BBO Discussion Forums: The Problem with Religious Moderation - BBO Discussion Forums

Fluffy, on 2013-October-10, 05:05, said:

A clever use of words, atheists want to "get rid" of all of us. I'm assuming that the antecedent for us is "religious people". If by "get rid of" you mean eliminate a belief system then how is this different from anything else?
Don't nonastrologers want to "get rid" of adherents to astrology?
Don't nonbelievers in Zeus want to "get rid" of believers?
Don't doctors want to "get rid" of anti-vaccine wackos?
But if you're talking about disbelief in Yahweh, the bush burning, manna dropping, pestilence inflicting god of iron age Palestine, then suddenly "getting rid" of believers takes on some dark meaning. There is now a subtle suggestion of violent eradication.

Similarly with the word "fanatic". Anyone can point out that there's no reason to believe in Thor, Apollo, Poseiden, etc. But only a fanatic would point out that there's no reason to believe in the god of the ancient Israelites.

The only sense in which all religion are "the same" is that they are all man made. If this is what you meant then you would be an atheist yourself. If not then in what universe are all religions the same? Probably the same one where religious leaders stop fighting join hands and sing Kumbaya. I'd be happy if people just stopped blowing themselves up, even that seems like a far fetched goal.

Fluffy, on 2013-October-10, 05:05, said:

I take it that I am your fanatic atheist

What have I ever written that suggests that I want to 'get rid of' any human being?

I would love to learn that some religious believer lost his or her belief in all religion, since, after the initial pain, that person's life would be, I believe, enriched and, more importantly, the power of the religion to which he ascribed would have been diminished, even if only trivially. Were the person to also lose faith in the existence of a god, then so much the better, for him or her and for the rest of us.

You appear to lack the intellectual resources to understand this...not, I am sure, due to stupidity....you are clearly intelligent...but due to having been immersed in religion for so long, and from such an early age, that you can't see beyond your blinkered prejudices.

I know that you will dismiss this post as more arrogance, which is your right and might even be valid. However, one day you might wake up...and if anything I have written plays a role in that, well, it would have been worth all the anger I provoked in you now.


Edit: you accuse me, and by implication, at least some other atheists, of arrogance. Yet I have seen none of us argue that religious believers cannot appreciate or create beauty to the same extent as do atheists, nor have I seen any of us argue that a belief in god will make us all murderers...that last being one of your statements about atheists and the effect of non-belief, fluffy. Who is really the arrogant one?

mikeh, on 2013-October-10, 08:16, said:

Fluffy is a non-native English speaker; you should not be so literal. It is obvious to me that he meant "fanatic atheists want to expunge religious belief" rather than expunging the actual human beings ...

mikeh, on 2013-October-10, 08:16, said:

... which he seems quite correct in believing. Not that this is necessarily bad or good, just that he is right in this particular respect.

mikeh, on 2013-October-10, 08:16, said:

IMO you are the one who misunderstood as above. I don't think you lack the intellectual resources, but I do think your own bias led to your hasty conclusion.

mikeh, on 2013-October-10, 08:16, said:

I don't see where Fluffy said atheists cannot create beauty.

So far, I would score you as the more arrogant.

mikeh, on 2013-October-10, 08:16, said:

I can assert that the best way to create a generation of atheists is to send them to nine years of Catholic school.

mycroft, on 2013-October-09, 12:49, said:

barmar, on 2013-October-10, 05:51, said:

Well, there was that guy in China that all the people using that argument were going after, earlier this year. And you're right: Casualties 16, Fatalities Zero.

Quote

This argument I'll accept. I may or may not agree with it - after all, Stalin's non-religious (unless you treat "unshakable belief that Communism can not be wrong" as a religious belief) '30s killed more *civilians* than the rest of the 20th century's deliberate killings combined, but I'll accept it.

Winstonm, on 2013-October-10, 07:42, said:

My argument is that in many cases, religion wasn't the bedrock motivation - or if it was, it was tied up with "fear/hate of the Other", using religion as an Othering.

Quote

I would suspect that the Jewish pogroms of the Middle Ages were *exactly* othering, rather than Religious in nature. Sure, they wanted the Jews to convert to The Right Religion, but that also meant they wanted the Jews to conform to the Right kind of behaviour for Spain - and bring more people under the power of the Catholic Bureaucracy.

The nature of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages really suffered from its massive temporal power. I would suggest that even without the actual troops, the nature of American Fundamentalist Christianity is really suffering from its current massive temporal power.

Quote

As I am trying to make clear, or unless my initial assumption is that "in the name of religion" is not the base motivation. I believe that power and the desire to control are much more likely to be the base motivation, and that religious structures, especially strictly hierarchical ones, are some of the best power levers the world has ever known. So, as I said above, I'll accept Barmar's argument, but only because we would be replacing the religious control system with a less successful one, not because the existence or not of a God, or that Power's influence in our lives, in Itself promotes Evil.

Vampyr, on 2013-October-10, 10:15, said:

Constance tells me that the same is true of twelve years of Lutheran school.

billw55, on 2013-October-10, 09:05, said:

You may well be correct, and I hope you are. However, I think it is arrogant for you to assert that he didn't mean that which his words clearly appear to convey. We need fluffy to say whether, being now aware of how his words read in English, he meant something else. I hope he did and that your interpretation is the correct one.

Quote

And I don't see where I said he did. Do you?

Quote

I am disqualified from scoring since I am biased

Let me, however, posit a situation for you.

Some (not all, I am sure) believers assert and appear to believe that a group of 'others' (atheists), by reason of their lack of faith in a god entity suffer two problems in life and another, presumably far more important in their view, problem 'after life'.

Atheists, due to their lack of the moral guidance afforded by religious faith, have no reason not to rob, rape, steal, or even kill if they think they can get away with it. Believers, by virtue of the teachings of their faith, know not to give in to these (presumably universal?) desires.

Atheists, altho capable of enjoying beauty and art, and to some degree of creating the same, are less able to do so because, after all, so much beauty and art was inspired by or produced for the purpose of glorifying 'god'. So we are stunted.

Now, I am sure that many believers would say that they don't believe one or both of the foregoing, but the next problem must dwarf the first two.

Atheists, and here we are merely a subset of a far larger part of humanity, are doomed in the (very, very)long run. The details vary from faith to faith, but should we die without recognizing the correct god (out of so many choices! It's worse than going to Baskin-Robbins for an ice cream cone), we are at the least denied the opportunity to go to heaven or whatever glorious après-life experience is said to await the lucky/wise few. For many religionists, our fate is not merely a loss of a great opportunity but far worse: terrible, unimaginable pain and torment for eternity.

By contrast, I know of no atheist who suggests that any believer is going to face eternal punishment of any kind, and certainly not that the believer will suffer while the smug atheist luxuriates. Btw, what kind of amoral monster could bask in the glory of a god without feeling some shame that so many other humans have been condemned to suffer/denied this glory by their god? Edit: some later posts have criticized this, and I suppose I have to fall back on a sort of bill55 explantion: I meant no criticism of believers who feel that they are going to heaven, or wherever, and others aren't, during their life: at least I certainly don't consider such as amoral monsters! What I meant was that it occurred to me that if I were basking in the glory of my god, it would, I hope, occur to me to be horrified that so many were not merely being denied my joyous experience but were being subjected, at the behest of that being that I was worshipping, to unimaginable, never-ending torture. How, I wonder, could any decent 'soul' feel happy about that? End of Edit.

Nor do I know any atheist who argues that religious belief inevitably leads to atrocities or crimes. Yes, we argue, and have compelling evidence to support us, that religion is often given as the cause of or justification for acts of extreme cruelty. Mycroft and others correctly point out that other 'isms' can lead to similar results and that in many cases of apparent religious extremism, religion may be being used as a motivational tool rather than being the true cause. Valid tho those arguments appear to be, there seems to be no escaping the fact that religion is one of the most powerful sociological tools yet discovered by humans for the creation of the basic and horrific divide between 'us' and 'them'. We are inclined to be nice to 'us' and relatively unkind to 'them'.

Get rid of religion, and one of the most pernicious tools for the inspiration of hate will disappear. I don't, for a moment, think that this would be a panacea, but so what? Should we cling to this barbaric view of humanity only because it isn't the only barbaric view?

Nor do I know of any atheist who doesn't acknowledge that many of the great works of beauty produced by the human species weren't inspired or influenced by religious belief. Of course, religion can destroy beauty as well....witness the Taliban destruction of the Buddha's in Afghanistan, and the destruction of much religious art in Europe during the Reformation, when the more extreme Protestants sacked many Catholic churches because of the 'idolatory' nature of the art therein.

However, it appears, from my limited understanding of the nature of artistic genius, that an artist will be driven to create by internal imperatives, and that external factors (cultural) will influence the media used and the topic of the art, but that art will out...and my personal view is that there is so much in the world that ought to inspire us and fill us with awe that swapping religious faith for an appreciation of the world as it (apparently, so far) is, would lead to as much, if different, humanly produced beauty and art as would have been or will be produced in the name of faith. I can't prove that, of course But it is my opinion.

So tell me this: as someone who is very careful to try to avoid being identified as a believer or as an atheist, which group appears to be the more arrogant in terms of their views of the other?

mycroft, on 2013-October-10, 10:26, said:

The term "pogrom" typically refers to the slaughters of Jews in Russia in the 19th and early-20th centuries, not to atrocities against Jews committed at other times or elsewhere (such as the Inquisitions in 15th century Spain). You may be using the term "pogrom" generically, but it really is not meant to be used that way. You might as well say Holocaust.

mikeh, on 2013-October-10, 11:11, said:

Yes, I used to wonder about this, and I came to the conclusion that all believers of this sort, if they have any compassion (either for humanity or just their friends and relatives) should work to make enough to live frugally on, and spend the rest of their time proselytizing. What possible excuse can there be for doing otherwise?

So get off the internet, all you Christians, and get busy converting people!

mikeh, on 2013-October-10, 11:11, said:

Why do you think Jehovah's Witnesses (and others) go from door to door?

You may not agree with religious people, but calling them "amoral monsters" for basking in the glory of their god alone when they take virtually every opportunity to convince you to join them is completely uncalled for.

This over-the-top-behavior is what gives non-believers a bad rep.

Rik

Edit: I see Vampyr posted something similar right before me.

Kind of spooky to have a Vampyr in a religious discussion a few weeks before Halloween.

On a related note:
A school in the Dutch town of Werkendam (about 35 miles from where I live) got the idea to celebrate Halloween with the school kids this year. When the township board heard of this they forbid all school Halloween celebrations: There is a religious party on the board (in a coalition with other parties). This religious party doesn't want these pagan celebrations, therefore there won't be any Halloween. (Not that there is much Halloween in the Netherlands, but still.) There will be sports activities to celebrate the Fall instead.

This is the kind of thing that gives me -as a non believer- the creeps (more than Halloween does ).

Rik

mikeh, on 2013-October-10, 11:11, said:

Of course, there are a great many more arrogant believers than arrogant nonbelievers. Mostly this is because there are, comparatively, so few nonbelievers. If we look at per capita arrogance, and assuming that degrees of arrogance don't matter (you just are or are not), it is not obvious to me which group wins this trophy. No small share of atheists consider most/all believers to be simple minded fools, or slaves to their upbringing, or any of several other shades of mental handicap. It certainly counts as arrogance to me.

In fairness, a fair share of believers think in their hearts that those who believe otherwise will suffer some sort of spiritual consequence, or are unelightened, or agents of the devil, etc. Usually one will find more of these, because there *are* so many more in absolute numbers. It would be easy to fall into an availability fallacy.

Also I think perhaps you are taking your criticisms (many of them eminently fair) of a certain type of believer, and applying them too broadly to believers in general.

Trinidad, on 2013-October-10, 12:13, said:

You have a point: please read (if interested) the edit I inserted.

I suspect, however, that you didn't understand the idea that I was putting forward.


Edit: to make it shorter

I don't call anyone an amoral monster. To the contrary, I was suggesting that any decent, moral human would, when basking in the glory of the afterlife, be troubled by the knowledge that so many others were not merely being denied such unadulterated joy but were, in fact, suffering eternal torment at the behest of the god who was bestowing such joy on them. It seems to me that the supposition that such a decent, moral person would have no issue with this makes no sense: only an amoral monster could be oblivious to the horrors being inflicted, for all time, on so many others, some of whose sins were trivial in the grand scheme of things (altho maybe not to a jealous god).

I see this issue as yet another contradiction that is rarely, if ever, discussed by those defending, for example, Christianity.

Trinidad, on 2013-October-10, 12:13, said:

I was serious, though. Sure, Jehovah's Witnesses go round from door to door, and so do Mormons (but only for two years). These two groups form a very small minority of those who believe that non-believers will go to Hell.

The fanatic atheist was that Sam whatever that started the thread quoted from Winstonm, but he is not the only one, I have heard atheist saying that world would be better of without religious people, nobody has been killed in the name of atheism yet, but violence is there, some people irrupting in middle of a church to stop the rite and profanate the altar has happened already.

I fail to understand why thinking my mother is in a better place now, or that doing evil will have consequences after I die can harm them, but they seem to think I would be better off dead.

A couple of questions for MikeH:
1. How do scientists believe that the universe originated?
2. How do you believe that the universe originated?

32519, on 2013-October-10, 19:56, said:

Mike will probably answer for himself but for me, the answer is easy: I don't know how the universe originated.
I am aware of some scientific knowedlge of when it originated and something about what took place back then, but any explanation beyond that is unavailable to me.

This issue seems to strike some theists as a strong arguemnet but for me it is no argument at all. In life there are some things I am pretty sure of, some things that I think maybe I know but I would not be surprised if I am wrong, and other things where I am content to say that I don't know. I regard it as very important to have a clear sorting, as clear as possible ar least, of which category various claims fall under. Issues with my health, for example, I want to be as clear about as possible. Issues with how the universe began, I leave to the cosmologists and am content with whatever they do and do not tell me.


And I much, much, prefer the honest answer of "I don't know" to an adamant statement that I do know.

Oh, and saying "I don't know" does ot really make me an agnostic. Technically perhaps it does, but in reality it doesn't. "I don't know" is not the same as saying that I am willing to seriously consider that Genesis might be an accurate accounting.

32519, on 2013-October-10, 19:56, said:

who do you mean by 'scientists'?

Your posts seem to reflect a profound lack of understanding of 'science'.

I suspect you mean that very tiny fraction of 'scientists' who work on the issues relating to the origins of the universe.

The Standard Model of physics, as far as I understand it, and I don't pretend to know, let alone understand, the math, appears to accurately describe the unfolding of the universe from a very tiny fraction of a second after the big bang.

I gather that the math appears to break down at that point, so I don't believe there is any consensus about what happened before that, or what new theory might eventually replace the Standard Theory.

I have read a number of 'popular' books in which the authors advance some conjectures and ideas. Krauss wrote A Universe from Nothing, which is a good read, while Holt's Why Does the World Exist offers a broader overview (including the views of some theologians, who seem to me to come across quite badly, in terms of rigour). The Beginning of Infinity by Deutsch is the one I am currently reading, tho it is more about philosophy than the origins of the universe. I have read quite a few more, but these are the most recent and appear to represent, at least as far as popular science is concerned, much the latest ideas.

If you really are interested, then I strongly suggest you read these: they are readily available...I got two of them from Amazon for my Kindle.

If, however and as I suspect, your 'point' is that you 'have' an answer (your god did it) then you won't read these or any other books of this type, since they will be uncomfortable for you...especially the Deutsch one, which nails the fallacies inherent in the 'god did it' arguments.

As for my personal opinion: the answer, of course, is 'I don't know'.

I can't do the math that underlies Krauss' idea, and I can see why Holt, for one, finds it unsatisfactory. The same is true for any other theory: I can read and sort of grasp popularizations of ideas, but I couldn't (for example) do the math that forms string theory or analyses of the inflationary period immediately following the big bang and I am certain you can't either.

As it happens, I am ok with the idea that there are things neither I nor any other human 'know'. I have no idea why that so frightens you that you have to accept such frankly idiotic ideas as 'god did it'. Am I being harsh? Read the books and tell me...otherwise, you have no right to judge for the simple reason that you don't know the extent of your errors and you are unwilling to find out. In other words, if you won't read the books, you forfeit the right to discuss them, in my view.

mikeh, on 2013-October-10, 20:47, said:

How do scientists explain the BIG BANG? What caused it?
Can you or any other scientist demonstrate in a laboratory how you create a BIG BANG out of nothing?
For your demonstration you have at your disposal -
1. No light
2. No air
3. No wind
4. No water
5. No material of any kind whatsoever
6. No gravity
From that, how do you produce a BIG BANG?

32519, on 2013-October-10, 21:46, said:

Do you have ANY clue as to how silly you sound?

There is nothing wrong with the questions, other than the fact that you obviously aren't at all interested in finding answers to them or accepting, as so many of us have tried to tell you, that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH NOT KNOWING ALL THE ANSWERS!!!!!!!!

Do you accept that the earth orbits the sun?

Do you have any idea how that was worked out, despite thousands of years of cultural certainty that the sun revolved around the earth?

Copernicus proposed it.

Galileo did observations that persuaded him this was so

Kepler observed and assumed that all planetary orbits were circular

None of these had any idea WHY planets orbited

Newton saw that the orbits were eliptical and came up with the theory of gravity, and I assume you believe in gravity?

Hold your arm out to one side: does it feel heavy? You probably think that you are using your muscles to resist the 'force' of gravity.

You're wrong.

You're actually using your muscles to accelerate your arm in relation to curved space-time: that was one of Einstein's discoveries: what we experience as gravity is curvature in space-time.

How much of this did you already know? How much of this do you think you understand?

Unless you already knew this, you are a scientific illiterate.

Being scientifically illiterate means you aren't equipped to even try to understand the 'answers' to your questions. Indeed, the manner of posing your questions demonstrates that you really are almost completely ignorant of basic facts about the world and the universe.

'Debating' with you is a waste of time. The topics that you think, no doubt with utter assurance, you grasp (such that you think you have 'scored points' with these ever-so-smart questions) are so far beyond your imagination that the answers would be meaningless if described in the short space of even a long post.

You will no doubt think, triumphantly, that I am ducking your questions because you have 'nailed me'. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have already told you of 3 books, by title and author, that will give you a good overview of what intelligent, informed experts think of the general topic of the origin of the universe. And as you ahve been repeatedly told, but obviously can't begin to understand, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH NOT AS YET KNOWING!!!


Far more to the point: you are guilty of an astounding fallacy. You think the fact that experts can't answer the ultimate question entitles you to assert, with plausibility, that 'god did it'.

While many people far more intelligent than you have written to similar effect (refuting the underlying argument), I specifically refer you to the Deutsch book I identified in my last post.

Let me know when you have read it (btw, don't take offence if I gently quiz you if, withing the next week, you claim you read it).

Until then, please try to avoid further exposing your profound ignorance. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant, but when one learns that one is, or probably is, ignorant, and you are offered an easy way out of ignorance, then a refusal to do so isn't an act of ignorance anymore....it is an act of stupidity.

So which is it? Are you merely ignorant or are you also stupid? You can demonstrate which it is very easily.

I know where the smart money would bet