diatribe on organized religion

[moneyfaucet]

I believe strongly that organized religion is inimical to the progress of human civilization. Religion is inherently dangerous in that it presupposes faith over reason. Reason is what makes humans singular among the animals. Reason is why man has dominion over this land, and is how man has come to be in their present state. What religion asks of man is to reject reason and relinquish his spiritual autonomy in exchange for salvation from the suffering, chaos, and impermanence of life. Religion codifies how one should live their life, and simplifies justice. It relieves man of the responsibility of being man, and disperses the chaos that besets him. Religion may not come in a bottle, but it is an intoxicant nonetheless- it distorts the mind and creates meaning where none existed. At best religion is a beautiful lie from which people can draw strength and comfort. At worst religion is a psychopathology that deludes and enervates the common man into committing his life to an artifice whose promises will go unfulfilled.

At the same time I believe man cannot be deprived of his right to religion or his right to congregate for worship. It is man's fundamental right to believe in what he chooses, as his mind is his sovereign property. You cannot persecute a man because of his faith, or his lack of one.

So herein the dilemma lies- religion is subversive to reason and consequently to the development of humanity, and yet
we cannot contain this disease in any direct way without infringing on categorical rights. What is the solution? Please be thoughtful when responding.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
-Seneca

[KUJustin]

Faith is not the opposite of reason.

[evank15]

ok ok we all know religion is for the weak minded dummies.

NEXT.

"we cannot contain this disease"

what an awful, course, judgemental and insensitive epithet. i love it.

like i said in another thread somewhere:

"why the [censored] would you ever where a [censored] cross around your neck? you might as well be holding up a neon sign that says 'im a [censored] moron'"

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the solution?

[/ QUOTE ]

The solution is a society where people do not choose religion even though they are allowed to. People need to realize that religion is not a necessary ingredient of anything that is good.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
ok ok we all know religion is for the weak minded dummies.

NEXT.

"we cannot contain this disease"

what an awful, course, judgemental and insensitive epithet. i love it.

like i said in another thread somewhere:

"why the [censored] would you ever where a [censored] cross around your neck? you might as well be holding up a neon sign that says 'im a [censored] moron'"

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to insult religious people, it might behoove you to use proper spelling.

That said, the first response to the OP is quite right. The foundation for Western Civilization's championing of the power of reason is deeply rooted in precepts of Christianity, namely that God is rational being (to put it simply). Some quotes for the OP:

"Reason is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason-nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason" --Quintus Tertullian

"Do not think that we say that these things are only to be received by faith, but also that they are to be asserted by reason. For indeed it is not safe to to commit these things to bare faith without reason, since assuredly truth cannot be without reason" --Clement of Alexandria

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves"-- Pope John Paul II, Papal Encyclical Fides et Ratio

And a question for the OP:

If faith is inimical to reason, why is that such a large number of early scientific advances were carried out by devout Christians, often members of the Roman Catholic Clergy?

I wont even get to the importance of Christian theology to one of the base assumptions of Western thought, the diginity of man qua man. Maybe later though. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]

That said, the first response to the OP is quite right. The foundation for Western Civilization's championing of the power of reason is deeply rooted in precepts of Christianity, namely that God is rational being (to put it simply). Some quotes for the OP:

"Reason is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason-nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason" --Quintus Tertullian

"Do not think that we say that these things are only to be received by faith, but also that they are to be asserted by reason. For indeed it is not safe to to commit these things to bare faith without reason, since assuredly truth cannot be without reason" --Clement of Alexandria

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves"-- Pope John Paul II, Papal Encyclical Fides et Ratio

And a question for the OP:

If faith is inimical to reason, why is that such a large number of early scientific advances were carried out by devout Christians, often members of the Roman Catholic Clergy?

I wont even get to the importance of Christian theology to one of the base assumptions of Western thought, the diginity of man qua man. Maybe later though. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reasoning is fundamantally flawed. I'll repeat what I said above "People need to realize that religion is not a necessary ingredient of anything that is good." Historical examples of people mistakenly believing otherwise neither proves your point nor disproves mine. Religion is simply not due any of the credit you are claiming for it.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
So herein the dilemma lies- religion is subversive to reason and consequently to the development of humanity, and yet
we cannot contain this disease in any direct way without infringing on categorical rights. What is the solution? Please be thoughtful when responding.


[/ QUOTE ]

As far as Western Civilization goes, over the last 500 years, would you say that the influence of religion, on society as a whole, has increased or decreased?

[Skoob]

Put simply, the solution is to put a stop to subversive or veiled antidisestablishmentarianism.

Now, how to do that, I don't know. It probably starts with the legislature and the courts.

Do not allow anyone who is a member of any organized religion to hold public office? That might be a good start.

[vulturesrow]

Please point out the flaws in my reasoning. You are the one making a bare assertion, naked of any supporting thought. I was merely trying to respond to the point that the OP made, and to support it, provided evidence of religious leaders, stating in no uncertain terms, their support of the use of reason. And to briefly address your second point, you are quite wrong. There is a reason that true science, i.e., the scientific method, developed in only civilization in history..

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Put simply, the solution is to put a stop to subversive or veiled antidisestablishmentarianism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You totally wrote this just so you could use that word.

[moneyfaucet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ok ok we all know religion is for the weak minded dummies.

NEXT.

"we cannot contain this disease"

what an awful, course, judgemental and insensitive epithet. i love it.

like i said in another thread somewhere:

"why the [censored] would you ever where a [censored] cross around your neck? you might as well be holding up a neon sign that says 'im a [censored] moron'"

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to insult religious people, it might behoove you to use proper spelling.

That said, the first response to the OP is quite right. The foundation for Western Civilization's championing of the power of reason is deeply rooted in precepts of Christianity, namely that God is rational being (to put it simply). Some quotes for the OP:

"Reason is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason-nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason" --Quintus Tertullian

"Do not think that we say that these things are only to be received by faith, but also that they are to be asserted by reason. For indeed it is not safe to to commit these things to bare faith without reason, since assuredly truth cannot be without reason" --Clement of Alexandria

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves"-- Pope John Paul II, Papal Encyclical Fides et Ratio

And a question for the OP:

If faith is inimical to reason, why is that such a large number of early scientific advances were carried out by devout Christians, often members of the Roman Catholic Clergy?

I wont even get to the importance of Christian theology to one of the base assumptions of Western thought, the diginity of man qua man. Maybe later though. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

All the religions I have come in contact with assert faith to be the foundation on which all knowledge should be built. In Christianity for example, a man is saved only if he accepts the fact that Jesus Christ died for his sins. A man is not saved for his ability to reason or his intellectual capacities. Christians portray the Lord as a rational being because it is in our nature to create God in the image of man. What appeal would a religion have if people could not relate to its god or have some understanding of why god operates the way he does?

Christians hold that God created all that exists in this realm and the next, so it follows that God created reason. What this kind of circular logic does is make reason a component of faith. Instead of reason for the sake of reason, we have reason for the sake of salvation, which are two different things altogether.

I agree that much scientific progress has been made by Christians (and other religions). However you cannot dispute that faith in and of itself is anti-intellectual because it is not empirical. The existence of god cannot be verified by experience or experiment. That some Christians may have contributed to the development of the sciences does nothing to change the fact that they believed in an entity external to this reality and sacrifice their lives to serve it. At root religion is edified madness. Christianity may have helped shape our civilization in its infancy, but as of where we are today, if we want to elevate ourselves as a species we must do away with these artifacts that impede us from living the way humans should really live.

I hope to hear from you vulturesrow as I know you have more things to say.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity may have helped shape our civilization in its infancy, but as of where we are today, if we want to elevate ourselves as a species we must do away with these artifacts that impede us from living the way humans should really live.


[/ QUOTE ]

For your argument to hold any merit, you have to conclude things are getting worse, not better (as you define better.)

Are things getting worse?

"In considering the treatment of relapsed heretics (most, but not all, heretics were given the chance to recant before being burned alive), it is obviously important to consider the underlining beliefs motivating such behavior on the part of the Catholic secular and religious authorities.

To those watching someone being burned alive, as well as to the person being executed, it is clear that such a death was a vivid depicture of people's beliefs regarding Hell. In Saint Joan of Arc's Trial of Condemnation, Hell is not referred to as "hell" but as the "eternal fire". The same terminology was later used at the Council of Florence, and is also present in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph #1036).

Does it seem logical that heretics were burned alive, with their mental faculties intact, to give them one last chance to repent before being sent into the "eternal fire"? Could it be that burning an individual at the stake was seen as a merciful death, as a means of giving that person one last chance to save his or her soul before final damnation??? I have read that "burning at the stake was believed by some medieval authorities and scholars to liberate the sinner from his or her formerly damned state and offer some hope of salvation to the now 'cleansed' soul".

Considering that's the way it was 500 years ago, are things improving or have they gotten worse?

I'd argue that what you want to happen, is occurring - you're just not happy with the pace. Relax. We just learned to talk 50,000 years ago - change takes time.

[moneyfaucet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity may have helped shape our civilization in its infancy, but as of where we are today, if we want to elevate ourselves as a species we must do away with these artifacts that impede us from living the way humans should really live.


[/ QUOTE ]

For your argument to hold any merit, you have to conclude things are getting worse, not better (as you define better.)

Are things getting worse?

"In considering the treatment of relapsed heretics (most, but not all, heretics were given the chance to recant before being burned alive), it is obviously important to consider the underlining beliefs motivating such behavior on the part of the Catholic secular and religious authorities.

To those watching someone being burned alive, as well as to the person being executed, it is clear that such a death was a vivid depicture of people's beliefs regarding Hell. In Saint Joan of Arc's Trial of Condemnation, Hell is not referred to as "hell" but as the "eternal fire". The same terminology was later used at the Council of Florence, and is also present in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph #1036).

Does it seem logical that heretics were burned alive, with their mental faculties intact, to give them one last chance to repent before being sent into the "eternal fire"? Could it be that burning an individual at the stake was seen as a merciful death, as a means of giving that person one last chance to save his or her soul before final damnation??? I have read that "burning at the stake was believed by some medieval authorities and scholars to liberate the sinner from his or her formerly damned state and offer some hope of salvation to the now 'cleansed' soul".

Considering that's the way it was 500 years ago, are things improving or have they gotten worse?

I'd argue that what you want to happen, is occurring - you're just not happy with the pace.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the eyes of history things have certainly gotten better. However in the short term our society is definitely shifting away from secularism. Since 9/11 the rise in Christian fundamentalism in the US (and other countries such as Denmark) has become quite visible. Not coincidentally Muslims all over the world are taking up arms and waging holy war against Christians and capitalism. The Israelis are also getting vigilant in reclaiming their divine land, disregarding international law and provoking the anger of Muslim nations around them.

"In their study of global fundamentalism, Professors Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby stress that fundamentalism is reactive. 'Fundamentalism doesn’t just start up on its own,' said Marty, a professor at the University of Chicago and co-editor of The Fundamentalism Project, a five-volume study of fundamentalist movements around the world. 'What starts up on its own is traditionalism, conservatism and orthodoxy, which is inherited from the centuries. Then something comes along and jostles it, mass media or imperialism or religious pluralism, people from a strange outlook impinging on your own thought patterns that are very uncongenial to what you are used to, assaults on your own personal or group identity, and then you must react. You feel you will be overcome otherwise.'"

9/11 provided the paradigm shift that propelled fundamentalism into the fore. Whether you acknowledge it or not our government is mutating into a theocracy. Bush is only the beginning of the dark times that lie ahead, a mere pawn in the game that is about to unfold. I am no prophet but I can see that this empire will fall in the years to come.

[John21]

You brought up what I consider to be some valid points, but you lost me at the end.
????
[ QUOTE ]
...a mere pawill eventually fall. wn in the game that is about to unfold.

[/ QUOTE ]

never mind

[vhawk01]

Oh and the reason many of the scientific discoveries and breakthroughs of the last 500 years have been accomplished by theists is because nearly everyone who has lived over the last 500 years has been (nominally) a theist. Your point should be "How come a greater than expected % of the great accomplishments that we attribute to reason were accomplished by theists?" And the obvious answer is that they weren't, a lower than expected number of them were, and a FAR higher than expected number of discoveries and breakthroughs were accomplished by people who are not theists.

[John21]

vhawk,
I completely agree with your statement. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with my question.

I was asking if the influence of religion has been gradually subsiding over the last few centuries. The OP agreed that it has, but suggested a theological resurgence. He brought up some interesting points, I'm just not sure if the 9/11 response/reaction was more nationalistic than theocratic.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk,
I completely agree with your statement. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with my question.

I was asking if the influence of religion has been gradually subsiding over the last few centuries. The OP agreed that it has, but suggested a theological resurgence. He brought up some interesting points, I'm just not sure if there 9/11 response/reaction was more nationalistic than theocratic.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm...I just quick replied, and I don't remember who exactly I was responding to. It might have been you, it was one of the earlier posts. Sorry if it wasn't you, and I guess even sorrier if it was, since I must have misread you.


EDIT: Nope, it was vulturesrow who I was responding to. Sorry for the quick reply.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity may have helped shape our civilization in its infancy, but as of where we are today, if we want to elevate ourselves as a species we must do away with these artifacts that impede us from living the way humans should really live.


[/ QUOTE ]

For your argument to hold any merit, you have to conclude things are getting worse, not better (as you define better.)

Are things getting worse?

"In considering the treatment of relapsed heretics (most, but not all, heretics were given the chance to recant before being burned alive), it is obviously important to consider the underlining beliefs motivating such behavior on the part of the Catholic secular and religious authorities.

To those watching someone being burned alive, as well as to the person being executed, it is clear that such a death was a vivid depicture of people's beliefs regarding Hell. In Saint Joan of Arc's Trial of Condemnation, Hell is not referred to as "hell" but as the "eternal fire". The same terminology was later used at the Council of Florence, and is also present in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph #1036).

Does it seem logical that heretics were burned alive, with their mental faculties intact, to give them one last chance to repent before being sent into the "eternal fire"? Could it be that burning an individual at the stake was seen as a merciful death, as a means of giving that person one last chance to save his or her soul before final damnation??? I have read that "burning at the stake was believed by some medieval authorities and scholars to liberate the sinner from his or her formerly damned state and offer some hope of salvation to the now 'cleansed' soul".

Considering that's the way it was 500 years ago, are things improving or have they gotten worse?

I'd argue that what you want to happen, is occurring - you're just not happy with the pace.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the eyes of history things have certainly gotten better. However in the short term our society is definitely shifting away from secularism. Since 9/11 the rise in Christian fundamentalism in the US (and other countries such as Denmark) has become quite visible. Not coincidentally Muslims all over the world are taking up arms and waging holy war against Christians and capitalism. The Israelis are also getting vigilant in reclaiming their divine land, disregarding international law and provoking the anger of Muslim nations around them.

"In their study of global fundamentalism, Professors Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby stress that fundamentalism is reactive. 'Fundamentalism doesn’t just start up on its own,' said Marty, a professor at the University of Chicago and co-editor of The Fundamentalism Project, a five-volume study of fundamentalist movements around the world. 'What starts up on its own is traditionalism, conservatism and orthodoxy, which is inherited from the centuries. Then something comes along and jostles it, mass media or imperialism or religious pluralism, people from a strange outlook impinging on your own thought patterns that are very uncongenial to what you are used to, assaults on your own personal or group identity, and then you must react. You feel you will be overcome otherwise.'"

9/11 provided the paradigm shift that propelled fundamentalism into the fore. Whether you acknowledge it or not our government is mutating into a theocracy. Bush is only the beginning of the dark times that lie ahead, a mere pawn in the game that is about to unfold. I am no prophet but I can see that this empire will fall in the years to come.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't go and find the study. I sometimes wonder if in fact this trend exists (more religious influence, particularly in the US) or whether it is just a question of media saturation...an imagined increase. Sort of like the 'shark attack' scares that come up cyclically. Are there reliable surveys out there of recent changes in the impact of religion on society? I know that religious belief is notoriously hard to poll...

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the solution? Please be thoughtful when responding.


[/ QUOTE ]
No real problem has a solution.

[moneyfaucet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the solution? Please be thoughtful when responding.


[/ QUOTE ]
No real problem has a solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reforming the education system so that we have an enlightened and well-read populace would be one solution. Broadening the middle class and diminishing the misery and burden imposed on the underclass would be another viable solution. Do you have problems with reading comprehension because you quote me saying "please be thoughtful when responding" and then you start up with this semantics bullsht.

[Bill Haywood]

I take the liberty of quoting myself on a previous rant inspired by whats-his-face Dawkins, whom you sound like:

I've been a hardboiled atheist since at least 7th grade, probably before. But I get really annoyed with the eggheads who hop around saying how religion is irrational, science is so superior, and religion is the cause of countless wars....

Plenty of atheists believe the breathless stupidity about a missle hitting the Pentagon on 911.

Believers are no more suseptible to foolishness and state sponsored atrocities than atheists. People have endless capacity for believing nonsense, being tricked by propaganda, even without the use of religion. Race science was a major component of the Holocaust. The science of eugenics, racial superiority -- the empirical community largely collaborated with the final solution.

Some of the greatest massacres of the 20th century were carried out by atheist materialists. Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao.

And take our own neocons who are at the helm of empire. The brain trust that put us in Iraq is largely secular Jewish. Many, if not most, are atheists who, like their hero Straus, see religion as useful for manipulating the rabble, but don't care for it themselves. Our own blood thirsty empire has its religious components, but much of it is a secular business enterprise.

Guys like Dawkins should stop complaining about believers and start stopping his socialist, secular, British Labor Party from killing kids for oil. That's crude oil Blair fights for, not holy oil.

I don't know of one single advantage provided by atheism, other than seeming more sensible in the very narrow, abstract conversation about evidence of origins. It's just the way I understand the world, it doesn't make me kind.

I'd much prefer the world were run by nice, warm folks at the United Church of Christ or the Fellowship on Reconciliation that the blood dripping m-fking atheist neocons.

End rant.

I would add that materialist intellectuals are not more clear sighted or kind than anybody else. In fact, we are often stupider, because we have so many more ways of fooling ourselves, even before post modern literary theory.

[vhawk01]

Your rant sucks. Listing a few atheists who are conspiracy theory nutbars does nothing to support your claim that religious belief isn't correlated with other irrational beliefs. I agree with you about elitism, I don't feel superior based on not being a theist, but your argument is terrible.

[Bill Haywood]

your claim that religious belief isn't correlated with other irrational beliefs.

I never said that anything remotely like that. I'll summarize since I can see you won't bother to reread what I actually said: my position is that atheism is not BETTER than theism in producing kindness and wise social policies, and that atheists are just as prone to nonsense and atrocity.

your argument is terrible.

No, yours is.

In fact, you are a perfect example of my point. Your position that theists must be massacred to protect the planet shows atheists' potential for wrongheaded wickedness. What, you didn't call for a theist final solution? Oh you did so, it's in there some place, I'll find the quote on my next day off.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
your claim that religious belief isn't correlated with other irrational beliefs.

I never said that anything remotely like that. I'll summarize since I can see you won't bother to reread what I actually said: my position is that atheism is not BETTER than theism in producing kindness and wise social policies, and that atheists are just as prone to nonsense and atrocity.

your argument is terrible.

No, yours is.

In fact, you are a perfect example of my point. Your position that theists must be massacred to protect the planet shows atheists' potential for wrongheaded wickedness. What, you didn't call for a theist final solution? Oh you did so, it's in there some place, I'll find the quote on my next day off.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what your argument is. And your support for it is "Some atheists think a missle hit the Pentagon." Needless to say, that is less than convincing support for your argument.

Luckily my argument was much simpler than yours, and I think I made it pretty well.

EDIT: Holy crap, you are right, I DON'T read every word in your posts. Did you seriously just say that MY claim is that 'theists must be massacred'??!?!?! I can only hope you have me confused with some other poster, because that is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I'll await the apology.

[moneyfaucet]

[ QUOTE ]
I take the liberty of quoting myself on a previous rant inspired by whats-his-face Dawkins, whom you sound like:

I've been a hardboiled atheist since at least 7th grade, probably before. But I get really annoyed with the eggheads who hop around saying how religion is irrational, science is so superior, and religion is the cause of countless wars....

Plenty of atheists believe the breathless stupidity about a missle hitting the Pentagon on 911.

Believers are no more suseptible to foolishness and state sponsored atrocities than atheists. People have endless capacity for believing nonsense, being tricked by propaganda, even without the use of religion. Race science was a major component of the Holocaust. The science of eugenics, racial superiority -- the empirical community largely collaborated with the final solution.

Some of the greatest massacres of the 20th century were carried out by atheist materialists. Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao.

And take our own neocons who are at the helm of empire. The brain trust that put us in Iraq is largely secular Jewish. Many, if not most, are atheists who, like their hero Straus, see religion as useful for manipulating the rabble, but don't care for it themselves. Our own blood thirsty empire has its religious components, but much of it is a secular business enterprise.

Guys like Dawkins should stop complaining about believers and start stopping his socialist, secular, British Labor Party from killing kids for oil. That's crude oil Blair fights for, not holy oil.

I don't know of one single advantage provided by atheism, other than seeming more sensible in the very narrow, abstract conversation about evidence of origins. It's just the way I understand the world, it doesn't make me kind.

I'd much prefer the world were run by nice, warm folks at the United Church of Christ or the Fellowship on Reconciliation that the blood dripping m-fking atheist neocons.

End rant.

I would add that materialist intellectuals are not more clear sighted or kind than anybody else. In fact, we are often stupider, because we have so many more ways of fooling ourselves, even before post modern literary theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a horrible argument to which I am not going to respond. You know why. Also I am not a materialist.

[Bill Haywood]

Did you seriously just say that MY claim is that 'theists must be massacred

You didn't even read to the end of the taunt!

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I take the liberty of quoting myself on a previous rant inspired by whats-his-face Dawkins, whom you sound like:

I've been a hardboiled atheist since at least 7th grade, probably before. But I get really annoyed with the eggheads who hop around saying how religion is irrational, science is so superior, and religion is the cause of countless wars....

Plenty of atheists believe the breathless stupidity about a missle hitting the Pentagon on 911.

Believers are no more suseptible to foolishness and state sponsored atrocities than atheists. People have endless capacity for believing nonsense, being tricked by propaganda, even without the use of religion. Race science was a major component of the Holocaust. The science of eugenics, racial superiority -- the empirical community largely collaborated with the final solution.

Some of the greatest massacres of the 20th century were carried out by atheist materialists. Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao.

And take our own neocons who are at the helm of empire. The brain trust that put us in Iraq is largely secular Jewish. Many, if not most, are atheists who, like their hero Straus, see religion as useful for manipulating the rabble, but don't care for it themselves. Our own blood thirsty empire has its religious components, but much of it is a secular business enterprise.

Guys like Dawkins should stop complaining about believers and start stopping his socialist, secular, British Labor Party from killing kids for oil. That's crude oil Blair fights for, not holy oil.

I don't know of one single advantage provided by atheism, other than seeming more sensible in the very narrow, abstract conversation about evidence of origins. It's just the way I understand the world, it doesn't make me kind.

I'd much prefer the world were run by nice, warm folks at the United Church of Christ or the Fellowship on Reconciliation that the blood dripping m-fking atheist neocons.

End rant.

I would add that materialist intellectuals are not more clear sighted or kind than anybody else. In fact, we are often stupider, because we have so many more ways of fooling ourselves, even before post modern literary theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are being...sarcastic?

[Bill Haywood]

You are being...sarcastic?

No.

It's a rant, but I genuinely believe the basic point. Neocons, Pol Pot, and other atheists are as capable of self delusion and brutality as any believer.

Is the unreligious Henry "Christmas bombing of Hanoi" Kissinger less of a criminal than say the Reverend Ian Paisely, the inspiration behind Protestant death squads in Northern Ireland?

The Khmer Rouge were so deluded about the grandeur of their project that they restarted the calendar at year zero.

It seems to me that the claim of superior peacefulness by rational atheists is defeated by a two word post: Pol Pot.

I don't understand what's controversial about that. It seems patent to me.

[madnak]

Pol Pot was one isolated example. You suggested:

[ QUOTE ]
Believers are no more suseptible to foolishness and state sponsored atrocities than atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, that there is no correlation between religiosity and foolishness. Nobody will deny that there are foolish and brutal atheists. But particularly in terms of state-sponsored atrocities, you're suggesting that atheists aren't more likely to be anarchists than Christians? That there is no correlation, that if we were to take the entire population of anarchists, the ratio between atheists and believers would be identical to the ratio in the population at large?

That's quite a claim.

[moneyfaucet]

lol Bill's a church boy mosdef

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that the claim of superior peacefulness by rational atheists is defeated by a two word post: Pol Pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, the words "rational" and "Pol Pot" don't belong in the same sentence.

Yes, there are violent atheists, and there are violent theists. You can subdivide those categories down though. Rational atheists should be non-violent except for self defense. "Rational theists" is an oxymoron. The only way to separate theists out in this fashion is to divide them into:

1. Theists who think god says they shouldn't be violent.
2. Theists who think god says they should be violent, especially to those who don't believe the same way they do.

I dare say most theists are in category 1, but there's a shocking number in category 2.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I dare say most theists are in category 1, but there's a shocking number in category 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you say that the category 2 theists exist primarily outside of Western Civilization (in 2nd and 3rd world countries), and the overwhelming majority of the theists in the West fall into category 1?

[Bill Haywood]

Uh, the words "rational" and "Pol Pot" don't belong in the same sentence.

The OP claim was that atheists are more rational and peaceful. Pol Pot was chosen as an example of an atheist who wasn't, which was the point of putting them in the same sentence.

It is cheating to reject Pol Pot or Henry Kissinger as permissable examples of rational atheists. Otherwise, that game can be played back in the other direction. Any example of a violent theist can be rejected as someone who isn't REALLY Christian, or doesn't follow the correct Islam.

[moneyfaucet]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, the words "rational" and "Pol Pot" don't belong in the same sentence.

The OP claim was that atheists are more rational and peaceful. Pol Pot was chosen as an example of an atheist who wasn't, which was the point of putting them in the same sentence.

It is cheating to reject Pol Pot or Henry Kissinger as permissable examples of rational atheists. Otherwise, that game can be played back in the other direction. Any example of a violent theist can be rejected as someone who isn't REALLY Christian, or doesn't follow the correct Islam.

[/ QUOTE ]

So by your fantastic logic this would follow.

Christianity = Hitler
Hitler = evil
Christianity = evil

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, the words "rational" and "Pol Pot" don't belong in the same sentence.

The OP claim was that atheists are more rational and peaceful. Pol Pot was chosen as an example of an atheist who wasn't, which was the point of putting them in the same sentence.

It is cheating to reject Pol Pot or Henry Kissinger as permissable examples of rational atheists. Otherwise, that game can be played back in the other direction. Any example of a violent theist can be rejected as someone who isn't REALLY Christian, or doesn't follow the correct Islam.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP claim was that atheists are more rational and peaceful in general, not universally. Thus, the correlation over the entire population of atheists is what's relevant, individual atheists are irrelevant.

[Bill Haywood]

So by your fantastic logic this would follow.

Christianity = Hitler
Hitler = evil
Christianity = evil

That makes no sense. Just because everything in set A shares one trait with set B does not mean A=B.

Remember this started out with you attacking religion as evil and me defending it as no worse than atheism. So the closest person to arguing Christianity = evil is you. But unlike you, I'll give the benefit of the doubt and not claim that you say that Christianity = Hitler. I don't think you do. You just overrate atheism and rationality.

Okay, hit me with another strawman.

[JimNashe]

[ QUOTE ]

Since 9/11 the rise in Christian fundamentalism in the US (and other countries such as Denmark) has become quite visible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry what? Christian fundamentalism has become visible in Denmark?? That's the first I've heard of it. Atheism and secularism has been a big hit here for a long time.

[moneyfaucet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Since 9/11 the rise in Christian fundamentalism in the US (and other countries such as Denmark) has become quite visible.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry what? Christian fundamentalism has become visible in Denmark?? That's the first I've heard of it. Atheism and secularism has been a big hit here for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how people over there are interpreting it, but many saw the Muhammed cartoon incident as a Christian attack on the Muslim faith. Perhaps you are more aware of the current social and political climate in your country, but here are the statistics on how prevalent Christianity is there.


"Regarding religions in Denmark, according to official statistics from January 2005, 83.1% of Danes are members of the Lutheran state church, the Danish People's Church (Den Danske Folkekirke), also known as the Church of Denmark. The rest are primarily of other Christian denominations, and about 4% are Muslims."

[moneyfaucet]

[ QUOTE ]
So by your fantastic logic this would follow.

Christianity = Hitler
Hitler = evil
Christianity = evil

That makes no sense. Just because everything in set A shares one trait with set B does not mean A=B.

Remember this started out with you attacking religion as evil and me defending it as no worse than atheism. So the closest person to arguing Christianity = evil is you. But unlike you, I'll give the benefit of the doubt and not claim that you say that Christianity = Hitler. I don't think you do. You just overrate atheism and rationality.

Okay, hit me with another strawman.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So by your fantastic logic this would follow.

Christianity = Hitler
Hitler = evil
Christianity = evil

That makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

...that was my intention. The point I was trying to get across was that equating atheism to Pol Pot is about as valid an argument as equating theism to Hitler. You made what is known as a hasty generalization when you asserted that Pol Pot's atrocities were representative of secularist behavior. All I did was use your faulty logic against you. You seem to be immune to sarcasm Bill, maybe it's a good thing.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP claim was that atheists are more rational and peaceful in general, not universally.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I was responding to. In general, both theism and atheism are endlessly flexible and equally amendable to group hallucination. Neither has more or less tendency for evil, it's the setting and history that's important. In particular places at particular times, one might be more damaging than the other (Jonestown, Khmer Rouge). As Hannah Arendt showed at the Eichman trial, the worst crimes stem from the "banality of evil" -- Dreary bureaucrats who go with the flow, rather than intense believers.

Show me a powerful leader with a science advisor, and I'll show you a rationalization for slaughter in the making.

The Holocaust was arguably the biggest evil ever, but it was inarguably overwhelmingly supported by German intellectuals.

Let's play a game of count the bodies. 3,000 killed by religious nuts on 911. 500,000 killed by the Neocons since then. X-hundred thousand killed by Muslim and Zionist nuts since 1948, vs. hundreds of thousands if not millions killed by Chinese athiests since 1949.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The OP claim was that atheists are more rational and peaceful in general, not universally.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I was responding to. In general, both theism and atheism are endlessly flexible and equally amendable to group hallucination. Neither has more or less tendency for evil, it's the setting and history that's important. In particular places at particular times, one might be more damaging than the other (Jonestown, Khmer Rouge). As Hannah Arendt showed at the Eichman trial, the worst crimes stem from the "banality of evil" -- Dreary bureaucrats who go with the flow, rather than intense believers.

Show me a powerful leader with a science advisor, and I'll show you a rationalization for slaughter in the making.

The Holocaust was arguably the biggest evil ever, but it was inarguably overwhelmingly supported by German intellectuals.

Let's play a game of count the bodies. 3,000 killed by religious nuts on 911. 500,000 killed by the Neocons since then. X-hundred thousand killed by Muslim and Zionist nuts since 1948, vs. hundreds of thousands if not millions killed by Chinese athiests since 1949.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many squillions of people have suffered at the hands of people who at some time have breathed oxygen.

[John21]

Why do otherwise intelligent individuals form seething masses of idiocy when they engage in collective action?
Mackay's classic--first published in 1841--shows that the madness and confusion of crowds knows no limits, and has no temporal bounds.
These are extraordinarily illuminating,and, unfortunately, entertaining tales of chicanery, greed and naivete. Essential reading for any student of human nature or the transmission of ideas.

On-line version of book (http://www.litrix.com/madraven/madne001.htm)

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/9000000/9007152.jpg

[JimNashe]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know how people over there are interpreting it, but many saw the Muhammed cartoon incident as a Christian attack on the Muslim faith. Perhaps you are more aware of the current social and political climate in your country, but here are the statistics on how prevalent Christianity is there.


"Regarding religions in Denmark, according to official statistics from January 2005, 83.1% of Danes are members of the Lutheran state church, the Danish People's Church (Den Danske Folkekirke), also known as the Church of Denmark. The rest are primarily of other Christian denominations, and about 4% are Muslims."

[/ QUOTE ]

It is very interesting to me that that is how it is perceived abroad.

The way it is interpreted over here was that it was a media-stunt perpetrated by a right-wing newspaper trying to polarize the immigration debate, rather than a christian vs. muslim thing. From a larger perspective I see it as a conflict between a modern free society and the norms of closed dictatorship-types of societies, with religion being an incidental component of the debate.

And if anything prominent christians over here (bishops and such) were on the side of the muslims for a long time (until our embassies started burning, and such a position became untenable).

The statistics you cite are somewhat misleading. Even though a lot of people are members of the Church of Denmark (folkekirken), that is mainly because it's tradition to be a member, most people are entered into the Folkekirken by their parents when they're born, it is cheap to stay a member, you can't become married in a church if you leave. If church marriages went out of style over here, I think we'd see a significant drop in membership.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

shows that the madness and confusion of crowds knows no limits, and has no temporal bounds.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read this or studied crowd psychology but my guess is that in a mob people feel free from the normal constraints of civilization allowing human nature to show its true colors.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's play a game of count the bodies. 3,000 killed by religious nuts on 911. 500,000 killed by the Neocons since then. X-hundred thousand killed by Muslim and Zionist nuts since 1948, vs. hundreds of thousands if not millions killed by Chinese athiests since 1949.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where your reasoning falls apart. Of course, I and many others would disagree with your speculation about atheism in general. I don't think any of these people killed because of atheism, while I do think plenty of people have killed because of religion. But in the absence of meaningful data about motivation, speculation is the only thing we're capable of.

However, here you're trying to make a statistical point. Therefore your reasoning is subject to statistical analysis. In other words, if you want this point to be valid, you need to establish that there's no correlation between religion and intolerance. Actually, in order for your argument to really be valid you'd have to establish some kind of causation, but that's something of a technicality. A correlation though, is absolutely necessary if you want to apply this kind of statistical reasoning.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
first published in 1841

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll go over it, but I have trouble believing anything so old has any real value (at least relative to what we have now). The Origin of the Species, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and Civilization and Its Discontents may be great historical pieces, but they aren't exactly good introductions to their respective fields. Anything more contemporary?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
first published in 1841

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll go over it, but I have trouble believing anything so old has any real scientific value (at least relative to what we have now). The Origin of the Species, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and Civilization and Its Discontents may be great historical pieces, but they aren't exactly good introductions to their respective fields. Anything more contemporary?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was supposed to be an edit...

[Bill Haywood]

you need to establish that there's no correlation between religion and intolerance.

I would never dream of suggesting such an absurdity.

Notice that you have set up a tautology. If theists kill, it's because of religion. If atheists kill, it's for another reason. Therefore by definition, religion is more violent. I can't beat that argument!

Like I said before, I can easily say that when religionists commit atrocities, they aren't doing it for religion, rather , they are doing it because they've perverted their faith. Presto, theists never murder.

It was the original post that claimed a relation between atheism and peaceful common sense. A glance at the historical record shows no such thing.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
you need to establish that there's no correlation between religion and intolerance.

I would never dream of suggesting such an absurdity.

Notice that you have set up a tautology. If theists kill, it's because of religion. If atheists kill, it's for another reason. Therefore by definition, religion is more violent. I can't beat that argument!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm speculating. I meant to acknowledge that in my post by saying "speculation is the only thing we're capable of" but I see that's vague. But I'm definitely speculating - my assumptions are more complex than that, and are based on evidence, but they're also impossible to justify without making some leaps.

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said before, I can easily say that when religionists commit atrocities, they aren't doing it for religion, rather , they are doing it because they've perverted their faith. Presto, theists never murder.

It was the original post that claimed a relation between atheism and peaceful common sense. A glance at the historical record shows no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you responded, not by refuting him (and he's incorrect, certainly), but by making your own positive statement that "Believers are no more suseptible to foolishness and state sponsored atrocities than atheists." You haven't supported that claim any better than the OP supported his. What I'm trying to point out is that you're merely speculating - perhaps with a basis or perhaps not. But pointing out specific examples of brutal atheists doesn't prove that theists aren't more brutal on average.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
first published in 1841

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll go over it, but I have trouble believing anything so old has any real value (at least relative to what we have now). The Origin of the Species, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and Civilization and Its Discontents may be great historical pieces, but they aren't exactly good introductions to their respective fields. Anything more contemporary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes when it comes to human nature, a few hundred years is modern. The nice thing about old books is that the writers didn't have to worry about being politically correct; they simply blurted out the truth. Kind of like a little kid pointing at someone and calling them ugly.

I think someone like Nietzsche would have a hard time getting published today. It's one thing to jolt a reader - it's another to hit him over the head.

[madnak]

True enough, but for a collection of historical examples modern is best. Philosophy's another thing entirely.

[FortunaMaximus]

Coles notes: Vox populi. They sure can be taught to sing from sheet music. Engaging thread though.

I got nothin' tonight. Having fun.

[moneyfaucet]

The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.
-Albert Einstein

It is fear that first brought gods into the world.
-Petronius Arbiter

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-Stephen Roberts

[i]The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
-George Bernard Shaw

One might be asked "How can you prove that a god does not exist?" One can only reply that it is scarcely necessary to disprove what has never been proved.
-David A. Spitz

A thorough reading and understanding of the Bible is the surest path to atheism.
-Donald Morgan

[Peter666]

Meh, if this so called "reason" is so great, why on earth can it not supplant religion? Why do human beings who use their reasoning faculties still turn to religion?

It sounds to me that reason is the weak loser of the bunch and unsustainable in the evolutionary sense.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you seriously just say that MY claim is that 'theists must be massacred

You didn't even read to the end of the taunt!

[/ QUOTE ]

I read it. I didn't get it. The best I could come up with is that you are implying I misattributed things to you, with some sort of vague assurance that you actually said them? Is that close? I don't remember doing that, and I definitely didn't do it in this thread.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
you need to establish that there's no correlation between religion and intolerance.

I would never dream of suggesting such an absurdity.

Notice that you have set up a tautology. If theists kill, it's because of religion. If atheists kill, it's for another reason. Therefore by definition, religion is more violent. I can't beat that argument!

Like I said before, I can easily say that when religionists commit atrocities, they aren't doing it for religion, rather , they are doing it because they've perverted their faith. Presto, theists never murder.

It was the original post that claimed a relation between atheism and peaceful common sense. A glance at the historical record shows no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to work harder at staying on point. The issue at hand here is your rant centered on the assertion that atheists are 'just as likely' to engage in irrational, illogical and (presumably) atrocious things. We think thats absurd or at the very least requires some actual support. Specific examples of atrocious atheits is completely, and I mean completely, beside the point.

[Bill Haywood]

Specific examples of atrocious atheits is completely, and I mean completely, beside the point.

Well you've flumoxed me there. If ample examples of tyrannical atheists can't be used to show that their virtue does not shine brighter than theists, what can be? And does it work the other way -- can I disallow Osama Bin Laden as evidence of religious inspired barbarism? To quote Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, your science frightens and confuses me.

Vhawk wrote:
I read it. I didn't get it. The best I could come up with is that you are implying I misattributed things to you,

Ah man, do I have to repeate everything? It was right there in the short post you were responding to.

You wrote that I "claim that religious belief isn't correlated with other irrational beliefs."

I never said, thought, or implied such a thing. My argument is not that religionists are more kind or rational. My argument is that rationalists are just as capable of nonsense and meanness, as proven by the long history of nasty atheists.

So since you didn't get "it," I'll explain it. It was in response to that dumb fabrication that I made my own even more ridiculous claim, which is that you advocate a final solution for theists. So you have a tin ear for irony to go with your ADD eyes. In your next post, incorporate the code word "sylvan" to prove you read to the end of this paragraph.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
...the assertion that atheists are 'just as likely' to engage in irrational, illogical and (presumably) atrocious things. We think thats absurd or at the very least requires some actual support.

[/ QUOTE ]

Darwin + Nietzsche = 60 million dead in WWII.

Even though they were both atheists, I'm not attacking atheism as a whole. It's more to the point of your claim that logic and rationality are the sole and supreme source of morality.

If you consider the rationality of Darwin's 'survial of the fittest' and the logic of Nietzsche's 'might makes right' you end up with a very rational and logical explanation/justification for the holocaust.

My point is that even if you follow a completely logical process, you are still capable of committing atrocities, if your premise is flawed.

I can even conclude that Darwin's premise of how nature operates is true, and Nietzsche's premise on how civilization functioned and flourished is true, but if I don't subject the conclusions to a higher source of morality I can end up creating a world in which I don't want to live.

Personally, I could care less if an absolute morality is held by an atheist or a theist. The point is that logic must serve that morality, not create it. We've seen what can happen when that process gets reversed.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Specific examples of atrocious atheits is completely, and I mean completely, beside the point.

Well you've flumoxed me there. If ample examples of tyrannical atheists can't be used to show that their virtue does not shine brighter than theists, what can be? And does it work the other way -- can I disallow Osama Bin Laden as evidence of religious inspired barbarism? To quote Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, your science frightens and confuses me.

Vhawk wrote:
I read it. I didn't get it. The best I could come up with is that you are implying I misattributed things to you,

Ah man, do I have to repeate everything? It was right there in the short post you were responding to.

You wrote that I "claim that religious belief isn't correlated with other irrational beliefs."

I never said, thought, or implied such a thing. My argument is not that religionists are more kind or rational. My argument is that rationalists are just as capable of nonsense and meanness, as proven by the long history of nasty atheists.

So since you didn't get "it," I'll explain it. It was in response to that dumb fabrication that I made my own even more ridiculous claim, which is that you advocate a final solution for theists. So you have a tin ear for irony to go with your ADD eyes. In your next post, incorporate the code word "sylvan" to prove you read to the end of this paragraph.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so let me get this straight. You agree that atheists are more likely to be rational and logical. You agree that theists as a whole are more irrational and 'capable of meanness.' You just want us to acknowledge that one or two atheists are still capable of it? That it isnt IMPOSSIBLE for an atheist to be a maniac? Wow, that is one powerful point you are making. Sorry to have misunderstood, I thought you were trying to say something that anyone would either care about or feel the need to disagree with.

I'll save you some time. No one thinks atheists automatically act in a more rational way 100% of the time. No one thinks there aren't exceptions. What some of us DO think is that there is a correlation between theism and the likelihood of holding other irrational beliefs and acting in irrational and dangerous ways. Still plenty of rational theists, still plenty of crazy atheists, but in general, as a whole, atheists are more rational.

I'm honestly sorry I got worked up about your post. If I would have realized from the start how trivial it was I wouldn't have bothered. My bad.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Haeckel + Nietzsche = 60 million dead in WWII.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be noted that mystical beliefs provided much of the inherent justification here. Stalin, with his "engineers of the human soul," is a better representative of the atheistic version of tyranny.

[moneyfaucet]

Choose life, not god.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Well you've flumoxed me there. If ample examples of tyrannical atheists can't be used to show that their virtue does not shine brighter than theists, what can be?

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to establish that atheists are no more likely to be virtuous than theists, the virtue of atheists and theists across the population must be taken into account. If we want to know whether an atheist or a theist is more likely to be above a certain "level" of virtue, we find the point in the distribution at which that "level" represents. If we want to know whether atheists are more virtuous than theists on average, we compare the mean virtue for atheists with the mean virtue for theists. Other specific measures might require other techniques.

In terms of how to do it realistically, you'd have to construct a functional definition of "virtue" and then take a random sample of atheists and of theists and determine their virtue according to your definition. This would result in an approximation of the trends across the total population, which could be analyzed using statistics.

However, in any case an isolated example is statistically irrelevant. If we have the basis for an approximate curve, and we identify an extreme example, then we can infer that example skews the curve to a certain extent, but that's really just adding a new data point. That's the only thing you're doing when you talk about a specific atheist - you aren't saying much of anything about atheism in general. And you can't just add data points arbitrarily - if you're going to search out the "worst" atheist ever, you'll affect the way the math works. Logically, your examples are wholly fallacious.

[ QUOTE ]
And does it work the other way -- can I disallow Osama Bin Laden as evidence of religious inspired barbarism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed you can. Such points are irrelevant in terms of the average barbarity of theists. Those points might be valid, of course, in determining the proportion of barbarity for which theists are responsible, or for which theism is responsible. However, ultimately most of the time this kind of reasoning is used to illustrate a general principle, the reasoning is fallacious.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said, thought, or implied such a thing. My argument is not that religionists are more kind or rational. My argument is that rationalists are just as capable of nonsense and meanness, as proven by the long history of nasty atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once more I'll quote one of your more blatant statements:

[ QUOTE ]
Believers are no more suseptible to foolishness and state sponsored atrocities than atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a general statement. You aren't talking about whether atheists have the same potential for foolishness as theists, you're stating that atheists are equally susceptible foolishness. I acknowledge that this may be semantic, as "susceptible" in general means "capable," but typically when susceptibility is quantified it represents likelihood. You've made other statements that support this interpretation, I may decided to dig them up, but if you're saying it's possible for an individual atheists to be just as bad as an individual theist, please emphasize that point more clearly. At any rate vhawk was talking about general trends, and so was I.

I'm not feeling very creative today, so I'm just going to use "sylvan" straight.

[Bill Haywood]

Vhawk: you have yet to read even one of my posts, and all your responses are to imagined arguments. Ya chucklehead you missed the "sylvan" test from my last post.

Madnak wrote: In order to establish that atheists are no more likely to be virtuous than theists, the virtue of atheists and theists across the population must be taken into account.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that you haven't crunched the numbers either, and cannot prove that there's a higher mean of violent theists.

In fact, expecting such statistical accuracy is even achievable is a conceit of the political science field, so don't get all pedantic. We were talking history and philosophy. Presumably the reason why this discussion would be relevant is to decide whether we would prefer theist or atheist leaders, not to settle a statistical point. To me it is patent that the world has had plenty of nasty examples of both. So in deciding whether to have confidence in the decency and shrewdness of leaders, we should look entirely to the specifics and the circumstances, because asking simply if they believe in God tells us NOTHING useful.

Trying to assign statistical means to vague, subjective judgements like kindness and clarity is a fools errand. The results would be entirely an artifact of the way terms were defined and the experiment set up. How do we measure wickedness, by the number of corpses, or by the total number of theists in office? Should we include stealing in measuring whether atheists or theists are worse? Shoplifting or grand larceny? Should we only include crimes committed in an official capacity, or do we count wife beating? These traits are hopelessly mushy, and you'll get one result using one set of variables, another with another.

Whether atheists or believers are better leaders can only be judged with the mushy terms of philosophers and historians, because assigning statistical values is like taking the temperature of angst.

I am quite sure that no polling agency could ever provide you a satisfying statistical proof of who's better. So we are back to using anecdotal evidence and intuition. That's all we got for a question like this. And the anecdotal evidence of evil atheists easily keeps up with the godly.

And the sylvan bit was aimed at Vhawk -- you I know does your homework.

[moneyfaucet]

[ QUOTE ]
nonsense

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you doing posting on the internet on God's day, shouldn't you be in church? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

You are like the drunk driver who argues that sober people also get into accidents, so therefore driving drunk is no worse than driving sober.

[vhawk01]

Ok, then I guess madnak must have misread them all as well, and most of the other people arguing with you in this thread. I think there are two possibilities, one is that we all are terrible at reading comprehension and can't seem to grasp some simply point that you are elegantly making, and the other that one individual (you) is either intetionally or innocently making deceptive, contradictory and misleading posts. I have my own weighting of the probabilities, I'll leave you to yours.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Madnak wrote: In order to establish that atheists are no more likely to be virtuous than theists, the virtue of atheists and theists across the population must be taken into account.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that you haven't crunched the numbers either, and cannot prove that there's a higher mean of violent theists.

In fact, expecting such statistical accuracy is even achievable is a conceit of the political science field, so don't get all pedantic.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I said it's all speculation in an earlier post.

[ QUOTE ]
We were talking history and philosophy. Presumably the reason why this discussion would be relevant is to decide whether we would prefer theist or atheist leaders, not to settle a statistical point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on the OP, I had imagined the relevant point is whether religion as a whole is socially beneficial or detrimental. Isolated examples of religious people and atheists can't prove any point regarding that. If we're talking about world leaders, then your points are more valid because we can actually look at world leaders throughout history, although the small sample size and difficulty establishing causation will still present problems.

[ QUOTE ]
To me it is patent that the world has had plenty of nasty examples of both. So in deciding whether to have confidence in the decency and shrewdness of leaders, we should look entirely to the specifics and the circumstances, because asking simply if they believe in God tells us NOTHING useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps so. It's not an argument I want to go into, particularly since the only thing I'd claim is that theism itself has motivated many theist leaders to commit atrocities, while atheism itself never motivated a leader.

But in terms of the average person on the street, your points don't apply. And what statistical data we do have seems to indicate that a person's religious beliefs correlate with various personal attributes to some degree. Exactly how that works is still unknown, and the only really solid conclusions we can reach are absurdly simple (Jews are less likely to eat pork, on average). So I agree that the question must be one of philosophy and intuition. At the same time, I consider myself fully justified in trusting atheists above theists in general.

[ QUOTE ]
I am quite sure that no polling agency could ever provide you a satisfying statistical proof of who's better. So we are back to using anecdotal evidence and intuition. That's all we got for a question like this. And the anecdotal evidence of evil atheists easily keeps up with the godly.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my personal experience, atheists tend to be kinder and more honorable than Christians. So I don't agree with you here, at least not as far as Western religion is concerned (Buddhists seem to be kinder and more honorable than even atheists, though also more gullible).

[ QUOTE ]
And the sylvan bit was aimed at Vhawk -- you I know does your homework.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif Hey, given how much homework he has to do, it's hard to blame him for cutting some corners.

[Bill Haywood]

Based on the OP, I had imagined the relevant point is whether religion as a whole is socially beneficial or detrimental.

Ah, clarity. Yes, my remarks were very much directed at whether powerful theists are worse than atheists. And I can see that you were discussing the net weight. On a social level, yea, I hear you. In fact, all the people who have pissed me off the most in the past year are holy rollers. I teach in the Bible belt. The other week I got THE question. Dr. Haywood, are you saved? I indicated I lacked faith, and another kid after class had to come up and offer his services in case I wanted to get to know Jesus. Could use a few more atheists in this town, as long as they don't gush about the transcendent superiority of reason.

[madnak]

Well, that's cleared up then. I grew up in Utah, I think I'll leave the Bible Belt alone.

[moneyfaucet]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on the OP, I had imagined the relevant point is whether religion as a whole is socially beneficial or detrimental.

Ah, clarity. Yes, my remarks were very much directed at whether powerful theists are worse than atheists. And I can see that you were discussing the net weight. On a social level, yea, I hear you. In fact, all the people who have pissed me off the most in the past year are holy rollers. I teach in the Bible belt. The other week I got THE question. Dr. Haywood, are you saved? I indicated I lacked faith, and another kid after class had to come up and offer his services in case I wanted to get to know Jesus. Could use a few more atheists in this town, as long as they don't gush about the transcendent superiority of reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is above reason then? In a world without god reason reign supreme.