Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Mathews · 07-16-2002, 03:42 AM

Hello Helen,

Quote:

It depends how you define 'failure'. If all those sacrifices are in vain, because there was no God or because people were mistaken in thinking God required them, then one could say religion has failed humankind...couldn't one?

David: Medicine has failed mankind. No matter how much we spend on doctors and drugs, eventually everyone dies. Sometimes medicine kills people through incompetence or ignorance.

Medicine has failed mankind.

I wonder if atheism has failed mankind? Without providing any cause, purpose or meaning of life, and by demolishing any hope for anything else except for this dismal life, what has atheism done for humankind?

Perhaps atheism has failed mankind.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

HelenM · 07-16-2002, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by David Mathews:
Hello Helen,

Hi David

David: Medicine has failed mankind. No matter how much we spend on doctors and drugs, eventually everyone dies. Sometimes medicine kills people through incompetence or ignorance.

Medicine has failed mankind.

Religion has failed mankind too then, because no matter how much people invest in it in time, money and emotional energy, we still all die (everyone who is mortal).

And many many many people have been deliberately killed for not believing the right things i.e. directly because of religion.

A very very small proportion of people have been deliberately killed using our medical knowledge compared to those killed because someone thought it was right, for religious reasons.

I wonder if atheism has failed mankind? Without providing any cause, purpose or meaning of life, and by demolishing any hope for anything else except for this dismal life, what has atheism done for humankind?

Atheists don't kill each other for religious reasons. They are more 'live and let live' than religious people. They have more freedom in how they make decisions. They are free from being threatened with religious threats. They will never throw their lives away because they mistakenly think "God wants it".

Perhaps atheism has failed mankind.

Maybe so. But maybe not as much as religion has [at least in some ways] failed mankind.

love
Helen

Bluenose · 07-16-2002, 04:04 AM

HI David: Religion has failed mankind. No matter how much we spend on doctors of theology and churches, eventually everyone dies. Sometimes religion kills people through incompetence or ignorance.

Religion has failed mankind.

I wonder if theism has failed mankind? Without providing any proven cause, purpose or meaning of life, and by demolishing any hope for anything else except for this dismal life, what has theism done for humankind?

Perhaps theism has failed mankind.

Sincerely,

B

Bluenose · 07-16-2002, 04:16 AM

Hi Helen, so two great minds posted similar reactions to the same stimulus, at almost the same time, is that what someone called crossposting ?

David Mathews · 07-16-2002, 04:20 AM

Hello rainbow walking,

Quote:

Rw: No David, this is a lie perpetrated by your cult. Humans CAN become so and commit actions that can justifiably be declared so across the board as evil, but all humans are not evil. To take the actions of a comparatively few in relation to the majority and declare ALL humans evil is evil itself. Humans are born neutral, not evil sinners as your cult propaganda lies to us and claims. You�ve been listening to too many sermons from your professional mouthpieces. Humans have the CHOICE to be good or evil or neither, depending on the situation.
Humans are not, I repeat ARE NOT, evil by default. This poisonous doctrine is the crowbar used to pry open men�s minds to allow your cult germ to inject its virus. It is a lie and was invented by the father of lies and does not represent reality or the truth, period!
Only by ignoring the fact that if humans were truly evil they�d have become extinct centuries ago can your lying cult continue to hoist this filth upon unsuspecting humanity. I intend to dedicate a good portion of my Philosophy of Life to revealing this putrid sore and the puss oozing from its rotting flesh as a result of this disease.

David: Humans are bringing about their own extinction, threatening the future of our own species either directly (nuclear bombs, biological and chemical weapons) or indirectly (destruction of natural environment, destruction of biodiversity, poisoning the atmosphere and water with dangerous chemicals, etc).

Quote:

Only by ignoring the fact that if humans were truly evil we�d never have progressed beyond the dark ages that were, BTW, the direct result of xianity�s cult control over men�s minds. If there is any evil in this world today it�s directly related to mysticism and Christianity and Judaism and Muslimism, period! Care to take a geographical tour of all the battles and skirmishes going on around the world and see who is fighting who?

David: I guess that in your view the atheists don't engage in these sorts of wars and skirmishes. I believe that you are mistaken.

Quote:

You have no idea how much and passionately I loathe, detest, hate, reject and curse this lie. I am not evil, my wife is not evil, my sons are not evil, my neighbors are not evil, my co-workers are not evil, my doctor is not evil, my barber is not evil, my friends are not evil, my mother is not evil and, in fact, I don�t know a single person in all of my 47 years on this planet, other than Bin Laden and his cohorts, (who have progressed to the final stage of the religious disease), who I would classify or label as evil, except those who continue to recklessly mouth this insidious filth as though it were true. This lie of lies is evil, more evil than anything you could ever perpetrate against humanity in your fallen state of intellectual sickness. I wonder how many wrongful and evil acts have been committed by people who�ve been mis-led and brain washed by this slanderous filth? Since this disease has been around almost as long as man, I would be VERY inclined to suspect that this LIE has enabled and empowered and encouraged more evil than anything humanity could ever imagine. It�s time it be exposed for what it is and what it actually accomplishes and what it was invented to achieve.

David: Are you certain that you are not evil? Would you say that you are righteous?

Quote:

Rw: That�s not evil, it�s an emotion and sometimes a very useful one from which such virtues as justice and fairness and equity have their origin. Need I remind you that your imaginary deity hates? So is it evil also?

David: God hates? God's emotions are not comparable in any way with human emotions. I have reason to believe that God doesn't have any emotions at all.

Quote:

David: exploit the poor,

Rw: You mean like the church?

David: I mean the manner in which multinational corporations develop and profit from the natural resources of third world nations without fairly compensating the people of those nations.

Quote:

David: and are selfish.

Rw: And that is not evil, it�s human nature and please don�t try to tell me human nature is evil.

David: I hate to say it but it is true. Human nature is evil.

Quote:

Rw: Bullshit. I tell you what David, if you REALLY believe this go and sell your car, your computer, all your scientifically developed toys, turn off your electricity and running water, dis-connect your sewer system, divorce yourself from all modern scientifically devised conveniences, avoid roads, bridges, McDonalds, and any means of transportation other than your own two feet, strip yourself of all your clothing manufactured using modern scientific methods, toss out your deodorant, toothpaste, soap and toilet paper, empty your frig and sell it along with the house, and live your life like you REALLY mean this crap! Be BOLD David! Be an example! Show us heathen how a Christian really practices all the trash he preaches. Don�t hold back David. Go for it!

David: That is good advice, indeed. However, I do not consider any of the above to be evil.

Quote:

Rw: To protect people from religious and sick minded zealots and power hungry idiots who would drive us to extinction in more hideous ways than you could imagine. Nuclear energy also generates the electricity you run your computer with. Biology has isolated and found cures and treatments for diseases that have ravaged humanity for thousands of years. Chemistry has created fertilizers and untold numerous life enhancing products. You dishonor mankind and his greatest efforts in this line of crappy dappy reasoning. People who espouse such ignorance do not deserve to enjoy the benefits.

David: All of these gifts of science do not compare to the horror of even a limited nuclear war scenario. The world after such a war would resemble hell.

Quote:

Rw: Preach it brother Dave, better yet, prove it brother Dave, get out of your pulpit dude it ain�t working. Let�s trace the lives of the perpetrators of any given crime and I�ll bet you a days wages the majority of them were infected with the god germ somewhere in their past and were sold the whole bullshit line about being evil. Ever wonder why the MAJORITY of every inmate in America�s prisons subscribes to some type of religious persuasion?

David; That is an easy question. The reason: Because the majority of people in America are religious.

Quote:

David: Humans have created this monster called science and it is threatening to drive us to extinction.

Rw: What an intellectual coward you�ve demonstrated yourself to be. I�m very disappointed David. I thought you loved science?

David: I love the ideal of science, which is curiousity about the Universe and how it operates. The reality of science is that the same technologies which make our own life more convenient were first developed to kill people.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

HelenM · 07-16-2002, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bluenose:
Hi Helen, so two great minds posted similar reactions to the same stimulus, at almost the same time, is that what someone called crossposting ?

I thought cross posting is when I post to you at the same time you post to me

Two people posting essentially the same response to someone else at the same time - maybe that is 'great minds think alike'

(David, please don't take that last comment too seriously!

)

love
Helen

Answerer · 07-16-2002, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL:


They don't have the power, actually.

I think it's true that children can be very selfish - if that's a label one wants to place on their learning to individuate and separate themselves from the world around them and learn the meaning of 'me'.

Kids will do things like hit other kids out of curiosity to see their reaction; take toys away from another kid just because the other kid wants it even if it upsets the other kid - simply because they want that.

Go forward a few decades and the same people are fighting wars over land just because they want it.

It's "mine, mine!" at different ages.

So...whilst kids are unable to commit great atrocities, if you watch them you will see that they aren't little angels with ne'er an unselfish thought in their heads. Their world revolves around them and their needs from birth. It just does. Maybe that's how we survive to adulthood, in part - maybe it's all part of the will to live. I'm not sure how to interpret it. But I do know it's not true that kids are free of the impulses that drive adults to do terrible things as soon as they have big enough toys and enough power to do them with - as it were...

I know kids can be sweet and loving and unselfish too. These things as well as the less societally constructive things, begin in childhood. So it seems to me.

Just so you know I'm not trying to portray kids as all good or all bad.

love
Helen

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]

Well, hiting someone out of curiousity ia no evil to me and so, is selfishness. Anyway, my point to David is that humans maybe selfish but are definitely not evil by nature.

Ryanfire · 07-16-2002, 06:16 AM

Quote:

David: God hates? God's emotions are not comparable in any way with human emotions. I have reason to believe that God doesn't have any emotions at all.

You cannot create that which you do not know.

Your pathetic logic and reasoning of god is amusing David.

Love a god that has no love. That's definately worthy of worship.

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Ryanfire ]

Theli · 07-16-2002, 07:49 AM

David...

Quote:

Omniscience is a quality of God by definition.

I don't care.
How did the one who first came up with the definition/concept of god reach the conclution that he was omniscient?
Wasn't he in the same position you are now? Oblivious.

Quote:

As to the question of what omniscience means, whatever thought may arise in my mind as to what that word means is false because the mind cannot conceive of absolute knowledge nor absolute truth.

Yet you accept it?
What if there is something wrong with the whole concept of an omniscient being? Yoy must have thought about this some time.

Quote:

God's existence is known by faith, and faith is trustworthy for the believer.

Ofcourse it is. But would you say that faith is a good tool for deciding right from wrong - correct from incorrect when it prevents you from questioning what you've been told?
You might have been decieved. And you cannot know it, since you don't question.
Is your mind open for other explainations (including the opposite to what you believe)?

Quote:

Your atoms are not "you" they are just atoms. The chair you are sitting on is not you and not God. The chair is no mystery but its fundamental components are a great mystery. "We" is the totality of the Universe which is perceptible to humankind.

That's not what I heard.

David earlier...
All we can know is that God does exist and that God is everything that we are not.

BTW, who is we?

Quote:

Jesus' divinity is by no means a lie.

I'm pretty sure it is. As you stated that god is a big mystery outside our knowledge and understanding.
And now you are saying he had a son?
How could you possibly know that?

Quote:

Science is not omniscient. Science is not infallible. Do you agree?

Yes I agree. Nothing is omniscient. Nothing is infallible.
But if we had a better tool for understanding our world, we would use it.

Quote:

People who become obsessed with preserving hteir own life may cease to engage in any "risky" activities and virtually confine themselves within the security of their home.

Again, what does people engaging in risky activities have to do with medical science.
Medical science doesn't excacly prevent people from taking on bold and risky activities. It merely patches up the wounds afterwards.
Do you think that people would take more risks if there weren't any hospitals? I think not.
A simple infection from a wound could be their death.

Quote:

Otherwise they might bother doctors will every little pain, ache or sickness of their body and therefore harm their productivity.

Who is doing this?
Do you think it would be better to just ignore their pain."You should you let a small thing like pain bother you. Who cares if you die of cancer 4 years later? You should not waste your afternoon going to the doctor. Play football instead."
BTW, how "productable" can a person be who is in constant agonizing pain?

Quote:

God does not force us to love people. God won't force you to love anybody. It is all matter of choice on your own part.

David earlier...
"If atheists exempt themselves from the first they still remain obligated to fulfilling the second."

So, what new obligations do I get reggarding loving people if I become a christian? Who/what is obligating me?

Quote:

Some failure: 4 billion religious people on the planet, and of that group hundreds of millions who have made substantial sacrifices of their comfort, time, wealth and life based upon their devotion to their religion.

What sacrifices?
I think you missed a part here. You never said what any of those people actually did that was tied to their religion.
They gave up their time and wealth for the cult, but what good did it do?
You never clarified this.

davidm · 07-16-2002, 07:59 AM

David, thanks for replying to my post. I see that posts involving you are proliferating, and you evidently try to answer everyone. I commend you for your patience and fortitude. I know I couldn't do it, if I were in your shoes.

I wrote:
Earlier in this thread you said: "I love science."

Later you said: "Humans have created this monster called science and it is threatening to drive us to extinction."

So, you love a monster? Care to explain?

Or, do you really not love it?

You replied:
I love the idealism of science as it searches after knowledge and understanding of the Universe. I hate the sins of science as it demolishes human dignity, develops weapons of mass destruction and destroys the environment.

My reply:
Science is not capable of "sinning," or of anything else. Science is a method, not a mind. People, making poor choices, build nuclear weapons and despoil the environment, using the tools of science and, very often, the justification of their religious beliefs. For example, it was science that made jet airplanes possible, and blind religious fanaticism that drove two of them into the Twin Towers. My question: Could you please explain, in some detail if you have the time, how science "demolishes human dignity?"

I wrote:
Religion depends on appeals to ignorance and fear. The ignorance is the lack of knowledge about the universe. People were ignorant for thousands of years, until science came along. Science has pried loose religion's choke hold on humanity's collective neck.

You replied:
Science as mankind's savior is a great paradox. Have you made a religion of science?

My reply:
Science is not a religion. It is the antithesis of religion. Your religion relies on dogma that a believer is required to accept, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Science is a self-correcting method of obtaining information about reality, and putting that information to use. As such, it has been spectacularly successful. It requires no deity, and no scientist claims to be acting in the role of a savior.

I wrote:
The appeal to fear is implicit in some of your posts. While you yourself may be a decent and sincere person, you have alluded to the dread that some may feel in meeting their God. And you have pointed out that when we die, we will be forgotten; that when humanity becomes extinct, its efforts will have been to no purpose. These are appeals to fear, to existential dread. To cure this fear, religion offers the quack remedy of God. But just because we are mortal, it does not follow that God and an afterlife exist. You have yet to produce a scintilla of evidence for your God and his realm.

You replied:
Atheists should have existential dread.

My reply:
Thank you for conceding my point. In a brilliant compression of the basic stance of your faith -- a mere one sentence, consisting of just five words -- you have made an appeal to ignorance and fear. Ignorance: All of us are aware of the fact that we are ignorant about many aspects of reality. Fear: Believe as do in order to banish this ignorance, or God will punish you. You deserve to feel dread, if you don't believe as I do.

I wrote:
As time goes by more people will reject a "cure" that is worse than the disease. In fact, there is no disease. The proper response to the inevitability that we will die and cease to be is: "So what?"

You replied:
Some atheists disagree with you.

My reply:
Do you think that the fact that humans are mortal, and that the universe itself is destined to die, entails or even implies that God and an afterlife exist? I see no reason to believe this. Hence I am forced to say "So what?" at the prospect of universal demise. There is nothing I or anyone else can do to prevent it. You have accused atheists of arrogance. I would like to ask: Who is arrogant? Is it the person who follows the evidence where it leads, and in doing so tentatively concludes that the natural world is all that there is, and when we die, our consciousness is extinguished and our elements are recycled back into that natural world? Or is it the person who claims, against all evidence, that human beings are special and apart from all the rest of the universe, and that when we die, we will somehow continue to live for all eternity?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-16-2002, 04:00 AM	#62
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	Originally posted by David Mathews: Hello Helen, Hi David David: Medicine has failed mankind. No matter how much we spend on doctors and drugs, eventually everyone dies. Sometimes medicine kills people through incompetence or ignorance. Medicine has failed mankind. Religion has failed mankind too then, because no matter how much people invest in it in time, money and emotional energy, we still all die (everyone who is mortal). And many many many people have been deliberately killed for not believing the right things i.e. directly because of religion. A very very small proportion of people have been deliberately killed using our medical knowledge compared to those killed because someone thought it was right, for religious reasons. I wonder if atheism has failed mankind? Without providing any cause, purpose or meaning of life, and by demolishing any hope for anything else except for this dismal life, what has atheism done for humankind? Atheists don't kill each other for religious reasons. They are more 'live and let live' than religious people. They have more freedom in how they make decisions. They are free from being threatened with religious threats. They will never throw their lives away because they mistakenly think "God wants it". Perhaps atheism has failed mankind. Maybe so. But maybe not as much as religion has [at least in some ways] failed mankind. love Helen

07-16-2002, 04:04 AM	#63
Bluenose Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: small cold water flat Posts: 471	HI David: Religion has failed mankind. No matter how much we spend on doctors of theology and churches, eventually everyone dies. Sometimes religion kills people through incompetence or ignorance. Religion has failed mankind. I wonder if theism has failed mankind? Without providing any proven cause, purpose or meaning of life, and by demolishing any hope for anything else except for this dismal life, what has theism done for humankind? Perhaps theism has failed mankind. Sincerely, B

07-16-2002, 04:16 AM	#64
Bluenose Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: small cold water flat Posts: 471	Hi Helen, so two great minds posted similar reactions to the same stimulus, at almost the same time, is that what someone called crossposting ?

07-16-2002, 07:59 AM	#70
davidm Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 1,617	David, thanks for replying to my post. I see that posts involving you are proliferating, and you evidently try to answer everyone. I commend you for your patience and fortitude. I know I couldn't do it, if I were in your shoes. I wrote: Earlier in this thread you said: "I love science." Later you said: "Humans have created this monster called science and it is threatening to drive us to extinction." So, you love a monster? Care to explain? Or, do you really not love it? You replied: I love the idealism of science as it searches after knowledge and understanding of the Universe. I hate the sins of science as it demolishes human dignity, develops weapons of mass destruction and destroys the environment. My reply: Science is not capable of "sinning," or of anything else. Science is a method, not a mind. People, making poor choices, build nuclear weapons and despoil the environment, using the tools of science and, very often, the justification of their religious beliefs. For example, it was science that made jet airplanes possible, and blind religious fanaticism that drove two of them into the Twin Towers. My question: Could you please explain, in some detail if you have the time, how science "demolishes human dignity?" I wrote: Religion depends on appeals to ignorance and fear. The ignorance is the lack of knowledge about the universe. People were ignorant for thousands of years, until science came along. Science has pried loose religion's choke hold on humanity's collective neck. You replied: Science as mankind's savior is a great paradox. Have you made a religion of science? My reply: Science is not a religion. It is the antithesis of religion. Your religion relies on dogma that a believer is required to accept, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Science is a self-correcting method of obtaining information about reality, and putting that information to use. As such, it has been spectacularly successful. It requires no deity, and no scientist claims to be acting in the role of a savior. I wrote: The appeal to fear is implicit in some of your posts. While you yourself may be a decent and sincere person, you have alluded to the dread that some may feel in meeting their God. And you have pointed out that when we die, we will be forgotten; that when humanity becomes extinct, its efforts will have been to no purpose. These are appeals to fear, to existential dread. To cure this fear, religion offers the quack remedy of God. But just because we are mortal, it does not follow that God and an afterlife exist. You have yet to produce a scintilla of evidence for your God and his realm. You replied: Atheists should have existential dread. My reply: Thank you for conceding my point. In a brilliant compression of the basic stance of your faith -- a mere one sentence, consisting of just five words -- you have made an appeal to ignorance and fear. Ignorance: All of us are aware of the fact that we are ignorant about many aspects of reality. Fear: Believe as do in order to banish this ignorance, or God will punish you. You deserve to feel dread, if you don't believe as I do. I wrote: As time goes by more people will reject a "cure" that is worse than the disease. In fact, there is no disease. The proper response to the inevitability that we will die and cease to be is: "So what?" You replied: Some atheists disagree with you. My reply: Do you think that the fact that humans are mortal, and that the universe itself is destined to die, entails or even implies that God and an afterlife exist? I see no reason to believe this. Hence I am forced to say "So what?" at the prospect of universal demise. There is nothing I or anyone else can do to prevent it. You have accused atheists of arrogance. I would like to ask: Who is arrogant? Is it the person who follows the evidence where it leads, and in doing so tentatively concludes that the natural world is all that there is, and when we die, our consciousness is extinguished and our elements are recycled back into that natural world? Or is it the person who claims, against all evidence, that human beings are special and apart from all the rest of the universe, and that when we die, we will somehow continue to live for all eternity?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.