Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

When one believes in religion only - they begin to go down the path that you described here.

For instance I am a Christian but I don't believe in any of the doctrines of the organized churches that are out there. I have found that most "leaders" of the organized religion are hyocrites in thier own practice of relgion. I prefer the quiet reflection and mediation on the life lessons given in parable form in the New Testiment. Those parables contain lessons on how one can lead a better life, and it seems to me that most of the organized Christian Churches have lost that orginal meaning.

But that is only my opinion on it.

---

I couldnt agree more Redleg - so my questions is - would you regard yourself as being one of a particular religion or something of your own design?

I think there is a big difference between a spiritual person and a religious person.

I find it very interesting that many so called 'Christians' feel its ok to kill depending on the circumstances, despite both the ten commandments (old testament) and Jesus saying 'love thy neighbour" (new) - yet many are all to prepared to goto war for 'the right reasons' or keep a gun under the bed 'for home defence' - so they are planning for the moment when they wont be a Christian and kill someone coming in their window. Circumstantial Christians (they are Christian when it suites them or the circumastances allow). In my book these people cannot be Christians - if you follow the teaching of Christ then killing or hurting another human should be aborhent - not something circumstantial. :no:

my 5c but Im willing to listen to alternates

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

well lets have a look at some of the nonsense in the Holy Bible...

The God of the Bible and the Bible itself promotes Ritual Human Sacrifice, Murder (including mass-murder), Rape, Slavery, and an incredible intollerance towards non-conformists - even with it's message of love and hope and acceptance...

The Biblical God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

There are also over a hundred contradictions in the Bible. listing them all would make this post very very long, so I won't...

...but here is a website that helpfully highlights everything awful about the Holy Bible:
http://www.evilbible.com/
(NOTE Some may find this site offensive...)

---

Thanks for proving my point. LOL

But I will give you a question to ponder. If one believes the bible is an inaccurate history book with methraphorical lessons - does that equate to believing the bible is the literial truth?

Your approach here is that you want to force me to believe that the Bible is the literial truth - I must question your ability at reading - ie you just embrassed your own intelligence attempting this response when I clearly stated and you quoted the following comment.

But when a moderate religious person who takes the bilble as a book that contains metraphorical lessons in which to enable a person to live a better life, such statements as yours is normally seen as an "oh Please, look at the rubbish being spouted once again because I believe in a higher power."


Whats wrong - are you one of those that are challenged when faced with moderate believers because they contradict your preconcieved notion about all Christians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Oh really? And what of eugenics, totaltarianistic communism, Stalin's purges, Hitler's purges, the 'Reign of Terror' and others?

---

We've been over this stuff over and over. Those are not the result of reason or atheism or whatever. To argue that either religion or reason promotes or denounces violent acts is faulty in that people ultimately decide what reason or religion calls for. People have the capacity to misuse both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And started believing what other agnostics and agnostic organizations told you?

I still find it funny, Dogus, that your belief in free thought and tolerance has led you to intolerance of those who don't agree with you.

CR

---

you may choose not to believe me - but I arrived at my beliefs all by myself

although I will admit to being heavily influenced by my study of Geology - and through that the study of life on this planet since there was life - and that takes a bit of the 'specialness' from mankind. Also studying history - there has been lots of religions on this earth all claiming to be the one true religion and representing the one or many true GODs, so which one is right, or are they all wrong.

Finally watching the actions of these religious people - who seem to me not to obey the rules of their own religion


I didnt say I was perfect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yunus Dogus

I couldnt agree more Redleg - so my questions is - would you regard yourself as being one of a particular religion or something of your own design?

---

Actually I like to think that I am following the Church that Jesus states in the New Testament. I believe that by reading and reflecting on the parables in the bible that I might learn how to be a more spiritual healthly person. Currently when I have time - I am finding and reading some of the texts that were not including in the New testiment. Someone provided a link in an earlier thread - can't remember which one now - but there is some good reading available in some of those texts

Quote:

---

I think there is a big difference between a spiritual person and a religious person.

---

Some make religion infaliable forgetting that men are prone to errors. I lean more toward the spiritual aspects of Christianity.

Quote:

---

I find it very interesting that many so called 'Christians' feel its ok to kill depending on the circumstances, despite both the ten commandments (old testament) and Jesus saying 'love thy neighbour" (new) - yet many are all to prepared to goto war for 'the right reasons' or keep a gun under the bed 'for home defence' - so they are planning for the moment when they wont be a Christian and kill someone coming in their window. Circumstantial Christians (they are Christian when it suites them or the circumastances allow). In my book these people cannot be Christians - if you follow the teaching of Christ then killing or hurting another human should be aborhent - not something circumstantial. :no:

my 5c but Im willing to listen to alternates

---

Killing is indeed against the basic teachings of Christ. Something that I have to reflect on because of my time in the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Thats funny considering the progress that continues throughout history to include our times now. Science is not being held back by religion. Just check out the DAPRA website.

http://www.darpa.mil/

There is some things being researched that takes man well into the future of both progress and even evolution.

---

Well, I hope you were being facetious. I certainly didn't mean scientific progress. That would be silly.

We're being held back in our progress as human beings, retarded if you will, by those clinging to the last vestiges of superstitious beliefs. Those beliefs developed from a time when humans looked at the world without knowledge and logic and attempted to explain the unknown by assuming "higher powers" and mystical wonders.

Such beliefs became so basic that they remained stuck in our human experience after reasoning provided more logical explanations. Intead of throwing off the old superstitions, we codified them and made them into dogma as we learned to write down our thoughts.

To me, it's obvious that current religious belief can be traced directly back to our first upright ancestors cowering from lightning on the savannah. One can even trace the advent of monotheism as it relates to sedentary homogenous societies as opposed to the polytheism prevalent in nomadic and fractured societies.

And, yes, religious superstition holds us back in our progress as humans. One need only look at the prevalence in the conserative evangelical community of the idea that cloning is somehow wrong because it is science altering "God's design" for humans. And yet, many of these same people have no qualms about getting facelifts and liposuction, getting their hair dyed, painting their lips and combing their hair over their bald spots. It's superstitious unreason which causes people to be so incredibly unable to see the silliness and hypocrisy of their own beliefs and actions.

It isn't just one religion, either. We have Scientologists like Tom Cruise proclaiming all psychiatry to be invalid. We have fundamentalist Islamic sects putting their own spin on the Quran and relegating women to near slave status. We have Raelians believing that aliens have come to save a select few. We have chiropractors and other faith healers deluding the faithful. They all think their own particular brand of superstition is reasonable and right, even when they can manage to see the silliness in other beliefs.

And in all of that, real progress, not just limited scientific progress which doesn't offend one or another relgious group but all progess whether in science or philosophy or society, can't happen. We stagnate in a fractured mess of conflicting superstitious beliefs that prevent us from working together to improve the lot of all of our fellows, not just those who believe as we do. Religion retards our ability to move beyond superstition to reasoned responses to problems. It divides us for reasons which should have lost their hold on our consciousness when we first realized that the lightning and thunder on the savannah weren't caused by the gods.

But that's just my take on it all. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Oh really? And what of eugenics, totaltarianistic communism, Stalin's purges, Hitler's purges, the 'Reign of Terror' and others?

---

if you had read the Humanist Declaration I posted above, you would see that Humanism very much opposes these sorts of things. communism and totalitarian secular states have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Why call it reason? Why not merely logic or a way of thinking through things? Instead, it becomes a concept a way of thinking with more connotations than one would think.

What I see in this thread are some people holding up 'reason' as a process to be revered beyond its contributions. Worship may not have been the precisely correct word, but the meaning is similar.

---

well compare rational behaviour to irrational behaviour; or reasonable behaviour to unreasonable behaviour; or logical behaviour to illogical behaviour... I know which one is more beneficial...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So 'Do Not Kill' is obsolete? Or are you refering to the old codes no longer held as guidance?

---

No. but we don't need dogma of ancient scripture to know that. Heck, as I said before "The Biblical God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered." as well as demanding that followers kill for all sorts of things...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Funny that Cladius pointed to a website with a definition of humanism. An atheist (or agnostic) might simple call themselves an atheist (or agnostic); does that mean they have no individual beliefs, and thus no capacity for reason?

---

firstly my user-name is CLAUDIUS...

I find that most Atheists and Agnostics already do have Humanist standards and perspectives. I've always had these standards and this perspective my whole life, but I didn't know what Humanism was until a year or two ago. This isn't something that is promoted in the media or in state education.

generally speaking, the few Atheists and Agnostics that do not agree with Humanist values are the minority in the non-religious population.

if you want more information on secular ethics, then this link is one I provided earlier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Atheism and variants thereof generally do not have any sort of Dogma like organized religions do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And started believing what other agnostics and agnostic organizations told you?

I still find it funny, Dogus, that your belief in free thought and tolerance has led you to intolerance of those who don't agree with you.

---

I have yet to meen an Atheist or an Agnostic who told me what to think or what to believe. there is a general ideological agreement that we should have the right to think for ourselves, observe the evidence ourselves, and come to our own conclusions, and not let tyrannical and exploitative groups such as some organized religions tell us what to believe.

should we tollerate people who try to enslave us, or degrade us, persecute us, or even kill us for thinking differently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Thanks for proving my point. LOL

But I will give you a question to ponder. If one believes the bible is an inaccurate history book with methraphorical lessons - does that equate to believing the bible is the literial truth?

Your approach here is that you want to force me to believe that the Bible is the literial truth - I must question your ability at reading - ie you just embrassed your own intelligence attempting this response when I clearly stated and you quoted the following comment.

But when a moderate religious person who takes the bilble as a book that contains metraphorical lessons in which to enable a person to live a better life, such statements as yours is normally seen as an "oh Please, look at the rubbish being spouted once again because I believe in a higher power."


Whats wrong - are you one of those that are challenged when faced with moderate believers because they contradict your preconcieved notion about all Christians?

---

I originally said:
"I think that it is intellectually embarassing to believe some of the nonsense that scripture like the Holy Bible promotes."

I realise that most moderate Christians see the Bible as largely metaphorical, but there are many who take it literally.

even taken as metaphorical, it still has quite a bit of material on persecution/discrimination against others, especially non-believers...

I'm responding to numerous posts right now so forgive me for going over your post too quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Killing is indeed against the basic teachings of Christ. Something that I have to reflect on because of my time in the military.

---

Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark 4:11-12

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9

Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. Mark 11:13

Wathcing these little threads is like watching the Western Front of WWI, or two brick walls arguing. You just know neither side will give way.

Still, as a friend of mine pointed out, the purpose of debate is not in convincing another, but in forming proper arguements.

Personally, I'm atheist, in the manner of, I don't care who or what you woship, as long as you don't make it a public show. Yes, that means I'm opposed to all those organized religions, but not faith in particular. If you want to believe in God (or a rock, or whatever), or pray to him, then do it yourself ... why need agents to speak to him for you? After all, is not God everywhere, hears everything?

I'm with Aenlic on this one, until faith becomes a private, personal thing, we're going to stagnate. Sticking to old morality just doesn't work anymore, not with our current technological capabilites and, unless humanity, as a whole, actually adapts it's moral views to the current state of advancement, we're really going bye-bye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Well, I hope you were being facetious. I certainly didn't mean scientific progress. That would be silly.

---

Only partly, since I find the orginal statement to be inaccurate about the Human Condition.

Your followup explanation is good - while there are some points I disagree with your conclusion - it is at least a rational discussion on the subject versus the normal dogmatic approach of other posters.

Quote:

---

And in all of that, real progress, not just limited scientific progress which doesn't offend one or another relgious group but all progess whether in science or philosophy or society, can't happen. We stagnate in a fractured mess of conflicting superstitious beliefs that prevent us from working together to improve the lot of all of our fellows, not just those who believe as we do. Religion retards our ability to move beyond superstition to reasoned responses to problems. It divides us for reasons which should have lost their hold on our consciousness when we first realized that the lightning and thunder on the savannah weren't caused by the gods.

---

Your premise seems to be that religion holds back the ability to think beyond the human existance. Is this correct? Because if that is your premise - then there is several points we can discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

I originally said:
"I think that it is intellectually embarassing to believe some of the nonsense that scripture like the Holy Bible promotes."

I realise that most moderate Christians see the Bible as largely metaphorical, but there are many who take it literally.

even taken as metaphorical, it still has quite a bit of material on persecution/discrimination against others, especially non-believers...

I'm responding to numerous posts right now so forgive me for going over your post too quickly.

---

Nothing to forgive.

However it seems your still trying to forget one aspect of the discussion - I have already stated I look at the Bible as an inaccurate history text with metaphorical lessons. Because you see persecution/discrimination in the text does that discount it as a history? We can find persecution/discrimination in any history book - to include some from modern secular societies. Should I condemn all communist philisophy because of Stalin and Pol Pot? Should I point out the hypocrisy in your own statements just above this text?

Or as CrossLOPER pointed out earlier and Crazed Rabbit pointed out prior to this edit.

We've been over this stuff over and over. Those are not the result of reason or atheism or whatever. To argue that either religion or reason promotes or denounces violent acts is faulty in that people ultimately decide what reason or religion calls for. People have the capacity to misuse both.

Quote:

---

Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark 4:11-12

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9

Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. Mark 11:13

---

Pulling comments from the Skeptics Annotated Bible and using them as your own I see?

Rather disingenuous of you. But it definitely once again proves my point from earlier.

Whats wrong - are you one of those that are challenged when faced with moderate believers because they contradict your preconcieved notion about all Christians?

I don't want to get into the current debate about what is more evil, secularism or religion, but do want to point out this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

because not basing one's beliefs on Reason and Rationality allows the potential for the belief in nonsense.

---

Claudius, this was your response to my inquiry of "why should we base our beliefs on reason". I just wanted to let you know, that was a rhetorical question. I answered it later in my post.

Also, plenty of beliefs that you would call nonsense, can firmly be based on reason and empirical evidence.

I also want to know why you did not respond or even quote the second and most important part of my statement:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenkmeister

I've always wondered at the proposition that one should base their beliefs on reason. After all, this is a belief in itself. A meta-belief perhaps, but a belief nonetheless. How would one go justifying such a belief? Well, we could use reason, but that would be circular and beg the question, wouldn't it? We could call reason a self-evident truth, reason is reasonable perhaps, if one likes tautologies. Or we could just assume reason without a reason. After all, an irrational acceptance of epistemically basic/foundational propositions is necessary for any rational colloquy and reflection. It's all built on irrational foundations.

---

Bolded part is the part I speak of.

Quote:

---

if you had read the Humanist Declaration I posted above, you would see that Humanism very much opposes these sorts of things. communism and totalitarian secular states have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

---

And Catholicism today is against everything you use to condemn it- so how is it bad? How can you complain about religion using outdated examples and argue it shouldn't be followed, while ignoring the evils that the use of 'reason' has brought upon us and not condemn atheism and the reverance of reason?

The core problem with atheism and the like is that there are no hard and fast moral boundaries. Look at the 'Reign of Terror' during the French revolution - when tens of thousands were killed by the authorities and mobs. Why? Well due to simple reason; supporters of the revolution viewed it as a moral good that needed to succed, so they needed to remove obstacles to its success, and if that meant killing people, then killing those people was good because it supported the revolution.

Quote:

---

No. but we don't need dogma of ancient scripture to know that. Heck, as I said before "The Biblical God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered." as well as demanding that followers kill for all sorts of things...

---

Christianity has infused our culture to the point that people view killing as bad- what argument can there be made for not killing from a purely 'reasonable' view?
Say that I have a family and we are starving and cannot get food. If I have to kill a person and steal his property to eat, then is that not an overall benefit - I am saving more lives than I am taking, no?

Quote:

---

firstly my user-name is CLAUDIUS...

---

My apologies.

Quote:

---

Atheism and variants thereof generally do not have any sort of Dogma like organized religions do.

---

It seems that they do - 'there is no God', 'we all came from a single cell 4 billion years ago', 'all religions are wrong', etc.

Quote:

---

I have yet to meen an Atheist or an Agnostic who told me what to think or what to believe.

---

Hmmm...

Quote:

---

I find that most Atheists and Agnostics already do have Humanist standards and perspectives. I've always had these standards and this perspective my whole life, but I didn't know what Humanism was until a year or two ago. This isn't something that is promoted in the media or in state education.

generally speaking, the few Atheists and Agnostics that do not agree with Humanist values are the minority in the non-religious population.

if you want more information on secular ethics, then this link is one I provided earlier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

---

Sure they might now say 'believe this', but you seem to anyways.

Quote:

---

there is a general ideological agreement that we should have the right to think for ourselves, observe the evidence ourselves, and come to our own conclusions, and not let tyrannical and exploitative groups such as some organized religions tell us what to believe.

---

And what if what we come to believe leads us to the tenets of an organized religion? What if they are not the evil you make them out to be but simple ways for similar thinking people to worship together? And how can you be against organized religion and for atheist and humanist organizations?

Quote:

---

should we tollerate people who try to enslave us, or degrade us, persecute us, or even kill us for thinking differently?

---

Christianity does none of that. Yet I see here people degrading and wanting to persecuting me and my religion.

Quote:

---

I find it very interesting that many so called 'Christians' feel its ok to kill depending on the circumstances, despite both the ten commandments (old testament) and Jesus saying 'love thy neighbour" (new) - yet many are all to prepared to goto war for 'the right reasons' or keep a gun under the bed 'for home defence' - so they are planning for the moment when they wont be a Christian and kill someone coming in their window.

---

Life is a gift from God, we are obliged not to squander it, but cherish and protect it, and defend it.

Quote:

---

We've been over this stuff over and over. Those are not the result of reason or atheism or whatever. To argue that either religion or reason promotes or denounces violent acts is faulty in that people ultimately decide what reason or religion calls for. People have the capacity to misuse both.

---

I am inclined to agree, I am just trying to point that out to our reasonable friends here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I am inclined to agree, I am just trying to point that out to our reasonable friends here.

---

What have I said about quote function rape? (!Response directly related!)

Quote:

---

Christianity does none of that. Yet I see here people degrading and wanting to persecuting me and my religion.

---

Christianity does a lot of that. Your faith has only a passing resemblence to what a lot of people view as Christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Nothing to forgive.

However it seems your still trying to forget one aspect of the discussion - I have already stated I look at the Bible as an inaccurate history text with metaphorical lessons. Because you see persecution/discrimination in the text does that discount it as a history? We can find persecution/discrimination in any history book - to include some from modern secular societies. Should I condemn all communist philisophy because of Stalin and Pol Pot? Should I point out the hypocrisy in your own statements just above this text?

Or as CrossLOPER pointed out earlier and Crazed Rabbit pointed out prior to this edit.

We've been over this stuff over and over. Those are not the result of reason or atheism or whatever. To argue that either religion or reason promotes or denounces violent acts is faulty in that people ultimately decide what reason or religion calls for. People have the capacity to misuse both.

---

I too see it as an inaccurate history text with some metaphorical lessons. I see a little bit of historical value in the text, and certainly see value in the text as a piece of important literature. What I question is why it should be taken as a moral absolute. the discrimination and horrors of the Bible don't discount it as a history text (there are different reasons why it shouldn't be taken literally as a historical text - namely considerable editing, omitting, etc.)

I'm not arguing that all Christians follow the more questionable ideas promoted in the Bible, but quite a few do - and get a lot of attention discriminating against one minority or another. I'm saying that for me personally, the Bible is not something that I would ever recommend to anyone as a guide to morals or ethics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Whats wrong - are you one of those that are challenged when faced with moderate believers because they contradict your preconcieved notion about all Christians?

---

I don't see all Christians as discriminating against non-Christians/non-conformists or taking the lessons of the Bible literally. To moderate Christians who practice their beliefs privately (not preaching or judging others by purely Christian morals), I generally have no problem with them - even if our methods of understanding the universe are different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Claudius, this was your response to my inquiry of "why should we base our beliefs on reason". I just wanted to let you know, that was a rhetorical question. I answered it later in my post.

---

right you are then. my apologies...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Also, plenty of beliefs that you would call nonsense, can firmly be based on reason and empirical evidence.

---

care to give an example? - I find concepts such as Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Sin, and Divine Judgement to be nonsense. how can such things be based on reason or empirical evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

I also want to know why you did not respond or even quote the second and most important part of my statement:
...
Well, we could use reason, but that would be circular and beg the question, wouldn't it? We could call reason a self-evident truth, reason is reasonable perhaps, if one likes tautologies. Or we could just assume reason without a reason. After all, an irrational acceptance of epistemically basic/foundational propositions is necessary for any rational colloquy and reflection. It's all built on irrational foundations.
...
Bolded part is the part I speak of.

---

put simply, it is better to base knowledge and theories on evidence than not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And Catholicism today is against everything you use to condemn it- so how is it bad? How can you complain about religion using outdated examples and argue it shouldn't be followed, while ignoring the evils that the use of 'reason' has brought upon us and not condemn atheism and the reverance of reason?

---

well Catholocism is hardly democratic. the Papal clergy often claim intellectual superiority on matters of ethics. weather they deserve to claim intellectual or moral superiority on anything is debatable.

what evils have Reason or Atheism brought upon the world? and I mean Atheism and Reason as ideas of themselves...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The core problem with atheism and the like is that there are no hard and fast moral boundaries. Look at the 'Reign of Terror' during the French revolution - when tens of thousands were killed by the authorities and mobs. Why? Well due to simple reason; supporters of the revolution viewed it as a moral good that needed to succed, so they needed to remove obstacles to its success, and if that meant killing people, then killing those people was good because it supported the revolution.

---

The Reign of Terror had little to do with the principles (or lack thereof) of Atheism or of the use of Reason.

and that revolution with its anti-clerical side to it hardly represents what Reason or Atheism is. and as for the accusation that Atheism has no hard and fast moral boundaries - that is why there are ideas such as Humanism/Secular Humanism to state outright that even without a religiously inspired moral code - that non-religious people can have very reasonable and sensible ethical viewpoints. religious fanatics can't say that we have no morals because it is simply not true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Christianity has infused our culture to the point that people view killing as bad- what argument can there be made for not killing from a purely 'reasonable' view?
Say that I have a family and we are starving and cannot get food. If I have to kill a person and steal his property to eat, then is that not an overall benefit - I am saving more lives than I am taking, no?

---

Christianity may have infused our culture with the notion that killing is wrong - but with the notable exceptions of heathens/heretics, homosexuals, non-christians, etc... heck, Christian fundamentalism was very much a contributing factor to the Jewish Holocaust...

Reason/Humanism/Secular Ethics today opposes all sorts murder and killing and tyrrany and persecution, etc.

there were already philosophies in classical times which opposed killing and murder outright - philosophies such as Stoicism... Christianity is not the sole contributor towards making people realise that killing is wrong...

if people are put in such a terrible situation that they need to consider killing others just to survive, then the entire situation is wrong. this is why Humanism etc. promotes Democracy, human rights, and education, freedom of speech, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

It seems that they do - 'there is no God', 'we all came from a single cell 4 billion years ago', 'all religions are wrong', etc.

---

we don't know these things as absolute facts. we follow the evidence, no matter what the evidence suggests... if the evidence pointed towards creationism then the creationists would be quite happy. unfortunately the evidence points to the wealth of information commonly known as Evolutionary Sciences...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Sure they might now say 'believe this', but you seem to anyways.

---

I find the Scientific Method far more accurate than 'divinely revealed knowledge'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And what if what we come to believe leads us to the tenets of an organized religion? What if they are not the evil you make them out to be but simple ways for similar thinking people to worship together? And how can you be against organized religion and for atheist and humanist organizations?

---

why should it lead to something resembling an organized religion? I'm not saying that all religions are bad, but that in some ways being non-religious can be better.
And as for Atheist or Humanist organizations, I'm not a member of any such organization. I read some of the literature and agree with most of the ideas promoted, but I'm not a member of anything. being a Humanist is largely private and only a few people know that I see myself as a Humanist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Christianity does none of that. Yet I see here people degrading and wanting to persecuting me and my religion.

---

well many people claiming to be Christians have killed and violently discriminated against non-Christians for centuries...

has anyone here persecuted you or your religion yet? or have there simply been disagreements and criticisms?

and the degrading goes both ways...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Life is a gift from God, we are obliged not to squander it, but cherish and protect it, and defend it.

---

Defend it?

Defend life how?

by taking it?

dear me thats not a Christian ideal by anyones definition

didnt Jesus say "turn the other cheek" ... yes even when someone kills your friends and hangs you from a cross - arnt you sposed to forgive them? Jesus never talked about defending anything through use of arms only words and compassion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

I too see it as an inaccurate history text with some metaphorical lessons. I see a little bit of historical value in the text, and certainly see value in the text as a piece of important literature. What I question is why it should be taken as a moral absolute. the discrimination and horrors of the Bible don't discount it as a history text (there are different reasons why it shouldn't be taken literally as a historical text - namely considerable editing, omitting, etc.)

I'm not arguing that all Christians follow the more questionable ideas promoted in the Bible, but quite a few do - and get a lot of attention discriminating against one minority or another. I'm saying that for me personally, the Bible is not something that I would ever recommend to anyone as a guide to morals or ethics.

---

If one wants to take the bible literially I would agree with you - however on the metaphorical level the bible has some very valid moral and ethicial guides to life. Its a philisophy of life that is no better nor is it worse then the humanist approach.

Do Fundmental fantics destroy the basic good of religion - yes indeed, however religion has had its benefits for society and man over time. You can attempt to argue that the bad aspects of religion now outweigh the good aspects of religion - but to discount the history and the progress of man because of religion does little to futher the arguement that religion is holding man's evolution back. Up until the last 50 years that postion would be inaccurate. Many of the brilliant thinkers of the Enlightment Era were indeed deists (SP) if not still theists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Your premise seems to be that religion holds back the ability to think beyond the human existance. Is this correct? Because if that is your premise - then there is several points we can discuss.

---

Actually, no. My main premise is that true-believers of any religion have proven themselves to be unable to think critically and logically. I'm not blaming them, really. It's a product of the blatant brainwashing done to children by and for religion. I'm not saying it's impossible for some to oddly compartmentalize their faith on one hand and think critically about other issues. I'm saying it makes such more difficult and unlikely.

Religions promote a society in which people grow up believing nonsense and not bothering to question that nonsense in even the most basic way. They learn not to question. That's a very difficult lesson to overcome, having been ingrained since infancy by their religion. They lose the ability to think critically about other things than just their beliefs. At the far end of the spectrum, they end up following the likes of people like Ted Haggard or Meir Kahane or Osama bin Laden or Shoko Asahara or Jim Jones and many more. It is religion which makes people susceptible to believing nonsense.

Having already swallowed the biggest nonsense after being force fed it since infancy, religious people put "faith" before fact and end up swallowing all sorts of nonsense, especially if it's cloaked in a veneer of religion. You get people thinking it's OK to blow up abortion clinics and kill other people, all in the name of not killing babies. You get people thinking it's OK to fly planes into buildings full of innocent people. You get people willing to condemn millions of people to curable dieases because their god apparently doesn't like stem-cell research. You get people supposedly devoutly believing in supposedly peaceful religions cheerfully supporting wars of aggression and conquest, especially if the targets are believers in a different "truth" than their own. And worst of all, you get people who devoutly believe that other devout believers of other religions are the enemy or are somehow inferior, which leads to all of the above.

Aside from the irrational mind set which religions promote, it is religions, in the end, which prevent people - all of humanity - from coming together and working for the good of humanity as a whole, not just for their fellow believers. There are some ecumenical sects; but they are rare and deep down the true believers in them really do think that others would be better off believing as they do. But, on the whole, religions promote division instead of unity. And that, along with an ingrained tendency to believe the unbelievable, is what holds humanity back from progressing beyond mere technological innovation, holds humanity back from working together for our mutual benefit and ending the afflictions which result from irrational behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Actually, no. My main premise is that true-believers of any religion have proven themselves to be unable to think critically and logically.

---

Then how does one explain such men as Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr.,

Quote:

---

Aside from the irrational mind set which religions promote, it is religions, in the end, which prevent people - all of humanity - from coming together and working for the good of humanity as a whole, not just for their fellow believers. There are some ecumenical sects; but they are rare and deep down the true believers in them really do think that others would be better off believing as they do. But, on the whole, religions promote division instead of unity. And that, along with an ingrained tendency to believe the unbelievable, is what holds humanity back from progressing beyond mere technological innovation, holds humanity back from working together for our mutual benefit and ending the afflictions which result from irrational behavior.

---

Here is where I will have to disagree. What holds humanity back is our own human nature. Our cultural/ethnic prejudices and wanting to identify ourselves as different ethnic groups first and foremost.

You can blame religion for some of it, but that only touches the surface of the ingrained prejudice that is based solely upon a person's ethnic makeup. To say religion is the only cause of this dilimenia (SP) does the actual reality of the problems facing man's ability to unite for our common good a major dis-service. Have you not seen the prejudice faced by groups of the same religion because of what ethnic group an individual comes from. How can religion be the root cause of such a situation when both follow the exact same religion?

Man by his very nature is a competive species - a trait that we share with all predators on this planet. To claim religion is the root cause of this - negates the human condition and leaves man trapped in his own logical fallacies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

If one wants to take the bible literially I would agree with you - however on the metaphorical level the bible has some very valid moral and ethicial guides to life. Its a philisophy of life that is no better nor is it worse then the humanist approach.

Do Fundmental fantics destroy the basic good of religion - yes indeed, however religion has had its benefits for society and man over time. You can attempt to argue that the bad aspects of religion now outweigh the good aspects of religion - but to discount the history and the progress of man because of religion does little to futher the arguement that religion is holding man's evolution back. Up until the last 50 years that postion would be inaccurate. Many of the brilliant thinkers of the Enlightment Era were indeed deists (SP) if not still theists.

---

I more or less agree...

I don't agree thar religion itself holds humanity back, I think it's the totalitarian and exploitative side of social control that some faiths are especially good at that does that...

also, the contribution of reason and science to humanity has been just as developmental - and perhaps moreso - than religious faith.


[edit]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then how does one explain such men as Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr.,

---

well neither of these two were religious fanatics as far as I know - heck this is what Thomas Jefferson said about religion...

"Religions are all alike—founded upon fables and mythologies."
Thomas Jefferson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

care to give an example?

---

We'll use a fairly standard rational argument that leads to a conclusion that most dismiss as nonsense.

The classic:

1) If determinism is true, then there is no moral responsibility.
2) If determinism is false, then there is no moral responsibility.
C) There is no moral responsibility.

Determinism is plausible, most would grant. But even holding it false runs you into problems...

Hard determinism is by far the strongest theory, as soft determinism or compatibilism must redefine the very notion of free will to be coherent, and libertarianism (complex theories of agency) are quite "mysterious" in the way they work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

I find concepts such as Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Sin, and Divine Judgement to be nonsense. how can such things be based on reason or empirical evidence?

---

Reason itself is not empirically based and cannot use reason to justify it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then how does one explain such men as Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr.,

---

The answer was in the rest of the paragraph which you didn't include in your quote of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

I'm not saying it's impossible for some to oddly compartmentalize their faith on one hand and think critically about other issues. I'm saying it makes such more difficult and unlikely.

---

Thus, men like Jefferson and King are rare. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redleg

Here is where I will have to disagree. What holds humanity back is our own human nature. Our cultural/ethnic prejudices and wanting to identify ourselves as different ethnic groups first and foremost.

You can blame religion for some of it, but that only touches the surface of the ingrained prejudice that is based solely upon a person's ethnic makeup. To say religion is the only cause of this dilimenia (SP) does the actual reality of the problems facing man's ability to unite for our common good a major dis-service. Have you not seen the prejudice faced by groups of the same religion because of what ethnic group an individual comes from. How can religion be the root cause of such a situation when both follow the exact same religion?

Man by his very nature is a competive species - a trait that we share with all predators on this planet. To claim religion is the root cause of this - negates the human condition and leaves man trapped in his own logical fallacies.

---

First, let me separate out one statement above before proceeding:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redleg

To say religion is the only cause of this dilimenia (SP) does the actual reality of the problems facing man's ability to unite for our common good a major dis-service.

---

I agree. And you may have noticed that I didn't say that religion was the only cause of the dilemma. I hope, then we can dispense with an argument about something I didn't say in the first place. I went to great pains to explain what I think religion does cause, but at no point did I ever say or imply that religion was the only cause. I feel it is the main cause, however.

I must respectfully disagree, also, that humans are natural predators. We are omnivores. Do we engage in predation? Certainly. Is it instinctual? Interesting question. Are instinctual behaviors in humanity that prevalent? I haven't noticed anyone trying to pick nits out of my hair and engage in similar instinctual social grooming behaviors lately.

If humans are naturally and, more importantly permanently, competitive then doesn't that call into question certain religious doctrines which require humans not to be competitive; such as, for example, certain admonitions in the Sermon on the Mount? How can the meek inherit the Earth, assuming that the premise of competitiveness as a natural human condition is true, if the meek are unnatural? That argument leads down the slippery slope into religious arguments of the nature of humans as good or evil, doesn't it? The Randian/Objectivist idea of natural human competitiveness is directly at odds with most popular religions on that point. How is it possible to believe that the "human condition" is naturally competitive on one hand and on the other hand believe that humans were created in the image of a "god" at the same time? Doesn't that mean that the god is naturally competitive? Competition with whom or what?

To extricate oneself from such a logical conundrum requires leaps of illogic and finally just resorting to "faith" and the great logical fallacy to which religions eventually appeal, the "because I (god) said so" argument. However, if one discards the Objectivist view that humans must compete because it is natural, then what follows? Perhaps a view that the natural condition is actually mutual benefit and mutual aid? Careful now. The term "mutual aid" is a clue to where this discussion could lead. :wink:

Religion began as a tool of humans to provide answers to the unknown in the absence of a system of logical, rational inquiry based on observation of fact. It's continued influence is unnatural.

Is religion the only cause of human misery and suffering? Of course not. I never said it was. Is it one of the causes and does it prevent us from working together to eliminate the other causes? Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

The answer was in the rest of the paragraph which you didn't include in your quote of me.

Thus, men like Jefferson and King are rare. :wink:

---

Which is why I ask the direct question. Regardless of your attempt at poking fun.

I saw the contradiction between the two statement and wanted to validate something before I continued, to insure I understood exactly what you were saying.

My counter would be that what you to believe to be rare in the religious I find to be just as common as those who take the humanist approach in philisophy. I used two acknowledge men of faith that were seen by history as men of logic. Many others have existed and do exist. If an individual can think critically does it matter if he is religous? Is religious faith inheriently mean that a man can not think critically? I have to reject the generalization that men of religious faith are unable to think critically because history demonstrates that this is not accurate. Ancedotal evidence also demonstrates to me that his generalization is also not accurate.

For instance I am an individaul who believes in a higher power, am I therefore doomed to be unable to think logically and criticially of my surroundings? Am I unable to formulate rational thought to express my philisophy on life because it involves a belief in a higher being?

Quote:

---

First, let me separate out one statement above before proceeding:

I agree. And you may have noticed that I didn't say that religion was the only cause of the dilemma. I hope, then we can dispense with an argument about something I didn't say in the first place. I went to great pains to explain what I think religion does cause, but at no point did I ever say or imply that religion was the only cause. I feel it is the main cause, however.

---

I took the statement to mean only because of the focus on religion hince the statement was based soley on my interpation of the focus. If that is incorrect then by all means inform, which you have and I wasn't going to focus on something that you obviousily correct in the follow-up to my comment.

You have made a request, and so I have one - reword the rest of your post to remove the sarcasm so that I don't focus on what I precieve the meaning to be, but what your actual statements are. Sarcasm ruins my ability to focus on what your actual statement is and will lead us down the path of the type of discussion that you have stated you rather avoid.


I await your response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

We'll use a fairly standard rational argument that leads to a conclusion that most dismiss as nonsense.

The classic:

1) If determinism is true, then there is no moral responsibility.
2) If determinism is false, then there is no moral responsibility.
C) There is no moral responsibility.

Determinism is plausible, most would grant. But even holding it false runs you into problems...

Hard determinism is by far the strongest theory, as soft determinism or compatibilism must redefine the very notion of free will to be coherent, and libertarianism (complex theories of agency) are quite "mysterious" in the way they work.

---

this statement/problem is absurd. it appears entirely designed to be irrational and confusing. not only is the numbering wrong, but the options are nonsensical. how on Earth is this even remotely a rational argument?

so again i quote your point and ask you to elaborate...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Also, plenty of beliefs that you would call nonsense, can firmly be based on reason and empirical evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

care to give an example? - I find concepts such as Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Sin, and Divine Judgement to be nonsense. how can such things be based on reason or empirical evidence?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Reason itself is not empirically based and cannot use reason to justify it.

---

the use of Evidence is empirically based and justifies the use of Reason as a way of using evidence to approach problems/questions and find accurate information...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

this statement/problem is absurd. it appears entirely designed to be irrational and confusing. not only is the numbering wrong, but the options are nonsensical. how on Earth is this even remotely a rational argument?

---

This is the classic "dilemma argument". It is a very reasonable argument (one can argue it presents a false dichotomy, but also has to appreciate the bite it has).

I don't know why you consider it absurd. Because it presents a dilemma? That does not make something absurd my friend.

The numbering is not wrong. The two premises are numbered, and the C is for the conclusion. There are implicit premises not present in my formulation ("determinism has to either be true or false").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

the use of Evidence is empirically based and justifies the use of Reason as a way of using evidence to approach problems/questions and find accurate information...

---

Now this is an argument I'm having a hard time follow...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

the use of Evidence is empirically based and justifies the use of Reason as a way of using evidence to approach problems/questions and find accurate information...

---

Reenk Roink, I wonder if is attempting to describe logic and reasoning based upon a sciencitific (SP) model?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

This is the classic "dilemma argument". It is a very reasonable argument (one can argue it presents a false dichotomy, but also has to appreciate the bite it has).

I don't know why you consider it absurd. Because it presents a dilemma? That does not make something absurd my friend.

The numbering is not wrong. The two premises are numbered, and the C is for the conclusion. There are implicit premises not present in my formulation ("determinism has to either be true or false").

---

regardless of weather determinism is true or false (personally I don't care one way or the other) - why does this mean that there is no moral responsibility?

I don't care at all about determinism. I think it's a poor way to approach ethics...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Now this is an argument I'm having a hard time follow...

---

Why do many people who take things on faith - including religion and superstition - have such a problem with those of us who understand the universe based on the rational interpretation of evidence?

the decision to use secular ethics and the scientific method and generally being non-religious is attacked by many religious people - including many 'religious moderates' as beeing unethical and short-sighted and generally stupid and "sinful".

why should non-religious people play into the manipulation and fears of the superstitious? why should non-religious people believe the often unrealistic things in religious scripture and teachings without any real evidence?

when we claim that we don't believe in this or that deity because of a lack of evidence, why are we attacked for our methods of understanding the universe and for approaching ethical matters?

why should we take the leap of faith and believe something unrealistic without evidence if we currently understand and use a method based on evidence which is obviously quite sensible?

there is this arrogance with numerous religions where it is assumed that converting to some faith will result in an ethical or intellectual improvement. While this may be somewhat practical for barbaric or uneducated populations, it doesn't work so well in civilized modern societies...

to put it simply... I would not consider it of any benefit to myself to convert to a religion in either ethical or intellectual terms. it would not be an improvement in my morals or intelligence to take religious dogma seriously.

why should we take important things on faith if we are unlikely to benefit from such a change?

now I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to be insulting to religious people. I'm explaining why it is almost insulting and degrading when religious preachers think they are morally and intellectually superior to non-religious views...

I'm not saying that non-religious views are entirely superior either, but the arrogance of many religious individuals on this matter is almost institutional.

for example - in Christianity - these are ethical lessons...
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7

Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10

A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33


these sorts of biblical statements (and others) are simply to promote the notion that Christians are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else. it is disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

Why do many people who take things on faith - including religion and superstition - have such a problem with those of us who understand the universe based on the rational interpretation of evidence?

---

I think the problem is not with the logic - but the wording of the sentence used in the initial post. It might be wise to review your post to insure your not assuming something not in evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I think the problem is not with the logic - but the wording of the sentence used in the initial post. It might be wise to review your post to insure your not assuming something not in evidence.

---

sorry, which sentence and post is this?


IF this is the supposition that there are no gods (typical Atheist absense of belief in deities) then I'm not saying there is decent evidence to suppose this, only socio-psychological theories...

one cannot even hope to prove or disprove the existence of deities with any conclusive evidence...

but that doesn't mean that the supposition that there are no deities is any sillier than the supposition that there are deities in existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

sorry, which sentence and post is this?

---

Your last sentence post #54, his last statement was directed at that comment I believe.

Quote:

---

IF this is the supposition that there are no gods (typical Atheist absense of belief in deities) then I'm not saying there is decent evidence to suppose this, only socio-psychological theories...

one cannot even hope to prove or disprove the existence of deities with any conclusive evidence...

but that doesn't mean that the supposition that there are no deities is any sillier than the supposition that there are deities in existence.

---

There was no statement toward the arguement - only the reaction from reading your post following Reenk Roink's last sentence in post #55,


In simple words your comments read like an over-reaction to his statement. A rant if you will. Rants are an emotional appeal form of logic - and are not condusive to reason and rational debate. A rant can be a relief value but it distracts from the course of the discussion. Which is why I am ignoring the majority of post #57