Amos

Hal and others, I am not a theist fundy and I don't want to spoil your party either but it must be pointed out by somebody that all of the murders spoken of in the bible were not murders of real people but murders of metaphysical identities. I mean, if we deny the physical flood, the crucifixion and resurrection why should we insist that the murders actually were physical events. These murders were either right or wrong and are always events that take place within the mind of humans. For example, if the "sign of Jonah" is th eonly sign that will be given to us and we never get the sign of Jonah we must have already killed our own firstborn. So this now means that atheists are just as bad as theists in this respect and it is really tragic that this is true because not just the wine, but also the beer is better in heaven and the songs we sing will be out of this world. Instead, we, including atheist, will defend our earthly human rights with all the power and might we can muster and later fight death as if we want to take our ego consciousness with us. The point here is that we would better off if we killed all the wrong ideas we have about ourselves and set free our intuit knowledge that has been imprisoned ever since we began to polish and shine our ego identity.

The problem begins when we start thinking about our religion and conclude that the bible doesn't make sense, the Catholic Church is wrong about censorship but Israel is right about their war with the Palestinians. The fact is that the homecoming for the Jews will be the state of mind called Isreal and no war for a homeland is needed to accomplish this. Jews must first become "children of Isreal" and after that they must be successful and mature in Israel (become like "the joung man dressed in white on the right" when Mary looked in the tomb). See the contradiction and now ask yourself if Isreal should also be a physical homeland?

As for me? I don't mind either way but many years from now this same war will be seen as just another attempt by religious fundamentalist and dedicated civillians to act upon wrong opinion after reading the bible wrong. Lets be sure to understand that power cannot exist without demonstrations of power and what is called terrorism today may someday be called retalliation.

This same is true for every war in history and it is wrong to bring God into the argument unless we admid that we don't know much about God, religion and human nature. The point here is that for as long as a civilization is rising you can't have freedom of religion to tear down the mythology from within. Hence the glory of our civilization ended with the beginning of the Reformation.

luvluv

Okay I'll play.

I haven't answered this post because I have always considered it a weak argument. I don't believe in wars emerging expressly out of religion. I think 99 percent of all wars arise from existential causes, usually an unequal distribution of resources, and that authorities in society use unifying concepts to motivate the underclass to fight for them. In America, the unifying concept for Vietnam was "freedom", though that clearly was not why we were there. Similarly, I don't believe for one minute that the problem between the Palestinians and the Isreali's are religious. Jews have historically received better treatment in Islamic countries than they have in Christian ones. I believe that the cause of the conflict is land, pure and simple.

I have always considered this question to be behind the times somewhat. I think it is generally obvious that more people in this century (and I would argue more people all time) have died for money and land than for all other causes combined. Whatever pretense of freedom or justice or white man's burden or insert your justification here, most of the wars in human history have been caused by human greed or human passion. I would take this argument a lot more serious if people could just admit that barring land ownership would do a lot more for peace in the world than barring religion.

From reading the thread that Turt started about Finch, I'm not even sure that you guys consider killing people bad, except of course when God does it. Do you value peace for it's own sake or conveniently adopt peace as a value whenever you have an opportunity to accuse God of breaking it. Some of you same fellows on that other thread said it was perfectly fine to kill a fellow for his wallet so long as you would never be caught doing it, and then have the nerve to be offended by the supposed injustice of God killing people. I can understand why a person like myself would object, but why would an atheist object who didn't think there was anything wrong with doing something you can't get away with? By that reasoning, God can do anything He wants to: being God means never having to say you're sorry. But beyond that, you guys, so far as I know, haven't started by abolishing the other two biggies in the Trinity of causes for human warfare: money and land. I think you will be highly dissapointed if, in the service of peace, you ban religion and do not ban these two. Also, people fight over all their differences and some of them aren't so easily disposed of. So you get rid of religion and now people fight over race and nationality. Again, tribalism and nationalism have caused as many deaths in this century as religion. Why aren't you folks after that. I think I agree with whoever said it, though it hadn't really occurred to me till I acutally saw the words in front of my face. I think some of you folks do have an absolute psychological need to believe the worst about God. As I mentioned in that other thread I started, that is irrational. God's goodness or badness is not a justification for unbelief. The two things are unrelated. It is absolutely nonessential for atheists to be concerned with the behavioral habits of one who does not exist, yet threads like this keep a coming. I am often amazed that some athesits I know seem to harbor a hatred towards someone who they don't believe exists. I'm not talking about you guys of course, you're all right. I'm talking about those other atheists who all this actually applies to.

At any rate, as to why God doesn't stop those who kill others for their belief, Payne you're gonna bristle but the answer is absolutely free will. If God somehow inhibited only those who would kill for religious pretensions and not stop those who killed over money, or fame, or power, or lust, or land , or any other of the thousands of reasons people kill each other... wouldn't that be a bit suspicious? He can tell people, in as many ways, that He does not want them to kill, but beyond that what are his options? Should he stop all murder? I've gone through my objections to this in the Problem of Pain thread, so I'll spare you my full answer over here. But I just think that it is not feasible.

I also think it is releveant to say that there have only been, to my knowledge, two societies founded on the principle of atheism in history: Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Payne, I think it is fair to remind you just what "letting the evolutionary course" led folks to in the 1940's. It lead them to Social Darwinism of the worst kind, to helping evolution out by "exterminating inferior races", it led to eugenics experiments and to the Nazi's killing off the handicapped. That is where your evolution and reason can very easily lead. Again, with Russia people were subservient to the state. Russia was not a country without a god, in Russia the country WAS god and people were sacrificed to it by the millions. Again, murder and war are caused by people considering human life less worthy than what can be gained by destroying it. It doesn't matter if that thing is money, land, sex, you name it. So far as human worth can be subordinate to temporal gains, war and murder will go on unabated.

I generally put people who believe that an atheist society would be totally peaceful in the same category as people who say that there would be no warfare if women were in charge. It's just a myth.

As to the specific incidents of heinous acts in the Bible, hey none of you possibly worries about it more than me. I can't figure it out. (Though I do often wonder what your defense against Christianity would be without the old testament). I do think that the argument about the flood having natural causes is feasible: every culture had a flood myth which makes it reasonable to assume there was a flood. As I said before I am not a Biblical literalist I interpret scripture in light of the God I know personally and the God of Christian tradition. That God would not drown people or repent from making them, so in this case I consider that story to be a fable. But the more troubling scenario is the slaughter of innocents in claiming the Holy Land. I am kind of in a hard place on this one. I am torn. I know this is not something the God I know would do, but I do not know whether this particular thread in the Bible is untrue. What we do know is that we do not see this kind of behavior from God at any other time in the Bible nor in Church history. It seemed like a one time event. So it is safe to say that it is out of character for God. But I don't know that I can defintely say it didn't happen, or that it was wrongly attributed to God. It's late, so I will give that one some more thought.

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Ron Singh

hal900069m, David Payne so far no fundamentalists have posted in this thread. If i were you hal900069m, I would find out what a fundamentalist actaully is. I also find it amusing how you marvel at these atheist arguements (which I think Amos cleared up pretty efficiently) and declare victory over theists, although you never really contributed to the dialogue here, one-man peanut gallery. I hope you don't perceive this as a personal attack, but I just find it sort of funny. That's the way I see it.

David Payne:
I see that your fear of Christianity is leading you to fear all religion in general, not something I'de expect from a "rational" atheist.
Now, with your awesome wisdom, please explain to me how sikhism frightens you. Amos, your posts never cease to enlighten me.

Photocrat

Okay. But what do you say to an atheistic nihilist who says that the morals are just more "lies" wrapped in there and that you only believe them because of a sort of cultural indoctrination?

Or to believe that there is some set of rules we ought to follow...? :] Why is any construct anyone has made meaningful? Even if we come up with something which sounds right for a goal (e.g. "the best for everyone") how can that be translated into actions/decisions; how well does it agree with what we already [think?] we know & so on? Here's something you may have heard before: there are lots of ethical systems; which one is the right one? What makes them better/worse than each other & how will I know when I've found the "right" one, rather than your favorite? :]

It is unnecessarily complicated for an atheist to construct a system in which there was no person named Yeshua (Jesus), as opposed to one where there was such a person & they were only a person. There should be no conspiracy if misunderstanding can suffice.

They've built both. But if you mean to address waste, why don't you ask our own government just how easy it is to eliminate :]

David M. Payne

Luvluv, thanks for dropping in.

If only it were that pure and simple luv. Yes, land, economic concerns, ethnic, and other social conflicts are a part of any war. The notion that two Semitic people are only divided by the quest for land is wishful thinking for you theists. You seek to portray the religious nature of this conflict as immaterial when it is at the root of this conflict and so many others throughout history. Here’s the problem as I see it in a nutshell. Religion is used as the noble rational for all sides in these religious wars. The bad guys, (ie the other side) are infidels, nonbelievers etc and don’t believe in the one true religion. (Pick a religion) This is the rational for these conflicts, and it’s OK to kill the other side, because your side has God on its side. (Funny how God is on all sides of these conflicts, isn’t it?) So if we can eliminate religion, we can eliminate one source of conflict, the one source that has been constant for the entire history of humanity. How do you eliminate religion? Just keep pointing out the obvious fallacies inherent in its makeup, Like this one at the head of this thread, and sooner or later, (Obviously much later) it will fall based on its own intellectual emptiness. My approach is to keep pointing out that there is no God, and there never has been a God. When enough people finally acknowledge that, religion will fade to a fringe movement that will be unable to create the havoc it has from the beginning of history to now. After all, if enough people finally lose this childish need for an imaginary being to guide their lives, then religion will collapse on its own, won’t it? I believe 9/11 will prove to be a disaster for the religious forces worldwide. It shows again that the notion of God can be used by anyone to perpetuate any crime, and claim it is justified in the eyes of God. 9/11 isn’t over, as further events have and will prove to the world’s population. Religion is the great divider of people, and we need regimes (A prevailing social system or pattern) that work to bring us together as a species, not one that seeks to divide us, and serves as a driving force for continued conflict. Also religion feeds one of the great underlying forces for this hunger for land you speak of, overpopulation.

Luvluv, you may want to read <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/payne1.html" target="_blank">This,</a> to get my response to your point about abolishing the concept of private ownership of land. You will also find that I do go into great detail about some of the other points you bring up here. What you are referring to here, the abolition of private property, is at the heart of Marxism/Communism. I find it amusing that someone as religious as yourself would adopt the basic tenant of the regime that tried to destroy all religion in any nation it took over. The rest of this paragraph is an assertion on your part, and I am confident that anyone reading this is capable of deciding who’s points make the most sense.

I’m not going to bristle at this reply here luv, on another thread you at least admitted something that I’ve been wondering about for many years, the origin of the free will argument. It isn’t in the bible. Thank you for that bit of truthfulness, but I’ll bet you, like every other theist here, can’t tell us where this lynchpin of apologetics comes from, can you? My personal belief is it came out of the need to defeat the argument attributed to Epicurus; (341-270BC) “either God can prevent evil and chooses not to (and therefore is not good) or chooses to prevent it and cannot (and therefore is not all-powerful).” Religion fails to defeat this argument in most peoples minds, minds that aren’t clouded with the nonsense that is religion that is.


First off, I dealt with this in the essay I gave you a link to above. Your grasp of historical accuracy seems to be limited when it comes to authoritarian regimes on the right or left. You seek to portray a minor part of the beliefs these systems have, into the guiding principal for their existence. Marxist/Communists believed in their political/economic regime, and that was what they killed in the name of. In other words, they killed in the name of the party, the state, the cult of personality surrounding their maximum leader. They never killed in the name of atheism. Period. They were atheist because they were intellectually persuaded that evolution was how we got here. In addition they recognized that religion was a competitor for power, and they brooked no competition for power from anyone or thing, period. As for Fascism, it was another socialist regime (Right wing this time) that did the same things that Marxism/Communism did, with the added attraction of racism being a founding factor in its dogma. In fact these two resemble the authoritarian structure of religion pretty closely. Ie, Marx/Hitler are the wellspring of all truth etc, and all wisdom can be found in their good books. Looks like religion, without the space God.

I think a better question for you is what would you supporters of religion do without the OT? Most of the really ugly stuff comes from it, but so does the rational for the belief in God. The OT provides the foundation for all three Abrahamic religions, and without it there is no foundation for the existence of God, or religion, at least the Abrahamic religions. You can’t get rid of the ugliness within the OT, without getting rid of the rational for your religion, can you? No OT, no explanation for the existence of God, or the biblical creation of humanity. The OT is your tar baby, and you are stuck to it forever. The rest of the bible is, in my mind, a rational for getting around the problems of the OT. In other words it’s just so much window dressing, designed to cover up the problems that the OT present any religious believers.
As for your belief that parts of the bible are bogus, well apologists have been trying to pick and chose what is valid and what isn’t for a couple of thousand years, haven’t they? So what makes you the authority that we should follow in this regard? If one part of the bible isn’t true, then why is any of it true? That’s the question we atheist/agnostics like to remind you theists of. As for your assertion that we don’t see bad behavior from God in the bible, well that’s absurd, given that he was the one who drowned everyone but Noah and his family. I NOTICE YOU GUYS NEVER ANSWER THIS QUESTION, WHAT WAS THE SIN THAT THE BABIES AND LITTLE CHILDREN COMMITTED TO DESERVE TO BE DROWNED, ALONG WITH ALL THE ANIMALS NOT ON THE ARK? There is no rational answer to this question, that’s the bottom line. This story is one of the central tenants of the Abrahamic religions, and though you seek to distance yourself from it, it is part of your religious tar baby, and it looks good on you. (Oh, that’s right, you don’t believe in this central passage from the bible, do you?) As for why we get into these debates with you theists, with all the evil being done in the name of God and religion, it affects us whither we believe it or not, doesn’t it? So the struggle for us atheists/agnostics is to work to enlighten humanity as to the fallacy of the existence of God. If we can do that, religion will fall like the house of cards it is. Then we can work on the other real problems that face humanity, unencumbered by the fog of religion and the “Truth” of God.

David

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]</p>

David M. Payne

First off sikh, I’m not an atheist, I’m an agnostic. See <a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=105" target="_blank">The Wailing Pool,</a> and you will understand why I am an agnostic. As for why I fear religion, it’s pretty clearly pointed out in the essay at the beginning of this thread. As for why I fear Sikhism, I don’t particularly fear it. At least as it is portrayed by the quote below, and in my experience with individual Sikhs I have met in the past. Nice guys and gals for the most part, and brighter on average than many other theists I’ve encountered. That said, it is an offshoot of Islam and Hinduism, and it too has a taste for the type of conflict that can bring humanity down. See the example below.
I do find your admiration of Amos to be disturbing though. I read his post, in fact I’ve read several of his posts over the last few months, and am bemused by the points he is trying to make. In my view he writes a lot and doesn’t say much that has any coherence, but that’s my take on him, and it’s also why I haven’t responded to him. I don’t get what he is trying to say.

Sikhs, followers of the Sikh religion, centered in Punjab State, in northwestern India. Sikhism is an ethical monotheism fusing elements of Hinduism and Islam. It was founded by Nanak (1469-1539), a mystic who believed that God transcends religious distinctions.
IIBELIEFS AND PRACTICES Influenced by the devotional emphasis of bhakti Hinduism and Sufi Islam, Sikhism stresses the unity, truth, and creativity of a personal God and urges union with him through meditation on his title, the Name (Nam), and surrender to his will. It also advocates active service rather than the Hindu ideal of ascetic withdrawal. Loyalty and justice are admired, smoking and intoxicants forbidden. Sikhism also rejects the Hindu caste system, priesthood, image worship, and pilgrimage, although it retains the Hindu doctrines of transmigration and karma. The ultimate spiritual authority is the Adi Granth, consisting of hymns by the ten Sikh gurus (Hindi for "teachers") and Hindu and Muslim devotional poetry in several languages. All Sikhs may read the Adi Granth, which is the focus of devotion at the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the Sikh religious center.
Sikhs are expected to join the Khalsa (Punjabi for "pure"), a religious and military order. Initiates are "baptized" by drinking sweetened water stirred with a sword, after which Sikh men take the surname Singh ("lion") and women take the surname Kaur ("prince," or here, "princess"). Members of the Khalsa are instructed to observe the five k's: They must wear four symbols of the Sikh faith-soldiers' shorts (kaccha), an iron bangle (kara), a steel sword (kirpan), and a comb (khanga)-and they must not cut their hair (kes).
IIIHISTORY Nanak, the saintly first guru, wandered over India seeking converts. He was succeeded by nine gurus, the office staying within the family line of the fourth guru, Ram Das. Ram Das was also the founder of the Golden Temple. The fifth, Arjan Dev, compiled the Adi Granth in 1604. As the Sikhs became a distinct religious community, they took up arms against persecution by Hindus and by Muslim rulers of the Mughal Empire. Opposing Mughal tyranny, the tenth guru, Gobind Singh, formed the Khalsa in 1699. During the decline of the Mughals, the Sikhs, led by the warrior Ranjit Singh, created a powerful state in the Punjab about 1800 that eventually threatened British-controlled India. After internal dissension and two wars the Punjab was annexed by the British in 1849.
The British governed the Sikhs fairly and, in return for their loyalty during the Sepoy Rebellion of (1857-1859), gave them preferential land grants. The Sikhs gained wealth and a great reputation as soldiers and policemen. Upon independence in 1947, they lost their privileges and found their state divided between India and Pakistan. After a bitter war against the Muslims in 1965, the Pakistani Sikhs migrated to India. In response to years of agitation, the Indian government created Punjab as a single Punjabi-speaking state in 1966; it remains the home of most of India's more than 16 million Sikhs. Terrorism by Sikh separatists demanding greater autonomy led the Indian government in June 1984 to send in troops to seize the Golden Temple from Sikh extremists, who vowed to avenge the violence. Sikh members of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's personal guard were implicated in her assassination on October 31. In 1985 an accord was finally reached with the Indian government on expanding Punjab. Sikh terrorists then stepped up their activities, demanding the establishment of a Sikh state, Khalistan. In 1992 the government sent in police and army reinforcements and reestablished its authority in Punjab. See also Punjab.
"Sikhs," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

David

hal9000

From Compton’s encyclopedia; Fundamentalism, in Christianity, religious movement in Protestant churches in United States that caused much conflict; term refers to "fundamentals" that adherents believed were necessary to Christian religion, such as literal interpretation of Bible
Pentecostals
Protestantism
revivalism

There is my understanding of this belief. Though I tend to ascribe it to any person that follows the bible, Torah or Koran literally. I marvel at these arguments because I am an atheist. I see all the evil done in the name of this or that religion and pray to the pink unicorn that it will come to an end before they bring mankind to its end. If you call the muddle that Amos sprouts off great perception, you are in need of help. I hope you don't perceive this as a personal attack, but I just find it sort of funny. That's the way I see it

Automaton

For some reason I pictured Compton's encyclopedia to be written all in ebonics.

Samhain

Heh, damn, beat me to it.

Tristan Scott

David Payne

But then there you have it. The facts show otherwise. The facts show that as long as real estate wasn't involved the region of Palestine was relatively peaceful. The facts show that before the Balfour Declaration in which the Brits split up the territory and pledged support for a Jewish state there had been no large scale fighting between the semitic peoples of the area.

David, your statements...

followed by...

...are in conflict.

Religion is either at the root of the problem, or it is the rationale used to motivate the peoples into fighting and dying. I don't think religion is immaterial, I just don't think it is the root cause.

Please, you would find it easier to jump up and high-five the Man in the Moon. I would think you would have more success in convincing people to be less trustful of their religious leaders who claim to have some direct connection to God. The Jim Joneses and the David Koreshes of the world are no different from the Osama Bin Ladens.

No, I think religion will be here until it can be replaced with reason and understanding. That, IMO, is why we have religion in the first place; it fills the voids in our understanding and knowledge. There are no Sun Gods anymore among peoples who know the true nature of the sun. Simply trying to point out to these people that their god does not exist isn't going to work. You cannot prove that something spiritual does not exist any more than they can prove that it does.