True evil is right under the surface of where you'd expect.
For instance, take the middle east-A guy pressing a button to launch missiles into a civilian area is not truly evil, Just showing off really. The evil one is the one that stands by and lets him push that button.
I have a feeling that I am going to be insulted because of this comment.
Good? Evil? Bah, humbug! (Or in the modern "censored" vernacular, bullgak!) It is just perspective.
Good view, btw.
How about the Two Commandments...
Do not dominate others against their will, whether through action, inaction, plan or intent.
Do not damage others against their will, whether through action, inaction, plan or intent.
Little lord Fauntleroy wrote:True evil is right under the surface of where you'd expect.
For instance, take the middle east-A guy pressing a button to launch missiles into a civilian area is not truly evil, Just showing off really. The evil one is the one that stands by and lets him push that button.
I have a feeling that I am going to be insulted because of this comment.
Evil is having grown men play with toy soldiers and having them get on line and bitch about how much they hate the prices and the company that makes them. GW is the Pusher man. We're all addicts. That is evil.
Evil is a social construct that polarizes a wide spectrum of acts into a single, easily recognized, though very poorly defined terminology. Just as good and bad can't really be defined without a uselessly large brush evil can't be defined. It differs by context, use, bias, and the experiences of the user in using it and the listener in deciphering its uses meaning.
Evil doesn't actually exist. Just things that can be considered evil depending on individual reasoning.
:edit: as an aside, Richard Dawkins is a tool of the highest magnitude.
:edit: as an aside, Richard Dawkins is a tool of the highest magnitude.
How so?
He is an accomplished and intelligent man who has taken it as his mission to tear down religion for no reason other than because he doesn't like it. He is the reactionary opposite of people like Fred Phelps, he's taken a broad base of belief, concentrated it, and now rather than discussing the virtues of his way of belief uses the media pulpit given to him to attack people on their belief system rather than attempt to enlighten them. The fact that he is so intelligent is what makes it so toolish. He knows what he is doing, he isn't doing it out of a sense of duty or code, he just does it because it's an easy target and it gets him the spotlight. Even within the interview Wrex posted he aggressively attacks the values people have with an urgency that he didn't sufficiently explain, yet when pressed with the issue of the feather (The feather is actually a poor example, the structure of the upper arm wing is much harder to explain) he simply dismisses the question in a very unscientific way by prodding at the competing belief system and claiming that it's wrong to expect an evolutionary scientist to be able to explain the individual methods by which it's examples function.
He has set himself up (in my opinion intentionally) as the go to guy for the hardcore or militant segment of the athiest population. As a scientist he should be the last person professing atheism, as by it's core tenets it's self conflicting. You can't test, observe, and measure the existence of a god or any sort of guiding force or design, but you can't test, observe, and measure it's absence either. That would be like a string theorist saying that a god can't exist when the spend their entire careers proving that it can.
You can't test, observe, and measure the existence of a god or any sort of guiding force or design, but you can't test, observe, and measure it's absence either.
Fair enough. My position on this differs slightly in that I don't believe in things because they can't be disproven - rather, I prefer to believe in that which IS proven (in as much as ANYTHING can be said to be 'proven' - but that's a whole 'nother thread! ). Not saying you're wrong, just that I disagree.
But yeah, I DO kind of agree that Prof. Dawkins has become something of a 'Professional Atheist'. But why not? there are evangelical christians, christian pro-lifers, radical muslim clerics/suicide bombers, the zionist movement - hell, acupuncture and chinese 'medicine' is even taught in some UK universities (although funding for these courses IS being slashed, thankfully).
Why should we Atheists not have a voice? And why should our representatives not be respected scientists (albeit with a slight penchant for celebrity... )? Some of us feel that our beliefs (or lack thereof... ) are under attack from various religious groups who hide behind 'tolerance' and 'equality' as an excuse to push their agenda. Some science teachers in UK schools are so afraid of being hung out to dry by their local authority that they feel they have to present evolution as being one of several alternatives, depending on the ethnic or religious makeup of their classes. If enough non-scriptural evidence for intelligent design/creationism was ever amassed, then and ONLY then should it be seen as a viable SCIENTIFIC (key word) alternative for evolution, as far as school teaching is concerned.
I for one am glad Atheism has a public voice. I wish there were more like him.
P.S. Dawkins appears on other (not specifically Atheism-driven) types of TV documentary in the UK - not sure if this is the case in the USA. He did a few things on Nature and Darwin here. I'd love to see him replace Sir David Attenbrough on the BBC's nature programming when the time comes for him to step down.
Fair enough. My position on this differs slightly in that I don't believe in things because they can't be disproven - rather, I prefer to believe in that which IS proven (in as much as ANYTHING can be said to be 'proven' - but that's a whole 'nother thread! ). Not saying you're wrong, just that I disagree.
But professing a disbelief of something that can't be disproved is an act of faith. Atheism is self conflicting and unscientific discipline and exists solely in reaction to the established presence of religion. Without something to tear down it fails as a doctrine.
But yeah, I DO kind of agree that Prof. Dawkins has become something of a 'Professional Atheist'. But why not? there are evangelical christians, christian pro-lifers, radical muslim clerics/suicide bombers, the zionist movement - hell, acupuncture and chinese 'medicine' is even taught in some UK universities (although funding for these courses IS being slashed, thankfully).
Heres an example. Acupuncture was not founded in science, however it does have a scientific foundation. The direct stimulation of nerve clusters with hot needles (The heating was mystical in basis, but it's effect is to clean the needles) directly releases natural painkillers and endorphins as well as a slew of other chemicals that have been shown repeatedly to aid with chronic pain based ailments. You can even apply the evolution argument to it, the act of Acupuncture releases a specific chemical set that acts both as anti inflammatory agent and a painkiller that is not region specific in the body (as in it dulls all pain). Acupuncture is very similar to insect and plant stings, and the use of both anti inflammation and painkilling chemicals in response to non lethal venom (as the vast majority of stinging animals are non lethal to humans) acts as an aid to recovery and coping. That was an evolutionary trait aiding us in dealing with the presence of small insects and plants who, due to our size, can't kill us, but can cause discomfort and swelling with their stings, acupuncture is a way of using these natural reactions as a method of painkilling, and it does it without requiring medication.
Athiesm is a religion of intolerance. It's blinding. It's effect is to bleach and polarize all things based in mysticism and to do it without rationale or study (how most professed atheists view acupuncture is one example). A perfectly rational being is agnostic as it acknowledges the chance of a god just as equally as the chance of ones lack, but does not profess belief in either extreme. For reference, simply given the tone of your response, you likely pegged me as some sort of religious or spiritual person. I'm actually a hardcore agnostic (Though thats not to say that I'm a perfectly rational being).
I for one am glad Atheism has a public voice. I wish there were more like him.
This perplexes me. He's a polarizing figure. As most christians wish Fred Phelps would disappear you should wish the same for him. He's an intellectual extremist that bleaches the discussion, and only reinforces the belief of theists that religion is under attack by atheists, and he does it by attacking them. You don't defeat something based in faith with an attack of this fashion.
Please take my post in the spirit in which it's meant - not trying to be condescending or insulting, so let's keep it friendly!
But professing a disbelief of something that can't be disproved is an act of faith.
No it isn't, it just means I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me otherwise. Faith doesn't enter into it. I don't have faith that there is no god - it's just that there is no evidence to suggest that there IS one, so that's my position on the matter. And Atheism isn't about directly denying the existence of god/s, either. That would be a positive action 'for' or 'against'. Atheism means "without theism" and refers to the absence or lack of theistic belief. That encompasses many viewpoints from agnostic (technically) to God-denying (I lean towards this, I suppose).
I am aware of the endorphin reaction associated with physical trauma. I also have a pretty decent knowledge of Acupuncture, due to the fact that my sister-in-law is a practitioner. I've even undergone it several times. The 'scientific foundation' you speak of is pretty much irrelevant, as that is not how acupuncture is taught. They do not teach the stimulation of nerve-clusters with hot needles - Acupuncture is supposedly about 'Qi manipulation'. What you described IS what actually happens (more or less), except they don't target nerve clusters (that could case serious damage) or use hot needles (although I'll bet that some practitioners might, granted) - but the endorphin part is true. But it's also true for dog-bites. I wouldn't reccommend them as a therapeutic treatment, though! In all seriousness though, that's just a lucky side-effect of Acupuncture in addition to the placebo effect. But no, they don't stick needles in you to release endorphins - at least, not intentionally.
Athiesm is a religion of intolerance. It's blinding. It's effect is to bleach and polarize all things based in mysticism and to do it without rationale or study
Well, that's because 'Mysticism' is not based on rationale and study - that's why many (if not all) Atheists, including myself, are opposed to it. Y'know, science makes some pretty outlandish claims - but it backs them up with evidence before presenting them as fact. Mysticism doesn't do that. I believe that there is an ultimate truth regarding everything, I don't believe in relative truth.
A perfectly rational being is agnostic as it acknowledges the chance of a god just as equally as the chance of ones lack, but does not profess belief in either extreme. For reference, simply given the tone of your response, you likely pegged me as some sort of religious or spiritual person. I'm actually a hardcore agnostic (Though thats not to say that I'm a perfectly rational being).
Nope, I knew you weren't religious, from some of the other threads. as for Agnosticism, here's a quote from your favourite Atheist:
Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to “teach the controversy”, and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.
Fashionably relativist intellectuals chime in to insist that there is no absolute truth: whether the Holocaust happened is a matter of personal belief; all points of view are equally valid and should be equally “respected”.
Is this you? Do you give equal time to both sides of the argument? Are you 'A-gnostic' or 'without knowledge'? Or does the weight of evidence fall on one side? Do you find it impossible to choose between Creationism and Evolution? I find that hard to believe.
I don't see how anyone could believe in god/s without being indoctrinated - viewed objectively, there is absolutely zero reliable non-scriptural evidence for the existence of God. No one studying the evidence of the formation of the universe (or Multiverse?) would form that opinion independently, i.e. without already being aware of the concept of god/s.
You can define faith in different ways. For instance, it could be considered faith to believe that when you sit on a chair it won't collapse and make you look like an idiot. Now, there's a good reason to have faith in this result; you probably don't know for sure that the chair you're sitting in is structurally sound, but they almost always are. And if the chair looks structurally unsound, you may discard your faith in it's strength.
This type of faith could be considered different from religious faith though, as it's based on believing what ever is most probable to be true, rather than believing something to be true because you think having faith in it is a virtue, or something along those lines.
This type of faith could be considered different from religious faith though, as it's based on believing what ever is most probable to be true, rather than believing something to be true because you think having faith in it is a virtue, or something along those lines.
Just agreeing with you.
I believe that 'faith' and 'Faith' are two different things. I think the first is closer to 'belief', maybe.
Ah, I thought you were doing some sort of sarcastic valley girl impression.
Yeah, I've never really understood the concept of that sort of religious faith; it seemed like you could justify faith in anything, no matter how absurd, by saying that faith without reason was a good thing.
ShumaGorath wrote:Athiesm is a religion of intolerance.
That's a bit much. There's nothing inherently intolerant in saying 'I personally do not believe there is a God'. It's certainly no more intolerant than believing there is a God. Now, I'd agree that the atheism that Dawkins argues for is intolerant, and point out that's exactly why I don't like him - he reflects poorly on the rest of us.
Albatross wrote:I DO kind of agree that Prof. Dawkins has become something of a 'Professional Atheist'. But why not? there are evangelical christians, christian pro-lifers, radical muslim clerics/suicide bombers, the zionist movement
Because, when you're attempting to put forth a case for the foolishness inherent in dogmatic proselytism its best to avoid those methods in making your case.
Albatross wrote:
Why should we Atheists not have a voice?
Because atheism isn't a discreet set of beliefs. As soon as it becomes one it becomes a religion. Since, as far as I'm aware, many atheists enjoy openly criticizing religion it seems horrible off base to actively create one in doing so.
Albatross wrote:
I believe that there is an ultimate truth regarding everything, I don't believe in relative truth.
So you're a mystic?
Albatross wrote:
Is this you? Do you give equal time to both sides of the argument? Are you 'A-gnostic' or 'without knowledge'?
Agnosticism only makes a comment on the truth value of metaphysical claims.
Albatross wrote:
Do you find it impossible to choose between Creationism and Evolution?
That question has nothing to do with the question of God's existence. Are you arguing that creationism is invalid, or that God does not exist?
Albatross wrote:
No one studying the evidence of the formation of the universe (or Multiverse?) would form that opinion independently, i.e. without already being aware of the concept of god/s.
The same can be said of the concept of the universe, or multiverse.
No it isn't, it just means I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me otherwise. Faith doesn't enter into it. I don't have faith that there is no god - it's just that there is no evidence to suggest that there IS one, so that's my position on the matter. And Atheism isn't about directly denying the existence of god/s, either. That would be a positive action 'for' or 'against'. Atheism means "without theism" and refers to the absence or lack of theistic belief. That encompasses many viewpoints from agnostic (technically) to God-denying (I lean towards this, I suppose).
The lack of structural evidence for something isn't a proof of it's non existence. Take dark energy for instance, while it has it's detractors and its proponents it's not based in a causal or observable relationship. Dark energy is a theory used to back incomplete sciences and not fully understood measurements, yet it is supported by many well learned physicists today. Physicists have created what amounts to a deity of space, holding it all together because their calculations don't make sense. If science can do this, then it boggles the mind that a scientist can vehemently and aggressively deny the existence of any sort of guiding force in nature or the universe. It's equally untestable, equally fluid and dynamic, and equally used to fill in gaps in knowledge. The only difference is one has a bearded face, the other is something out of a 50's sci fi film.
As for the meaning of atheist..
a⋅the⋅ist [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist
Synonyms:
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
It's not all encompassing.
I am aware of the endorphin reaction associated with physical trauma. I also have a pretty decent knowledge of Acupuncture, due to the fact that my sister-in-law is a practitioner. I've even undergone it several times. The 'scientific foundation' you speak of is pretty much irrelevant, as that is not how acupuncture is taught. They do not teach the stimulation of nerve-clusters with hot needles - Acupuncture is supposedly about 'Qi manipulation'. What you described IS what actually happens (more or less), except they don't target nerve clusters (that could case serious damage) or use hot needles (although I'll bet that some practitioners might, granted) - but the endorphin part is true. But it's also true for dog-bites. I wouldn't reccommend them as a therapeutic treatment, though! In all seriousness though, that's just a lucky side-effect of Acupuncture in addition to the placebo effect. But no, they don't stick needles in you to release endorphins - at least, not intentionally.
The scientific foundation of a practice is not irrelevant, and the cause of a mystical tradition does not carry weight four thousand years later. Acupuncture works better than the placebo effect, it's documented repeatedly, it does that by both having a placebo effect (Just like every medication does, the placebo effect is one of assumed wellbeing, it doesn't stop happening when the medication is real) and a real effect of triggered chemical reaction to a faux injury. The historical intention of the practice is irrelevant. It's use for thousands of years has been to relieve chronic pains, it does this demonstrably better than the placebo effect, just as it always has. If being bitten by a dog had no ill effects and could cure chronic pains then it would be just as valuable of a practice. As it is acupuncture is a cheap and often times effective alternative to what can be incredibly expensive medical treatments for certain forms of pain. If your school only teaches the mystical traditions then you're school needs a better curriculum. It doesn't mean the practice exists in a vacuum and totally without merit.
Well, that's because 'Mysticism' is not based on rationale and study - that's why many (if not all) Atheists, including myself, are opposed to it. Y'know, science makes some pretty outlandish claims - but it backs them up with evidence before presenting them as fact. Mysticism doesn't do that. I believe that there is an ultimate truth regarding everything, I don't believe in relative truth.
Yet the dismissal of mystical practices simply because they are such is both ignorant and unscientific. Your attacking the practices for their foundation while often times ignoring the reality. Through the effects of meditation and training Buddhist monks are capable of a good number of feats theoretically impossible without medical intervention. The direct control of body heat, heartrate, and the senses are still blank spots in scientific study. These practices are not mystical, they are simple expressions of the mind controlling its body, but an outright dismissal of the practice as silly mysticism denies the possibility of scientific study in the causal relationship and further denies any chance of the practice (a practice with many obvious benefits) from continuing. All traditions are founded in something. That founding has little bearing on the tradition itself however, and an objective and rationed review of the practice is what is and will always be required to determine its worth. Not simple dismissal.
Is this you? Do you give equal time to both sides of the argument? Are you 'A-gnostic' or 'without knowledge'? Or does the weight of evidence fall on one side? Do you find it impossible to choose between Creationism and Evolution? I find that hard to believe.
If you had read any of my previous posts I think you would know that I'm more than happy to call a spade a spade, I've been banned from this forum three times because of it. Aggressive atheists are by in large toolish psuedo-intellectuals looking to flaunt their superiority by picking on an easy target, our favorite celebrity happy scientists is one such example. On the reverse aggressive theists are largely sheepish tools that adhere too strongly to a writ of conduct. I am an agnostic because you can't know the unknowable. I think rationally. Thats a goal, not a crux. I don't give equal time to all sides, but equal time doesn't mean outright dismissal. I do my best to learn all sides because it serves me, my agenda, and my future to know my enemy. I suppose that doesn't suit you however. Do I want creationism taught in schools? Hell no. Creationism is ridiculous. That doesn't mean I want Dick Dawkins running around riling up theists so I have to hear them moan about being under attack just so he can sell a few more books.
I don't see how anyone could believe in god/s without being indoctrinated - viewed objectively, there is absolutely zero reliable non-scriptural evidence for the existence of God. No one studying the evidence of the formation of the universe (or Multiverse?) would form that opinion independently, i.e. without already being aware of the concept of god/s.
Under string/brane theory/CI theory/etc theory the concept of a deity is not only plausible, it's actually pretty likely. The nature of that deity and whether it has any effect upon us here is as with the core of the debate, untestable as we currently understand and practice science. However given the mathematics behind the concept of infinity it's assumably mathematically impossible that an omnipotent and omnipresent being does not exist in one shape or another somewhere beyond our existence. The mathematics behind twelfth dimensional hyperspace are pretty difficult, but the concepts are not. They are the same concepts that run through every parallel dimension theory, and they are at the moment the only rational explanations behind the big bang and the creation of this universe. Did a god create the universe? Who the hell knows. Do you know what did? No. As soon as your guess becomes better than a theists than go ahead and flaunt it. Right now it's not, and by refusing the idea all you're doing is claiming false proof of a negative, which is very unscientific.
ShumaGorath wrote:The lack of structural evidence for something isn't a proof of it's non existence. Take dark energy for instance, while it has it's detractors and its proponents it's not based in a causal or observable relationship. Dark energy is a theory used to back incomplete sciences and not fully understood measurements, yet it is supported by many well learned physicists today. Physicists have created what amounts to a deity of space, holding it all together because their calculations don't make sense. If science can do this, then it boggles the mind that a scientist can vehemently and aggressively deny the existence of any sort of guiding force in nature or the universe. It's equally untestable, equally fluid and dynamic, and equally used to fill in gaps in knowledge. The only difference is one has a bearded face, the other is something out of a 50's sci fi film.
That line of arguing doesn’t do science or religion any favours.
Dark matter is a concept produced as a possible explanation for why observed phenomena don’t match up with current models. The theory will be tested when technology and funding allows, and eventually some modified version of it will be accepted, or possibly the whole thing will be rejected. That’s how science works. It’s how it worked for black holes, which were originally theorised when people took the maths of relativity to its logical conclusions, after which they devised tests to look for black holes and find out if the theory’s conclusions held up. But the big issue is that while it isn’t currently established, it will be tested. There will always be untested theories in science, because forming new concepts to explain observations and then testing those new concepts is how science progresses.
Religion, being a wholly different thing, has a completely different set of standards. In religion there’s no requirement to test against observable phenomena (if it can be observed as part of the physical world it isn’t supernatural by definition). Instead religion holds to personal truths and to faith.
In this way religion has exactly nothing to do with science. They are not in competition, instead they are entirely unrelated. One looks to explain the material world, and the other looks to describe what is beyond it.
Atheism is like religion in this sense, as it is looking to answer a question about what is beyond the observable, material world, albeit instead of answering ‘God’, it answers with ‘nothing’ . And it is testable by personal faith, just like any other religion.
Evil is willingly being a drain upon your friends and loved ones, sucking them dry for every ounce of compassion, love, and faithfulness they have--and then dropping them like a candy wrapper when they can't muster up sympathy even once for your so-called tragic day (Oh what a horrible thing! Your cat chewed on your shoe and made a scratch?! My god. It's worse than the Holocaust sweetie!).
Not really a fan of the word evil. It's tossed around far too much by the media and absolves us of having to understand how the "evil" person got to that point in the first place.
That said, some things really can't be excused. Don't really want to talk about it, but certain internet videos of executions by middle eastern terrorists spring to mind.
sebster wrote:
Atheism is like religion in this sense, as it is looking to answer a question about what is beyond the observable, material world, albeit instead of answering ‘God’, it answers with ‘nothing’ . And it is testable by personal faith, just like any other religion.
Not to be pedant (well, maybe a small one), but atheism doesn't really answer that question with 'nothing' (materialism does that). It answers with 'not God'.
Apart from that... well, this one could run and run. It seems to be turning into a Religion thread - my fault, probably! I'll continue to read this thread, but I honestly couldn't say what 'evil' is definitively - I guess it's relative - so if anyone cares to talk religion, PM me or let's start another thread and sort this out once and for all .
Kanluwen wrote:Evil is willingly being a drain upon your friends and loved ones, sucking them dry for every ounce of compassion, love, and faithfulness they have--and then dropping them like a candy wrapper when they can't muster up sympathy even once for your so-called tragic day (Oh what a horrible thing! Your cat chewed on your shoe and made a scratch?! My god. It's worse than the Holocaust sweetie!).
Nope. Not bitter at all about something.
Perhaps we should direct you to the Monster Cats thread?
War of all sorts involves 'evils' - whether its conducted in line with the various conventions, or terrorism (which is still war, just not restricted to the military). Some acts are more 'evil' than others - blowing up civilians as opposed to targeting military bases, torturing people for information. All of these 'evil' acts are done for a reason (that the perpetrator considers is a good reason).
But in my personal view, true evil is the malicous inflicting of pain on another for your own pleasure. At its simplest its teasing the kid with the birthmark at school, at its darkest its kidnapping and abusing a girl in your basement for 18 years.
Kanluwen wrote:Evil is willingly being a drain upon your friends and loved ones, sucking them dry for every ounce of compassion, love, and faithfulness they have--and then dropping them like a candy wrapper when they can't muster up sympathy even once for your so-called tragic day (Oh what a horrible thing! Your cat chewed on your shoe and made a scratch?! My god. It's worse than the Holocaust sweetie!).
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:According to Francisco d' Aconia, evil is a man without purpose. Rand liked her characters to be obsessed with work though.
I deny this definition completely.
Pol Pot had a purpose.
The H guy had a purpose.
Stalin had a purpose.
Barney the Dinosaur has a purpose. It is a dark one...
Holy gak, it looks like I missed this thread... Better late than never. To me, evil is just a word that was created to judge others. Every person and culture has their own definition.
sebster wrote:In this way religion has exactly nothing to do with science. They are not in competition, instead they are entirely unrelated. One looks to explain the material world, and the other looks to describe what is beyond it.
I politely disagree. Why can't they both be connected? I have always thought that magic (any extraordinary or mystical influence, charm, power, etc.) is just something science hasn't explained yet. I see it as duality, you can't have one without each other, just like how you can't have light without darkness. It is not "either one, or the other." Light and darkness mix to create gray, most people think this gray area is taboo, that it is a bad thing. I think that if people can accept the fact that the answer could be gray, people could walk hand in hand with clear minds. Thoughts would be harmonious like the rhythm or wind chimes...
Ayn Rand believed the only good human being is a completely selfish human being. She then set forth to open the world's eyes, sharing her knowledge with them. In the process, she became everything she fought against; someone trying to help the unwashed masses.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Nobody in their right mind would question your right to burn a thousand furries; those who understand know you have no right to let them live.
Evil is complicated. Most people want to do away with evil, but without evil, there is no reason for good to exist.
The concepts of 'good' and 'evil' exist entirely to balance the other out. Trying to do away with evil is like trying to do away with the burning of furries.
I don't think it is possible to simply sum up evil, other than saying that evil is based on perspective.
To some, abortion may be evil. To others, it may not. This is why I hate when someone tells someone else that they are 'evil' or 'immoral'. Everything is about perspective.
OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote: This is why I hate when someone tells someone else that they are 'evil' or 'immoral'. Everything is about perspective.
Then why is it problematic to tell another person that they are evil, or immoral? In making such a statement the speaker is simply claiming that the target is evil, or immoral, according to his own standards. Whether or not the target, or anyone else really, chooses to concern himself with that fact is another matter altogether.
tblock1984 wrote:I politely disagree. Why can't they both be connected? I have always thought that magic (any extraordinary or mystical influence, charm, power, etc.) is just something science hasn't explained yet.
If it’s just something science hasn’t explained yet then it isn’t religion. Religion deals with the supernatural, whatever is beyond the natural, observable world. As soon as something becomes a subject science can describe, explain and account for it isn’t religion any more, it’s science.
But science can only explain the observable, material world. No matter how much science expands and improves, it will never be capable of looking past the material world.
I see it as duality, you can't have one without each other, just like how you can't have light without darkness. It is not "either one, or the other."
The point is that you can have one, neither or both. Just like I can be a fan of horse racing and also a fan of beer.
If it’s just something science hasn’t explained yet then it isn’t religion. Religion deals with the supernatural, whatever is beyond the natural, observable world. As soon as something becomes a subject science can describe, explain and account for it isn’t religion any more, it’s science.
But science can only explain the observable, material world. No matter how much science expands and improves, it will never be capable of looking past the material world.
Define the material world, mathematics don't exist physically, yet are the foundationary base of all sciences. Most multiverse theorists deal with things that can not yet be tested, and can quite possibly never be so, yet are often times well respected mathematicians and astrophysicists.
I don't understand the thought that a god could not be explained scientifically with enough advancement in how we observe our universe.
The point is that you can have one, neither or both. Just like I can be a fan of horse racing and also a fan of beer.
I think we need to separate acknowledgment of possibility and acknowledgment of acceptance. A scientist could and should be able to acknowledge the possibility of a god, even without personally accepting it as either likely or particularly plausible. Skepticism and disbelief can do good, but thats not Atheism, Atheism is irrational and reactionary denial.
That's not true; it's perfectly possible to be an atheist who acknowledges the possibility of a god without personally accepting it as either likely or particularly plausible.
It's what's usually called "weak atheism", and is probably the most common kind. Most weak atheists are agnostics as well.
sebster wrote:Religion deals with the supernatural, whatever is beyond the natural, observable world. As soon as something becomes a subject science can describe, explain and account for it isn’t religion any more, it’s science.
Very true.
But science can only explain the observable, material world. No matter how much science expands and improves, it will never be capable of looking past the material world.
Also very true.
The thing I am getting at is this: Science and Religion are words that humans created to label things. Just like good and evil. Maybe, bare with me please, they are all different extremes of the same concept. They both deal with understanding things we don't understand...
A caterpillar doesn't understand our meaning of metamorphosis. It just goes along doing its thing, and then one day it is a butterfly. It has no concept of caterpillar, or butterfly. It only knows "I am"... YMMV
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Skepticism and disbelief can do good, but thats not Atheism, Atheism is irrational and reactionary denial.
A word about blanket statements:
It's an all-encompassing statement, that is not strictly true. For example: 'Everyone likes ice-cream'.
In this example, although a lot of people like ice-cream, there is always a chance that some people do not.
Another example would be to say, "Everyone hates her". If the person is not very nice, this may be partly true, but maybe her Mum still loves her!
*IF* there is an invisible sky wizard who loves all his special unique snowflakes of unique specialness (+1/+3versus werewolves) that's fine and dandy.
Mathematics can describe how things happen far better than 'a wizard did it'. Math can be checked, confirmed, proven and disproven by people who aren't wizards. The rest of us mere mortals have to be satisfied with a salesman who swears a self-referential book is true...or math.
I'm pretty certain nobody has gone to war for the 'one true math'. Nobody has been burned as an abomination in the eyes of the math. Medicine isn't (maybe) a sin in the eyes of math . Crazed mathmeticians don't insist the world is young, or dinosaurs are a trick or 2+2=5 (excepting for very large values of 2 thus requiring wizards)
However: If believing in the sky wizard(s) of your choice makes you happy, please feel free to observe the same possibility that you're wrong you expect out of Athesists.
Evil can encompass many things. What springs first to my mind is the tearing down of someone else in whatever form, be it robbery, murder, slander, etc. for whatever gratification it gives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oldgrue wrote:I'm pretty certain nobody has gone to war for the 'one true math'. Nobody has been burned as an abomination in the eyes of the math. Medicine isn't (maybe) a sin in the eyes of math . Crazed mathmeticians don't insist the world is young, or dinosaurs are a trick or 2+2=5 (excepting for very large values of 2 thus requiring wizards)
Math and science have also given us nuclear and biological weapons, capable of eliminationg all life on the planet, among other insturments of death.
Orkeosaurus wrote:You, sir, are ignorant of Cubic Creation.
-1 * -1 = -1
Only when 1 is an imaginary value (see also the very large 2, and its respective wizard.)
-1 x -1= +1 is WRONG, it is academic stupidity and is evil. The educated stupid should acknowledge the natural antipodes of+1 x +1 = +1 and -1 x -1 = -1 exist as plus and minus values of opposite creation - depicted by opposite sexes and opposite hemispheres.
Entity is death worship - for it cancels opposites.
I see it more like a programmer than a wizard. A programmer that doesn't really like property strings, yet the code he is writing has property strings within property strings. As he troubleshoots the universe, he mumbles something about 42.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Define the material world, mathematics don't exist physically, yet are the foundationary base of all sciences.
The relationships described by mathematics exist physically, in much the same way that the cell described by the information which we collect on it exists physically.
I see it more like a programmer than a wizard. A programmer that doesn't really like property strings, yet the code he is writing has property strings within property strings.
As he troubleshoots the universe, he mumbles something about 42.
Math and science have also given us nuclear and biological weapons, capable of eliminationg all life on the planet, among other insturments of death.
QFT. And while people have gone to war over religeon, we have also gone to war over polotics. Moreso than religeon. Polotics? Polotics??? We're dying for this guy-? And other like him? It sounds just as ridiculous as dying for what you might actually believe in.
ShumaGorath wrote:Define the material world, mathematics don't exist physically, yet are the foundationary base of all sciences.
Mathematics do exist physically. When you have three apples, and add two more you have five apples. This is an observable, repeatable thing and therefore a scientific thing.
We can't observe and repeat 'God' or 'miracles' and so we call them something entirely different. We call them religion, and we accept religion as an entirely legitimate school of study, but one entirely separate to science.
Most multiverse theorists deal with things that can not yet be tested, and can quite possibly never be so, yet are often times well respected mathematicians and astrophysicists.
The idea there's something speculated in science and not yet proven therefore it's got some equivalency to religion is just wrong. Multiverses and other speculative physics theories have taken established scientific principles and expanded on them. At present these theories remain largely untested (due to current knowledge, technology and funding levels) but the the point is that we aim to test these ideas, and will not accept them until they've been properly examined.
On the other hand, religion doesn't aim to test null hypothesis. This is not a criticism of religion, it is simply not how religion works, because it has nothing to do with what religion aims to achieve.
I don't understand the thought that a god could not be explained scientifically with enough advancement in how we observe our universe.
A God that is explained and defined through science, the study of the material world, stops being outside of the material world, and stops being God.
I think we need to separate acknowledgment of possibility and acknowledgment of acceptance. A scientist could and should be able to acknowledge the possibility of a god, even without personally accepting it as either likely or particularly plausible.
Of course the scientist can believe in God, just as the devout can be a really good chemical biologist. The point is that science and religion are not in conflict, because they are simply different things.
Skepticism and disbelief can do good, but thats not Atheism, Atheism is irrational and reactionary denial.
Whereas that is quite dismissive on your part. Christians believe in God, and they are free to believe because it is their personal point of view, and they should never be required to say 'I believe in God but in order to be tolerant I should acknowledge that I’m wrong’.
An atheist is just holding to his own point of view, that there is no God. He is no more required to add personal disclaimers about how he might be wrong than the Christian is.
Orkeosaurus wrote:That's not true; it's perfectly possible to be an atheist who acknowledges the possibility of a god without personally accepting it as either likely or particularly plausible.
It's what's usually called "weak atheism", and is probably the most common kind. Most weak atheists are agnostics as well.
Except "Weak Atheism" is just a faux term used to distance ones self from the actual meaning of the word. "Weak atheists" are agnostics, they just want special treatment under the blanket terminology of Atheism because it affords them special bitching privilege for being persecuted by the religious. There is no such thing as "weak atheism".
a⋅the⋅ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Dictionary.com
Main Entry: athe·ism Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god Date: 1546 1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Websters.
The "strong" vs. "weak" distinction did not come into common usage until the early 1990s.[citation needed] The terms negative atheism and positive atheism were used by Antony Flew in 1972, although Jacques Maritain used the phrases in a similar, but strictly Catholic apologist, context as early as 1949.[2]
Wikipedia.
Weak atheism is agnosticism practiced by people too stupid to understand the foundations of their own beliefs.
A God that is explained and defined through science, the study of the material world, stops being outside of the material world, and stops being God.
Thats not necessarily true. Within the same context of string theory or simpler chaotic formation theories most scientific thought on the subject of multi dimensiality (sp?) posits that different realities have different physical laws that govern them. Given the religious concept as a god existing beyond natural law and the scientific concept of realities that exist and function beyond natural law I fail to see a particular difference in effect. As I had said before about mystical traditions, the foundations may not be scientific, nor may they be particularly sensical, but outright dismissal of them simply because of their nature (as is atheist practice) is both unscientific and foolish. The burden of science is in testing. What can not be tested can not be disproved (as nothing can ever be proven, all fact is simply yet to be disproven), thus rationally the right course of action is just to accept the possibility, but put effort and thought towards more reasonable courses of action, and just get on with your day. When you spend time arguing against the unknowable you stop acting rationally, the best argument in such a situation is the one not had at all.
To get back around to what started this whole conversation, this is specifically what makes Dawkins a tool. He has the argument, and instead of framing it in a context of kind scientific enlightenment he attacks people on their belief structures, which only strengthens the radical elements of his opposition. He's doing his job badly, and he's selling a lot of books doing it. He's a shill.
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
And in your own example you can see why I'm right.
Disbelief in the existence != the doctrine that there is no
Both are forms of atheism, only one makes a statement of absolute knowledge.
ShumaGorath wrote:I don't understand the thought that a god could not be explained scientifically with enough advancement in how we observe our universe.
A God that is explained and defined through science, the study of the material world, stops being outside of the material world, and stops being God.
Strictly speaking, there isn't any explicit need for God to be a metaphysical being. Sure, that's how we categorize him, but there's no reason we couldn't do away with that part of the definition or simply revisit the meaning of the word 'metaphysical'. A few philosophers working in materialist metaphysics have tried to do just that by essentially setting up the metaphysical as something which exists beyond unaided, human perception. Its an interesting idea, though obviously not a popular one (most materialists are materialists because they want to escape the problems of metaphysics).
Its also worth noting that proving the existence of God through scientific process doesn't necessarily cut off religious access to it. After all, most of human activity should be pretty easily categorized if we're simply looking at the nominal methods of behavioral description assigned to all other animals. However, the fact that said categorization is necessarily affect by the very behavioral patterns its attempting to describe there will always be a degree of unnecessary complication. We assign needless weight to the 'meaning' of our activity even though, from a scientific perspective, its really quite meaningless. Simply knowing what something is only serves to limit the number of acceptable meaning which can be attributed to it. Just look at the degree of romanticism applied to the universe by many (most?) physicists.
Main Entry: athe·ism Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god Date: 1546 1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
And in your own example you can see why I'm right.
Disbelief in the existence != the doctrine that there is no
Both are forms of atheism, only one makes a statement of absolute knowledge.
Not really. A doctrine is only a belief. One is simply "organized" and the other is not. Whether it's a handful or a bucket it's still just sand.
Origin: 1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist
Atheist is an old historical term, it's not A-theist it's atheos-ist. Which is where a lot of people seem to be getting mixed up. It was historically used to categorize those that denied the existence of the gods, not those who didn't care or weren't sure.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Weak atheism is agnosticism practiced by people too stupid to understand the foundations of their own beliefs.
Atheism and agnosticism do not have any necessary connection. One is a statement of belief, the other is a statement of knowledge.
A strong atheist believes there is no God, and may or may not believe that we can prove his non-existence. If he does not believe that proof can be put forward, then he is also an agnostic.
A weak atheist does not believe in God, and may or may not believe that we can prove his non-existence. If he does not believe that proof can be put forward, then he is also an agnostic.
You can also be a pure agnostic by rejecting the truth value of statements of belief with respect to the metaphysical, though you would also have to draw on logical positivism in order to account for the objection from emotion.
A weak atheist does not believe in God, and may or may not believe that we can prove his non-existence. If he does not believe that proof can be put forward, then he is also an agnostic.
Yeah. I typed and retyped a couple of responses to that, but I suppose that Agnostic itself is too specific a term to be the blanket term it could be. Though inventing "weak and strong" ahtheism rather than simply saying agnostic atheism seems to be more of a chosen mix of terms to give strength to the irreligious movements rather than any real attempt to actually expand and more accurately portray the way people believe (as is supported by the methods those terms were originally introduced).
I'll bow out of the semantics debate, you've got me pretty concisely there.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Atheist is an old historical term, it's not A-theist it's atheos-ist. Which is where a lot of people seem to be getting mixed up. It was historically used to categorize those that denied the existence of the gods, not those who didn't care or weren't sure.
Different words, and different languages. Atheos and Atheist have a common etymological root, but have no more in common in terms of meaning than gnosis and knowledge.
Also, historically there was no term for those who didn't care, or weren't sure. You either believed, or you didn't. Agnostic is a modern term.
ShumaGorath wrote:Not really. A doctrine is only a belief. One is simply "organized" and the other is not. Whether it's a handful or a bucket it's still just sand.
It's not just a matter of organization, they have different implications of strength.
A disbelief in the existence of a deity doesn't carry the same weight that a doctrine that there is no deity does. You can not believe in something without holding it as doctrine that it's not the case.
I'll quote the chair example I posted earlier:
You can define faith in different ways. For instance, it could be considered faith to believe that when you sit on a chair it won't collapse and make you look like an idiot. Now, there's a good reason to have faith in this result; you probably don't know for sure that the chair you're sitting in is structurally sound, but they almost always are. And if the chair looks structurally unsound, you may discard your faith in it's strength.
You believe that the chair will hold your weight, because otherwise you wouldn't sit down. You pick what seems like the most probable answer and base your decisions on it. As you said, science can only disprove theories; however while you may know there is no absolute proof of gravity, you still believe in it, because disbelieving in it seems less logical.
Origin:
1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist
Atheist is an old historical term, it's not A-theist it's atheos-ist. Which is where a lot of people seem to be getting mixed up. It was historically used to categorize those that denied the existence of the gods, not those who didn't care or weren't sure.
I'm not sure I see the relevance of this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ah man, is my post already obsolete?
I don't really personally accept the validity of the weak and strong atheist terminology, and it seems in large people take the word to mean without theism, which isn't what the term means. Earlier in the thread the argument of "without theism" was used, and the actual origin of the word was glossed over. You weren't really doing that though, so I can see how it would be irrelevant.
A disbelief in the existence of a deity doesn't carry the same weight that a doctrine that there is no deity does. You can not believe in something without holding it as doctrine that it's not the case.
And yet, the doctrine that god exists and the personal belief that god exists are both religious. A doctrine is intrinsically a belief, it may be stronger owing to organizational structure, but it's not separate. One is the macro to the others micro. Levels of belief do not come into what separates belief and doctrine.
–noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
ShumaGorath wrote:Given the religious concept as a god existing beyond natural law and the scientific concept of realities that exist and function beyond natural law I fail to see a particular difference in effect.
QFT!
As I had said before about mystical traditions, the foundations may not be scientific, nor may they be particularly sensical, but outright dismissal of them simply because of their nature (as is atheist practice) is both unscientific and foolish.
WTF?
Wiki wrote:Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity. In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe. Pantheism is the belief that the physical universe is equivalent to a God or Gods, and that there is no division between a Creator and the substance of its creation. Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
I do believe in a pan-dimensional entity (the programmer chap I was speaking of earlier) that didn't create the universe, but was created with it. I do believe that it created us, as well as everything else. I do not see it as an deity, but as an entity, equal to you and me. I do not worship it. I live in it, it is all encompassing (like the Force). Pan means "entire", and I think that everything is one. Much like Saivism. But I don't see pan as a god or deity, I do not worship it, therefore, I am Atheist.
ShumaGorath wrote: Atheist is an old historical term, it's not A-theist it's atheos-ist. Which is where a lot of people seem to be getting mixed up. It was historically used to categorize those that denied the existence of the gods, not those who didn't care or weren't sure.
Different words, and different languages. Atheos and Atheist have a common etymological root, but have no more in common in terms of meaning than gnosis and knowledge.
Also, historically there was no term for those who didn't care, or weren't sure. You either believed, or you didn't. Agnostic is a modern term.
Actually I believe heretic covered didn't care and isn't sure, though it's also a value judgement by popular use.
But I don't see pan as a god or deity, I do not worship it, therefore, I am Atheist.
Does it make you an atheist when you acknowledge the existence of a guiding force but argue against it's place as a god or deity? That really comes down to the terminology of a god, as such a being would most certainly be more powerful than anything out of most polytheistic religions. It's important too separate the idea of a god and the Abrahamal god, though then thats another entirely different discussion to be had. I'm honestly not sure if you would qualify as an atheist or not.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Though inventing "weak and strong" ahtheism rather than simply saying agnostic atheism seems to be more of a chosen mix of terms to give strength to the irreligious movements rather than any real attempt to actually expand and more accurately portray the way people believe (as is supported by the methods those terms were originally introduced).
You actually pretty well hit the nail on the head. The whole weak/strong divide was originally an attempt to force a yes or no response to the God question. However, its been clarified over time, and also had several holes poked in it. The most obvious one being the aforementioned rejection from agnosticism.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually I believe heretic covered didn't care and isn't sure, though it's also a value judgement by popular use.
A heretic is one who proposes to deviate from established dogma, while maintaining general adherence to the faith in question.
Pagan carried some of the same connotations as agnostic, but no longer has the same weight.
The idea of pleading ignorance with respect to God, especially in ancient world, would have been tantamount to pleading general ignorance (Socrates), as there was no real separation between knowledge of the physical and knowledge of the metaphysical. One lead organically into the other.
ShumaGorath wrote:And yet, the doctrine that god exists and the personal belief that god exists are both religious. A doctrine is intrinsically a belief, it may be stronger owing to organizational structure, but it's not separate. One is the macro to the others micro. Levels of belief do not come into what separates belief and doctrine.
I'm arguing about the organization of the sentence as much as I am the words used.
"Disbelief in" and "the belief that there is no" still have different connotations, even if the sentences should mean the same thing.
Let's say you ask me "was John at the party?" I could respond with "I don't believe he was" and "no, he was not". The first one is allowing for error, the second is not. No matter what I say, the statement is my belief, but one assures that reality matches what I think, and one doesn't.
tblock1984 wrote:But I don't see pan as a god or deity, I do not worship it, therefore, I am Atheist.
Does it make you an atheist when you acknowledge the existence of a guiding force but argue against it's place as a god or deity? That really comes down to the terminology of a god, as such a being would most certainly be more powerful than anything out of most polytheistic religions. It's important too separate the idea of a god and the Abrahamal god, though then thats another entirely different discussion to be had. I'm honestly not sure if you would qualify as an atheist or not.
That is my personal opinion that you are applying your own labels too... Just saying. I don't think it is not a god, or God, for that matter. To me a god usually comes with doctrine and worship. Pan gives me no doctrine. I do not worship it.
Therefore, I don't see it as a god. I would lean toward pantheist (the origin of my word "pan") but I feel it is inaccurate.
I would need more time to explain my thought of pan being a cloud entity, and we are all water droplets, being the same yet individual, but it is almost midnight.
Goodnight Dakka Off Topic, you silly and enlightening place...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Any thoughts on the chair analogy I mentioned?
Yes, but like I said, I am going to bed... Maybe tomorrow.
tblock1984 wrote:I would need more time to explain my thought of pan being a cloud entity, and we are all water droplets, being the same yet individual, but it is almost midnight.
ShumaGorath wrote:Thats not necessarily true. Within the same context of string theory or simpler chaotic formation theories most scientific thought on the subject of multi dimensiality (sp?) posits that different realities have different physical laws that govern them. Given the religious concept as a god existing beyond natural law and the scientific concept of realities that exist and function beyond natural law I fail to see a particular difference in effect.
The point is really very simple. Once you reach a point where an entity’s powers can be defined by science, where the source of those powers can be defined by science, and where the decision making of that entity can be defined by science, then what is it you’re worshipping?
The burden of science is in testing. What can not be tested can not be disproved (as nothing can ever be proven, all fact is simply yet to be disproven), thus rationally the right course of action is just to accept the possibility, but put effort and thought towards more reasonable courses of action, and just get on with your day. When you spend time arguing against the unknowable you stop acting rationally, the best argument in such a situation is the one not had at all.
Yes, and it’s wrong for an atheist to claim there’s any scientific evidence over the existence of God. But that’s nothing to do with what I’m saying.
To get back around to what started this whole conversation, this is specifically what makes Dawkins a tool. He has the argument, and instead of framing it in a context of kind scientific enlightenment he attacks people on their belief structures, which only strengthens the radical elements of his opposition. He's doing his job badly, and he's selling a lot of books doing it. He's a shill.
Yeah, Dawkins is obnoxious, but it is important to understand exactly why. He is not obnoxious for forming an opinion that there is no God, that’s his own private opinion, formed from his own worldview and he’s just as entitled to it as any religious person is to believe there is a God. Dawkins is obnoxious because he dismisses the other side, then directly attacks them and their beliefs.
There is a very, very big difference between saying ‘I believe there is no God’ and saying ‘You’re wrong for believing in God’. The former is a statement about one’s own beliefs, and is no different to saying “I believe there is a God’. The latter is an attack on the opposition, and it is that attack that is obnoxious, not the underlying belief.
You comment earlier, that atheists were wrong for believing there is no God, drifted a lot closer to Dawkins’ approach.
dogma wrote:Strictly speaking, there isn't any explicit need for God to be a metaphysical being. Sure, that's how we categorize him, but there's no reason we couldn't do away with that part of the definition or simply revisit the meaning of the word 'metaphysical'. A few philosophers working in materialist metaphysics have tried to do just that by essentially setting up the metaphysical as something which exists beyond unaided, human perception. Its an interesting idea, though obviously not a popular one (most materialists are materialists because they want to escape the problems of metaphysics).
Sure, but they’re still putting God into the unknowable, just creating a fun little game to keep him material but unknowable.
Point is, if God can be scientifically known, that is observed, and predicted in repeatable experiments (with a desperation factor >.8 and a devout factor >.9 God is 75% likely to answer prayer, this is because the kewbit levels in God's forebrain are stimulated by the chemicals produced by devotional thought) then what exactly is there to worship?
sebster wrote:
Sure, but they’re still putting God into the unknowable, just creating a fun little game to keep him material but unknowable.
Not the unknowable. By rendering God down into physical principles they are simply saying that we can't possess knowledge of him without fantastic inventions like particle accelerators, radio telescopes, etc.
Its a scale game. As analogy: I know my hand is made up of atoms, but I don't directly 'sense' the atoms anymore than I 'sense' Zeus. The fact that the atomic model has predictive power simply constrains the number of potential romantic 'senses' I can generate.
If someone were to prove that 'God' was in fact as cosmological force the way in which I 'sense' him would be constrained in the same way in which I 'sense' the atom.
sebster wrote:
Point is, if God can be scientifically known, that is observed, and predicted in repeatable experiments (with a desperation factor >.8 and a devout factor >.9 God is 75% likely to answer prayer, this is because the kewbit levels in God's forebrain are stimulated by the chemicals produced by devotional thought) then what exactly is there to worship?
We know that space contains stars, planets, moons, quasars, and many other celestial objects. We know what most of these things are, and even how some of them are formed. But people still look at the sky on a starry night and derive inspiration from the view, even (especially?) people who work on cosmological physics every day. Knowledge of a thing does not eliminate the wonder, or majesty of it. If it did none of the world's theologians would be theists.
OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote: This is why I hate when someone tells someone else that they are 'evil' or 'immoral'. Everything is about perspective.
Then why is it problematic to tell another person that they are evil, or immoral? In making such a statement the speaker is simply claiming that the target is evil, or immoral, according to his own standards. Whether or not the target, or anyone else really, chooses to concern himself with that fact is another matter altogether.
Yes, that's true. However, most people do choose to concern themselves with it. I mean, if everyone could ignore what the other idiot said, there'd be no more wars or fighting. We'd live in a world that would be safe, but boring.
Back to my train of thought. If I were to call you evil for your religion or lack thereof, could you honestly and truly ignore it? If you can, then you are a much stronger-willed person than I.
OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:Back to my train of thought. If I were to call you evil for your religion or lack thereof, could you honestly and truly ignore it? If you can, then you are a much stronger-willed person than I.
I sincerely have better things to be offended about.
Do you want me to list them? No, of course not. Eat a banana, wear a funny hat, and make sure you use your eyes to do the talking... because you are busy eating a goddam banana.
If I were to call you evil for your religion or lack thereof, could you honestly and truly ignore it? If you can, then you are a much stronger-willed person than I.
Yep. I guess so. I'm secure enough in my beliefs (or lack thereof) not to be offended. I'll happily discuss opposing points of view and keep an open mind to different possibilities. What DOES offend me is when people insult my intelligence by using spurious logic or outright falsehood when attempting to put their point across. Unfortunately, I encounter this fairly often when discussing religion with the religious.
I'm with Wrexasaur on this one. Those of us in America have been the Great Satan to certain extreme Muslims for years. The only time I ever lost sleep over it was when they were actively trying to blow us up. I'm evil, or at least not good, by the definitions of two religions I've previously been a part of. Darwin was evil in the eyes of many, Martin Luther was evil in the eyes of many, and Jesus was crucified because the Romans regarded him as evil.
Evil is the antithesis of good. Neither of these terms are easy, or possible, to define to everyone's satisfaction. Someone simply calling you evil is just wasting their breath. I have found folks who are on the opposite side of the spectrum of belief from me. I think they're wrong, and don't associate with them, but I don't call them evil.
I realize that comes across as overly relativistic. Personally, I think certain actions can be classified as evil, depending on the motivation. I would only call someone who habitually did evil actions evil.
The Romans didn't execute Jesus because they thought he was 'evil' per se, more that as the leader of a rebellious faction of Roman subjects, he was more of an inconvenience. Plus, the Romans where pressured into it by the the elite Jewish High Priesthood (IIRC).
Albatross wrote:The Romans didn't execute Jesus because they thought he was 'evil' per se, more that as the leader of a rebellious faction of Roman subjects, he was more of an inconvenience. Plus, the Romans where pressured into it by the the elite Jewish High Priesthood (IIRC).
That's right! That'll teach me to post before I have my tea in the morning. Oh well, perhaps it was the Jews who viewed him as evil, but someone certainly did. My point was that the best humans to have ever lived were seen as evil by some in their own times.
I don't think they saw him as "evil" as such, it's just the Jewish faith was... is.. waiting for their messiah : David's heir who is going to be a fierce warrior who will destroy and drive away their enemies and etc etc.
More or less anyway, obviously it's a little more complicated than that but...
we've been sweetness and light (for Dakka) so far people, let's keep it that way please.
The point is really very simple. Once you reach a point where an entity’s powers can be defined by science, where the source of those powers can be defined by science, and where the decision making of that entity can be defined by science, then what is it you’re worshipping?
Well, depending on what we found scientifically, an inter-dimensional nigh omnipotent, omnipresent, entity who exists in a fashion and place that functions beyond understandable natural laws. Not so strange a thing to worship a a god as it fits most every framework aside from the moral one (which was always the least stable anyway). I suspect if you by some wonder of superscience "proved" the existence of that kind of entity a large portion of the religious community would just say "We knew that already".
The documentary maker is kind of annoying me. He gets too RAH RAH CHAVEZ!, which is kind of a shame since I do think the Chavez supporters are making a decent case without his help.
I would like to see his opposition get some of the same treatment.
EDIT: Also, I'm not sure why Venezuala wouldn't be as Western as the US.
Venezuela is having water rationing because their government controlled economy is so craptacular. They've closed down all the media except for one station at last report. They've seized everything and run it into the ground. The whole country is like a great big bag of Fail.
OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:
Yes, that's true. However, most people do choose to concern themselves with it. I mean, if everyone could ignore what the other idiot said, there'd be no more wars or fighting. We'd live in a world that would be safe, but boring.
Back to my train of thought. If I were to call you evil for your religion or lack thereof, could you honestly and truly ignore it? If you can, then you are a much stronger-willed person than I.
On the internet? Probably not.
In real life? I've been called worse. Assuming this were in the course of a conversation, and you weren't simply the crazy guy wearing the sandwich board while handing out bibles, I'd probably laugh or ask you why you felt my lack of religion made me evil; depending on my mood.
I'm a pretty jaded guy. There isn't a whole lot that really gets to me.
Frazzled wrote:Venezuela is having water rationing because their government controlled economy is so craptacular. They've closed down all the media except for one station at last report. They've seized everything and run it into the ground. The whole country is like a great big bag of Fail.
To be fair, the efforts of development economics produced results which weren't any better. The nation has many problems, not the least of which are foreign interference in the political apparatus.
Cheese Elemental wrote:I just want people to stop arguing and let each other have their beliefs...
Just sayin'.
QFT
Seriously, if I say I am an atheist, then I am an atheist... End of story. Enough of the Wiki Wars about definitions... (I am not saying that because of this thread per se, just a generalization) I just finished attempting to explain this in a PM. Please don't argue and say I am wrong. That is what I believe, saying I am wrong is invalidating my ideals. But, at the same time, I don't want to invalidate yours...
I have a question, Dakka OT: To what extent should you try to protect your right to free speech? Is it OK to say whatever you want? When is it OK to not respect a person's ideals because you are trying to prove a point? I think everyone is entitled the right to think for themselves. But, does this mean it is OK to do and say whatever you want, regardless of how it can affect another? I don't think so.
Frazzled wrote:Venezuela is having water rationing because their government controlled economy is so craptacular. They've closed down all the media except for one station at last report. They've seized everything and run it into the ground. The whole country is like a great big bag of Fail.
tblock1984 wrote:To what extent should you try to protect your right to free speech? Is it OK to say whatever you want? When is it OK to not respect a person's ideals because you are trying to prove a point?
I think everyone is entitled the right to think for themselves. But, does this mean it is OK to do and say whatever you want, regardless of how it can affect another? I don't think so.
Thoughts?
Depends. Are we talking about what you have a right to do, in the sense that other people cannot forcibly stop you?
Or in the sense of doing what's good/responsible?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Albatross wrote:Want to learn about evil? Watch this film and question everything you thought you knew as a 'westerner':
The documentary maker is kind of annoying me. He gets too RAH RAH CHAVEZ!, which is kind of a shame since I do think the Chavez supporters are making a decent case without his help.
I would like to see his opposition get some of the same treatment.
Nevermind, about half way through the movie he gets really annoying, and starts phrasing everything like America is Sauron.
The documentary maker is kind of annoying me. He gets too RAH RAH CHAVEZ!, which is kind of a shame since I do think the Chavez supporters are making a decent case without his help.
I know what you mean - I thought Pilger was going to start making out with him at one point! But even if he is a bad leader that's running the country into the ground, it doesn't give America the right to remove him, oil or no oil - especially if he has a mandate from the people.
The Pinochet stuff in that documentary made both my blood boil and my flesh crawl... Now THAT is evil.
Yeah, I think you could put Pinochet up for one of the worst modern leaders. I can't think of a worse person we've really supported, though, and you have Pol Pot and such from the communist side.
The problem with trying to analyse the Cold War is that for one, everything was as secret as you could get between the powers, and for another there was just so much at stake.
@Orkeosaurus - Saddam Hussein would also be a contender for 'worst', I reckon. Supporting the Mujahadin in Afghanistan was also NOT a smooth move, either. Saying that, they knacked the Ruskies so 'swings and roundabouts', as they say...
True - but you said 'supported', that's all. Hell, America traded with Nazi Germany, while we're keeping score!
But the Good Old British Empire did some pretty Bad gak, too - don't beat yourselves up, it comes with the territory!
Albatross wrote:True - but you said 'supported', that's all. Hell, America traded with Nazi Germany, while we're keeping score!
But the Good Old British Empire did some pretty Bad gak, too - don't beat yourselves up, it comes with the territory!
Don't forget we both went to war alongside Stalin.
He's probably #1 on the worst dictators list. We did have a good reason for that one, though.
Albatross wrote:True - but you said 'supported', that's all. Hell, America traded with Nazi Germany, while we're keeping score!
But the Good Old British Empire did some pretty Bad gak, too - don't beat yourselves up, it comes with the territory!
Don't forget we both went to war alongside Stalin.
He's probably #1 on the worst dictators list. We did have a good reason for that one, though.
Actually #1 is Mao Zedong, though china will glare at you reaaaallly hard when you note that more died under his regime then under any other single humans in history.
dogma wrote:Not the unknowable. By rendering God down into physical principles they are simply saying that we can't possess knowledge of him without fantastic inventions like particle accelerators, radio telescopes, etc.
And when you reach that point then God is just another cog in the machine, and not really God at all. They avoid this by putting that level of knowledge at a level so high that we can't even see it from here, but the problem remains the same.
Its a scale game. As analogy: I know my hand is made up of atoms, but I don't directly 'sense' the atoms anymore than I 'sense' Zeus. The fact that the atomic model has predictive power simply constrains the number of potential romantic 'senses' I can generate.
We know that space contains stars, planets, moons, quasars, and many other celestial objects. We know what most of these things are, and even how some of them are formed. But people still look at the sky on a starry night and derive inspiration from the view, even (especially?) people who work on cosmological physics every day. Knowledge of a thing does not eliminate the wonder, or majesty of it. If it did none of the world's theologians would be theists.
We add romance to all kinds of purely material things. But seeing a beautiful, material thing and finding inspiration is very different to actually worshipping it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Venezuela is having water rationing because their government controlled economy is so craptacular. They've closed down all the media except for one station at last report. They've seized everything and run it into the ground. The whole country is like a great big bag of Fail.
Yeah, life in Venezuala only just got bad.
Thing is, Chavez is bad and he's getting worse. He's the kind of guy who tends to come to power in countries with poor democratic institutions and gross inequalities between the rich and the poor. Predictably he started with some needed and welcome reform, and has since fallen into excess and generaly fail.
And in turn, predictably, the left wing warhorses came along to defend him and pretend things are getting better. And the rightwing warhorses came along to condemn him and ignore the reality that the previous right wing governments were just as bad. So they bash heads against each other over the same old ideology wars, and sometimes it gets so ridiculous that a coup is organised, a new government comes to power and the warhorses start arguing over the new government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Actually #1 is Mao Zedong, though china will glare at you reaaaallly hard when you note that more died under his regime then under any other single humans in history.
Which brings us back to the problem with using bodycounts as a measure of the evil of a regime. Ultimately it ends up saying the most 'evil' regimes were big countries that had bad agricultural policy.
sebster wrote:
And when you reach that point then God is just another cog in the machine, and not really God at all. They avoid this by putting that level of knowledge at a level so high that we can't even see it from here, but the problem remains the same.
The cog analogy misses the inherent uncertainty of the 'machine' that is the universe. Sure, we could scientifically prove the existence of a God/god in the most general sense (a supreme/ultimate being/reality), but it does not follow from that we can have any more knowledge of the thing than we do of, say, an electron. We could understand the equations which model its behavior, and that would constrain the number of possible views with respect to it, but its unlikely that we could ever possess sufficient information to truly predict how it would behave in any single instance.
Either way it doesn't matter. The whole game is speculative as any iteration of humanity advanced enough to prove the existence of 'metaphysical' being would have long ago mapped its own consciousness and, in doing so, fundamentally altered its nature such that the term 'humanity' would most likely be inappropriate.
sebster wrote:
We add romance to all kinds of purely material things. But seeing a beautiful, material thing and finding inspiration is very different to actually worshipping it.
The difference isn't any more significant than repetition. If in any given series of doubtful moments you go outside at night and gaze at the sky, then, for all intents and purposes, you are engaging in worship of whatever thing the night sky represents to you.
Organised Religion is evil! If you want to believe in a deity, thats just fine. But any organised Religion is just an organised mind control device. Just look at what the Catholic church has been up to in Ireland.. :S
mattyrm wrote:Organised Religion is evil! If you want to believe in a deity, thats just fine. But any organised Religion is just an organised mind control device. Just look at what the Catholic church has been up to in Ireland.. :S
Oh, you're new here. Please read Rule #1 and think twice before making a sweeping assumption about religion.
Also, I don't recall any organised mind control devices starting fundraisers for sick kids or providing food for the homeless. Does this make Obama 'mind controlled'? Does this make any average churchgoer 'mind controlled'?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh dear, even your sig is asking for trouble.
mattyrm wrote:Organised Religion is evil! If you want to believe in a deity, thats just fine. But any organised Religion is just an organised mind control device. Just look at what the Catholic church has been up to in Ireland.. :S
This is borderline trolling. Please read the posting guidelines ASAP. Out and out attacks and sweeping statements on common organisations including ( but not limited to religions) are not allowed on this forum.
Also, I don't recall any organised mind control devices starting fundraisers for sick kids or providing food for the homeless. Does this make Obama 'mind controlled'? Does this make any average churchgoer 'mind controlled'?
It's arguable, yes. Plus, The Church hasn't historically been all about helping the vulnerable - that's more the religion than the organisation. The Catholic Church HAS been the perpetrator of some despicable acts (see Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, discouraging the use of birth-control in AIDS ravaged countries...) - just because that's hard to swallow for some people, doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't mention it.
Albatross wrote:
It's arguable, yes. Plus, The Church hasn't historically been all about helping the vulnerable - that's more the religion than the organisation. The Catholic Church HAS been the perpetrator of some despicable acts (see Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, discouraging the use of birth-control in AIDS ravaged countries...) - just because that's hard to swallow for some people, doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't mention it.
It really isn't. Unless you're going to consider any group to be a form of mind control, and therefore evil, due to the influence it exerts on the individual mind. At which point you're essentially saying that socialization if evil, and that we should all sit in holes forever.
I was going to make a joke about "Rage mode" here, but as that would only prompt a torrent of abuse and offed some people. I won't.
Instead, I will try to redeem myself in your eyes after my utterly foolish post earlier. So, here goes:
Organised religion is not evil. It is no more evil than organised sport, or organised competition, or anything else to which peoples attentions are drawn. The problem arises when sacrosanction comes into being-the treating of one above all others. THIS is where conflict arises. THIS is why people fight and die. THIS is where evil is born.
I have often been referred to as evil. Heck, Churchmen have told me to my face I am evil. And, I have laghed. I laughed because I know they are right. Evil is the one you least expect. And I am nothing. Therefore I am not suspected. And this is why, even though I do not nessercarily agree with any major organised religions, I believe that on their own they are not evil.
Looking over it now, I see this post was a bit of a waste of your time-I apologise for that. It didn't really accomplish anything. Maybe, it wasn't supposed to.
It really isn't. Unless you're going to consider any group to be a form of mind control, and therefore evil, due to the influence it exerts on the individual mind. At which point you're essentially saying that socialization if evil, and that we should all sit in holes forever.
Is THAT why I have no friends? Seriously though, I didn't mean that I considered it to be mind-control, therefore evil. I do consider some of the actions and attitudes of organised religion to be 'evil', but that has nothing to do with mind-control. Culturally speaking, yes - any aparatus by which humans are grouped together by a hegemonic ideological system, which determines patterns of behaviour and thought - could be loosely termed 'mind-control'. But of course you're correct, that's not necessarily evil - it refers to many (if not all) cultural groups.
Two different points, which looked like the same point. Ah, the internet....
Bloody hell i only just got here and i already got a telling off.. After the thread asked a rather broad and general question, i was merely thinking "evil.... hmm..." and my mind was drawn along the lines of people forcing their children to become whatever they are even though they are too young to decide, snake oil televevangelists stealing money from the poor and credulous, denying minors blood transfusions, irrational loathing of homosexuals, both Male and Female circumcision, The Spanish Inquistion, Crusades, suicide bombs and generally 2000 years of bigotry and dark age superstition. Its not like i singled anyone out. gak, im against everything thats not rational. And that includes the toothfairy, horoscopes and palm reading! How can you be singling out a "minority" if your braodbrush answer to a broadbrush question includes about 90% of the population of the world!?
I think male circumcision has as much to do with (pseudo)science as it does religion.
And it wasn't like there was scientific thought and religious thought during the Dark Ages, they were intertwined. Spirits made you sick, because what else could it be?
Plus, young children are always taught things before they have the ability to critically consider and possibly disbelieve them. So long as they can go back and retroactively examine what they were taught I don't really see that as a negative.
mattyrm wrote:Bloody hell i only just got here and i already got a telling off.. After the thread asked a rather broad and general question, i was merely thinking "evil.... hmm..." and my mind was drawn along the lines of people forcing their children to become whatever they are even though they are too young to decide, snake oil televevangelists stealing money from the poor and credulous, denying minors blood transfusions, irrational loathing of homosexuals, both Male and Female circumcision, The Spanish Inquistion, Crusades, suicide bombs and generally 2000 years of bigotry and dark age superstition. Its not like i singled anyone out. gak, im against everything thats not rational. And that includes the toothfairy, horoscopes and palm reading! How can you be singling out a "minority" if your braodbrush answer to a broadbrush question includes about 90% of the population of the world!?
Yes, it's very easy to take two thousand years of human history and grab everything religion has done wrong. It's just as easy to make sweeping generalizations about secularism, The Nazis, Stalin, African Slavery, Native Culling in north america and south america, it's just too easy. Religion as a concept is hardly the fault of everything you stated, most of those events did and do exist due to a plethora of social and economic issues besides merely religious thought. But hey, instead of tackling the actual issues by being a troll who throws everything into the god box why don't you try actually piecing apart those individual issues to find the core elements that caused them. Until you do that you're just being a tool.
1. Circumcision predates monotheism.
2. Televangelists don't do anything ShamWoW didn't do.
3. Who is denying minors blood transfusions? Certainly none of the 2000+ hospitals in america with religious funding or foundership.
4. As a distinct minority that experiences a lifestyle patently different from the majority population of the world homosexuality will always (and have always) been stigmatized. It's human psychology. Keep in mind though, during greek times such things were commonplace and the polytheistic tradition was strong then.
5. The spanish Inquisition was used as much to dismantle enemies of the state as it was to make sure people were up to speed on their godstuff. It was a tool of an incredibly harsh regime, saying that it was simply a direct effect of the religious influence is not much different than saying that the Nazi Secret Police we're a direct effect of state secularism. Who killed more people?
6. Suicide terrorism is a relatively new occurrence brought largely by the easy access of bombs, however it's not so much different than japanese tactics used during world war two or really any one of a thousand desperate suicide attacks throughout history. Blaming religion for the concept of desperation based guerilla tactics is foolhardy in the extreme.
@Shuma - the point wasn't that 'religion' is the most evil thing ever conceived - your reaction is a little OTT, truth be told. The point was that 'organised religion' is an example of something that could be considered subjectively as 'evil', due to certain actions and attitudes. The organisations ARE made up of humans, after all.
And to say that 'X' is not evil because 'Y' is MORE evil is a pretty facile argument.
Albatross wrote:@Shuma - the point wasn't that 'religion' is the most evil thing ever conceived - your reaction is a little OTT, truth be told. The point was that 'organised religion' is an example of something that could be considered subjectively as 'evil', due to certain actions and attitudes. The organisations ARE made up of humans, after all.
And to say that 'X' is not evil because 'Y' is MORE evil is a pretty facile argument.
Organised Religion is evil! If you want to believe in a deity, thats just fine. But any organised Religion is just an organised mind control device. Just look at what the Catholic church has been up to in Ireland.. :S
This isn't actually that controversial - I've seen many christians (including some on this very site) who feel similarly about organised religion. Nowhere here is the statement 'Religion is the most evil thing ever, worse than the Nazis and The Jonas Brothers put together!!!!1!!!' made. That's all I'm saying.
i was merely thinking "evil.... hmm..." and my mind was drawn along the lines of people forcing their children to become whatever they are even though they are too young to decide, snake oil televevangelists stealing money from the poor and credulous, denying minors blood transfusions, irrational loathing of homosexuals, both Male and Female circumcision, The Spanish Inquistion, Crusades, suicide bombs and generally 2000 years of bigotry and dark age superstition.
Yep, all good examples of 'evil' - of course, there's worse stuff (catholic church covering up child abuse anyone?) out there, I accept that. Being smacked with a baseball-bat is bad - a gunshot wound to the stomach is probably worse... that doesn't make the baseball bat option 'good'.
The problem wasn't the use of specific examples. It was the use of specific examples to induce a conclusion which was clearly meant to indict religion as a whole. I mean, he did try to insert a little bit of differentiation about organized religion, but that isn't a phrase which has any real meaning. All religion is organized. If its not organized, even if the organization is simply internal with respect to a single person, it isn't a religion.
Random answer to a random question:
Once again, evil is that which is injurious or harmful. Pretty much everything man touches has a modicum of evil in it.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
When harm is caused, there is evil. Simply that. There is no judgement involved.
Wars are evil, but sometimes the alternative is a more devastating evil.
A doctor, cuts open a child's skull with a saw and scoops out half her brain leaving her partially paralyzed on one side of her body. Pretty evil. Consider however, that the child was having seizures which were killing her over time. Alive disabled or dead, which is a worse state?
sebster wrote:We got to page five before someone claimed religion is evil. I believe that's one of our best results.
My subtle inclusion of Richard Dawkins has allowed my master plan to work almost flawlessly. My master plan has something in it's teeth... but... it is otherwise flawless.
I like the way this worked out though everybody, keep it up.
I think "evil" is a psychosocial concept that varies from individual to individual.
psy⋅cho⋅so⋅cial –adjective
of or pertaining to the interaction between social and psychological factors.
On the topic of organized religion, I am VERY jaded. Looking up that definition, I am reminded of these lyrics:
Psychosocial - Slipknot
"I did my time and I want out
So effusive - Fade - It doesn't cut
The soul is not so vibrant
The reckoning - The sickening
Packaging subversion
Pseudo sacrosanct perversion"
My personal translation:
I did my time and I wanted out
I am very jaded - Separate myself from it - It can't, my family...
This conflict is tearing me apart
The decision the clergy made - I cannot tolerate it
Your decision was made with doctrine
You said you were speaking the word of God, what happened after that was not for the best...
I would like to make it clear, my beef is with a man. I am not intolerant to religion, I just hate that one melon-fether...
Some may know what I am referring to, some might not. If you want further explanation of my poetry, PM me. I am not going to pollute this thread with my dead memories.
sebster wrote:We got to page five before someone claimed religion is evil. I believe that's one of our best results.
My subtle inclusion of Richard Dawkins has allowed my master plan to work almost flawlessly. My master plan has something in it's teeth... but... it is otherwise flawless.
I like the way this worked out though everybody, keep it up.
Especially three year olds whose first teeth are coming through who have an insatiable desire to test them out on anything nearby.
I have met my nephew and he is evil incarnate. Still, the universe has a balance. My sister has a Rottweiller/Pitbull cross (who it would seem has its own chew-toy.).
Especially three year olds whose first teeth are coming through who have an insatiable desire to test them out on anything nearby.
I have met my nephew and he is evil incarnate. Still, the universe has a balance. My sister has a Rottweiller/Pitbull cross (who it would seem has its own chew-toy.).
Not a parent, huh? I'd love to have kids when I'm older and settled down.
Yes, it's very easy to take two thousand years of human history and grab everything religion has done wrong. It's just as easy to make sweeping generalizations about secularism, The Nazis, Stalin, African Slavery, Native Culling in north america and south america, it's just too easy
Shuma, i have seen the same old tired arguments from Biull O Reilly on Fox news, and as you might expect coming from Billo most of it is just plain wrong, are you just parroting what he says? Nazism has nothing to do with Secularism. Hitler was a Roman Catholic. It said "God with us" on the SS Belt buckles.
Granted Stalin just happened to be an atheist, but he didnt do what he did BECAUSE of atheism.
When looking at standard measures of societal health, we find that secularists fare remarkably well highly religious nations fare rather poorly. The 2004 United Nations' Human Development Report, which ranks 177 countries on a "Human Development Index," measures such indicators of societal health as life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, and so on. According to this report, the five top nations were Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. All had notably high degrees of organic atheism. Furthermore, of the top twenty-five nations, all but Ireland and the United States were top-ranking nonbelieving nations with some of the highest percentages of organic atheism on earth. Conversely, the bottom fifty countries of the "Human Development Index" lacked statistically significant levels of organic atheism.
Are you a religious man yourself? Thats fine, but lets stick to the facts. And im tired of hearing the same unfounded tosh, especially the Hitler one.
What stuns me the most is that our entire lives are a testament to Science and the scientific method, and many people are more than happy to trust Science by flying in planes, driving cars, using electricity, consulting doctors or dermatologists or brain surgeons, and then, when it comes to the origins of our universe, why do they suddenly think these same people have no credibility?
). Not saying you're wrong, just that I disagree.
)? Some of us feel that our beliefs (or lack thereof... 
) are under attack from various religious groups who hide behind 'tolerance' and 'equality' as an excuse to push their agenda. Some science teachers in 
hole you stole my line! Oh well.
Oil2004.JPG)
