[mikeh]

 Codo, on 2012-February-24, 06:15, said:

But again, this is human, not at all just a problem of the theists. If someone claims that his war/torture/suicide bomb is godly, do you believe him? I mean, you repeatly write about the wars in the name of God. Do you really believe that God told President Bush to invade Afghanistan/Iran, whatever? I don't. And the same is true for any given war in history.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bushThis is but one of several articles that appears to show a solid foundation for concluding precisely that.

And Bush himself repeatedly claimed that he prayed and sought guidance from god before major decisions. He belongs to a branch of christianity that claims that worshippers have a personal, direct, communication with god.

You and I may find this sort of belief to be incomprehensible......but it exists, and it only exists amongst religious believers....by definition! An atheist has no-one to pray to.

Your larger point, to the effect that the ambitions of leaders explains (virtually) all wars seems to me to be valid to a point, and I doubt that any would seriously dispute that notion. Religion in and of itself may not be responsible for many wars, altho it is clearly responsible for much violence and death. Look at the reaction in Afghanistan to the burning of some pieces of paper. People are being killed because the paper had some words written on it and those words were sacred to a certain religious sect.

I think most secular thinkers would argue that while religion may not be the primary reason for many (or any?) large scale conflicts, it has often been a primary tool by means of which the leaders gathered support from the populace. War is never fought by a leader in personal confrontation with the opposing leader.

In historical times, leaders were often at the forefront of physical conflicts. That seems to have changed as nation-states grew stronger, and armies became more professional. But even when a king would be part of a charge by feudal knights, most of the army was made up of the lower classes.

In truly distant times, the prospect of rapine and pillage was a major motivating factor. In addition, personal loyalty to various subchiefs would lead to various tribes contributing to an army, and there have always been mercenaries.....Carthage was heavily reliant upon mercenaries in its centuries-long conflict with Rome.

But at least since the rise of the christian church, religion has been used by the ruling elite to persuade and motivate the common people. Historically, the pulpits were often filled by the younger sons of the aristocracy...the village pulpit by a younger son of the squire, the cathedral by the younger son of a more noble branch of the aristocracy.

So the power structure included both temporal and spiritual control of the populace. As Seneca observed some 2000 years ago, religion was 'useful' to the rulers.

The crusades were, it seems, never really about religion as such...but it seems apparent on the historical record that religious claims were emphasized as part of the propaganda campaign that always underlies large scale conflict.....the leaders have to motivate the cannon-fodder (even before the invention of cannon) or they couldn't indulge in their power games....and religion was and is wonderful tool. Not only does religion inculcate the habit of doing and believing what one is told, but religion also serves to minimize the consequences of death.....think of the suicide bombers of islam today.....while I suspect that most are fuelled by nationalistic grievances, surely the notion that paradise awaits is part of the explanation for the willingness of so many young people to kill themselves?

[kenberg]

A brief story on the origins of strife, fwiw. Becky and I were in Albuquerque and visited a museum dedicated to local tribal history. The guide explained the troubles this way:
"The Spanish came and said we had to give them our gold and our women and convert to Christianity. We said we don't have any gold, you can't have our women, and we are happy with the Gods we have. So there was trouble".

[onoway]

What was the religious basis for Genghis Khan's foray into Europe? Or Alexander the Great expanding his empire? Alexander has never been shown to my knowledge to have tried to whip up a frenzy of enthusiasm for a war to spread the word about Zeus. Such things were always taught here as a matter of: prestige, politics, land, loot and because they wanted to and nobody could stop them. Some people just like fighting.

Perhaps it isn't so much that religion condones and supports war so much as it is such a handy platform for overly ambitious men to use to gain support from a largely uneducated public who have been trained to listen to "authorities" -parents, teachers, policemen, and of course, religious leaders. Also, frequently, from relatives who have been in the forces themselves. God & Country are pretty much interchangeable symbols for quite a few people.

The rub comes from the religious leaders not stepping up to the plate and saying, hang on, that's not part of this..though I suppose if they did they would generally end up dead as did the nuns and priests in any number of countries such as Salvador.

One of the unfortunate developments over the years is that now leaders never leave the comfort of their homes to send people off to war. Even if they were behind the lines, they always were expected to be there in days gone by. Genghis Khan didn't sit on his backside and wave to the cavalry as they headed off to war. As warfare has got more sophisticated, it has become safer and safer for men to send other people off to war at no potential jeopardy to themselves. If anyone who wanted to start a war had to be there too, and be if not equally but certainly at risk of being shot or having a bomb land on his head, there might be less enthusiasm on the part of leaders to start wars.

Though come to think of it, that may be one of the strong attraction that terrorist leaders have for young men, they themselves are at risk, they aren't all clearly sitting in a safe unreachable room with air conditioning and more than enough food and clean water and access to whatever they want at any time. Which leader is showing more commitment to "The Cause"?
Anyway, off topic sorry

[hrothgar]

 onoway, on 2012-February-24, 14:04, said:

What was the religious basis for Genghis Khan's foray into Europe? Or Alexander the Great expanding his empire? Alexander has never been shown to my knowledge to have tried to whip up a frenzy of enthusiasm for a war to spread the word about Zeus. Such things were always taught here as a matter of: prestige, politics, land, loot and because they wanted to and nobody could stop them. Some people just like fighting.

No one ever claimed that each and every war was motivated by religion...

[PassedOut]

 onoway, on 2012-February-24, 14:04, said:

One of the unfortunate developments over the years is that now leaders never leave the comfort of their homes to send people off to war. Even if they were behind the lines, they always were expected to be there in days gone by. Genghis Khan didn't sit on his backside and wave to the cavalry as they headed off to war. As warfare has got more sophisticated, it has become safer and safer for men to send other people off to war at no potential jeopardy to themselves. If anyone who wanted to start a war had to be there too, and be if not equally but certainly at risk of being shot or having a bomb land on his head, there might be less enthusiasm on the part of leaders to start wars.

And now, drones can fire missiles from locations thousands of miles away.

Once the patriot act is amended to authorize drone strikes on US protestors, folks will think twice about joining the occupy movement. Won't be easy to escape either, with a US border fence holding folks in.

[mikeh]

 hrothgar, on 2012-February-24, 14:30, said:

No one ever claimed that each and every war was motivated by religion...

Straw man arguments are far easier to win than trying to respond to points actually made by those with whom one is purporting to disagree.

[luke warm]

Quote

War is never fought by a leader in personal confrontation with the opposing leader.

we almost had one... jaime lannister challenged robb stark to that very thing, but was turned down... i for one am glad, it would have made for a sucky show

[onoway]

 PassedOut, on 2012-February-24, 14:46, said:

And now, drones can fire missiles from locations thousands of miles away.

Once the patriot act is amended to authorize drone strikes on US protestors, folks will think twice about joining the occupy movement. Won't be easy to escape either, with a US border fence holding folks in.

This (hopefully) is a naive question..is that truly in the works? After people came out in support of torture at Guantanamo and the stuff that was spouted during the run up to the last (and this) election I am able if not willing to believe it..Surely that would be against some sort of constitutional right to life and liberty, if not the pursuit of happiness?

I know that the US has/had its own versions of our privacy BillC30 (which has been sent back to committee for revision after Canadians finally stood up and said oh no you don't) in PIPA and SOPA but this would be a gigantic step into active warfare against their citizenry.

Well at the moment...the Canadian border is still largely unfenced...we got a lot of really good people during the Viet Nam years coming for extended visits with or without official sanction. What a world we are leaving for our kids and their kids...

[PassedOut]

 onoway, on 2012-February-24, 16:56, said:

This (hopefully) is a naive question..is that truly in the works? After people came out in support of torture at Guantanamo and the stuff that was spouted during the run up to the last (and this) election I am able if not willing to believe it..Surely that would be against some sort of constitutional right to life and liberty, if not the pursuit of happiness?

I know that the US has/had its own versions of our privacy BillC30 (which has been sent back to committee for revision after Canadians finally stood up and said oh no you don't) in PIPA and SOPA but this would be a gigantic step into active warfare against their citizenry.

Well at the moment...the Canadian border is still largely unfenced...we got a lot of really good people during the Viet Nam years coming for extended visits with or without official sanction. What a world we are leaving for our kids and their kids...

I hope it's not in the works (yet) but it's hard to overlook the trend.

During the Vietnam war, we helped a young man escape to Canada, and he was truly a fine person. We're still able to get to Canada by boat from our front yard, if it comes to that, but I sure hope it doesn't. Of course I dpn't know what Canada will be like then either...

[Codo]

 Winstonm, on 2012-February-24, 07:40, said:

Concerning the current debate, I always liked how Sam Harris stated his position: We either have good reasons for what we believe or we do not.

As for anti-semitism, that was a cultural phenomenon of Europe, especially Germany, well before Adolf Hitler was a glimmer in his father's eye. Anyone interested may want to research Martin Luther's book, On the Jews and Their Lies to see how hateful was the anti-semitic message from this early Christian church leader. If memory serves, Hitler at some point praised Luther's views. The heart of anti-semitism is due to the conflict caused by the refusal of the Jew to accept Jesus as messiah, just as the conflict between Islam and others is due basically to the refusal to accept Muhammed and Allah. These are first and foremost religious arguments.

As Martin Luther wrote:



The evidence used by Martin Luther to form his worldview is the same evidence used by Islam for theirs and is the same evidence used by Martin Luther for his hate-filled rages - subjective, authoritative narrative.

Had people compelled others to produce objective, testable evidence prior to adopting a belief system, the world would have evaded a mountain of evil and outrage. Or, as again Sam Harris puts it (paraphrased), No group of people has ever been the cause of war because they demanded evidence prior to belief, because they became too reasonable.

Anti-anything is as old as mankind. You do not need religion for this, you can use race, cultural background or the place where you live for it, too. Anti-semitism got famous, but it . Here in Europe we had anti Christian, anti Hugenotten, anti Calvinism, anti turks, anti russians, anti germans etc pp. This is horrible, but it is the way it is.

I cannot and will never claim that religious people are better then the rest. They just show their normal human behaviour. I just defend the position that they are not worse then others.
So when a child of 1490 claims that Jews are evil, I do belive that he thought so. Most people tend to praise their own society and to look down at others. Unluckily this happens with most religions too. They really think, that they are right and anybody else is wrong. How presumptuous.
But again, this is human, not religious.

[PassedOut]

 Codo, on 2012-February-25, 04:23, said:

They really think, that they are right and anybody else is wrong. How presumptuous. But again, this is human, not religious.

But, with science, folks have objective ways of answering questions about the world around them. With religions, one religion is as good (or as bad) as another, so long it doesn't try to make pronouncements that conflict with science. When science and religions conflict, religions are wrong.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Codo

Anti-anything is as old as mankind. You do not need religion for this, you can use race, cultural background or the place where you live for it, too

Yes, but when the reason is religious differences it is disingenuous to suggest that religion is not the cause.

It is hard to claim anything other than a religious cause was behind the various Inquisitions, the Muslim expansionism, the Crusades, and the persecution of Mormons, while other atrocities certainly had a religious influence if not absolute cause, such as the Holocaust.

And these religious-based atrocities have a common theme, the blind faith that a subjective, authoritative narrative that describes a state of reality that is impossible for humans to know objectively is indeed factual, while suspending their disbelief in the impossible.

Scientific knowledge holds that dead tissue cannot reanimate after three days, that immaterial spirit entities cannot impregnate humans, and beings cannot disappear into the heavens to live thousands of years only to reappear on earth at a future time.

Science also disputes that angels can take on form at will and show themselves to men sitting in caves or that winged mulelike creatures can fly to heaven and back carrying a human on its back.

Science also can find no evidence of Israelites who lived in New York and who built great cities, nor is there a scrap of objective evidence for golden tablets or seer stones.

To the genuine believer, though, none of these "impossibilities" is really impossible.

In my opinion, those who can willingly suspend disbelief to accept the above as factual also are easily persuaded into belief that a neighbor is evil because he is of different skin color or cultural heritage.

The enemy is not religion but a type of thinking, a failure to demand objective, testable evidence for beliefs.

[Winstonm]

accidental double post.

[PassedOut]

Alain de Botton has this sensible piece on CNN.com: What atheists can learn from religion

Quote

It is when we stop believing that religions have been handed down from above or else that they are entirely daft that matters become more interesting.

We can then recognize that we invented religions to serve two central needs which continue to this day and which secular society has not been able to solve with any particular skill: firstly, the need to live together in communities in harmony, despite our deeply rooted selfish and violent impulses. And secondly, the need to cope with terrifying degrees of pain which arise from our vulnerability to professional failure, to troubled relationships, to the death of loved ones and to our decay and demise.

We can recognize that god is fictional, yet gain from an understanding of why that fiction arose.

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2012-February-26, 13:55, said:

Alain de Botton has this sensible piece on CNN.com: What atheists can learn from religion


We can recognize that god is fictional, yet gain from an understanding of why that fiction arose.

I posted this in another thread - it is unfair to generalize all Republicans in this fashion, but I do think it makes a valid point about the mental approaches to data of the far right (authoritative/individualistic) branch of the GOP versus the far left (egalitarian communitarian) progressive Democratic branch and liberal independents, and the links to PEW charts are interesting.

[PassedOut]

 Winstonm, on 2012-February-26, 14:32, said:

I posted this in another thread - it is unfair to generalize all Republicans in this fashion, but I do think it makes a valid point about the mental approaches to data of the far right (authoritative/individualistic) branch of the GOP versus the far left (egalitarian communitarian) progressive Democratic branch and liberal independents, and the links to PEW charts are interesting.

Yes. In business too, it's important to keep in mind that not all potential customers depend upon facts and evidence for making decisions.

I was struck by this quote from the piece:

Quote

In fact, recent evidence suggests that wanting to explore the world and try new things, as opposed to viewing the world as threatening, may subtly push people towards liberal ideologies (and vice versa).

Seems like all the republican candidates except Ron Paul see the world as very frightening.

[mikeh]

 PassedOut, on 2012-February-26, 13:55, said:

Alain de Botton has this sensible piece on CNN.com: What atheists can learn from religion


We can recognize that god is fictional, yet gain from an understanding of why that fiction arose.

Wow....someone arguing that religion teaches societal cooperation and tolerance? Now that's as fictional as anything I've read on this thread.

Religions teach cooperation, tho usually not tolerance, only within the specific community involved. Protestants historically killed catholics, who did the same to protestants, and both faiths persecuted jews. Sunnis blow up shiites, and vice versa. Mormons ostracize apostates and islamists sometimes execute them.


As for the notion that atheists haven't learned how to live in harmony, may I suggest the author look at the demonstrated positive correlation between societal happiness and degree of secularism in the western nations, with particular reference to western and northern Europe?

The other point...that we have a fear of death, a wish that loved ones aren't gone forever, and a desire to avoid the prospect of personal extinction......I can see that as a reason for wanting to pretend that all will end well....and there can be no doubt but that religious leaders take advantage of these fears by lying to us (altho I am sure that most of them share the belief, so they are lying to themselves more than to their flock....ever wonder why the analogy wherein the congregation are regarded as sheep is so attractive to the christian church?).

If religion merely taught us that a cosy but unwarranted belief in a god was on the whole harmless and made the lives of believers easier to handle....sort of like antidepressants for someone suffering from depression....that would be one thing....and I suspect that for many believers, it functions in just that way. But just as anti-depressants come with side-effects, so to does religious belief...and the side-effects of religious belief are very, very destructive and, regrettably, most of the destruction is not to the believer.

Btw, there is nothing original in the article...it is a classic mishmash of nonsense from a religious apologist. Atheists are afraid of morals? Show me the evidence for that absurd statement. Atheists may and I think most or all do reject the idea that morality comes from religion....I, for one, embrace the notion that morality is a trait that, for the non-sociopathic, is the result of heredity and that the fine points are at least partially culturally mediated....and while religion can play a role in that, that is merely because religion is embedded in our society....if religion falls away, we'll still be moral people. I didn't develop an urge to lie, cheat and still once I stopped believing in christianity, and the jails aren't full of atheists who run rampant because they no longer fear god.

[PassedOut]

 mikeh, on 2012-February-27, 15:53, said:

Wow....someone arguing that religion teaches societal cooperation and tolerance? Now that's as fictional as anything I've read on this thread.

Religions teach cooperation, tho usually not tolerance, only within the specific community involved. Protestants historically killed catholics, who did the same to protestants, and both faiths persecuted jews. Sunnis blow up shiites, and vice versa. Mormons ostracize apostates and islamists sometimes execute them.

I'm sure he realizes that. The point is to understand why god was invented long ago, when groups were smaller and needed cohesion and cooperation to succeed.

[mikeh]

 PassedOut, on 2012-February-27, 16:05, said:

I'm sure he realizes that. The point is to understand why god was invented long ago, when groups were smaller and needed cohesion and cooperation to succeed.

I may be confusing my books, but I think it was Jared Diamond, in Guns, Germs and Steel, who best elucidated (imo) the role that religion probably played in early human societies...and it wasn't primarily a moral one....it was part of the power structure...and, in that regard, nothing seems to have changed. It isn't quite as blatant now as it was on feudal times, when peasants were indoctrinated to accept their lot in this life by a promise that they would get their reward in heaven, but (the occasional activist low-ranking clergy to one side) it is still obvious to any one looking on from the sidelines.

[barmar]

If you're interested in an interesting allegory, Amazon just published a Kindle edition of an unproduced script from the original Star Trek series, titled "He Walked Among Us". Kirk et al find a primitive planet where a fanatic human holistic doctor has been interfering, and convinced the inhabitants that he's a god -- teaching them some advanced technology (but he's not an engineer -- he got them up to the steam engine, not computers) and then imparting his moral codes on them. Not only was he violating the Prime Directive on non-interference, but his ideas were actually harming them: he preached monogamy, but their biology produces 3x women than men, and he convinced them to go vegetarian, which was not good for their health or their ecology.

But the aspect that's relevant to this discussion is the power struggle between a secular leader and a religious leader, and the effect on the society if Kirk just takes their "god" away from them (most likely a planetary civil war between the two factions). I'm only 2/3 through it, so I haven't seen how they're resolving it.