Research on Belief in God

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 16, 2011
1,551
0
0
Cobblestoned said:
What a nice written piece.
That's the proof that English can be used to form artful sentences and thoughts. Practiced too rarely in the internets.
Thank you. It was hard, but worth reading it.

Todays limerick ? :D
Thanks for that. It wasn't too easy writing it, but it's useful sometimes to arrange your own thoughts. I'm glad someone else can appreciate them.
As for Limericks, maybe I'll open a thread ;).

Now for the second speakers: Richard Dawkins started off pretty well and humorously, rebutting Prof. Spivey's (not Smythie) argument regarding humans are all spiritual and that religion is not necessary for culture and art (Haydn's evolution oratorio would be something). He then seemed to focus heavily on a scientific attack on a literal interpretation of the bible, which seemed inappropriate for the debate and I must admit I lost interest. So Hitchens wins hands down in this type of debate (at least on this evidence).

Rabbi Julia Neuberger was the second speaker and attempted to steal the middle ground. Her main point was that religion served the average person as a means of celebrating positive events and commiserating negative events, gave individuals ideals to strive towards and a meeting point to live as a community. It was interesting that in the book of interviews with atheists I read, one of the interviewees felt the need for such a meeting point for humanists (but obviously without the religious overtones) and I must admit that I feel a lack of such a wider community.

She also saw doubt as a positive thing that pushes people forward and keeps things in perspective. I can see where she's coming from, but from my point of view I would call it a sense of wonder. My knowledge is imperfect, but developing and I still feel awe when faced with glorious peaks and the working of biology, feeling the eons of time that have gone into their creation. So it seems, I'm in some ways closer to Neuberger than Dawkins.

To the Hitch: Unfortunately, my Polish is much better than my Welsh :eek:
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
When I talk to God I'm like "Hey guy, how do I know where the parmesan ends and the wax begins? And should I get pec implants?" God's a bro.
I spoke with him last night, mostly about cycling. He said he had to let Evans win one.
 
Tank Engine said:
Firstly, religion should be the choice of an individual and not some form of cultural osmosis...
Ahh, but religion in the post classical world, for most of its history, never permitted individual choice, but was a form of cultural osmosis. One got born into it. The strength of the grip that the church had over society, which was all encompassing, conceded no alternatives. The work it did in building a culture and an identity through the arts, architecture, ritual, even politics and the law did the rest. All formidable forces, against which only those not concerned with the community (I think of a Leonado da Vinci here) and often their own lives (Giordano Bruno) could not resist, while the conditioning and stimuli in any case began in childhood. People were literally weaned on their religion in the tribal sense. Choice had nothing to do with it.

2000 years ago, however, one had the choice to say worship Mithras (only if male though), or the Great Mother (Magna Mater), or the Chistos (apart from the intermittent persecutions for political reasons), or Sol Invictus, or any number of mystery/savior cults of exotic origin, as against the traditional and official ones of the state.

Within Judaism one didn't have a choice, however: one was either born a Jew or not and that was that. Nor did one have a choice when the other great monotheistic religions, which arose from its trunk, took hold of society: orthodox Christianity and Islam. Hence religion itself came to mean a mass identity. So that for a thousand years if you were a Westerner, you were Catholic, while if from the Middle East you were Muslim (which is still the case). Monotheism, as such, could not even consider an alternative Truth, while those that challenged the orthodoxy were branded heretics and persecuted, their teachings condemned as anathema. Whereas, even today, in several conservative Islamic states, if a Muslim converts to another religion (almost always Christianity) he may be condemned, to death, for apostasy, according to the dictates of the Koran.

It seems worthy to me to mention that in the US, and I don't know if this is a result of its free-market culture or its penchant for entrepreneurship (or perhaps as these things themselves build identity), but within Christianity there have arisen over the last couple of centuries a myriad of sects of the protestant, evangelical type, with the result that one can apparently go looking to find the cultus most congenial to himself or herself, the way one goes to the shopping mall to find the right pair of pants and jacket. And the means with which they promote themselves is strangely linked to the commercial publicity, their mass gatherings, with thaumaturge to boot, televised in the American homes. I wonder if this is another indication that Western society, in its traditional religious identity, is in precipitous decline?

In this sense Marx was right: religion is the people's opium and their regime.
 
Science's domain is physics/reality.

Metaphysics is the domain of religion or literature/poetry.

Every time a pseudo-scientist has tried to describe unknown things, they failed ... massively. So why should I trust these idiots? They need facts, reality.

Metaphysical nil is a theory that needs proof. Metaphysics does not need proof. Man always already an intuition of metaphysics.

Atheists' secret aim is merchandizing everything that stands on the planet (people, things, etc.). Of course, they won't assume it but that's it.
 
Echoes said:
Science's domain is physics/reality.

Metaphysics is the domain of religion or literature/poetry.

Every time a pseudo-scientist has tried to describe unknown things, they failed ... massively. So why should I trust these idiots? They need facts, reality.

Metaphysical nil is a theory that needs proof. Metaphysics does not need proof. Man always already an intuition of metaphysics.

Atheists' secret aim is merchandizing everything that stands on the planet (people, things, etc.). Of course, they won't assume it but that's it.
As hard as believers try to erect a wall between God and science, there is no wall that can be built.

Science is so inevitably intertwined with faith, it is really extraordinary. In fact, I will go as far as saying that science has shaped faith throughout the past 500 years. People used to have faith that the earth was the centre of the universe, and along came Copernicus and Galileo. So faith changed. Faith then used to have it that the diversity and complexity of life could only be explained through God, and along came Darwin. So faith changed (well, for some people at least, like most Catholics). And so on.

People of faith use science to back up their beliefs all the time, whether they know it or not. "All of this couldn't have come into place by accident" (geology, biology, astronomy...), "what are the chances that the universal constants are exactly like this so that we are here??" (mathematics, physics), "if people need religion, it must mean something" (neurology, psychology...), "I prayed for my dad, and he survived the operation!" (again neurology and psychology) etc.

Metaphysics does his thing in dealing with the concept of God, but I'm sorry, if you want to mess with science, you better accept it's going to strike back.

Echoes said:
No need. You've just said Marx was right ...
Um what? So if I agree with a sentence uttered by one person, I am automatically agreeing with everything or most of what he said? :confused:
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Marx his historical materialism is still being used to this day. It's very influential. It's not because you're wrong in one thing that you're wrong in another. His classless society is already long debunked to not work in reality, but he's still very influential in other aspects of his works.
 
Echoes said:
Every time a pseudo-scientist has tried to describe unknown things, they failed ... massively. So why should I trust these idiots? They need facts, reality. .
Ah yes, the pseudo- scientists. Steven J Gould, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins.

What right do they have to compete with such great minds as Dr. Steve Austin of Liberty University, and Kent Hovind of Florida State Penitentiary.
 
Descender said:
As hard as believers try to erect a wall between God and science, there is no wall that can be built.

Science is so inevitably intertwined with faith, it is really extraordinary. In fact, I will go as far as saying that science has shaped faith throughout the past 500 years. People used to have faith that the earth was the centre of the universe, and along came Copernicus and Galileo. So faith changed.
But It's complete crap !!!

This has nothing to do with Faith. It's a scientific axiom based on experience that has been rejected. Axioms are changing ... :rolleyes:

Descender said:
Metaphysics does his thing in dealing with the concept of God, but I'm sorry, if you want to mess with science, you better accept it's going to strike back.
Metaphysics is a domain, it does nothing. What does this all mean ??



Descender said:
Um what? So if I agree with a sentence uttered by one person, I am automatically agreeing with everything or most of what he said? :confused:
It's not as if the sentence in question summarized the whole theory. Marx who was intelligent enough knew that Faith was the guardian of individual freedom and creativity. Collectivism could only come through if you break that up.

And that's why I hate atheist's dishonesty. Those who figure Religion is the cause of every war and ddeliberately ignore Stalin's crimes for example. :rolleyes:

If it was my opium I would know it. Lol I haven't even always been a Christian ...
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,899
0
0
Echoes said:
And that's why I hate atheist's dishonesty. Those who figure Religion is the cause of every war and ddeliberately ignore Stalin's crimes for example. :rolleyes:

If it was my opium I would know it. Lol I haven't even always been a Christian ...
At first, I didn't reply to your posts because I thought you were joking.

Comparing Stalin to Lenin is comparing chalk and cheese, let alone Stalin and Marx.
Do a fair research on Stalin and you will realise that his contribution was the single largest in blunting axis forces in the second world war and was also responsible for the most despicable political persecution of opponents and non opponents in the years following the war.

Nobody said religion was the cause of every war, Iraq was all oil and no religion. Money and geopolitical interests are the cause of wars, but religion has been intertwined with the afore mentioned reasons many times in history.
 
Echoes said:
But It's complete crap !!!

This has nothing to do with Faith. It's a scientific axiom based on experience that has been rejected. Axioms are changing ... :rolleyes:
...and faith is too. The difference being, science doesn't deal in absolute terms, it doesn't pretend to be perennial, eternal and immovable. It is ready to toss the previous consensus out of the window if new evidence is found. It is faith and religion that makes absolute claims.

What are now scientific axioms used to be (and in some cases still are) elements of faith.

Metaphysics is a domain, it does nothing. What does this all mean ??
We all know what metaphysics is about, let's move on.

It's not as if the sentence in question summarized the whole theory. Marx who was intelligent enough knew that Faith was the guardian of individual freedom and creativity. Collectivism could only come through if you break that up.
Seriously?? This has to be one of the most shocking statements about religion I have ever heard.

And that's why I hate atheist's dishonesty. Those who figure Religion is the cause of every war and ddeliberately ignore Stalin's crimes for example. :rolleyes:
Name one prominent atheist who says that.

As if Stalin committed his crimes in the name of atheism, by the way.

If it was my opium I would know it. Lol I haven't even always been a Christian ...
And I have never always been an atheist.
 
Jul 16, 2011
1,551
0
0
Reply from a Scientist

Echoes said:
Science's domain is physics/reality.

Metaphysics is the domain of religion or literature/poetry.

Every time a pseudo-scientist has tried to describe unknown things, they failed ... massively. So why should I trust these idiots? They need facts, reality.

Metaphysical nil is a theory that needs proof. Metaphysics does not need proof. Man always already an intuition of metaphysics.

Atheists' secret aim is merchandizing everything that stands on the planet (people, things, etc.). Of course, they won't assume it but that's it.
As a scientist, I am very aware of our imperfect understanding of the world. Many things (at least those in the physical world) that were previously unknown have been explained by scientific advances. Science will continue to advance humans' understanding of the world around them by (as Descender says) having an open mind, looking at the evidence and reviewing our theories. Religion has also developed over time, being influenced by religious leaders, philosophy and science (there was no Christianity 2,000 years ago, Luther's views led to a revolution in Christendom, the church did not accept Gallileo's view of the universe, which is now generally accepted and has adapted itself to the theory of evolution). Science will not provide an answer of what is "the meaning" of life etc. While there are things outside the realm of science, truth cannot contradict physical realities.

As for our "secret aim", you seem to make a very sweeping statement in your final two sentences and to indicate that you are closed to any rebuttal of this statement by concrete atheists. My aim is to do my bit (however small) in broadening our understanding of the world and to help understand the mechanisms of disease (I'm a statistician, who among other things works with a team working on sporadic cancers), as well as to be honest to myself and the people around me (though like everyone I'm human).

Echoes said:
It's not as if the sentence in question summarized the whole theory. Marx who was intelligent enough knew that Faith was the guardian of individual freedom and creativity. Collectivism could only come through if you break that up.

And that's why I hate atheist's dishonesty. Those who figure Religion is the cause of every war and ddeliberately ignore Stalin's crimes for example.
Faith has been the guardian of freedom (many priests opposed the regime in El Salvador, those centred around the weekly paper Tygodnik Powszechny in Poland during communism), although in many cases this was when the freedom of religious institutions was under threat. Religious institutions have also supressed creativity and freedom when they have been in power (Gallileo was persecuted for his view of the universe, inquisitions, it's clear from the architecture and art of the middle ages that the church had huge power and wealth, those centred around Nasz Dziennik [Our Daily] fight for the temporal and political power of the church in Poland today and members of the church in Ireland have certainly abused their power in recent history). The way I see it, freedom to have (or not have) one's own faith is the guardian of individual freedom and creativity.

What do you mean by atheists' dishonesty in this context? There have been many religious people who have gone to war, carried out atrocities based on religious belief (the crusades, the Catholics war with the Cathars, Calvinists in Geneva), just as there have been many non-religious or secular people who have carried out atrocities in the name of some ideal (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, North Korea, right wing regimes in Central and South America - some supported by the religious hierarchy). See also Ramjambunath's comments. Both religious and secular people have lived laudable lives.

There are concrete atheists taking part in this debate, who certainly do not believe what you ascribe to us. It would be honest of you to address what we actually say, rather than seemingly attributing a set of beliefs to us as a whole. Just like Christendom, we do not form a monolithic block.
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
Just to lighten up the atmosphere a little.
"Does anyone know opening words of Vatican Holly Mass since pope is German now?
"Achtung, Achtung!":D
I found it funny:)
 
Tank Engine said:
...

Faith has been the guardian of freedom (many priests opposed the regime in El Salvador, those centred around the weekly paper Tygodnik Powszechny in Poland during communism), although in many cases this was when the freedom of religious institutions was under threat. Religious institutions have also supressed creativity and freedom when they have been in power (Gallileo was persecuted for his view of the universe, inquisitions, it's clear from the architecture and art of the middle ages that the church had huge power and wealth, those centred around Nasz Dziennik [Our Daily] fight for the temporal and political power of the church in Poland today and members of the church in Ireland have certainly abused their power in recent history). The way I see it, freedom to have (or not have) one's own faith is the guardian of individual freedom and creativity.

What do you mean by atheists' dishonesty in this context? There have been many religious people who have gone to war, carried out atrocities based on religious belief (the crusades, the Catholics war with the Cathars, Calvinists in Geneva), just as there have been many non-religious or secular people who have carried out atrocities in the name of some ideal (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, North Korea, right wing regimes in Central and South America - some supported by the religious hierarchy). See also Ramjambunath's comments. Both religious and secular people have lived laudable lives.

There are concrete atheists taking part in this debate, who certainly do not believe what you ascribe to us. It would be honest of you to address what we actually say, rather than seemingly attributing a set of beliefs to us as a whole. Just like Christendom, we do not form a monolithic block.
The interesting thing about religious oppression and persecution and political oppression and persecution, is that they are the flip side of the same coin.

In the cases of the political despots you mentioned, they found justification for their cause through, like religion, the sanctification of power and they frequently built an identity around such power, through the same type of iconic imagery that religion has historically used to create a basis for the sacred nature of a persona, or office itself. One thinks of the embalmed body of Lenin, or the gigantography of Mao. Well we could just as easily be dealing with the cadaver or image of an orthodox saint.
or martyr of the faith.

In the case of Bishop Romero, of El Salvador, however, he was also killed because he preached things that were sympathetic of Marxist collectivism. He may have thus been "discharged" by the very religion he professed, as a result of the Cold War politics.

In any case A-theism, simply means not having belief in a god or faith. It doesn't mean one who, except in a few rare noted cases, wishes to make a "crusade" (and I use this term specifically) against the religious to suppress others' belief or faith. While it's true of late, but only within the confines of democracy of the secularized West, some intellectuals have attempted to debunk religion and faith, but to say that these represent a modern form of tyranny or that religion is liberty is an absurdity that is also an insult to the millions who have died, either because they challenged the religious establishments, or because they were considered no more savage heathens who needed to be either butchered or converted to the Truth (and thus religion provided a "moral" justification for such barbary). Atheism also doesn't necessarily mean holding an absolute certainty that no higher power exists or was the cause of the universe and existence, but that no certainty can be known, as the religious claim does, in the this regard.

History, unfortunately, has provided ample cases and over a sustained period of time, for which religion and faith were not a means toward individual liberty or liberation, but exactly the opposite, as instruments of repression conformity. On thinks of the Peasant Revolt of 1525, for which Luther wrote a damning sentence to the princes of his region stating that "there is nothing worse than a rebelious peasant, kill them all," knowing that without the support of the nobles, his religious movement was going nowhere. Or the well known instance of Galileo's trial by the Catholic Inquisition and many, many others. Whereas the very notion of faith means to give up some of one's individual liberty by suspending reason, to be able to embrace a belief, which a rationalist argues simply can't be arrived at by what are the rather limited human faculties in comprehension.

They say, thus, that faith is a gift (from whom, though, I wouldn't know), in allowing those that have it to suppress their own reason and accept as undeniable and absolute Truth, what reasonably is unknowable. This has always led the religious institutions to couch themselves within the rapture of a visionary and mystical culture, as well as to invent a system of theological dogmas, which have frequently been transformed by the religious authorities into reasons to condemn and obliterate all those whom they regard as either heretics or infidels. Throughout history, consequently, such religious authorities were to be regarded with great fear and respect, to be questioned only at great peril of ones life through inquisitions, exactly like the tyrannical political regimes.
 
Atheist dishonesty? It just shows up any time. Almost every post by them on this thread is evidence of it.


The post above me, for example. Comparing "religious" oppression to "political" oppression. As if Stalin was only "political". "I have to hide he was an atheist". "The USSR, that's not me". "My flag is not red but purple". "I leave the anvil but I keep the hammer". Always the same refrain. They can't assume their past.

Of course, Stalin killed Christians for their belief ONLY. He WAS an atheist assassin, period.

Religion being compared to Science is also an evidence of their dishonesty. Both do not apply to the same domain (nature/physics vs metaphysics). The fact that we have to step in on philosophy of Science on a thread that was meant by OP to regard Religion is proof that there is a problem with this thread. Science is working axioms (past & present !!!!). Axioms imply BELIEVES and not Faith ... :rolleyes: Science is not Fact either. Goodness, how many things have to be corrected here. I mean let's take the Great South Land. Myth invented by ... scientists, based on rational thinking just like you're doing on this thread. James Cook debunked that myth. Cook was not a scientist but a sailor. (Why do I need to talk about that on thread that regards Religion, I'm still wondering).



And saying (or rather suggesting) that Aristotle was a Biblical prophet like OP did, is just so ridiculous. :rolleyes: I couldn't even believe my eyes when I read that. :eek:



And the Christian Faith is Freedom ! It's obvious. Secularism was invented by Christianity ...

PS: OK I think I've said all I had to say. Next time I'm visiting this forum ... cycling ! :)
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,899
0
0
\

Echoes said:
Atheist dishonesty? It just shows up any time. Almost every post by them on this thread is evidence of it.


The post above me, for example. Comparing "religious" oppression to "political" oppression. As if Stalin was only "political". "I have to hide he was an atheist". "The USSR, that's not me". "My flag is not red but purple". "I leave the anvil but I keep the hammer". Always the same refrain. They can't assume their past.

Of course, Stalin killed Christians for their belief ONLY. He WAS an atheist assassin, period.

Religion being compared to Science is also an evidence of their dishonesty. Both do not apply to the same domain (nature/physics vs metaphysics). The fact that we have to step in on philosophy of Science on a thread that was meant by OP to regard Religion is proof that there is a problem with this thread. Science is working axioms (past & present !!!!). Axioms imply BELIEVES and not Faith ... :rolleyes: Science is not Fact either. Goodness, how many things have to be corrected here. I mean let's take the Great South Land. Myth invented by ... scientists, based on rational thinking just like you're doing on this thread. James Cook debunked that myth. Cook was not a scientist but a sailor. (Why do I need to talk about that on thread that regards Religion, I'm still wondering).



And saying (or rather suggesting) that Aristotle was a Biblical prophet like OP did, is just so ridiculous. :rolleyes: I couldn't even believe my eyes when I read that. :eek:



And the Christian Faith is Freedom ! It's obvious. Secularism was invented by Christianity ...

PS: OK I think I've said all I had to say. Next time I'm visiting this forum ... cycling ! :)
I request you politely to stop speaking from your backside. Read this thread, read it carefully and tell me which one of the proclaimed atheists has a combative attitude to other religious beliefs. Read this thread again, especially the last few pages, and tell me who has been the most aggressive and attacking user, trying to belittle others. Most of us know the answer to it.

Yes, only atheists are blood thirsty. The crusades, they never happened. The issues with Jerusalem, they're non existent.

Christianity started secularism, again stop talking nonsense. Ashoka was the emperor of the Mauryan empire, he was a Buddhist emperor in the 3rd century BC, was well known for his tolerance and setting up of a secular empire (Jainism and Vedic religions existed back then). 300 years Before Christ and a few centuries before Christianity. (I can't be sure of what happened prior to the Mauryan empire and don't know too much about Mesopotamia)

That religion and science have nothing in common is the most narrow minded statement one can make. I'm not sure about Christianity, but I can tell that the Vedas (which are integral to Hinduism) did have the theory of Anu and Paramanu which can easily be extrapolated to molecules or atoms in modern science.

Srimad Bhagavat Maha-purana, Canto III, Chapter XI

Sanskrit-English Translation by Richard Shaw-Brown

Forward

It is only recently that the Western scientists discovered the existence of the atom; but the following ancient Sanskrit verses show that the atom or ANU was already known to the Hindu seers thousands of years back. I consider this information to be amazing, especially as it relates to modern scientific discoveries.

English Translations

Verse 1: (The great sage) Maitreya said: "The smallest particle of material substance, which has not yet combined with any other similar particles, is called paramanu (a sub-atomic particle of matter). Paramanus always exist both in the dormant and manifest states of material existence. It is the combination of more than one paramanu (sub-atomic particle) which gives rise to the illusory concept of a (material) unit.

Verse 2: And the entire manifest material existence, taken as a non-specific whole, and before returning to an unmanifest (dormant) state, is defined as the largest (material) size.

Verse 3: We can understand the short and long dimensions of (material) time, as a potency of the Supreme all-pervading transcendental Lord, Who, in the form of the Sun, passes across the small and large dimensions of (material) things.

Verse 4: The amount of time it takes the Sun to pass across the smallest particle of matter is called paramanu which is the smallest measure of time, while the period it takes to cross the total expanse of material creation is called the longest measure of time.

Verse 5: A combination of two paramanus constitutes an anu (atom); and three anu's (atoms) makes one trasarenu. Trasarenus are visable [to the naked eye] when seen floating upward in the air while viewed through rays of sunlight which enter a room through a latticed window.

Verse 6: Three Trasarenus is called a truti (8/13,500 part of a second), which is a measure of time it takes (the Sun) to travel across three Trasarenus. A combination of one hundred trutis is called a vedha (8/135 part of a second), and three vedas together is known as a lava (8/45 part of a second).

Verse 7: A combination of three lavas is called a nimesha or the twinkling of an eye (8/15 part of a second), while three such nimeshas equals a ksana (8/ 5 part of a second). A combination of five ksanas is known as a kastha (8 seconds), and fifteen kasthas is equal to a laghu (2 minutes).

Verse 8: A conglomerate of 15 laghus is called a nadika (30 minutes). Two nadikas equal a muhurta (hour), and six or seven nadikas equal a prahara (approximately 3 hours to 3 and a half hours, depending on long or short days), which is a fourth of a day by human calculation.

Verse 9: A nadika can be measured by taking a copper pot weighing six palas (8 tolas=ck dictionary) that can contain about 14 ounces of water and punching a small hole in the bottom using a 10-12" long golden needle that
weighs four mashas (ck dictionary); when the pot is placed in water it takes a nadika of time (about 30 minutes) to fill up (and sink).

Verse 10: Oh Vidura, who respect all beings, (the Sage Maitreya continued), for humans, day and night consist of four yamas (6 hour periods), while 15 such days & nights make up the bright or dark fortnight, by rotation.

Verse 11: Two of these fortnights (the bright and the dark) equals a masah (one month consisting of 30 days length), and this period is taken as one day and one night of the forefathers (Pitris in heaven). Two of these months equal a ritu or season, while six such months is called an ayana (one full movement of the Sun from North to South or South to North).

Verse 12: By the calculation of the demigods in heaven these two ayanas (12 months by human calculation) make up their celestial day and night which is one year for humans. And the full life span for humans is 100 years.
Of course, anu may not be an atom and may just be the some other particle ala a molecule, but this proves that religion and science have gone hand in hand in the past, even before all the world became civilised.

PS: My last post on this.
 
Echoes said:
Atheist dishonesty? It just shows up any time. Almost every post by them on this thread is evidence of it.


The post above me, for example. Comparing "religious" oppression to "political" oppression. As if Stalin was only "political". "I have to hide he was an atheist". "The USSR, that's not me". "My flag is not red but purple". "I leave the anvil but I keep the hammer". Always the same refrain. They can't assume their past.

Of course, Stalin killed Christians for their belief ONLY. He WAS an atheist assassin, period.

Religion being compared to Science is also an evidence of their dishonesty. Both do not apply to the same domain (nature/physics vs metaphysics). The fact that we have to step in on philosophy of Science on a thread that was meant by OP to regard Religion is proof that there is a problem with this thread. Science is working axioms (past & present !!!!). Axioms imply BELIEVES and not Faith ... :rolleyes: Science is not Fact either. Goodness, how many things have to be corrected here. I mean let's take the Great South Land. Myth invented by ... scientists, based on rational thinking just like you're doing on this thread. James Cook debunked that myth. Cook was not a scientist but a sailor. (Why do I need to talk about that on thread that regards Religion, I'm still wondering).



And saying (or rather suggesting) that Aristotle was a Biblical prophet like OP did, is just so ridiculous. :rolleyes: I couldn't even believe my eyes when I read that. :eek:



And the Christian Faith is Freedom ! It's obvious. Secularism was invented by Christianity ...

PS: OK I think I've said all I had to say. Next time I'm visiting this forum ... cycling ! :)
Your attitude, for starters.

And do explain what the hell you're talking about when you accuse me of saying that Aristotle was a biblical prophet.
 
The "but Mao, Stalin, Polpot were atheists and killed lots of people" argument, is a tricky one, and often used to annoy, especially when Hitler (who they know was religious) is thrown into the mix and called an atheist.

The truth is, we cant really tie them to the thousand of religious murderers, any more than they can us to Polpot, because they can just say that the path of Torquemada was a wrong one.

And theyd be right. THe argument that all those murders were misguided, and are not true, Christians, Muslims etc, can hold.

Often atheists say that its different because Stalin and Mao werent killing people in the name of atheism.

Its a fragile argument because it would get turned on its head, if some idiot somewhere decided to start killing people in the name of atheism.

In fact one could argue that Stalin and Lenin already did do that.

So the best response is to say that it is the influence of their religion on society that is strongly correlated with monsters. El Sueno de Razon produce Monstoros as Goya said.

Because if you show them a society based on Christianity, eg 12th century europe, in which people there are mass genocides against others, Christians are not going to distance themselves from the bible, and their beliefs.

We however can distance ourselves from Mao and Pol Pots beliefs. Theirs is a a different atheism from our atheism. Our atheism is not based on "What is to be done".

For the record, this is the piece Hitchens usually gives.

",show me a society that adopted the ideas of Baruch Spinoza, Albert Einstein and Thomas Payne, that fell into genocidal chaos and then we could have that discussion"
 
The Hitch said:
The "but Mao, Stalin, Polpot were atheists and killed lots of people" argument, is a tricky one, and often used to annoy, especially when Hitler (who they know was religious) is thrown into the mix and called an atheist.

The truth is, we cant really tie them to the thousand of religious murderers, any more than they can us to Polpot, because they can just say that the path of Torquemada was a wrong one.

And theyd be right. THe argument that all those murders were misguided, and are not true, Christians, Muslims etc, can hold.

Often atheists say that its different because Stalin and Mao werent killing people in the name of atheism.

Its a fragile argument because it would get turned on its head, if some idiot somewhere decided to start killing people in the name of atheism.

In fact one could argue that Stalin and Lenin already did do that.

So the best response is to say that it is the influence of their religion on society that is strongly correlated with monsters. El Sueno de Razon produce Monstoros as Goya said.

Because if you show them a society based on Christianity, eg 12th century europe, in which people there are mass genocides against others, Christians are not going to distance themselves from the bible, and their beliefs.

We however can distance ourselves from Mao and Pol Pots beliefs. Theirs is a a different atheism from our atheism. Our atheism is not based on "What is to be done".

For the record, this is the piece Hitchens usually gives.

",show me a society that adopted the ideas of Baruch Spinoza, Albert Einstein and Thomas Payne, that fell into genocidal chaos and then we could have that discussion"
Good points.

Atheism is no set of principles.

I'd like to approach this a bit differently though. Like you said, it can be argued that, if we say that Stalin was not a "true" atheist and was misguided one, Muslims for instance might say that Bin Laden was a misguided Muslim as well. And yes, that is a reasonable argument.

The difference is, Stalin and Pol Pot did not commit their crimes because of their atheism. They did not kill those priests and clergymen because there is no God. They might have done it because they despised religion, and that can easily be linked to their atheism, but there is nothing in atheism that could possibly prompt them to commit these crimes. Notice I am alluding to the basic definition of atheism, "lack of belief in a deity or deities".

On the other hand, one cannot say Bin Laden didn't commit his crimes because he was a Muslim. There are precepts in the Quran and other sacred Muslim texts that can very easily be interpreted the way they were interpreted by Bin Laden.
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
The Hitch said:
The "but Mao, Stalin, Polpot were atheists and killed lots of people" argument, is a tricky one, and often used to annoy, especially when Hitler (who they know was religious) is thrown into the mix and called an atheist.
That's debatable. Being the political genius that he was, Hitler certainly used religion to his advantage.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
1
0
I really get a laugh from these superstitious toolbags who are convinced that there is a monolithic block of atheists who are out to get them. It's like a bunch of crackers in 1940's complaining that they are being oppressed by the blacks.
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
Why is it that - unlike other religions - christians refer to their god simply as "god", rather than use his name. His name is "Jealous" by the way. Can someone explain that one?
 
Oct 8, 2011
211
0
0
Altitude said:
Why is it that - unlike other religions - christians refer to their god simply as "god", rather than use his name. His name is "Jealous" by the way. Can someone explain that one?
Where are you getting that from?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS