the_cave

I agree you make a good distinction between "authority" and "authoritarian." I still think scientific truth has perhaps what you could call an _authoritative_ compulsion behind it, but I think what you're getting at is the difference between authority-for-a-rational-reason and authority-because-I-say-so (This I suppose would be akin to Karl Popper's distinction between science and pseudo-science.) I think this is better than speaking of "spheres" of authority, because by your own admission, science has its own sphere. The real difference would be the standards which each sphere has.

But I would make another distinction between for example the medieval papacy and the modern one. If you were an Albigensene, yes, you got killed. But if you're a contemporary Protestant, no such problem. Or an atheist, for that matter...a far cry from the totalitarian society of Nazi Germany.

David M. Payne

TC Yes today the pope is pretty toothless when it comes to military power, so other religions and freethinkers don't have to fear mass murder at his hands. In that respect the pope today is no Hitler. But as Volk said, the pope has compulsive authority, and tells you how to think. There is no logic in that, just compulsion based on authoritarian beliefs of an un-provable being and his supposed holy books. Science has intellectually persuasive authority, it convinces you how to think, it doesn't compel you how to think. Big difference between the two.

The pope also has his hands in things that create much poverty and conflict. Things like centuries of opposition to birth control and the resulting overpopulation problem that it helps create, and the conflicts that result directly and indirectly from that policy around the world over the centuries. And there is the potential for unending bloodshed with the constant conflicts that religion generates around the world. Religion separates humanity into warring camps, each convinced that it is right and the others are wrong.

David

"God, and religion, the oldest scam in history, and it still sucks them in today. So free your mind, and your body will follow!

the_cave

I agree, though religion does make efforts to persuade through reason, even if it ultimately falls back on authority.

Mm, two points:

1) But any system of thought that isn't relativist (like presumably many forms of atheism) divides the world into two camps, those who are wrong and those who are right. How can you avoid that? Now maybe most people on this board are gentle, peace-loving atheists, and that's good, but the old Soviet Union, for example, was a purportedly atheistic society that was convinced that the world was divided into two warring camps. I'm not claiming that atheism is any more war-mongering than religion (and maybe it is less), I'm just saying I'm not sure they're different in that regard. Granted that presumably the kind of atheism you support would be quite tolerant.

2) The pope does think that his policies on birth control are morally correct; he has a priori beliefs about the value of sex which inform his reasoning. It's true that his religious beliefs seem to inform his morals, but my sense is that he actually believes that they're inherently moral. Now I don't doubt they would lose a lot of their weight without the religion behind them, and I'm not necessarily defending them. And maybe they would be better served if they were debated at a secular level. But if the Pope thinks he's got a moral absolute, he's entitled to act on it, IMO. It's up to other countries to block him if they feel otherwise.

He might just have a different conception of morals; looking at principles, rather than pragmatic results. It could well be that lack of access to birth control leads to overpopulation; but the Pope believes that there's a higher moral principle to be followed, come what may. Maybe overpopulation is an evil; but the Pope thinks that sex for mere pleasure is a greater evil, in that it breeds harmful emotional attitudes.

But I admit I could be wrong, and maybe it is the Pope's religous beliefs that carry all the weight, after all. Anyway, this is now a debate about what morals are, so I think I may vacate to the philosophy boards...

the_cave

whoops, this is an extra post...the servers were slow, and I got confused.

David M. Payne

It's late, but just a quick note on these two points:
Atheism wasn't the controlling factor of Marxist/communist society, the dogma of Marx and communism as utilized by the party and state was. Atheism was just a minor subset of the dogma.
It could be, and it could also be that the power of Pope and religion in general, is based on the magnitude of the membership of that religion. The more members any religion has, the more of "the usual" money, power and influence it has/can get. I think this is a big reason for the Popes opposition to birth control, though the church would never admit this, everything is just based on morals, of course. I think it is a big reason why so many fundamentalist denominations of the Abrahamic religions have such a high birth rate. It's pretty simple, the more people in your religion, the more power that religion has. This isn't the only reason that these religions so often oppose birth control, but I think it’s a big one, perhaps the biggest reason of all.

David


"God, and religion, the oldest scam in history, and it still sucks them in today. So free your mind, and your body will follow!

FarSeeker

Your mistake is that you think that is a good idea.

DP, posted August 15, 2002 11:27 PMFS: Now, lets see if I have this right; (A) Humans killed millions. (B) Some Humans = Christian, (C) Therefore Christians killed millions? Spare me DP, Humans kill for many reasons: philosophy, money, resources, land, history, etc. not in the name of Christ, period. It's a dumb rant and it doesn't work any more, get over it. In other words, you're using the same logic I am; to dispute it is to dispute your own point!

Marxists reason that Christians are a threat, just like DP has, and they seek to eliminate that threat, just like DP has. Marxists are a subset of Atheists by definition, who hold that their reasoning is sound enough to base decisions about society on [just like DP]. If you aren't an Atheist, then you can be a communist, but not a Marxist. Under Atheism there is nothing wrong with Marxism, fascism, killing for party or group, the ultimate supremacy of the state or leader, of the cult of personality, Hitler, Stalin etc. In fact they all fit in with the Utilitarianism morality offered earlier on this thread. After all, those Atheists who committed what we Christians call "evil" acts suffered no ill consequences, and if DP is to be believed, those Marxists were eliminating a threat that he wishes to eliminate as well, so they were/are doing "good".

Atheism does not even suggest what is to be used to determined what is Good and Evil. So how are Atheists to determine what is right and wrong? Reason? Why, and based on what axioms? If DP was raised a Roman Citizen, I am certain that he would have no problem with slavery and watching people be murdered and die in the coliseum. So why does DP seem to think … ill of Marxists? Because they were wrong, because they acted contrary to his wishes, or because their reasoning dared to disagree with his? How does DP know he is right, and not just expressing personal preferences like preferring chocolate over vanilla ice cream? This returns to two points on this thread: If a society can choose whatever morality they want, how can any act be called Evil and not just evil for you, and if you cannot prove to me that ANY act is evil for everyone, then how can you say any act evil for a deity?

Under both Atheism and Utilitarianism's morality, there is nothing wrong with what Marxists have done.

Man can either prevent evil, or he cannot.
If he cannot, then he is impotent to.
If he can, but does not, then he is malevolent.

The evil man commits, if there is no devil, that evil isn't omnipotent – beyond his ability to stop -- either. You claim man can make the world better without God's help; all I'm asking you is for you to put your money where your mouth is and JUST DO IT. In the US we at least brought the men responsible for the deaths at Kent State University to trial. We have even brought some who are responsible for the killings in Balkans to trial, and most German Nazis. Why can't you do the same with your fellow Atheists who committed worst crimes?

I don't know why God is holding back, but like I said, our failure to understand does not preclude a reason. A possible reason is to show you that you can't do it without Him. Apparently, you have proven that point.

Yet man uses that vaulted reasoning capacity that you praise so much to do so much evil. I still question whether an Atheist can even claim that evil has ever been done; what are Evil and Good to an Atheist? If Marxism had won the world, Capitalism would be evil, acting contrary to the State would be evil, etc. On the other hand, if you believe in Evolutionism, that which aids in your survival is good, so eliminating people who are viewed as a threat to your survival is justifiable. Again, under Atheism, skepticism and empiricism, the Marxists did nothing wrong.

My response to Epicurus is:
Man can either prevent evil, or he cannot.
If he cannot, then he is impotent to.
If he can, but does not, then he is malevolent.

Actually JTB and Oolon just babbled on about things they could not prove, like the Flood killing babies.
Free Will is demonstrated many times in the Bible; you are just being as obtuse as the Warden in the movie "The Shawshank Redemption."

Everything dies sooner or latter.

Unfortunately some posters on this forum claim I am not welcome to my view, because it is a threat to them.

Two paragraphs removed for inappropriate insults. FarSeeker, there is a difference between insulting the man, and insulting his points. You may do the latter but not the former. Jobar.

David M. Payne

FS, you said nothing worth responding to. Now respond to this!

FarSeeker

DP, posted August 24, 2002 08:21 PM "You confuse the ability to post repetitive, long threads …"
FS: Somewhere a pot and kettle are having a apoplectic fit of laughter.

I answered your questions, refuted your claims, and considering your buckshot approach, I think I did it rather succinctly.

What logic did you use? You use 9/11 to attack Christians, claiming that because we share some theological concepts with Islam, we are a threat too. That is Nazi Logic (They claimed that a Jew burned down the Riechstagg (sp?), and thus all Jews were a threat). Please note that you and Marxists also share a theological concept: Atheism. Thus if you truly believe what you claim (the connection you make between Islam and Christianity) then with your Atheism and paranoia about Christians, you are just like the Marxists.

It is plainly apparent that you have not read the Bible with an open mind, nor are you a "freethinker." You hold opinions of the Bible NOT based on understanding but only on prejudice.

God judges mankind's sins, when they are excessive and irredeemable, He acts. Execution is justifiable in cases where it punishes past and prevents future crimes. "Free Inquiry", the "humanist" magazine, not long ago publish a study that claimed that a recent dip in crime was due to the abortions committed over the past 30 years. In other words, those murdered unborn babies were going to grow up to be criminals, so it was a "good" thing that they were killed. If Atheists can justify pre-natal murder in that manner, you have just had the rug pulled out from under your argument.

God does not treat us like "holodeck" characters: reprogrammable at whim. Your arguments ignore that point, your claims are not supported by evidence, and until you deal with it, your arguments are vacuous. I believe God did try to reason with those people, but they did not listen, preferring to choose their own way. For example, I remember reading one Atheist's post that stated that even if Jesus appeared in front of him, he would not believe Jesus really existed.

If the full evidence were to come out, your case would be laughed out of court. A loving God would not do to His creations what you have suggested:
(A) Brainwash them so they had no choice; how Soviet-esc of those around you to imply brainwashing as acceptable, their statements are frightening. Or
(B) Be a "Big Brother" by constantly policing everyone.
(Is it strange how supportive your fellow Atheists are of Soviet-esc concepts without your dissention?).

Again, we do not model God in the way you imply, God tells us not to seek revenge on others; that is His decision and prerogative. We follow Jesus, we are to do as He taught. There is more logic in saying Atheism is responsible for Marxists' acts than for saying Christians are responsible for 9/11.

If the Moslems ever do get an atomic weapon, it will be obtained from your fellow Atheists like those in North Korea. You still ignore the evidence of your bigotry and prejudice DP in that the vast majority of Christian in the US were the first to have atomic weapons, and despite endless provocation by your fellow Atheists in Communist countries, only used them to end a war in a desire to avoid more casualties. Christians have had atomic, chemical and biological weapons DP, and we haven't used them as you claim, so your statements are false! Empiricism: the observation did not match the prediction, ergo the hypothesis was wrong.

And once those Islamic "wackos" obtain nuclear weapons it will likely be from North Korea, so as to make you prophecy self-fulfilling. Won't you feel so proud of yourself when you can scream, "SEE, SEE, I WAS RIGHT!"

What "religious purity" are you talking about? Is it where Atheists dictate that only Atheists are right and all others must be removed from the ability affect society because they are dangerous (ie. Maginalized)? Or where Atheists prevent theists from participating in politics?

DigitalDruid, posted October 04, 2002 06:53 AM,
"Amen-MOses, thanks for pointing this out. Religion and politics make an explosive mixture. The real tragedy is we seem to have to learn it in every generation - again and again."

Clearly implying that religious people must be prevented from participating in politics, i.e. voting, holding office, etc. because they are "religious."

Imagine how African-Americans (and other ethnic groups) feel when evolutionists point out how evolutionarily primitive they are. How they should not participate in the political process because they weren't intelligent enough. I imagine they get a little huffy about that. You can have faith in man all you want, DP, but it isn't going to change the fact that man has committed the evil on his own terms. It isn't going to change the fact that you are misrepresenting Christianity to such an extent that I can only conclude you are willfully prevaricating. You are a propagandist DP. You have shown this by distorting even Atheists' own definition of gods:

George Smith: "How to Defend Atheism" (1976)
Marx, Hitler, etc were humans using their logic and rationalism. They were no more gods than you are. Period. They used their reasoning to get what they wanted, just like you trying to do DP.

I am not immune to logic, DP, you have simply failed to provide any to support your point. You rely on insult, ridicule, misrepresentation and appeal to prejudice. If you can't prove to Dr. Singer that he is wrong, or prove to Princeton that he is an unacceptable person for their Chair of Bioethics, then your reasoning and logic cannot be all that good, can it? If you can't prove that Hitler's acts were wrong, as opposed to simply finding them disagreeable, then you have failed on that account as well. Remember, you agreed that a society can choose it own morality (as the Nazis and Marxists have). To now claim that they where wrong is contradictory!

It is strange that you claim that "all good come from man," and then imply all evil comes from God, when this simply does not fit the facts of history. The "Humanists" of ancient classical civilization, from whom many Atheists have claimed intellectual descent, found manual labor repugnant, but found acceptable: slavery, infanticide, pedophilia, gladiatorial games, and the superiority of men over women. (Yet strangely, Hippocrates found abortion unacceptable,…hmmm. it seems even some people in violent "primitive" societies had better morals than most Atheists do today). Similar points of view where found in the Chinese, Indus and pre-Columbian American civilizations. All that began to change with the rise of Christianity.

Why did little or no change occur for thousands of years, but shortly after the flowering of Christianity and the stabilization of European society, Freedom did? Only in Christendom do we find the Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence,, the writing like those of John Locke, Sir William Blackstone, Baron de Montesquieu, and Thomas Jefferson. Where is the Chinese equivalent of these documents and people? Why didn't China develop a democracy or republic? The Declaration of Independence was produced in a Christian nation, and nowhere else. The leaders of the Roman or Greek Empires would never have found the Tiananmen Massacre wrong. But we do. Why? Because of Jesus of Nazareth!

You wear your pride like Isildur did The Ring. He refused to get rid of it by destroying it. As the ring destroyed so much, so too will your pride.

Wyz_sub10

I’ll skip over many over your comments directed specifically to others.

How can a sin be 'irredeemable' in the presence of an omnipotent being? So Jesus' sacrifice would have been useless in the days before Noah?

This is utter nonsense. Can you provide a source? To begin with, I've never heard of "Free Inquiry" but I cannot imagine any intelligent person could make such a connection. Maybe in a satirical way, linking fewer people to fewer crimes, but not with any seriousness.

Why do you "believe" this? Because it fits with what you hope a benevolent god will do? Did god try to reason with the tribes supposedly (by not really) slaughtered by the Israelites? The bible doesn't say he did. This must be more of your morality.

BTW, who cares what one person said here in the context of god and genocide?

What evidence is this? Why isn’t it coming out?

Hear, hear...but again, I think this is in line with your personal expectations rather than supported by anything factual.

Brainwashing is perfectly common in religion, but that point aside, if "brainwashing" ensured eternal paradise over eternal torture, I think a lot of people would think this was acceptable.

You mean god isn't omniscient and doesn't know what you are doing or what's in your heart? That's absolutely contradictory to my understanding of the situation.

BTW, what is a "Soviet-esque" concept? You keep using "Soviets" as if they are still around and perhaps disguised as atheists in the western world.

How so?

And you know this because....? You do realize, of course, that the principle supplier in the history of Iraq is the good ol' U-S of A.

BTW – history update: Muslims do have nuclear weapons. You’re familiar with Pakistan, I’m guessing?

This statement is incredibly ignorant on so many accounts.

First, the second country to obtain nuclear weapons was the Soviet Union, so your point is meaningless. And of the first 5 countries to develop these weapons, 2 were not ‘Christian’. So what's your point?

Second, your logic cannot possibly be so bad that you can't understand that part of the reason there was no nuclear confrontation is that the "atheist countries" didn't use them either!

Third, what’s this “endless provocation” you speak up? China provokes no one, because they are isolationist. And part of the Soviet reason for missiles in Cuba is that the US had them in Turkey first.

Fourthly, your assertion about the motivation behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far from certainties. Many would agree with you, many would not. I think most historians agree that Japan would have surrendered without massive casualties or nuclear strikes.

You are absolutely wrong. The US has used chemical weapons in its history, so have the Germans. Both are ‘Christian’ countries.

I’ll reiterate – you don’t know PRK even has the weapons, let alone will sell them to anyone. Two, the US has supplied many ‘non-Christian nations’ with weapons.

“Evolutionists” say no such thing. Read “The Mismeasure of Man” by one of the best evolutionary scientists in history.

Is this your opinion, or can you explain how evolutionary theory implies African-Americans are not intelligent enough? I’ll wager you know very little about evolution.

I would argue that nothing comes from god, because he is make-believe. I would say, though, that much evil comes from men in the name of god. Atheist can commit atrocities, too, of course.

This is just garbage. Try substantiating some of this nonsense. Slavery. Sexism, infanticide are ALL glorified at times in the bible. Surely you can’t be this oblivious of the irony in your own argument.

What about Greek democracy or Roman republicanism? Or freedom in many Amerindian tribes?

This is non sequitur. So China is not a democracy, therefore atheism is incongruent with democracy? Nonsense.

You keep making broad assertions with no backup. How the hell do you know what the Roman or Greek Empires would have thought about Tiananmen? Maybe they would have been equally appalled at the US sending teenagers to die a needless death in Vietnam? Of the US dropping atomic weapons in non-military targets?

No. I found Tiananmen deplorable, and it had zero to do with Jesus.

What book of this bible is that from?? I hope it can be agreed, at least, that that story was a work of fiction.

bbleier

Perfectly said, end of discussion

:notworthy