far as i know(i don't know much on the issue) and in other cases breaks down.


That's way scientists may be still looking for particles faster than light for example?



............
The whole theory behind that is that you cannot accelerate yourself to such a speed, and so far it has proven true. That doesnt mean, for all intents and purposes, that you cannot travel "faster" than light. Instead of accelerating yourself through space, why not move space out of the way. You are not accelerating, therefore E=MC^2 does not apply and you can reach a destination as quickly as you build your machine to do so, which could be faster than light could reach the same destination from the same distance.

As for the argument, i think its hard to express a desire for freedoms and yet attack religion, regardless of its history. In fact, i believe that it is truly impossible to do so. i believe that religion is a completely ridiculous system and i loathe everything it leads to. Human beings invented religion, and by countless examples, it has proven to be just as flawed as human nature itself. It has lead to a control system, constantly being changed based on the ideas of the few to spread into the masses. Individuals have proven themselves to be, more times than not, to be more reasonable than people.

And because the idea can spread through the people so quickly, because of human nature, it often gets absorbed without individual critical thinking and reason. In this fashion, religion has been used more often than not as a tool for to control the masses for individual gain. Discrimination, crusades, hate, violence,denouncement of scientific advances and the rights of others, all have been the result of religion being used as a tool for the accomplishment of the few.

That is my take on religion, andThose are examples that religion has denied the basic rights of people. But we cannot deny people to believe whatever they want to. people can say things that they truly believe, yet not act on them. When those people do act upon those beliefs in a way that infringes on other's rights is when intervention is required. Theres not much more people can do. i may hate religion, and i may hate many people who bible thump and try to save, for example, homosexuals from "eternal damnation", but i cant deny them the right to believe whatever they want and to express that feeling verbally. All i can do is to stop him from infringing on other's rights and hope, imo, that he comes to his senses.

[MH]

The whole theory behind that is that you cannot accelerate yourself to such a speed, and so far it has proven true. That doesnt mean, for all intents and purposes, that you cannot travel "faster" than light. Instead of accelerating yourself through space, why not move space out of the way. You are not accelerating, therefore E=MC^2 does not apply and you can reach a destination as quickly as you build your machine to do so, which could be faster than light could reach the same destination from the same distance.
.
Was talking about particles ,neutrinos...but again the properties of neutrinos are in question so it might be bad example.



Those are examples that religion has denied the basic rights of the few. But we cannot deny people to believe whatever they want to. people can say things that they truly dont believe, yet not act on them. When those people do act upon those beliefs in a way that infringes on other's rights is when intervention is required. Theres not much more people can do.

Really...now why don't you ask Skybird about denying basic rights of few based on his purely logical (in his view)social reasoning then....
Or maybe reflect on some ugly ideologies that took in some inspiration on Darwin theory of evolution.


..............

[u crank]

The mistake you make here is that atheists are as widely varied as believers.

I am in complete agreement with that statement, Steve. As I stated, I was an atheist. Long time. At no point did I ever try to analyze my belief that there was no God. Not once. I am positive that there are many believers in the same state. In fact I know lots of them. and I recognize that there is a wide range of belief and disbelief.

Another forum member has called me a dogmatic believer. This is far from the truth. I have many questions and no answers. Yes I do believe that there is a Creator Being. Can I prove it. No. Can it be disproved. No one has to my satisfaction. Am I trying to convince others that he exists. Not a chance. Why? Because I don't think it can be done. I wouldn't know where to begin.

Anyway I hope you having a good day.:salute:

[Skybird]

As for the argument, i think its hard to express a desire for freedoms and yet attack religion, regardless of its history. In fact, i believe that it is truly impossible to do so. i believe that religion is a completely ridiculous system and i loathe everything it leads to. Human beings invented religion, and by countless examples, it has proven to be just as flawed as human nature itself. It has lead to a control system, constantly being changed based on the ideas of the few to spread into the masses. Individuals have proven themselves to be, more times than not, to be more reasonable than people.

And because the idea can spread through the people so quickly, because of human nature, it often gets absorbed without individual critical thinking and reason. In this fashion, religion has been used more often than not as a tool for to control the masses for individual gain. Discrimination, crusades, hate, violence,denouncement of scientific advances and the rights of others, all have been the result of religion being used as a tool for the accomplishment of the few.

That is my take on religion, andThose are examples that religion has denied the basic rights of people. But we cannot deny people to believe whatever they want to. people can say things that they truly believe, yet not act on them. When those people do act upon those beliefs in a way that infringes on other's rights is when intervention is required. Theres not much more people can do. i may hate religion, and i may hate many people who bible thump and try to save, for example, homosexuals from "eternal damnation", but i cant deny them the right to believe whatever they want and to express that feeling verbally. All i can do is to stop him from infringing on other's rights and hope, imo, that he comes to his senses.
The red part is the point, and I often have said that I do not care for what is going on in other peoples porivate cabinet or bedroom as long as they do nto rub it down other people's nose and do not try to enforce it into the public sphere, legislation, education, state politics and law-giving. The red part also illustrates partz of the answer why atheists use the internet to communicate and organsie themselves, becaseu u_crfank asked why there is so much of that on the internet. It is a reaction to relgion prssing more and more openly into society and law-making again, mainly pushed by Catholicism and fundamentalists in the US demonising secularism, and Islam demonising criticism as Islamophobia.

Freedom is not to be defended when it has been taken away, because then it is too late: it is gone. Freedom is to be used for defence as long as it is still there.

Where tolerance even tolerates intolerance or those putting their ideology above mutual tolerance (which basically is one and the same thing), the intolerant will overrun the tolerant and destroy them, and tolerance with them. What remains is the ruling of the intolerant.

The record of the three desert dogmas stands as it is, and it is not a positive one, by far not. The evil and wickedness comign from them is beyond doubt, the evidence reaches back from the present 1000 years, 2000 years, even 3000 years. And its alwaxyd the same damn darkness following in their wake. At court, the ben fit of doiubt is rcongised as long as their is no evidence given proving guilt. But the evidence in this case is present since a long time, in amyn forms and variations, in many stories and details. The issue is beyond all doubt, and is so since centuries and millenia. That'S why I do not grant them the benfit of doubt anymore, and call for the destuctio0n of the intolerant - before they can destroy tolerance. And it is this what the intolerant aim for, and what the church aims atr, and what the orthodox Jews waim at, and what Muhammedanism aims at: destruction of tolerance, and freedom. Or in more archaic language: EXTERMINATION OF THE FOREIGN TRIBES, and taking their land. That is the archetype behind it. And so I say: destroy the churches and mosques and synagogues, save the chidlren from being intoxinated with this brain poison, burn these damn things called bible, quran and Thora.

Note that I do not say: bring down hinduism, destroy buddhist centres. I m not really a fan of hinduism, and the caste system they have is an offence to all what is humane and ciuvilised, but what makes me tolerating Hinduism is that they do not mess up the world beyond their borders, and do not try for active subjugation or convertation of others - and that is a big plus for me, after all the religious aggressive violence we have seen being done in the name of Islam, Christianity, Judaism. Also, Buddhas teaching does not aid in seeking conquest, hate, intolerance and subjugation of others, and they leave you alone and do not missionise all around the globe, only open a centrte her eor there where they are welcomed, and even then they stay inside their compound and do not mess up society, do not seek to manipulate education sysetems, laws, and try not to gain a special status for themselves that make them special amongst all others. So yes: no problem to tolerate them as well.

And there are many other opinion traditions and schools of thinking and other religious cults towards which I feel no need to confront them - even when I disagree, even when I find them hilarious.

But the churches, Jewish and christian funda,mentlaism, Islam I explicitly exclude from this tolerance, since they show no tolerance towards others.

U_crank,

I called you an idiot above, and that was an unneeded call.
I apologize for that.
I still find your way of running your part of the debate absurd and contradicting in itself, I still do not accept the way you were weazeling. But the name calling was unneeded, and should considered to be unneeded in any other debate as well. So: sorry for that one, and I mean it.

But sorry only for that one.

[Skybird]

Really...now why don't you ask Skybird about denying basic rights of few based on his purely logical (in his view)social reasoning then....
Or maybe reflect on some ugly ideologies that took in some inspiration on Darwin theory of evolution.

I always wonder when reading such postings whether it is really that difficult to argue and defend ones own opinion without distorting what the other said, or whether it is just the easier path of defamation that is being taken due to own laziness or lack of arguments that could hold their ground.

[u crank]

U_crank,
I apologize for that.


Noted. Accepted. Peace.

[Tribesman]

I always wonder when reading such postings whether it is really that difficult to argue and defend ones own opinion without distorting what the other said
The beauty of it is that people don't need to distort what you say, you just cannot see what you are saying(or what other people are saying).

Its brilliant, even when you try to exclude little things like saffronization or the rising of the lotus from your own intolerance to make you seem more reasonable you manage to get facts so wrong its laughable:yeah:


Really...now why don't you...
MH don't be silly.:03:
you know he already did that perfectly, Sky won't answer that and you can see his attempt at skirting round his contradiction leads him straight into another self contradictory position.

[MH]

I always wonder when reading such postings whether it is really that difficult to argue and defend ones own opinion without distorting what the other said, or whether it is just the easier path of defamation that is being taken due to own laziness or lack of arguments that could hold their ground.

...me lazy:yawn:

As for the scientifically based ugly ideologies the argument stands.
I think the few past centuries show and in particular last century.A period when religion was less relevant than earlier that the bloodshed and conquest, including killing on industrial scale had become even more intensive.
In some cases it can be attributed to advancement in weaponry in others to applying Darwinian laws about survival of the strongest races therefore making racism a science ...for example or used in the name of social engineering.Yet the fact is that the "enlightenment" did not really prevent it...sometimes led to it.

The "enlightenment" made religion merely a less effective tool in political game while other ideas replaced them.

I can agree that religion may hold us back when it comes to scientific advancements but i can hardly say that it is root of all evil.

When it comes to Judaism and local (why local is a long story that dates back to 48)orthodox i probably like them even less than you do (not sure though...:DL)but still they don't try to convert anyone or conquer others.
They simply are closed club that is trying to preserve itself.
God dam it...most of they don't even recognise Israel.
Israel is Zionist sin till Messiah comes to sort things out.:haha:


..........

[Sailor Steve]

Really...now why don't you ask Skybird about denying basic rights of few based on his purely logical (in his view)social reasoning then....
Or maybe reflect on some ugly ideologies that took in some inspiration on Darwin theory of evolution.


..............
Exactly what rights is he denying in this particular argument?

Also please explain your second statement. I seem to be missing your point.

[Sailor Steve]

The beauty of it is that people don't need to distort what you say, you just cannot see what you are saying(or what other people are saying).

Its brilliant, even when you try to exclude little things like saffronization or the rising of the lotus from your own intolerance to make you seem more reasonable you manage to get facts so wrong its laughable:yeah:
But you express no argument, just an attack and insult. If you have nothing substantive to say, why say anything at all?

[Tribesman]

But you express no argument, just an attack and insult. If you have nothing substantive to say, why say anything at all?
The arguements are all there. he is still stuck with his popper paradox but can't see it due to a combination of his hatred and his belief that he must be right
In fact its even funnier with what you quoted as in his rabid intolerance of anything remotely muslim he previously has linked to some real crazies in India and the surrounding countries who were doing exactly what he says they don't.(another recuring theme here as he again linked to a hey looky what they say, me likey what they say,they say the same as me..... though the EDL is notquite not as funny as the arab christians complaining about black people he linked to when he wanted to moan about muslims in France)

But if you want more funnyness on the topic you may recall his recent theory that the Green party is somehow part of a catholic conspiracy which of course must not be tolerated, yet amongst its leadership there happens to be a very vocal atheist doing exactly what Skybird insists they don't do.

Also please explain your second statement. I seem to be missing your point.
Well I thought you would have got that with Skys religious intolerance global conspracies, habit of going into my struggle mode and his fondness for eugenics, after all poor people shouldn't be allowed to breed though foriegners can breed but must be treated as lesser people especially those ones as they are all the same and are not worthy of the name of people...

Look at the whole topic Steve or the whole pattern of posts.
Right from the start he has done the very things he objects to and all the way through has carefully aimed and shot himself in the foot before lining up for another shot and shooting himself in the foot again and again.

[MH]

Exactly what rights is he denying in this particular argument?.
I was referring to his interesting/economical reasoning behind gays rights in some other threads which may approach the issue from different angle but go in par with religious stance.



Also please explain your second statement. I seem to be missing your point.

Post 50

[Sailor Steve]

The arguements are all there.
But you personally made no arguments. All you did in this case was attack, insult and troll. Again, if you won't discuss it reasonably, please stay out of it. This constitutes a personal attack and will no longer be tolerated.

[Sailor Steve]

I was referring to his interesting/economical reasoning behind gays rights in some other threads which may approach the issue from different angle but go in par with religious stance.
While I completly disagree with Skybird on that subject I found his arguments to be the only anti-gay-marriage arguments to be worthwhile. He made good and reasonable points.

Post 50
Again I disagree. While some benighted people have tried to use Darwinism to that end, it doesn't refute the basic tenets of the theory of Evolution. Are you saying you believe Skybird adheres to that concept?

[MH]

While I completly disagree with Skybird on that subject I found his arguments to be the only anti-gay-marriage arguments to be worthwhile. He made good and reasonable points.

Yes he made reasonable points.


Again I disagree. While some benighted people have tried to use Darwinism to that end, it doesn't refute the basic tenets of the theory of Evolution. Are you saying you believe Skybird adheres to that concept?

I dot follow you here...its not about whether theory of evolution is true.

I was trying to counter Sky,s argument about religion being root of all evil.
It is about how things for political reason can taken out of context manipulated and used for "reasonable" brainwashing....behold... no religion involved in mass murder,conquest and "spread civilisation crusades".
A case when ethics goes to trashcan in the name of science and greater good instead of religion.
While religion may try deal with ethics, science is more about greater good and facts while ethics might be elusive.

Simply dot buy the blame religion thing.


(did not try to call Sky names or imply anything)

[Tribesman]

But you personally made no arguments. All you did in this case was attack, insult and troll. Again, if you won't discuss it reasonably, please stay out of it. This constitutes a personal attack and will no longer be tolerated.
Read again, I am personally making the arguement of using his own arguements.
Answer the question put forward in the first post then make that statement again.
You may notice that it avoids the broad brush pitfall you pulled crank up on, which strangley enough is the same broad brush which Sky is using.:yep:

The second post clarifies the arguement put forward in the first.

The third is a quick serious of accurate counters and the reference to "zeal" is included to highlight how he is the same as those he says he is against.
Did you get the two references in the 4th and see which of his claims they countered? I was tempted to cross reference to his arguement about PC gone mad, which in reality was a legal ruling to deal with the legacy of the racist policy of honourary white people to further highlight it as a pattern but considered the point stood well enough itself.
The second part of the 4th deals with the very same notion you yourself have pulled him up over, if I recall correctly your arguement can be simply paraphrased as ... how are you and your arguements any different than those people and arguements you are saying are wrong, your intolerance loops to put you in the same category as that which you say must be got rid of.....please correct me if I have mistated on that angle about freedom of speech and intolerance and the self contradictory nature of the arguements put forward.

[Morts]

Atheists have a system of belief, a doctrine, that is well documented. You ascribe to it and believe it to be true. If you think that's absurd it's not my problem.
Wrong, its a lack of belief.
There is no guide to be an atheist, there is no "bible" to lead you on your way to become a better atheist, its simply just a lack of belief, nothing more.

[Skybird]

Yes he made reasonable points.



I dot follow you here...its not about whether theory of evolution is true.

I was trying to counter Sky,s argument about religion being root of all evil.
It is about how things for political reason can taken out of context manipulated and used for "reasonable" brainwashing....behold... no religion involved in mass murder,conquest and "spread civilisation crusades".
A case when ethics goes to trashcan in the name of science and greater good instead of religion.
While religion may try deal with ethics, science is more about greater good and facts while ethics might be elusive.

Simply dot buy the blame religion thing.


(did not try to call Sky names or imply anything)
A relgion is a cult that is formed around an ideology. I think its fair to say these ideologies base on a.) superstititon on the one and and b.) the self interest for power and priviliges of priesthoods of said religions.

Ideologies have two effects. 1. they motivate for future deeds/behaviour. 2. they serve as justifications for future AND past deeds/behaviour.

If the ideology preaches attack and conquest, the ethnic cleansing of new territories, the supression of females, the torture of infidels and apostates, and so on and on (I have the old testament on mind!), and if the ideology preaches about a magic skycaptain who threatens all this if his tyrannic orders are not met, and who executes mass murder as a penalty< for disobedience; if for his sasdistic joy he terrorises fathers to kill their sons to prove something, calling them back just in last minute in one story - and not calling them back in another story! - if all this is like it is, and muczh more blood and gore being told: then a motivating justifying ideology turns into a problem, becasue the rules and ethics and morals coming from that hardly can be called ethical, moral, humane. They are barbaric.

We should feel blessed an gifted that the morals of the est'S modenr present DO NOT BASE on Christian values. Else pour place would be like Afghanistan, probably.

I remind of the radical attitude of fundamentalist Chriostian in the US, a group mainly deriving from the bible belt, that by all what I have read about them in n o way are any different, any less medieval, any less inhukmane than the Taliben in Afghanistan. Maybe that is why these christians sometimes are referred to as the American Taliban. Thes people are ruthless and do not even shy away from murder and assassination, whoich they ocasionally carry oput - in context with the battle over abortion, for example.

At the same time such people, people like them, time and again show massive intellectual deficits. I cannot put it any other way.

Totalitarianism, mind control, supremacism are what keeps ideologic fundamentlaists together and oincreases their strength to change the world. That'S why the church calls for obedience, that'S why Islam is as openly totalitarian in its control claism as it is, that'S why Chriostian fundamentalists are so extremely aggressiove againmst others, espoecially atheists. The worst thing you can call yourself in the US seems to be "atheist". And up into the highest ranks of political and social representations you can find statements questioning whether an atheist should be allowe dto hold public office, can even be called an American, can even be called a civilised human being. Accusations of lacking human nature coming from a medieval Taliban, well that's rich, isn't it!

I mentioined the experiment done in I think the 60s, by Israeli professor Tamarin, who looked how expopsition to religious teachings changed 1000 children's attitude towards genocide. The result - for which he was fired by his university (!) - was that the same biblic story of once again some tribe getting mowed down and pushing over the cliff of extinction, was met with disgust and moral outage if names and places were chnaged to some fictional historic event in Chinese history. But when the same story was told in the opriginal bilbical context, the vast majority found the genocide justified because it was the will of God.

Nice, eh?

The new testament is not much better, and only in the immediate preachings of Jesus you see a slightly different concepotion of God being given. But even Jesus repatedly referred to the woman as being inferior and the the foreign infidel must get pushed down and attacked. Not that without that I would see Jesus as any more holy than he is. If he existed, which to me is absolutely not a certainty, he still was a normal human, with a mind speaking some reaosnmable things for which they claim he was assassinated by those feeling threatened by this reason, and he still was a brainchild of his time and as a human could not completely escape being influenced by it. So even, by all sympathy for sermon on the mount and cleansing of the temple - leave Jesus the humanity that he had, and take the later emerging written fixings of hear-say about his claimed life with a grain of salt.

It seems to me that throughout history the moral and ethical standards caused and demonstrated by religions are far, far inferior to those basing on other grounds or were lived by people - sometimes under threat to their life for being herectis! - not signing it to relgion club membership. And no other mtoviation there has been in history, not poltics and not economics, that has caused, motiavted, called for and afterwards justified so much violent barvbaric excesses and wars, like the three theistic desert dogmas. Their historic record is a nightmare.

I personally fear very strongly that the US is developing into a theocratic police-state regime. That's why I cannot laugh about creationist museums anymore. In Europe, we maybe get the same thing, just in Islamic translation.

That'S why I am against religious schoolo lessons, and relgious clubs being allowed to nfliuehjce the small and weak, the unedcuated and unexpereinced children. I call it child abuse, and I mean it exactly lioke that. Let people get education, let them grow up, and when they are in their mid-twenties, let them decide by themselves whether they want to replace reality with fiction that eithe lets them live in a sugar-coated lie, or allows them to turn out the worst in them and become Taliban at worst, no matter whether Christain or Islamic ones. The chikldren are innocent, and their minds are unformed and defenceless to manipulation - that'S why religions fight so bitterly to get access to them as early as possible, and why they all have formed traditions to claim club possession over them from cradle on, if it could be legally managed.

To me, all this equals crime against humanity, and child abuse. Disgusting. And no sign of a sense for moral responsibility anywhere.

This should - once again - explain why I want the three desert dogmas brouight down. They are dangerous, and unfortunately they win in influence throughout the world. And that deeply concerns me. It doesn't matter whether it is Islam which is fundamentalist from A to Z, or Chroistzian church which is funda,mentlaist in parts of it and in some sects. Fundamentalists are a dangerous breed in both cases, as are Jewish extremists as well. Let'S show them all their place under the big stone in the garden, and make sure they stay there.

P.S. Yu said that no religion calls for global crusade and conquest. You are wrong. Islam does, both by deed and by scripture. Catholicism does, both by deed and by scripture, though today in a less military form (ignoring some Christian sectarians for the moment). The Vatican still implies demand for dominat rulership over all other Christian sects and chruches, too. Radical Jews demand ethnical cleannsing and theocratic totaliatrianism at least in the polaces they claim for themselves: the socalled holy land. Islam and radical Christians as well as Catholicism try actively to push into and gain ground in schools, education systems, law making, courts. All seek special status, regarding the law, and tax duties, for themselves, all of them want to establish parallel law systems for its members and special treatement for their priesthood.

[Tribesman]

I mentioined the experiment done in I think the 60s, by Israeli professor Tamarin, who looked how expopsition to religious teachings changed 1000 children's attitude towards genocide. The result - for which he was fired by his university (!)
If he was fired from his university for the experiment he did in 1966 why was he still there conducting the same studies in the same university in 1973?
Could it be that the story as presented isn't true?

Besides which does anyone care to spot the gaping flaw in the study, or rather the huge flaw in what it is being presented as:hmmm:
It is an easy one to spot and does come very nicely to a militantly extreme atheist ideology from which you could draw a comparison.

[Sailor Steve]

I dot follow you here...its not about whether theory of evolution is true.
I thought you were saying he's one of the people who worship Evolution like it was a religion. Sorry If I misunderstood.

(did not try to call Sky names or imply anything)
I didn't think you were. :sunny:

[Skybird]

I go with the evolution theory because it is the most convincing, ergonomic, elegant and simple explanation on the matter that we have gotten so far, well tested, and supported by plenty and plenty of evidence. Occam's razor - and it cuts relatively effortless here. Also, it's explanatory potential is immense. It'S one of the most fundemantal theories science has ever come up with. A mind-booster.

If these reasons qualify for having a "biased" attitude, or a relgious spirit, then I cannot help it and words do not mean anything anymore, it seems.

Also, alternative ideas given especially from the field of creationists and religions, by academic standards have been shown false and flawed so fundamentally and so often that I do not waste time arguing with them anymore. If somebody takes the tales by the Brothers Grimm for reality, then this is not a case for scientific debate, but for a therapist, sorry. And creationist museums were man is depicted beside or riding on dinosaurs "hand in hand" and a sign under the scene saying the world has been created 6000 years ago, then this is an illustration of the intellectual maximum credible accident.

There were other scientific attempts to explain the origin of man and species. The aquatic ape theory, for example, or the attempt to use neoteny to explain certain details where the classic savannah theory was weak. But all these theories failed to stand the test for general validity, may have sounded elegant, yes - but by far did not offer the general valdity the Darwinian model offers, and also offer not the immense explanatory potential. That'S why Darwin, and not Sir Allistair Hardy or somebody else, became the dominant paradigm in the field of evolution theories. It is common scientific procedure.

When somebody comes up with a model that has stronger explanatory potential, and his claims are shown in critical analysis to stand such tests and examinations, when it makes better predictions or allows a simplier, more elegant explanation - then Darwin will be left behind where his theory has shown to have been surpassed. But I do not expect to see that very soon. Or ever in the forseeable future - Darwins model is very very strong in argument and evidence.

[Sailor Steve]

Well said.

And short, which helps. :sunny:

[MH]

A religion is a cult that is formed around an ideology. I think its fair to say these ideologies base on a.) superstition on the one and and b.) the self interest for power and privileges of priesthoods of said religions.



You can call religion an ideology it is all a matter of definition.
As i see modern ideologies are replacements to old religious orders and often view religion as threat to own the goals.

In Torah or bible you can find all sorts of controversial stories in particular in the early chapters which deal with establishment of monotheism.
All sort of faith tests with rewards and punishments which might be very total in attitude but seem logical for those times.
There is also issue of swift punishment for corruption and lack of competition which is portrayed in Sodom and Gomorrah fate..for example.
Ruled by greed and corruption.
The punishment might be extreme yet important is the moral teaching and what society is viewed as unacceptable to god.
Actually issues of corruption and treatment of fellow human beings is one of the issues that pop out again and again in the book...brought up by judges and prophets as warnings to the masses or the political leaders.


According to Jewish law women are equal but separate at their role in sociaty.
Viewing the role as inferior is really a matter of perspective and whom you ask.
Defined family rules solve a lot of problems from what i have seen but still i would not like to see my daughter as such unless it was her choice.
Certainly Judaism had more open view on women rights than Europeans up to 18/19 century.
Maybe one of the reason for antisemitism in past centuries could be that there had relatively well educated and successful communities in middle of dark ages Europe when people could hardly read and could only look to church priests.
At the same time Jews learned to read to be able to practice religion and dealt with theological philosophy.

When it comes to some orthodox currents i agree that there is an backward regression on some issues.
To me they are like dark ages Christians in modern times and while some communities regress and close up even more to preserve themselves others try to adapt themselves and make best of it.

The way to view Torah is not literal...i agree that god is portrayed as total at the way he acts but more important is why and for what purpose.
He puts on scary shows by those days standards but what is interesting that there is no concept of hell so no burning for eternity comes to mind.
If he was good uncle who would even piss in his direction...right?
On another hand he is not about putting on magic tricks all the time to save us from our salves....he made few strong points back then...and that's it.

When in comes to genocide at time conquering Canaan i suppose it is not much different from the way it was done by Germanic tribes in central or north Europe.
There had been some theological gymnastics to explain this but none worth mentioning besides simple practical explanation which unfortunately is unethical.
Why god could not had pulled on some magic tricks the same way he done in Egypt to scare the hell out of Canaanite tribes may be a matter of education.
God is not a nanny therefore one needs to do his dirty jobs and learn to survive in this violent environment.What ever was done it was done by the warfare rules of that time that is...if one wanted to make strong point for all to see.
Remember your calling for total war:D
Greeks and Romans or Egyptians had gods for every occasion here we have one that needs to deal with all sorts of issues which sometimes leads to contradictions.
On another hand assimilation usually means cultural compromise which was out of question to this new religion that had to establish itself.
Later on when Kingdom of Israel was defined wars had been fought for defensive purposes.
I cant really think of any jihadist attitude in Torah quite opposite isolationism or spreading the massage by good deeds.
That is be the light to all nations ....yeah i know lol.


I'm not religious but it is just my take on this... .



.................

[Skybird]

The punishment might be extreme yet important is the moral teaching and what society is viewed as unacceptable to god.

Sorry, but I do not buy that. There are too many examples of how God just randomly, arbitrarily, for no good reason, terrorises not only the enemies of the selected holy people, but also the virtuous heroes of that peope themselves, from demanding to sacrifice their first-born to show their loyalty to random divine command, over demands for conquest and ethnic cleansing, to threatening and torturing his loyal followers to take the time before they fall apart in despair or not. That is sadism and psychopathy in its most obvious form. Moral lessons to be taken from that: none. Wiping out a city becasue the administraiton is corrupt and people in bedrooms do things that God has designed them to do? Drowning the world and animals as well as humans in retaliation for man being like God made him? Just watching as hosts of male angels hand over their daughters to the mob for gang rape to avoid handing over the guests? Condemmning all mankind until all etenertic becasue it gained wisom in the garden of Eden to differ between what is good and what is evil instead of just submissively playing at voyeuristic God's feet like puppies? Condemning families over four generations because one early member denied to be totally submissive and obedient?

Sorry, there is only one moral lesson to be learned from the style of rulership of this god: if you meet God, spank his azz, pulverise him and feed the powder to the rats. They will instantly die, no doubt. Poor rats. Maybe God makes a good agent for a new chemical WMD.

Or put him for all eternal in a high security station of a mental asylum. One of these rooms they locked Hannibal Lector in, you know.

[MH]

Scary stuff...but it worked.:haha:

[Skybird]

Scary stuff...but it worked.:haha:In a way, yes - fundamentalists now do and think the same way like this tyrant. Totalitarianism and intimidation works wonders not only in Islam.

[MH]

In a way, yes - fundamentalists now do and think the same way like this tyrant. Totalitarianism and intimidation works wonders not only in Islam.

Totalitarianism also worked/works in many other places regardless of religion dating back to Roman empire or earlier.

[u crank]

Atheists have a system of belief, a doctrine, that is well documented.

Wrong, its a lack of belief.
There is no guide to be an atheist, there is no "bible" to lead you on your way to become a better atheist, its simply just a lack of belief, nothing more.

Cambridge Dictionary: atheist - someone who believes that God or gods do not exist.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: atheist - one who believes there is no deity.

To be fair,

Newbury House Dictionary: atheist - a person who does not believe in the existence of God.

It appears that an Atheist is one who believes there is no God or holds to the conviction that he does not believe in God. But this is not the only belief that Atheists hold with conviction. Another is naturalism - the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. Others are evolution, reason as opposed to faith and various others. It appears that Atheists have beliefs.

Oxford Dictionary: system - set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole

That Atheists work together to accomplish goals, exchange ideas, collaborate and support each other is quite obvious.

This appears to be a system of belief however casual or unintended that it may be. Possibly a better term would be 'world view'

Oxford Dictionary: world view - a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.

In either case there is a collective mind set of shared ideals, convictions and goals. Of course not all Atheists would share these ideas. I'm sure that there are some Atheists who don't know who Sam Harris is and could care less. But many do and follow him and others with great zeal. Still others could be considered activists for this cause and some could even be referred to as militant. This is all very natural with any movement or ideology.

Here's what puzzles me. Why Atheists deny that some or any of this is so. Is it because they are ashamed of it? I'm sure that is not the case. Is there a hidden agenda. Again, I'm sure that is not the case. My theory, and it is just a theory is that Atheism is very similar to religion but without God or faith. I'm not saying it is a religion, but that it's very similar. This of course, for those who are opposed to religion is bad news. There is an old saying that goes like this: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck.

[Tribesman]

In either case there is a collective mind set of shared ideals, convictions and goals. Of course not all Atheists would share these ideas. I'm sure that there are some Atheists who don't know who Sam Harris is and could care less. But many do and follow him and others with great zeal. Still others could be considered activists for this cause and some could even be referred to as militant. This is all very natural with any movement or ideology.

Wouldn't Dawkins be a better example than Harris?
People clearly believe what they read in his writings and appear to accept it as true without question, they even make an effort to spread the word of the truth he teaches to convince others of the way.

[Skybird]

An agnostic is somebody who claims that one cannot know.

An atheist is somebody refusing to believe in the concept of theistic deity. This is not so much an active act of belief, but the refusal to actively believe. It thus is somewhat passive an act.

Hitchens would also separate the (passive, Skybird) atheist from the (active, Skybird) anti-theist who - according to Hitchens - is (actively) convinced that God does not exist. Such would be a somewhat active act.

But the problem there is that Hitchens probabaly is wrong in this detailed distinction he makes between atheists and anti-theists. As I said repeatedly now and say again here, logic has demonstrated that the non-existence of something cannot be proven for 100% certainty. Logically, that is not possible to be demonstrated.

I changed my mind a bit, since for some time I tended to see it like Hitchens, but I corrected my opinion there.
I now tend to follow Dawkins who said that due to logic demonstrating that the non-existence of something cannot be proven by evidence, an atheist in principle always can only be an agnostic who is 99.99999...% sure that theistic entities do not exist, but you can never be an atheist in the meaning of knowing 100% for sure that theistic deities do not exist. For Dawkins, as for me, the issue is one of probabilities. Is it probable, is it likely that there is a god? I see the chance as infinitely minimal. Because there is no proof or evidence. Because there is no need for a god since he does not add any explanatory value to what we know about how the universe's functions. Because the existence of a god himself also would remain unexplained and his origin again would be object of belief only. And because the existence of a god would even be contradictory to what we have learned about how the universe functions so afar. So, to me everythingn really everything speaks against a god existing. I also do not see it as desirable that the god as depicted in the three desert dogmas, or in the stories about the Rom,an gods, or the narcissists sitting on Mount Olymp, or any other, do exist. I think we are much better off without these sick, deeply disarranged, miserable individuals. Only that the non-existence of something cannot be proven for total certainty makes me stopping short of the 100% certainty mark. I am 99.9999...% sure that gods do not exist.

U-crank has not been the first demanding me to explain what my "belief" is, what my "faith" or "dogma" is. And he is not the first simply ignoring when i answer that I have none. It seems that theistic believers have extreme problems to imagine that there can be people who do not replace theistic belief in some entity with believing in something different, but simpyl are rejecting to follow the belief in a theistic deity - and maybe defending themselves from being turned into subjects that shall in public space give ground to demands of theistic claims for influence and legislation.

The burden of proof is on the theistic believers' side anyway. They raise the claims that there is a god - so it is up to them to bring up the evidence for their claims. Until they do, things remain to stay the way they have been since 14 billion years: no god to be seen, heared, smelled, tasted, felt anywhere, by anyone. So, the burden of proof is with the believers, not the sceptics. A simple implementation of the originator principle.

I have no "atheistic belief" or "dogma". I cannot even imagine what an atheistic belief should be. That is like demanding a "bended straight". I fight against religion not because of a dogma that I believe and that demands me to do it. Or because of a faith that I wantg to topple theistioc faith. I fight against relgion because of self-defence - I do not wish to live under the ruling of a theistically dominated education and legal system, I do not wish believers turning the world around me creepingly into theocracies, and I do not wish to leave children weak and defenceless to the mental mauling and abusing that religion is giving them becasedu their parents got brainwashed as children, too, and thus hand their own kids over to the executioner as well. What the three desert dogmas are doing to children, I rate as a crime against humanity, and one of the most monumental, barbaric and inhumane crimes against humanity it is. The active amputation of the intellect and the mutilation of free independent thought - that is a nightmare of a crime for sure. I dispise theistic religion because it teaches people to be stupid, righteous, intolerant and uncompassionate - and be satisfied with that. So I meet it with the same level of tolerance it meets others - I meet it with no tolerance whatsoever.

So, maybe there is a dogma indeed behind my reasoning, then. :hmmm: It would be called humanism. Rationality. Reasonability. Kant's Golden Rule. Compassion for the weak and abused who are to be circumcised right between their temples by religion. The desire to know instead of just blindly believe something unproven, untested.

If that makes me a dogmatic person, i will wear this accusation with pride and confidence, and I crave for becoming even more dogmatic, hopefully. In the end, I know that there are things that we do not know. We gain knowledge, and by that also discover new questions. Dressing lacking knowledge into the cloths of belief, does not give us any more knowledge, but is a fantasy. Knowledge that is not known, but believed ("I believe I know that..."), is no knowledge at all - but only completely belief for sure.

[Sailor Steve]

An agnostic is somebody who claims that one cannot know.
I sometimes wonder where that leaves me. I don't know whether anyone can know these things or not. All I can say for certain is that I don't know. I do question whether anyone else knows. So far no one has been able to show me that they actually know any of the answers, so I keep asking.

Not a believer, not a non-believer, just a questioner.

[Skybird]

Not a believer, not a non-believer, just a questioner.
Which is not the unhealthiest of attitudes, as long as it does not stop you from deciding and taking responsibility for the consequences.

Zen spirit - beginner's spirit. :)

In the end, all world, and all that we call event and universe, is just inside our head, a dance of electric pulses that chemically and electrically race down our neurons' network, and for some reasons we do not know our brain from all that chaos forms not an image of chaos, but comes up with an idea of higher order, shows colour and clear form, sound and taste, emotion and perception. Our eye is uncapable to produce clear images, the lense and all that does not allow that, is not clean and precise enough. Nevertheless our brain forms a clear image. How can that be when it never has had opportunity to experience anything that could serve as a precedent example for standardisation of later visual input to make it appear "clear and sharp"?

The world is in our heads. We do not discover reality - we construct it. It's all maybe only pure mind, pure idea.

Pure mystery, or pure magic, if you want. Much more fascinating than anything written in holy books. Why is all this so? Who is looking through my eyes? Who is the witness, the one who is even watching at himself when I become aware I reflect about myself?

We all are just like that boy "playing on the sea-shore, and diverting himself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before us."

[u crank]

Wouldn't Dawkins be a better example than Harris?
People clearly believe what they read in his writings and appear to accept it as true without question, they even make an effort to spread the word of the truth he teaches to convince others of the way.

Probably. I didn't want to be too obvious, but yes Dawkins is certainly one of the most well known of the prophets of Atheism.

[Tribesman]

Probably. I didn't want to be too obvious, but yes Dawkins is certainly one of the most well known of the prophets of Atheism.
If you take that story of his Sky used as an example you wouldn't have to try hard to find to find hundreds of atheist/humanist/free thinker sites which repeat it as truth and believe it without question in their effort to spread their message.
In fact you would find it harder to locate those sites who didn't just simply believe what they read and repeated it like a sacred mantra
Perhaps Dawkins himself did the same as he took that story from another writer.

[Sailor Steve]

What's interesting to me is that you spend a lot of time talking about what others believe, but you have yet to say what you believe. Do you have anything positive to add to this?

[Skybird]

Probably. I didn't want to be too obvious, but yes Dawkins is certainly one of the most well known of the prophets of Atheism.
Defamation of science and reason this claim is.

A prophet is somebody who claims to deliver the message of a supernatural entity, whose will is revelead to the prophet in visions or intuitions.

Dawkins is biologist. If one has read one or several of his books (i know two), one knows that he argues on the basis of reasonable calculation, loogical argtiument, and scinertiifc fact. He also makes no prediction, but desribes present and past. Finally, he seems to be an extremnely kind and polite character who delivers his arguments with determination, yes, but avoids agressiveness and confrontation, and he even points that out and describes his experiences in talkshows, meetings and podium discussions that in his opinion debate even with a total opponent of his positions delivers more results and has more chances for creating something positive, constructive, than confrontation. His books reflect that very strongly in style, and I see it also in the videos that I have seen by him. Especially his book on religion is determined in argument, but by far the most friendly in expression and style of all the recent critical books on religion that went through the beststeller lists.

In this, he is very different in style than Christopher Hitchens, who fight his debates with vicious intellectuality and wittiness (yet politeness and splendid contenance) but also sometimes with quite some aggressiveness where needed, and he is of course very different to Pat Condell who really drops verbal daisy-cutters like clouds drop raindrops.

The claim that science is just behaving like religion or atheism is behaving like religion, is just an attempt to try to bypass arguments they raise that the religious cannot counter and show wrong. When he cannot deal with the message, he tries to defame the messenger instead. That way the message should get devalued, by bringing it down to the low and inferior intellectual level that religious only-claims are operating on. Once that is accomplished, the debate can get hjijacked by focussing on the messenger and the evilness of science/atheists behaving oh so religiously, and the orginal message is no longer an object of public awareness. Mission accomplished!

There is one problem these religious hypocrites time and again seem to miss. When you try to bring down the reputation of science or atheism by comparing it to the reputation of religion - what does this tell you then about the reputation of religion? :haha:

"Rohrkrepierer", we call that in German.

[Skybird]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/how-the-web-is-killing-faith/2012/05/24/gJQAMHgLnU_blog.html

Just a reminder of what this threat originally was about. :03:

[MH]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/how-the-web-is-killing-faith/2012/05/24/gJQAMHgLnU_blog.html

Just a reminder of what this threat originally was about. :03:

Internet seems like a great tool to spread fundamentalist ideas theories of conspiracy or Dawkinks shows all the same.



Just as there are believing people in advance fields of science there will be religion next to Internet.


.....

[u crank]

An agnostic is somebody who claims that one cannot know.

An atheist is somebody refusing to believe in the concept of theistic deity. This is not so much an active act of belief, but the refusal to actively believe. It thus is somewhat passive an act.

Cambridge Dictionary - conviction

- a strong opinion or belief
- a feeling of being certain about something

Merriam-Webster Dictionary - conviction

-a state of mind in which one is free from doudt

Even though a truth that a person holds is a negative value, for example ‘there is no god’, defending that truth requires conviction. In order to accomplish that a person must express an opinion. He must be able to defend that position with conviction. If he can not then he has failed. If he refuses to then he has no actual opinion or his opinion is unknown to others.


A prophet is somebody who claims to deliver the message of a supernatural entity, whose will is revelead to the prophet in visions or intuitions.

Cambridge Dictionary - prophet

a person who is believed to have a special power which allows them to say what a god wishes to tell people, especially about things that will happen in the future, also

a person who supports a new system of beliefs and principles



So, maybe there is a dogma indeed behind my reasoning, then. :hmmm: It would be called humanism.

Cambridge Dictionary - humanism

a belief system based on the principle that people's spiritual and emotional needs can be satisfied without following a god or religion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/how-the-web-is-killing-faith/2012/05/24/gJQAMHgLnU_blog.html

Just a reminder of what this threat originally was about. :03:

I for one think this is a good development. No organization or person is beyond criticism or examination. If it falls because of this it had little value to begin with. If it makes it stronger because of it, it will have more value.

[Sailor Steve]

The above post argues for the concept that atheism is indeed a belief system. As I've pointed out, there are certainly atheists who act that way. On the other hand the whole argument diverts attention from the question of whether there is any evidence. "You're just as bad as I am!" doesn't make you any better. Firm belief seems to be a part of human nature. Whether this belief is a "gift from God" or just a particular of how the mind works is certainly debatable, but it always comes back to the same problem, which is whether there is a God to grant said gift.

So rather than toss out accusations of one side being as bad or worse than the other, how about showing something concrete. The bottom line here is that science investigates, examines, and creates theories. Faith does none of those. The theories may end up being true or false, but they are the best that can be proposed based on the available evidence. Skybird made a good argument for the nature of scientific theory, and no one has countered it yet.

It's like the Sherlock Holmes conundrum. Science attempts to make theories that fit the facts. Faith attempts to make the facts fit predetermined beliefs. If you have a belief, for or against God, let's see some facts.

[MH]

It's like the Sherlock Holmes conundrum. Science attempts to make theories that fit the facts. Faith attempts to make the facts fit predetermined beliefs. If you have a belief, for or against God, let's see some facts.

Since faith is much older than modern science i think it is very natural.

Lets take the example of our fine tuned universe.
Science claims that only tiniest of tiniest changes in physical laws would make universe inhabitable for life.
The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."
It can be claimed that there must must be some design to universe on another hand one can say that it is just in our heads.This statistical miracle simply happened because it actually happen...as Hawkins says if it did not happen we would not be here to wonder about it...ok

Chose which ever you like but i think that there are no compelling evidence against any...besides maybe some general belief and association of religion with stupidity which unfortunately in many cases is backed in reality.



................

[Tribesman]

What's interesting to me is that you spend a lot of time talking about what others believe, but you have yet to say what you believe. Do you have anything positive to add to this?

If you don't condiser them positive then consider them again.
As for what I think on the subject I think it cuts both ways and is in fact an empty smokescreen.
Cretinists will continue to believe in cretinism no matter how much evidence is posted openly online which they can read, fundamentalist literalists will still repeat their version of the truth and it will still be swallowed unquestioningly by those of the same mindset, people interested in spreading the "truth" of atheism will still repeat Dawkins repeating Hartung without question.
Availabiltiy of the information isn't going to change some peoples minds as they are already set, you could post direct links to laws and treaties which are freely available on the internet and people will still insist that there is really a secret text hidden in the documanet and continue to repaeatedly pronounce that "text" as the truth and demonstrate their absolute faith in that "truth" is unshakeable.
The sort of censorship some of these people want to protect their views from other influences would only be possible in an isolated totalitarian state and even then would not be secure.
Once again you have those who want to ban information and those that want to ban information and they are on the same side yet are claiming they are completely different from each other.

[joegrundman]

i came across this very interesting talk by Daniel Dennet, titled "How to tell you are an atheist"

it's quite long, at 45 mins, but worth it.

The main caveat to the talk is that his 'example' theist is clearly a modern christian from a western country. That said, it is an interesting and thought provoking talk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iVCxx-GkMg

[MH]

?????????

Tried to run spell checker and it all got corrupted...never mind.
Damn the gremlins of the inter webs or slow cell connection.:damn:

[Skybird]

Atheist conventions? I am not aware we have that over here, and if it happens, it is happening outside the reach of my radar screen. But beside the conspirating Catholic church and the dummy protestants, we only have Islam sabotaging our society, but no radical militant Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals, so there might be a difference between Europe/Germany and the US here.

But i can imagine that it is different in America, where radical evangelists and born again Christians and fundamentalists are acting much more aggressive and even militant than in any Western country, so atheists may see freedom and secularism being under much heavier fire from religious rightwingers in the US and thus feel a greater need to organise themselves and coordinate resistence to that.

- When considering that for example many atheists fear for the wellbeing of their family and their job if they would reveal their atheist attitude and happen to live in some conservative community in the bible belt ( this is being illustrated in so many stories and interviews I read over the years that I have stopped to count them),

- or when you consider that there are many regions and high ranking public offices that you are in practice unable to ever reach or get voted into if you tell the public you do not believe in God (you are better off to admit you are a believing Satanist, but never-never admit you believe nothing!) ,

- or when you consider that an American president gets away with saying that he thinks Americans who do not believe in God are not even true Americans and of course also are no patriots even when they put their life at risk for their country in wars;

- when you consider that nationwide bible swingers try to push biblic ideas of world creation into public education plans, and where they fail to get it implemented in the law tell their people in the system to present it beside the offical education plans as a "alternative" that pupils should be strongly encouraged to examine (this is missionising imo, nothing else, and undermining the education sector);

- if you consider that 3 in ten Americans take the bible literally,

- when you consider that 4.5 in 10 Americans believe in creationism;

- when you consider that it is claimed time and again the foundign fathers founded America as ex explicitly Christian nation,

- when you consider how religious lobbying has penetrated the secular basic order and brought the referance to the Christian god both into the Pledge of Allegiance and onto coins and bank notes,

- when you consider the murderous militancy of opponents of abortion,

- while many of these man-loving humanists at the same time go hysteric when shouting their soul out of their throats in front of a prison and cannot get a execution candidate killed soon enough;

when you consider all these examples and many others, then you may get an idea why atheists maybe find the secular state order of the US in danger and themselves under pressure and thus decide that they want to organise their resistence to all this religious madness - to increase their own chance of survival, to defend freedom (last but not least the freedom FROM relgion), and to defend secularism.

u_crank, I just had a brief look at two dictionaries I have on my shelve here, and then compared some terms on the german and the English wikipedia site as well. All definitions were different a bit, so I fear your list of entries only illustrate the diversity in different understandings, but in no way mark the final word on the meaning of a term. And the meaning I pragmatically tend to base on is how the word most often is used in contemporary language, or I explicitly refer to the original latin or greek origin.

Dictionaries - in the end are about spelling only, not about encyclopedic definition. They give a hint on the meaning terms maybe - but these are usually subjective and vary from publisher to publisher.

However, I have given earlier explanations of how I use the terms you questioned. And much earlier I also explained my - as I admitted: very different - use of the terms religion and spirituality, and what I mean by both.

As your seocnd-last posting is concerned and to which i referred, "prophets of atheism", it was clearly meant as somethign derogatory, an attempt to destroy a reputation of somethign or somebody without needing to deal with its/his arguments. And these arguments stand on a basis of scientific strong fact, and use of logic and reason. Counter these arguments on thesame terms, if you can. Dawkins is not giving a dogma, a prognosis on basis of nothing, or a prophecy quoting hear-say - that is religion's business, not his. He is giving conclusions that are the results of examination and analysis and implementation of quite uncomplicated logical thought. And I can only take serious opposing views that are able to meet these conclusions on the ground of right these principles. "But I believe differently", and leaving it to that, is just not good enough.

[MH]

when you consider all these examples and many others, then you may get an idea why atheists maybe find the secular state order of the US in danger and themselves under pressure and thus decide that they want to organise their resistence to all this religious madness - to increase their own chance of survival.
.

I can sympathise with that.
Yet it all looks just like another day in America which contrary to some wishful thinking is not Europe.
Therefore things might be more colorful there but not necessarily mean that USA is turning into some fundamentalist police state like Egypt.

So they got bible belt and the rest of USA too....and wait....European president...and and world wide web:D

[Sailor Steve]

Since faith is much older than modern science i think it is very natural.
The human mind wants to know the answers, and when there are none to be had turns to speculation. If there is no countering evidence spectulation becomes ingrained and becomes belief, which in turn becomes "fact". There is a long history of science having to wage an uphill battle against people in authority who already "know" the answers and do anything to stop that changing.

Lets take the example of our fine tuned universe.
Science claims that only tiniest of tiniest changes in physical laws would make universe inhabitable for life.
And faith claims that the universe has already been defined and explained, and we must make scientific discoveries fit into whatever viewpoint that particular faith subscribes to.

It can be claimed that there must must be some design to universe on another hand one can say that it is just in our heads.This statistical miracle simply happened because it actually happen...as Hawkins says if it did not happen we would not be here to wonder about it...ok
And that is how reason works - admitting that if an answer is not known then it is not known, nothing more.

Chose which ever you like but i think that there are no compelling evidence against any...besides maybe some general belief and association of religion with stupidity which unfortunately in many cases is backed in reality.
Beliefs are fine. It's when the believer insists that he knows the answer that trouble begins. This also includes those who insist on 'unbelief'. There aren't as many of those as the believers would have us believe, but there are a few and they tend to be voluable.

[Skybird]

I can sympathise with that.
Yet it all looks just like another day in America which contrary to some wishful thinking is not Europe.
Therefore things might be more colorful there but not necessarily mean that USA is turning into some fundamentalist police state like Egypt.

Egypt? In egypt polcie state and fundamentalism were set up against each other. I have something different in mind: fundamentalism and police state working hand in hand on the same grounds: I compare the threat the religious pose to America not to Egypt, but to Iran.

[Skybird]

The human mind wants to know the answers, and when there are none to be had turns to speculation. If there is no countering evidence spectulation becomes ingrained and becomes belief, which in turn becomes "fact". There is a long history of science having to wage an uphill battle against people in authority who already "know" the answers and do anything to stop that changing.
Long eons ago, religion and science lay in the same hands, and the priests tried to understand the stars in order to learn their god'S will or future fate or whatever. Astronomy is probably the olderst scientific branch of all. Probably even caveman occasionally looked at the moon and the sun and by his intellectual means tried to figure what they were.

It took the "Greek revolution", the implementation of the Greek understanding of scientific methodology that explicitly ruled out the validty of referring to the supernatural as an explanation for phenomenal observations, to make "science" what it is today and what we refer to when using this label, "science".


And faith claims that the universe has already been defined and explained, and we must make scientific discoveries fit into whatever viewpoint that particular faith subscribes to.
An effort strongly revived by the current pope, and also by creationism, of course. Also the Tea Party-kind of America's right, and the Tony Blair clones in Europe.

Isn't it funny that in recent years, Catholicism and Islam work hand in hand to bring a fundament of believing in the deity back to Europe, and that creationsim has been translated into the cultural context of Islam and is blossoming marvellously in the Islamic world, spreading from Turkey mainly? The church time and again acts on behalf of Islam'S sprad in Europe, and preists time and again preach for emebracing Islam as if it were just an oriental version of the curch'S dogma, and Muhammad and Jesus were preaching the same. Every difference, especially the unwelcomed ones, is rejected, ignored.

Mian thing is that people shall believe in a theistic dogma. For the church dogmatists hope to benefit from that in getting a rennaissance of Catholic influence, power, and growing submissiveness and obedience of the devout believers. And many christians with bleeding hearts and praying minds seem to buy it, and celebrate when another church is turned into a mosque, which happens several times per week in some place in europe nowadays. That's when I think of myself as living alone amongst sheep.

Imagine if somebody would dare to turn a mosque into a church! Global crisis, collective mass hysteria! Red faces over alleged hate crimes against humanity!

These christians I mentioned above are cattle that smiles and wags its tail while being led to the butcher. They cannot wait to get there. Stupid people. Kind maybe, well-meaning maybe, but hopelessly stupid, naive, disconnected from reality. Die dümmsten Kälber wählen sich ihre Metzger selber.

[MH]

And faith claims that the universe has already been defined and explained, and we must make scientific discoveries fit into whatever viewpoint that particular faith subscribes to.
.

No...maybe it was like 700 years ago.
Nowadays the religion tries to deal with what is at hand updating or stretching theology from literal texts.
Which is good i think because it usually comes with acceptance of some other humane values.

I find it rather funny when atheist try to preach on how wrong it is...the departure from stereotyped believers.
They do it better than Khomeini.
If one don't fit in to the stereotype of medieval believer he must be atheist or idiot in denial...great philosophy.

I sure the audience might feel better in particular if they pay for the tickets to this circus....atheist conventions lol

.................

[joegrundman]

No...maybe it was like 700 years ago.
Nowadays the religion tries to deal with what is at hand updating or stretching theology from literal texts.
Which is good i think because it usually comes with acceptance of some other humane values.

I find it rather funny when atheist try to preach on how wrong it is...the departure from stereotyped believers.
They do it better than Khomeini.
If one don't fit in to the stereotype of medieval believer he must be atheist or idiot in denial...great philosophy.

I sure the audience might feel better in particular if they pay for the tickets to this circus....atheist conventions lol

.................

you find the idea of an atheist convention funny? why? did you actually listen to the talk, or are you satisfied with your own conclusions from guesswork alone?

[MH]

you find the idea of an atheist convention funny? why? did you actually listen to the talk, or are you satisfied with your own conclusions from guesswork alone?

I did listen and it was funny and shadow....are you offended?

[joegrundman]

I did listen and it was funny and shadow....are you offended?

you mean shallow, right?

it was funny and light-hearted, but i do not agree that it was shallow. In there was some serious content.

[MH]

you mean shallow, right?

it was funny and light-hearted, but i do not agree that it was shallow. In there was some serious content.

The bit about Catholics priest was interesting.
It is similar in orthodox communities.
Problem is admitting the truth or living families and everything behind and get on with life.
For some it means complete reprogramming from all the strict rules.

[Tribesman]

Atheist conventions? I am not aware we have that over here, and if it happens, it is happening outside the reach of my radar screen. But beside the conspirating Catholic church and the dummy protestants, we only have Islam sabotaging our society, but no radical militant Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals, so there might be a difference between Europe/Germany and the US here.

The projects are worldwide affairs, if you look beyond your strange "catholic conspiracy" you warned us of you will see that one of the "catholic" leaders of that german conspiracy is part of a German group of atheists pushing these discussions, but hey don't let facts disturb your faith:yawn:

Dictionaries - in the end are about spelling only, not about encyclopedic definition.
No, that would be a concise dictionary which is brief, a proper dictionary not only explores all the meanings and definitions it also goes into depth about the origins and evolution of the words.
Why wriggle so much instead of accepting what was said?


joeg
i came across this very interesting talk by Daniel Dennet, titled "How to tell you are an atheist"

I like his cow one better.

SS
Beliefs are fine. It's when the believer insists that he knows the answer that trouble begins. This also includes those who insist on 'unbelief'. There aren't as many of those as the believers would have us believe, but there are a few and they tend to be voluable.
Yes, and those believing unbelievers can apply for special tax status to spread their message just like a church can.

[Skybird]

Another pastor calls for gay genocide (http://freethinker.co.uk/2012/05/30/another-baptist-pastor-calls-for-gay-genocide/)

Just the latest in a longer line.

Here is the quiz - will this moron be brought to trial and sent to prison for hate crime, or will he be given the benefit of doubt again, since he is religious like the many religious bloodthirsty basterds before him?

Note that he bases - correctly - on the bible. The problem is less the man, but the ideology that has infested and poisened man'S mind. He porbbaly was not boren stupid. But he got an education and a brainwashing that turned him stupid, dangerous and unscrupulous.

[Skybird]

And while I have a run currently: here is the latest entry for a Darwin Award! (http://freethinker.co.uk/2012/05/30/praise-the-lord-and-pass-the-rattlesnakes-demented-us-pastor-qualifies-for-a-darwin-award/)

I assum he now is speaking in split tongues.

[u crank]

On the other hand the whole argument diverts attention from the question of whether there is any evidence. "You're just as bad as I am!" doesn't make you any better. Firm belief seems to be a part of human nature. Whether this belief is a "gift from God" or just a particular of how the mind works is certainly debatable, but it always comes back to the same problem, which is whether there is a God to grant said gift.

So rather than toss out accusations of one side being as bad or worse than the other, how about showing something concrete.

I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that I have said "You're just as bad as I am!" or made accusations of one side being as bad or worse than the other. If you read every post I have made on this thread you will see that I have said nothing disparaging about atheists or Atheism. That is not my style. If I have please point it out an I will apologize.

What I have made is an attempt to show that Atheism is a competing world view or with various religions and other world views. This is simply an opinion and not an original idea on my part.



The bottom line here is that science investigates, examines, and creates theories. Faith does none of those. The theories may end up being true or false, but they are the best that can be proposed based on the available evidence. Skybird made a good argument for the nature of scientific theory, and no one has countered it yet.

I am in complete agreement with this. I personally see no conflict between science and belief in God. I am sure I am not the only person who believes this.

As to the burden of proof mentioned earlier I believe it belongs to the ones who are most insistent in their belief. I am not. Again it is my own personal conviction. I feel no obligation to convince others of this fact.



It's like the Sherlock Holmes conundrum. Science attempts to make theories that fit the facts. Faith attempts to make the facts fit predetermined beliefs. If you have a belief, for or against God, let's see some facts.

Good point Steve. If I come up with any thing I'll let you know.:O:


Probably. I didn't want to be too obvious, but yes Dawkins is certainly one of the most well known of the prophets of Atheism.


Defamation of science and reason this claim is.

A prophet is somebody who claims to deliver the message of a supernatural entity, whose will is revelead to the prophet in visions or intuitions.

I do not find the word offensive but if you do I retract it. My apologies to both you and Mr. Dawkins.

[Sailor Steve]

No...maybe it was like 700 years ago.
I didn't say religion, I said faith. Faith requires that you believe in absolutes, or else you're not a believer.

Yes, and those believing unbelievers can apply for special tax status to spread their message just like a church can.
Only if they start a church.

[Tribesman]

Only if they start a church.
So those atheists run church then?
Do the big ones count as a cathedaral?:rotfl2:

In your country they slot into (c) which is the same category as religious groups, it works pretty much the same in most countries, the only real difference being in those countries with a state church where the official church has a different tax set up.

[Skybird]

u_crank,

you did not accept when I said atheism is not a belief, atheists do not have a dogma they beolieve in and want to spread.

Half an hour ago I got a mail by a board-member, and he sent me a link to this short video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usz9ANxl8G0&feature=watch_response). By combining exerpts from several interviews and TV docus, by going from Carl Sagan over David Attenborough to Sam Harris and several others whose names were unknown to me, it sends spotlights from different directions at what atheists are about. There are many remarkable sentences being said, many of them worth to be picked and get quoted, but why should I do that when you can have it all.

Calm and reasonable. And right on the mark.

Now tell me, u_crank or anyone else, that atheism is a "belief", is dogmatic, is a religion, or whatever!

There is a bitter Irish joke, I read. A man gets stopped by a street patrol and asked: "Are you catholic or protestant?" The man says: "I am atheist." The patrol asks: "Okay, but are you a catholic or a protestant atheist?"



Consider how many cosmologic and creation myths and cults there are, how many religions, gods and goddesses, mythologies, traditions. Obviously, since there are so many and all claiming infallability, some of them must be wrong. Do you, do I, do we believe in most or even just some of them? - "We are all atheists. Some of us just go one god further." :yeah:


P.S. And a random find, when watching that video I stumbled over this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnGN943J4V0&feature=related)which adresses the often made claim, also in this forum, that without religion there is no morality, and that only religion can be the source of absolute morality. - Absolute morality? Think twice before wanting that.

[Sailor Steve]

I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that I have said "You're just as bad as I am!" or made accusations of one side being as bad or worse than the other. If you read every post I have made on this thread you will see that I have said nothing disparaging about atheists or Atheism. That is not my style. If I have please point it out an I will apologize.
I apologize. I spoke poorly, and was wrong to reference your post directly. I was basically refering to the idea of Christians pointing at non-believers and accusing them of being just like religious fanatics. While some certainly do that they are a minority. Most atheists simply don't believe, and that seems to be a concept that some believers apparently can't comprehend.

What I have made is an attempt to show that Atheism is a competing world view or with various religions and other world views. This is simply an opinion and not an original idea on my part.
Got it.

[u crank]

Thank you for clearing that up Steve.

Regards.:salute:

[u crank]

you did not accept when I said atheism is not a belief, atheists do not have a dogma they beolieve in and want to spread.

Now tell me, u_crank or anyone else, that atheism is a "belief", is dogmatic, is a religion, or whatever!

If you carefully read all that I have said on this matter in this thread you will find what I have said quite clearly that Atheism is like a religion. I did not say it is a religion. There is a distinction between those two assertions. Post #17 - quote

"there are many forms of belief. Atheism is as dogmatic a belief system as any religion on this planet."

As to the 'belief system' argument I think I have said all I can say on that. If you don't accept that explanation I respect your choice. And as for the dogmatic, usually the most militant and active in any cause take this road. I'm not on it and have no idea whether you are or not.

The video is interesting but I have seen most of it before, as this subject interests me. Yes it is very calm and reasonable. And yes, from the atheist point of view it is right on the mark. Using science to prove that God doesn't exist is unusual. Do scientists have more insight on this than anyone else? Their inability to convince all others would suggest otherwise. The fact is neither side can 'prove' anything and is why I will not take part in that debate. If a person was to change his mind because of the 'debate', perhaps it can be changed again.:hmmm: It is an endless discourse.

I first heard the Irish joke here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxAjMPxOvRk

It's a very long video but the joke is at the 34:00 minute mark. Hitchens dry and straight faced humour is nicely displayed here. It is amazing to see two men with opposing ideas converse with such respect and openness. Well worth watching the whole thing. It is not a debate but a pre-debate discussion. It's cool that they have similar experiences and are in agreement on a number of topics. An excellent video.

[Skybird]

If you carefully read all that I have said on this matter in this thread you will find what I have said quite clearly that Atheism is like a religion. I did not say it is a religion. There is a distinction between those two assertions. Post #17 - quote

No it is not like a religion. It is nothing in itself and thus cannot be like anything else. Really difficult for theists and believers to understand that point, eh?


"there are many forms of belief. Atheism is as dogmatic a belief system as any religion on this planet."
No, because you can only be dogmatic about a dogma you hold. A total certainty. A belief. Atheism holds no such absolute claims. Religion does. As somebody in the video says, belief means certainty, being certain a bout what one imagines to be truth - if you are not certain, than you have not really a belief. The whole purpose of belief is to proclaim certainty. Atheism is nothing in itself just the fencing of of theistic beliefs. There is nothing it offers that it claims absolute certainty on.


And yes, from the atheist point of view it is right on the mark.
The point of view here is reason. Logic. Analysis. Examination. Let's leave these names linked to what they mean. Saying the POV is "atheism", means nothing here, is even misleading and a distortion again sinc eit implies that there is a system behind atheism that claims an own existence and defence of that. Atheism does not join theistic ideas that were invented by theism. All that is atheismk is that it is not joining theistic conceptions and inventions. That's all.


Using science to prove that God doesn't exist is unusual. Do scientists have more insight on this than anyone else? Their inability to convince all others would suggest otherwise. The fact is neither side can 'prove' anything and is why I will not take part in that debate.
You do, and you repeatedly try to derail it and you even seem to be unaware of that. Because nowhere is said in the video, nor do I say, that science "proves the non-existence of God". How often must I refer to logic itself: the non-existence of something cannot be proven? The point is the existence of a god is not neededs, we can live and cosmos can move on without that idea. Why do you claim to have watched the video when you obviously have missed the repeated occasions where the interviewed people say exactly the opposite of what you put in their mouth? What you claim that had been said, has not been said anywhere. And is not written by Dawkins, Hitchens and the others as well in their books as far as I know them. That guy in the middle of that video also says so, showing you wrong in what you claim that is being said.

If a person was to change his mind because of the 'debate', perhaps it can be changed again.:hmmm: It is an endless discourse.

Science is an open process without any absolute certainties or final results that stand from their birth on to the end of all eternity . That is methodology it bases on - not just random "discourse". You cannot have a discourse between a fairy tale and a scientiifc theory, as if the first were of the smae nature and essence like the latter. Scientific theory is only temporary models on how to arrange what we already know in the most reasonable and efficient way. And we know a whole lot more about comology and the universe than 200 years ago - and we know that not because of religion, but dispite religion. Science does not deal in absolutes - religion does. Science forms theories that are of temporary validity until something better is formulated on the basis of more observations and information. Ockham'S razor means to go with that explanation that offers most explanatory value of most possible findings and phenomenons in the most elegant (=simple, easiest, uncomplicated) way. Religion not only denies the need to do so, since it claims to already have all the answers, it even fights against this dogma of being in possession of the absolute truth being examined. As Daniel Dennett in the video put it: religion is a gold-plated excuse to stop thinking. And we should stop paying respect for stopping to think.

When Laplace was asked by Napoleon why he has no representation of the variable called "god" in his probablity calculations and formulas, Laplace simply said something like this: "I don't need that variable, it does nothing of additional value." The cosmos still functions, you see. Life still moves on. Adding god to the cosmological formula does nothing, nowhere, for nothing and nobody, neither for better nor worse (if staying focussed on cosmology here and ignoring how religions makes people insane - that is only a problem strictly limited to the sometimes strangely behaving dominant species inhabiting this tiny little particle of dust). It simply is a variable that has no cosmological or explanatory effect.

Carl Sagan in the beginning of the video says something comparable to Laplace at the end of the first excerpt in the video.

Keep it simple. Do not add unneeded complications and variables that serve no purpose and have no potential for additional gains.

I first heard the Irish joke here.

I am in doubt on whether you really got why I quoted it.

Anyhow. "What atheists don't tend to do is making unjustifiable and unjustified claims about the nature of the cosmos or the divine nature of certain books." (Sam Harris, in that video)

[Tribesman]

No, because you can only be dogmatic about a dogma you hold. A total certainty. A belief.
Mr dogmatic is becoming fantastic for delivering without realising it:yeah:

[u crank]

No it is not like a religion. It is nothing in itself and thus cannot be like anything else.

Atheism holds no such absolute claims.

Atheism is nothing in itself just the fencing of of theistic beliefs. There is nothing it offers that it claims absolute certainty on.

Thank you.


The point of view here is reason. Logic. Analysis. Examination. Let's leave these names linked to what they mean. Saying the POV is "atheism", means nothing here, is even misleading and a distortion again sinc eit implies that there is a system behind atheism that claims an own existence and defence of that. Atheism does not join theistic ideas that were invented by theism. All that is atheismk is that it is not joining theistic conceptions and inventions. That's all.

Are you saying that none of the people in the video are Atheists? Are you saying that none of them hold the view that God doesn't exist or is unnecessary? Okay, I guess I missed something.


"The fact is neither side can 'prove' anything and is why I will not take part in that debate."


You do, and you repeatedly try to derail it and you even seem to be unaware of that.

If you are suggesting that I have in any way tried to prove that God exists please quote me on it. This is the 'debate' I was talking about. Other than my stated personal belief in God I have made no such attempt to persuade you or any one else. My only argument has been the implied similarity of Atheism to religion or a belief system. I tried to give up that argument in my last post. You on the other hand have written volumes expounding the Atheist point of view. Who's trying to convert who?

And now you are telling me how to interpret a joke?

Okay.

[Skybird]

deleted. no use in trying.

[Tribesman]

And now you are telling me how to interpret a joke?

The beauty of it is I don't think he understands the joke himself, its too "unadvanced" for him:rotfl2:

[MH]

deleted. no use in trying.


TRUE:D

May the force/schwartz be with you....

[Sailor Steve]

The beauty of it is I don't think he understands the joke himself, its too "unadvanced" for him:rotfl2:
That's your second post in a row attacking a fellow member without providing any argument of your own.

It's getting old, and you're walking on thin ice.

[Tribesman]

That's your second post in a row attacking a fellow member without providing any argument of your own.


You keep on throwing that out, look it is simple, it is dealing with what he has written and the arguements are self evident,.......
for the first he displays again the very dogmatism in his approach he is claiming doesn't exist in his side of the arguement.
For the second perhaps you are just not "advanced" enough to get it:03:(but it actually has nothing to do with religion or atheism which is what makes it so funny when he introduced it).


It's getting old, and you're walking on thin ice.
I think his fundamentalism is old and is historicly very thin ice which is why it must be called out each and every time.

[Sailor Steve]

I think his fundamentalism is old and is historicly very thin ice which is why it must be called out each and every time.
Then call it out with facts and arguments. The sniping ends now.

[Skybird]

I just read that the Turkish star pianist Fazil Say is pulled to court in Turkey over comments he made on social networks where he expressed critical and amused comments on belief. He also has repeatedly critizised the Re-Islamization of Turkey under the regime of Erdoghan I. and the AKP. The charges he is accused of are over hate speech and incitement speech. The satanic freedom of speech via internet made both his comments and the masses learning early about the charges possible.

At the same time Turkey harbours the only book publisher in the Muslim world that dares to publish a translation of Richard Dawkins bestselling book The God Delusion - it is banned in all Muslim countries. A small publisher has published it in Turkey now, and promptly got charged with hate crime and blasphemy. This did not save it for the prosecutors - news of the event spread mainly via internet, and caused support for the owner of the publishing company. Since the charges were filed, 5 more editions were printed and sold, and demand is said to be still high. The satanic evil of free speech once again has been demonstrated. :D

[Tribesman]

Then call it out with facts and arguments.
I refer you back to the first part of that post.

If you want another example of putting facts to the arguement take a nice little look at the preceeding post, is that the same person complaining about censorship of reading materials who frequently advocates censorship of reading materials?
The facts and the arguements speak for themselves don't they. Dogmatic fundametalists but oppsite sides of the same coin.

[Sailor Steve]

I refer you back to the first part of that post.
Your reply to me did indeed have an argument.

However,
Mr dogmatic is becoming fantastic for delivering without realising it:yeah:
And
The beauty of it is I don't think he understands the joke himself, its too "unadvanced" for him:rotfl2:
do not, and qualify as blatant trolling and sniping. The warning stands.

[Tribesman]

However,

The dogmatism of his approach is evident throughout the topic, the more he expresses his certianty in his belief and condemns the other he is delivering the destruction of his own arguement.

And

His own words have bitten him in the backside, is using someones own words trolling?
The comment about the joke stands, though nowadays its been updated to chinese and numerous eastern european nationalities, the polish angle can get quite funny.

[Sailor Steve]

Why don't you quit while you're still ahead? You have a long history of skating as close to the edge as you can, and right now you're very close to the edge.

[Skybird]

http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/10/30/christians-muslims-and-jews-urged-to-unite-in-a-war-against-atheists/


ITALIAN rationalists are demanding the resignation of the country’s Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini over incendiary remarks he made in an article he wrote for the Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano.

Frattini, according to atheist Marc Alan di Martino’s blog (http://marcalandimartino.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/this-country-is-rotten-and-it-will-never-change-no-matter-what/), labelled atheists as “perverse” and a “threat to society”. Frattini called on Christians, Muslims and Jews to unite against secular “extremists” whom, he claimed, posed a grave threat to society.


Back to the medieval and all the inquisition fun and submission to the religion-mafia.