The Satanic quality of the Internet

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
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]

Originally Posted by MH

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.

[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.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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
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]

Originally Posted by MH

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Scary stuff...but it worked.

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by u crank

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

Originally Posted by Morts

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.

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.