Research on Belief in God

[Zam_Olyas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81RhewkQbOk

Good series of videos on the spanish civil war.

 

[Echoes]

Atheist violence against religious pacifism !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZbYVN1k-2E

 

[rhubroma]

Atheist violence against religious pacifism !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZbYVN1k-2E

You neglected to mention, however, in their protest, that it is a response to the moral offense homosexuals have for centuries endured at the hands of religious doctrine. In many Arab theocratic states, for instance, it is a capital offense still in the 21st century. Whereas in the Christian sphere it is considered by many churches to be a mortal sin, contrary to nature and a perversion of sexuality. As I have mentioned before with Priebke, the Lefebvrians consider a gay to be more criminal than an assassin, to embrace sexual liberty to be more damaging to society than mass murder. Other than violence against so called religious pacifism.

 

[horsinabout]

Sorry Echoes, the Catholic forerunners of my established mate were fascists. Hitler took inspiration from Mussolini and that is that, finally, if Italy were not to have invaded Ethiopia was it because of Queen Sheba? Though it did, with full Catholic support let me asure you. Capito?

Below is quite a good read, especially the section Nazis and Amalek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek with references to its sources.

A story from the bible, tribal disputes and early genocidal tendencies. It is a depiction of an occurrence, descriptive of conflict without provocation. It is an insight into what human societies and their tribalism have done in historical context. To point it out is not necessarily to condone it., although it is written for dramatic effect, as a “what to do in the event of” and therefore can be construed as insightful and instructive.

Fascism /Nazism was clearly a dysfunctional political system that incorporated nationalism and religion to it's ideology, with narcissistic psychopaths at the helm. From an historical perspective they appear to have gained influence from both religion and atheism, but a misinterpretation of both. Such as Darwinism to justify Eugenics. And religion “the final solution” ethnic cleansing, specific to German Nazism.

Fascism appears to have it's origins from political and philosophical writers from the 19th century, going to show you that they have not always made the world a better place, perhaps not for the want of trying.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/202210/fascism/219391/Intellectual-origins

The WW2 allowed the Nazis to exact out their ideologies, though the main cause of the war was economical not religious or ideological. Not an expert, but this is how I understand things, my general knowledge and reason.

 

[Christian]

I recently visited a college in the US and I went to check out their bookstore. It didn't really deserve that name though because it was mostly all kinds of crap with the school's logo on it.

Anyways they did have some books, but mostly cookbooks and... a large religious section. Needless to say this is a religious college, in this case it was Lutheran. Well I suppose it would be fine if these were books discussing religion (all kinds of it) from various angles... but no. The best seller was "Proof of Heaven" by Dr. Eben Alexander. I was shocked because to me selling and promoting such a book (and many others like it) goes against everything that the concept of university stands for. It's sad, really.

Then last week I came across this guy Bill Maher on youtube, apparently he must be pretty funny, I had never heard of him though. He talks about the book "Proof of heaven" and its author whom he refers to as a "smart stupid person":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olfFNq8b1_E

He also has a documentary called "Religulous", I started watching it but haven't finished yet. So far it's been pretty good!

 

[The Hitch]

.

Then last week I came across this guy Bill Maher on youtube, apparently he must be pretty funny, I had never heard of him though. He talks about the book "Proof of heaven" and its author whom he refers to as a "smart stupid person":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olfFNq8b1_E

He also has a documentary called "Religulous", I started watching it but haven't finished yet. So far it's been pretty good!

Bill Maher is BIG TIME, with capital letters, maybe even 1 of the 50 most famous people in America if not higher and has been for years to the point where most of what he says and does will have a team behind it.

He has a major weekly current affairs round table show called Real Time, which replaced a prior imo better show he had on ABC which was cancelled for one of his many "controversial comments" which generally aren't from what I remember that bad but get more heat in America. The exception was a few weeks ago when he said about the Boston marathon bombing "yeat it was bad, but come on, your city was not levelled by Godzilla".

Real Time sides very much on what is perceived to be the left in America, and is supposed to be very high culture and intellectual.
The fact that a plurality if not majority of its panelists are Hollywood actors and that they can also reach very high in politics (within the Democrat party anyway, eg John Kerry) shows how big Maher is.

Anyway, as you have probably gathered, Mayer is VERY atheist (many of his controversies are because of no holds barred assaults on religion, he was not afraid to call pope Benedict a former Nazi and a child abuse facilitator).

His comedy is all political, usually scripted and read off cards and 99.9999% of the time a dig at Republicans.

Personally there are a few things I don't like about Mayer, especially in the last decade, he was better before real time.

Main one being they invite some real extremists on sometimes eg people like michael moore or some of the rappers who openly praise Al Quaeda and Bin Laden. Also curious that the audience always cheers even louder when they make more extreme statements.

Another is that, to me any tv show which invites people who are unqualified, simply because they are "famous" (the hollywood and music stars it constantly has) loses the right to call itself a serious political discussion program. Im ferociously against Hollywood actors or any celebrity being given a bigger voice on political issues than the average person.

Finally Maher's biggest limitation is that because in the US the Republican voters tend to be so far to the right, less intelligent and sometimes hold very backward ideology (like anti gay rights), Maher's political beliefs have never been challenged (the show very rarely invites anyone who disagrees with him) so as a result his arguments have not been moulded by contact with counterarguments, and he has become very very elitist, believing that all his positions are right based purely on the fact that his opponents in America are much dumber than him. You can probably see that with religioulous, Maher sees the religious as intellectually inferior and this is perhaps even the main argument for him on the issue.

Obviously I believe he is right for the most part, but imo it is dangerous to go through life thinking everyone who disagrees with you is dumber (dawkins does the same), and think whatsmore that the opinion held by the more intelligent person is always the right one.

 

[rhubroma]

Below is quite a good read, especially the section Nazis and Amalek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek with references to its sources.

A story from the bible, tribal disputes and early genocidal tendencies. It is a depiction of an occurrence, descriptive of conflict without provocation. It is an insight into what human societies and their tribalism have done in historical context. To point it out is not necessarily to condone it., although it is written for dramatic effect, as a “what to do in the event of” and therefore can be construed as insightful and instructive.

Fascism /Nazism was clearly a dysfunctional political system that incorporated nationalism and religion to it's ideology, with narcissistic psychopaths at the helm. From an historical perspective they appear to have gained influence from both religion and atheism, but a misinterpretation of both. Such as Darwinism to justify Eugenics. And religion “the final solution” ethnic cleansing, specific to German Nazism.

Fascism appears to have it's origins from political and philosophical writers from the 19th century, going to show you that they have not always made the world a better place, perhaps not for the want of trying.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/202210/fascism/219391/Intellectual-origins

The WW2 allowed the Nazis to exact out their ideologies, though the main cause of the war was economical not religious or ideological. Not an expert, but this is how I understand things, my general knowledge and reason.

Narcissism, this is a characteristic of personality often found in political leaders.

Case in point.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/6257758/a-charismatic-narcissist/


Blair was a born again Christian convert to Catholic. And I do not point this out to undermine my own argument, rather support it!

Now for some light entertainment. You may want to find your own.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xrNaTO1bI

To say that WWII was fought for economic reasons can be said of any war ultimately. The economics behind territorial expansionism was but one reason, in a serious of concomitant causes, that explain how a maniacal despot could have led an entire nation along a crash course with destiny.

It is all too simplistic to suggest that the economic concerns were the only cogent driving forces behind Hitler's Wehrmacht. The others range from the pseudo-mythic, pseudo-philosophical, cultural-tribal, to ideological and even, I'd suggest, semiotic. I realize, however, that in the age of homo economicus, nothing else takes on much critical relevance, though this is a shortsighted fallacy of our historical moment. At any rate to bring this back to the religious sphere. Nazi-Fascism, as it were, replaced Christianity with a new religiosity of the State even if many Christians willingly complied (again read Bernhard on Austria), while it sanctified its party leaders. In Italy, though, the fascist leadership, always needed the approval of the Catholic Church, otherwise Mussolini would have failed as a statesman.

 

[horsinabout]

To say that WWII was fought for economic reasons can be said of any war ultimately. The economics behind territorial expansionism was but one reason, in a serious of concomitant causes, that explain how a maniacal despot could have led an entire nation along a crash course with destiny.

It is all too simplistic to suggest that the economic concerns were the only cogent driving forces behind Hitler's Wehrmacht. The others range from the pseudo-mythic, pseudo-philosophical, cultural-tribal, to ideological and even, I'd suggest, semiotic. I realize, however, that in the age of homo economicus, nothing else takes on much critical relevance, though this is a shortsighted fallacy of our historical moment. At any rate to bring this back to the religious sphere. Nazi-Fascism, as it were, replaced Christianity with a new religiosity of the State even if many Christians willingly complied (again read Bernhard on Austria), while it sanctified its party leaders. In Italy, though, the fascist leadership, always needed the approval of the Catholic Church, otherwise Mussolini would have failed as a statesman.

Thanks for this. If you read my post though I am not disagreeing with you.

Anyway, as you have probably gathered, Mayer is VERY atheist (many of his controversies are because of no holds barred assaults on religion, he was not afraid to call pope Benedict a former Nazi and a child abuse facilitator).

His comedy is all political, usually scripted and read off cards and 99.9999% of the time a dig at Republicans.

Personally there are a few things I don't like about Mayer, especially in the last decade, he was better before real time.

Main one being they invite some real extremists on sometimes eg people like michael moore or some of the rappers who openly praise Al Quaeda and Bin Laden. Also curious that the audience always cheers even louder when they make more extreme statements.

Another is that, to me any tv show which invites people who are unqualified, simply because they are "famous" (the hollywood and music stars it constantly has) loses the right to call itself a serious political discussion program. Im ferociously against Hollywood actors or any celebrity being given a bigger voice on political issues than the average person.

Finally Maher's biggest limitation is that because in the US the Republican voters tend to be so far to the right, less intelligent and sometimes hold very backward ideology (like anti gay rights), Maher's political beliefs have never been challenged (the show very rarely invites anyone who disagrees with him) so as a result his arguments have not been moulded by contact with counterarguments, and he has become very very elitist, believing that all his positions are right based purely on the fact that his opponents in America are much dumber than him. You can probably see that with religioulous, Maher sees the religious as intellectually inferior and this is perhaps even the main argument for him on the issue.

Obviously I believe he is right for the most part, but imo it is dangerous to go through life thinking everyone who disagrees with you is dumber (dawkins does the same), and think whatsmore that the opinion held by the more intelligent person is always the right one.

Very good post

 

[Christian]

it is dangerous to go through life thinking everyone who disagrees with you is dumber (dawkins does the same), and think whatsmore that the opinion held by the more intelligent person is always the right one.

I don't know if this is what you mean, but this reminds me of the common stereotype that atheists are "arrogant". I think that is a missconception. Of course there are arrogant people who are also atheists, but being an atheist, and being open and vocal about it, does not make one arrogant. Dawkins talks about it in his book, when he says that we live in a society where discussion is valued above all things and promoted in every field - except religion. Religions are built on dogmas, i.e. the principle that you cannot question it. Questioning someone's religion is often perceived as something very rude, and thus atheists are labeled as rude.

Here is another thing that Dawkins says on arrogance:

"We're strident. You can't use the word atheist without preceding it with strident".

"It seems to me that... say what I've just said, which is that I can't know that there is no god, but I think it's the same as fairies - that's the sort of cautious thing to say. I'm not saying there is definitely no god. But the arrogance of a religious person who knows, not only knows that there is a god but knows that it's this god, it's the christian god, it's the trinity, and the virgin mary was born of a virgin (sic), I mean they've got it all written down pat (sp?) and they've got absolutely not a shred of evidence for any of it - that's arrogance".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC58vglNOOo

Another thing which IMO inevitably leads to the conception of atheists being arrogant is the impossible standard which people hold for their god. God is god and you cannot compare god to anything except god because there is nothing like god. So when atheists use the fairy or the spaghetti monster comparison, it is perceived as a personal attack, when really it is just a rhetorical arguement.

To the bible scholars out there - was Mary born of a virgin as well? In Spain they worship Mary's mother a lot ("Santa Ana"), many statues of her, churches and streets named after her, but I never heard that she also gave "virgin birth".

 

[Christian]

Another quote I like is "We're all atheists about Zeus and Thor and so on... atheists just go one god further"

 

[Echoes]

Lutherans are atheists. In disguise, perhaps but still atheists, like most Protestants.

Besides the fairy argument is not what I would call a display of arrogance, not in the first place at least. It's just a great display of stupidity. I mean I put that in my dissertation when I was 16. Enough said ! Usually when atheists bring this into the discussion, I stop discussing because I'm feeling Im wasting my time. I've got a book by Christopher Lasch to read and it's far more interesting than reading some stupid atheist on an Internet forum.

 

[Eshnar]

Lutherans are atheists. In disguise, perhaps but still atheists, like most Protestants.

So by Atheists you mean any non-Catholic? That explains most of the stuff you've written!

I stop discussing because I'm feeling Im wasting my time. I've got a book by Christopher Lasch to read and it's far more interesting than reading some stupid atheist on an Internet forum.

May I remind you that you've been saying that for the last few weeks already? How many "last posts" will you write?

 

[The Hitch]

<edited by mod... no insults please.>

 

[rhubroma]

I don't know if this is what you mean, but this reminds me of the common stereotype that atheists are "arrogant". I think that is a missconception. Of course there are arrogant people who are also atheists, but being an atheist, and being open and vocal about it, does not make one arrogant. Dawkins talks about it in his book, when he says that we live in a society where discussion is valued above all things and promoted in every field - except religion. Religions are built on dogmas, i.e. the principle that you cannot question it. Questioning someone's religion is often perceived as something very rude, and thus atheists are labeled as rude.

Here is another thing that Dawkins says on arrogance:

"We're strident. You can't use the word atheist without preceding it with strident".

"It seems to me that... say what I've just said, which is that I can't know that there is no god, but I think it's the same as fairies - that's the sort of cautious thing to say. I'm not saying there is definitely no god. But the arrogance of a religious person who knows, not only knows that there is a god but knows that it's this god, it's the christian god, it's the trinity, and the virgin mary was born of a virgin (sic), I mean they've got it all written down pat (sp?) and they've got absolutely not a shred of evidence for any of it - that's arrogance".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC58vglNOOo

Another thing which IMO inevitably leads to the conception of atheists being arrogant is the impossible standard which people hold for their god. God is god and you cannot compare god to anything except god because there is nothing like god. So when atheists use the fairy or the spaghetti monster comparison, it is perceived as a personal attack, when really it is just a rhetorical arguement.

To the bible scholars out there - was Mary born of a virgin as well? In Spain they worship Mary's mother a lot ("Santa Ana"), many statues of her, churches and streets named after her, but I never heard that she also gave "virgin birth".

Good post. I think in summation that the religious play on the power mass conformism has in labeling arrogant, or worse, any sectarian challenge to the common acceptance of its faith based system, which is typical of conservative movements.

Though it is a merely reactionary defense that doesn’t take into account the rational basis by which most among the non-believers (which I prefer to the term atheist) have arrived at their conclusions. At the same time the idea that someone doesn’t believe in God has frequently for them been viewed as a frontal attack to their own faith and was often denounced as anathema. One must naturally ask why? Why should someone thoroughly convinced of his faith, feel threatened by someone else’s rejection of, or noncompliance with it? When we remember the complex eschatology in this circle, the whole irony of the intolerance of the religious becomes clear: they condemn a position which allows them to pride themselves in being the elect and designated to be saved. Consequently rather than feeling threatened by non-believers, the religious should feel emboldened and reassured.


Conversely, why do non-believers feel little threatened about their position by the religious? Thus who needs reassurance? And what have the historical consequences typically been for all of this business?

 

[Christian]

imo it is dangerous to go through life thinking everyone who disagrees with you is dumber (dawkins does the same), and think whatsmore that the opinion held by the more intelligent person is always the right one.

... but I must say after now having seen half of "Religulous", I agree with your assessment of Bill Maher

 

[BigMac]

Pathetic religious nonsence, or should i say catholic.

As for Bill, he is top notch. I watched Religulous five months ago or so, but didn't find it that good, simply because he is not objective and takes too long to hit the main and interesting arguments. He is a funny and intelligent guy though.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Pathetic religious nonsence, or should i say catholic.

As for Bill, he is top notch. I watched Religulous five months ago or so, but didn't find it that good, simply because he is not objective and takes too long to hit the main and interesting arguments. He is a funny and intelligent guy though.

Pathetic unreligious people or should i say athiest.

 

[horsinabout]

... but I must say after now having seen half of "Religulous", I agree with your assessment of Bill Maher

I can't write for The Hitch but how I read his post was that Maher's show is contrived for TV and selling out to cheap entertainment, rather than proper debate. Hence the argument of Maher's elitism accusation, which I agree with. And the 'show' has lost it's original purpose. The purpose being free speech and the right to criticise religion, which in a democracy is very important to uphold.

Richard Dawkin and dare I say Christopher Hitching, Hitch, have all played the TV game. In the case of Hitchens he has been accused of plagiarising others ideas such as the Mother Teresa critique "The Missionary Position". Also Hitchens for my money did a lot of unashamed religious bashing, which is not the same as religious criticism. I liked a lot of what Hitchens did, but I found him to be a perplexing and contradictory flawed character and like Dawkins a bit of a sell out

 

[Christian]

I can't speak for The Hitch but how I read his post was that Maher's show is contrived for TV and selling out to cheap entertainment, rather than proper debate. Hence the argument of Maher's elitism accusation, which I agree with. And the 'show' has lost it's original purpose. The purpose being free speech and the right to criticise religion, which in a democracy is very important to uphold.

Richard Dawkin and dare I say Christopher Hitching, Hitch, have all played the TV game. In the case of Hitchens he has been accused of plagiarising others ideas such as the Mother Teresa critique "The Missionary Position". Also Hitchens for my money did a lot of unashamed religious bashing, which is not the same as religious criticism. I liked a lot of what Hitchens did, but I found him to be a perplexing and contradictory flawed character and like Dawkins a bit of a sell out

With my earlier post about "arrogance" I wasn't so much trying to answer Hitch's post, it was more that one part of his post made me think of that, so that's why I said it.

Since I have never seen a full episode of "Real Time" (nor of the show Maher was doing before that) but only a couple short clips on youtube I really can't comment on the quality. What could be the case though is that the network is making some of the calls, i.e. they say you can have your own show and say whatever you want, as long as every night there is a hollywood celebrety so that we're sure we're gonna get the ratings. I'd like to see some of Maher's stand up though, I'll have to see whether it's on youtube.

So far what I don't like that much about "Religulous" (and this I think is partly what Hitch was refering to), is that Maher straight out mocks and ridicules the people he interviews. Some people deserve it like Ted Haggard, the people that run a creationist museum or the pastor who says gay people don't exist. But some of the people he interviews are just "regular Joes" and I'm sure really nice people, and he exposes them in a somewhat cruel way. This I think is unnecessary, and it's maybe what Hitch meant when he said:

You can probably see that with religioulous, Maher sees the religious as intellectually inferior and this is perhaps even the main argument for him on the issue.

Too often (and mind you, I'm only halfway through the movie), it comes down to someone saying "The bible says this" and Maher saying "No it doesn't", and then that's it. These arguements seem pointless to me.

I prefer Dawkins' way, who has a scientist's approach. Rather than Maher's "you are stupid for believing in this ridiculous nonsense", he tries to explain religion through evolution and demonstrates the ways in which it harms society

 

[horsinabout]

The problem with Dawkins, unlike Darwin, he doesn't seem to have much emotional intelligence. He thinks he has all the answers to all the complexities of human life just by giving us the low down on evolution, which of course he doesn't, because no one person does.

The other point you make about the damage that religion causes society, well it is more the misinterpretation of religion that causes the problems, as has been discussed in this thread over and over.

I am now going off for my Christmas holiday, and in the inimitable words of Scott of the Antarctic, I may be gone some time.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I would call myself atheist, but gave the joke answer "Hoogerland", since this poll has a major flaw. There is no "money option". The worst religion of them all. With that option, I guess most of the 45% who call themselves atheists would have elected the belief and trust in money... that paper god that is responsible for more deaths, pollution, wars and masacres than any other religion ever was and will.

 

[horsinabout]

I would call myself atheist, but gave the joke answer "Hoogerland", since this poll has a major flaw. There is no "money option". The worst religion of them all. With that option, I guess most of the 45% who call themselves atheists would have elected the belief and trust in money... that paper god that is responsible for more deaths, pollution, wars and masacres than any other religion ever was and will.

Very good post. WW2 Economical. Now I crawl out of my tent into the cold

 

[Echoes]

The sole fact Hitchens is so popular among Anglos is testament of the abasement of education in these countries.

I mean the guy supported the Iraq War !!!!!! Iraq War, remembered what it was? I mean did any author I'm reading support the Iraq War. Of course not! You must have a grain if you read such authors ...

 

[Christian]

Did god create the dinosaurs?

 

[Pentacycle]

Did god create the dinosaurs?

So God created dinosaurs in His own image; He created them in the image of God.