luvluv

David Payne:

Tristan beat me to it on the Palestinian question. As I said, Jews ALWAYS got better treatment in Muslim countries than they did in Christian ones UNTIL land came into the picture.

Also, isn't it true that a majority of the citizens of Isreal aren't even practicing Jews? That their Judaism is more their nationality or ethnicity than it is their religion?

As you are well aware, there are religious Marxists (one of my heros is one, actually, Cornell West) and while I am not quite a Marxist, I am closer to Marxism than I am to Capitalism in my political beliefs (I often think that if I posted on the political board, we'd often be on the same side).

I pretty much stand by my statment that if land had never entered the picture Jews and Muslims would be living in relative peace today. Also, if a group of atheists had taken over Palestine and displaced the native people like the Jews did, there would be the same conflicts going on.

"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."

I don't think it needs to be expressly in the Bible, spelled out, to be true. The doctrine of the Trinity, as such, is not in the Bible. Many Christian doctrines are not in the Bible. I don't think that disqualifies Christians from holding the position.

"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."

Precisely my point. Humans fight for CAUSES, and removing one cause isn't going to change this FUNDAMENTAL FLAW in human nature. As long as people are greedy, there will be wars, and there will be CAUSES to justify them. It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with an unfortunate aspect of human nature. My country kills for capitalsim (which they call freedom), Stalin killed for Communism, the early Americans killed for Manifest Destiny, believe it or not, people have been killed for Science as well. None of these causes were responsible for the atrocities, and getting rid of the various philosphies won't stop the phenomenon. Whatever the CAUSE is, PEOPLE will continue to fight.

"Oh, that’s right, you don’t believe in this central passage from the bible, do you?) "

If we were to do away with the story of Noah, how exactly would that effect Christian doctrine? Not that I am suggesting that we do that, but it is hardly central to Christianity. The story is a long-standing tradition, but it hardly produces any essential doctrine or theology that is not covered elsewhere in the Old Testament.

"?) 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."

It'll never happen, and I'll tell you why. You folks over here tend to think that what is provable is the foundation of TRUTH. What you fail to understand is that the provable is the foundation of FACTS, what constitutes TRUTH (which contains, among other things, meaning) is a philosophical decision. The vast majority of humanity will likely never place the value you place on the provable, and they are totally right in doing so. You are quite right in refering to the provable if someone disputes it's veracity (whether or not what you claim is provable has in fact been proven), but if someone says I don't value what is provable over what is intuitive, I don't value what I can prove in a laboratory over what I can feel in my heart, YOU CAN NEVER DEFEAT THAT PROPOSITION BY REFERRING TO THE PROVABLE ALONE.

SOME men have predispositions to the provable. The majority of men will never have that philosophical disposition, which is why religion will ALWAYS be with us. To do that you would not have to present them with incontrivertable facts, but you would have to change their dispositions. Their dispositions may or may not be swayed by the provable.

People are dreamers, philosophers, lovers, communicators, emoters, feelers. Some are disposed to the artistic, some to the political, and some to the divine. WHATEVER YOU DO, SOME PEOPLE WILL NEVER LIMIT WHAT THEY CAN BELIEVE TO WHAT THEY CAN PROVE.

That's off topic, but it is my opinion.

Pomp

luvluv,

People are dreamers, philosophers, lovers, communicators, emoters, feelers. Some are disposed to the artistic, some to the political, and some to the divine. WHATEVER YOU DO, SOME PEOPLE WILL NEVER LIMIT WHAT THEY CAN BELIEVE TO WHAT THEY CAN PROVE.

True, and well said. I have a few comments:

First, no one here advocates that anyone limit his/her beliefs to what can be proved. We would hold very few positive beliefs if that were the case. What we do advocate is that everyone limit their beliefs to those for which there exists compelling evidence.

Second, limiting one's beliefs to those that are supported by evidence is the only way that we can forge a link between what we believe and what is really "out there" in the Universe. Any other method of choosing beliefs amounts to whimsy and wishful thinking.

Third, while I agree with you that it is highly unlikely that the majority of human beings will ever adopt a consistent policy of believing only that which is supported by evidence, I'm saddened by the thought. The various ideologies that human beings kill for are irreconcilable, because none of them makes any reference to the real world. There is no possibility of deciding if communism is true and capitalism false, or if Judaism is true and Islam false, because none of these ideologies is based on evidence but, rather, on the desires of its adherents. Faith. Bah.

Tristan Scott

Is that true? How many people truly believe that somewhere in the universe there are other sentient beings? What evidence is there to support that belief? Not only is there no evidence, but the evidence we have gleaned after 30 years of SETI is that we are alone in the universe.

Should we then stop the search?

David M. Payne

Originally posted by luvluv:
David Payne:

Luv, what has changed in the equation in the Middle East? People, specifically way too many people trying to occupy too little fertile land. Why is this? Religion, specifically Islamic religions opposition to birth control. If you study history a little, you will find that one of the surest ways to defeat your enemy is to out breed him. Overwhelm him with a flood of your tribe, race etc. The Jews have followed the rational of population control and the Palestinians haven’t. The result is millions more Palestinians now then when they lost the wars of 48 and 67. You seem to ignore this fact, why is that? Is it because religion is so clearly involved in the overpopulation problem there, as well as in the rest of the world?

No, I wasn’t aware of a religious Marxist, but as I do believe in taking pieces of what works from many competing sources and putting them together to form a new synthesis, I will grant that a religious Marxist could exist, but to what purpose is beyond me. But I feel this idea will fail, just as Marxism did.
As for your other assertion, yes I understand how the Palestinians feel, but the Jews were driven out of this area a long time ago, weren’t they? You seem to ignore this little fact of history, why is that? You also ignore that Yasser Arafat had had 90% of what he wanted in his negotiations with Barak, and he turned it down, because he wanted it all. So there is greed, on the Palestinian side. Hopefully there will be a settlement that gives the Palestinians a homeland and peace in the area. I think the chances are slim though, as long as the religious differences serve to divide the two sides.

This is my quote below;

"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."

The fable of Noah is just one of the fables that show just how brutal and murderous this God of yours is. To me it is the most critical fable in the bible. He murders everyone including the babies and little children who were without sin, and is worshiped for this act of genocide? To me it’s just like the fascists and communists who worshiped their gods, Hitler and Stalin, its stupid behavior, which has no basis in rational thought. It’s time to recognize these fairy tales for what they are and evolve past this point in our development as a species.

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."

Nice speech luv, but the goal isn’t to eliminate everyone from believing in the fairy tales that are God and religion. The goal is using the power of logic, reason and positive persuasion to marginalize these people to the fringes of humanity. In other words, when religion is just another quirky little sideshow that small numbers of people believe in, the goal will be met. Then we can work on the other problems that you and others point out. This is happening in Europe and other parts of the world right now. The numbers of people who believe in religion in these places is steadily shrinking. Time and logic will overcome fear and superstition in time, I believe. If you read my essay, you know that I do think the economic, political and overpopulation problems can be dealt with, if we can get the strangle hold of religion from around our collective necks. None of it will be easy, but life isn’t easy anyway, we just have to keep our eye on the prize and find a way to get to it. That is what this site is doing, holding up a mirror to show the fanatics just how ugly and dangerous they and their behavior is. We open up a lot of eyes here, offer logical alternatives to God, religion, and oppressive authoritarian regimes. And these sites are growing.

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]</p>

David M. Payne

Originally posted by Tristan Scott:
David Payne

The notion that two Semitic people are only divided by the quest for land is wishful thinking for you theists.

Tristan, here is my complete quote below, and I think it stands on its own. You have your view of things, I have mine. I let the readers decide who makes the most sense. I think religion serves both purposes, you don’t. When you read the whole thing, I believe it is intellectually consistent. I do think that the drive for a homeland is very important in this conflict. The problem is too many people competing for the same land. I covered this problem in the last part of the quote below. Funny how you two ignore this critical component of this conflict, overpopulation, which is driven by religious opposition to birth control.

“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.”


Well Tristan, I do think it will be a little easier than high-fiveing the man in the moon, but not much easier, I’ll grant you that. I agree with you for the most part on the rest of your statement above, with one exception, your last two sentences. I do think that you can convince people of the fallacy of believing in God. That’s what the Sec-Web does, serve as a rational portal for pointing out the absurdity of believing in a God that there is no evidence for the existence of. Not only do we point out that the “king of kings,” God, has no clothes on, we point out that he has no body to hang them on either. I think 9/11 and the attacks to follow, will open up a lot of peoples eyes to the danger that religion poses for humanity. People read history, and while it has an effect on them, there is nothing like watching it happen right in front of their eyes to get them focused on the evil that is done in the name of religion.

Tristan Scott

But isn't the point that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by a man who used religion to recruit the fanatics that actually carried out the attack? Why do we not see rich Shieks or Osamas strapping explosives to their bodies for Allah? I agree that religion is used as a tool by people that commit these evil acts, but to simply blame religion is missing the mark.

It always seems to me that we humans have this inability to focus blame exactly where it belongs, and that is directly on those who perpetrate these awful things. Why do we always feel the need to shift the blame to some in-animate object like religion.

Hitler saw that Christian anti-semitism had been stewing in Europe for centuries and used that fact for his own needs. Sure there was culpability among the Christians for what happened, but we should never lose sight of the fact that the Nazis were primarily to blame and the Nazis were not Christians at all. They used the Christians, and that should be the lesson.

I'm always reminded of a news story on TV a few years back where two little girls burned their house down and their mother and the news reporters and everyone else were blaming the fire on the fact that the little girls had watched Beevis and Butthead on TV. It seemed obvious to me that the little girls knew they had done something wrong but were more than happy to see the blame shifted away from them.

David M. Payne

No Tristan, it’s not simply blaming religion, its pointing out that religion gives these kind of people you talk about the organization they need to do their evil deeds.

I don’t shift the blame, I point out that these acts of evil were done using religion as the sanctioning body for the evil activity. Not only must you hold the people who committed evil accountable, you should hold the governing body these people used to sanction their acts accountable. I think the sexual perverts (Priests) in the Catholic church in the news today is a perfect example of religion committing acts of evil in trying to hide what these priests did. I hope the church is brought up on RICO statutes, and all their dirty linen is put out for public display

See the above reply.

As do almost all people who are caught performing acts of evil. The priests aren’t trying to shift the blame away from themselves, they were trying to hide it completely, and the church was a co-conspirator in the act.

DaveJes1979

I am sorry, but one is going to have to do better than pointing out the sins of the church in order to implicate God in mass murder. This is one of the oldest, saddest, most idiotic arguments I have ever come across. How can one blame God for the sins of those who claim to be his followers? The atrocities of church history are, for the most part, the result of aberrations of Roman Catholicism (not even Christianity, per se). They do not represent consistent expressions of Christian ethics or the Christian worldview.

One could make a FAR better case, historically AND philisophically, that atheism leads to mass murder. Like it or not, both Hitler and Stalin were disciples of Nietzsche, not of Christ. History tells us that they did away with TENS OF MILLIONS of lives - far more than the Inquisition and Crusades combined! Philisophically, this sort of behavior is a sensible result of atheism. If man truly is nothing more than matter, and the only moral norms that exist are utilitarian or "survival of the fittest" in nature, then how can one consistently argue with Hitler and Stalin?

Dave Gadbois

Typhon

You should be. The deaths waged in the name of gods pales by comparison to the deaths that would be the direct responsibility of god, if such a god as the Christian myth did exist.

Then you do not understand it, or its long pedigree as a serious problem with such faiths.

How can one blame children for the sins of their parents? This is one of the oldest, saddest, most idiotic arguments I have ever come across.

Utter nonsense. And I'd watch it if I were you before slinging such poorly aimed stones while standing in a house of glass. Roman Catholicism is just as if not more "Christian" than any of the upstart Protestant or even worse, Evangelical sects. It is the original "Christian" church, and in fact, much of the faith and the Bible it uses as its primary scriptures, were the result of this early church. I would recommend you learn a bit more about the history of your faith before you make such a glaring mistake. I find it endlessly amusing that so many Christians are so woefully ignorant of the history of their own beliefs. I can't count the number of times when some Evangelical (especially of the brash, poorly educated American subset) will with complete conviction, blurt out that "Catholics aren't Christians, what are you talking about, they're Catholics…"

Yes they do. While much of the atrocities committed in the name of the world's various sects of Christianity do reflect local conditions and standard human cruelty, they are far from free of the moral dictates and influence of the faith. Christianity was and is, an aggressive, militant, xenophobic faith, which encourages active conversion and strives to eradicate unbelievers, sometimes violently, sometimes "peacefully" but almost always, with little regard or respect for the desire of those unconverted to remain so.

Really? Many have tried, and failed. There is no reputable correlation between the two. If you claim otherwise, please site some real studies that show this.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were "disciples" of Nietzsche. Please again, show how you have information that reputable historians have somehow overlooked.

Or is that something you like to say about any world leader who doesn't happen to be a Christian? Attila was not a disciple of Christ either, and he did a good job killing a great number of people. Was he an evil, atheist disciple of Nietzsche perhaps? LOL.

The deaths caused by Fascists in Europe and those suffered at the hands of Stalin in Russia, had little if anything to do with the religious or non-religious feelings of either leader. For certain, neither one pursued such a course based on the dictates of atheism, unlike the many previous examples of famous historical figures who killed, tortured, and went to war, in the name of the Christian faith.

This shows that you neither understand atheism, nor the phrase "survival of the fittest." You certainly don't display a solid grasp of modern history.

Atheism says nothing about any such social Darwinism. Nor did either Stalin or Hitler used this misconception of natural selection as the driving force of their respective and brutal dictatorships.

Please do you homework and at least look up the many, many times this weak theist argument for atheism to be without or in opposition to a moral society has been debunked on this forum.

One can consistently argue with Hitler and Stalin because they were murdering nut jobs, totalitarian dictators who killed their own people in an effort to retain brutal, total political control of their respective countries.

.T.

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

DaveJes1979

typhon: You should be. The deaths waged in the name of gods pales by comparison to the deaths that would be the direct responsibility of god, if such a god as the Christian myth did exist.

Dave: once again, WHY, precisely, is God responsible for deaths waged "in his name"?? You are skipping some logical steps to come to this conclusion. If I go out today and kill someone "in the name of typhon", would you be responsible?


typhon: How can one blame children for the sins of their parents? This is one of the oldest, saddest, most idiotic arguments I have ever come across.

Dave: precisely, what relation does that have to do with God's morally culpability for the sins of his followers??

typhon: Utter nonsense. And I'd watch it if I were you before slinging such poorly aimed stones while standing in a house of glass. Roman Catholicism is just as if not more "Christian" than any of the upstart Protestant or even worse, Evangelical sects. It is the original "Christian" church, and in fact, much of the faith and the Bible it uses as its primary scriptures, were the result of this early church. I would recommend you learn a bit more about the history of your faith before you make such a glaring mistake. I find it endlessly amusing that so many Christians are so woefully ignorant of the history of their own beliefs. I can't count the number of times when some Evangelical (especially of the brash, poorly educated American subset) will with complete conviction, blurt out that "Catholics aren't Christians, what are you talking about, they're Catholics…"

Dave: you avoided the substance of my argument. Why do you assume the actions of Roman Catholics represent a consistent expression of the Christian worldview? If this is not a consistent expression of the Christian worldview - then what is your complaint against the Christian worldview.

Secondly, I would note that it is quite fallacious to equate (as you seem to) Roman Catholicism with the early church. Where did the Church Fathers talk about transubstantiation, the Marian dogmas, "tradition" as an extra-biblical source, purgatory, indulgences, papal infallibility, the treasury of merit, etc. etc. etc.?? Do not assume I am ignorant of church history. The first 4 centuries of the church happen to be of special interest to me.

typhon: Yes they do. While much of the atrocities committed in the name of the world's various sects of Christianity do reflect local conditions and standard human cruelty, they are far from free of the moral dictates and influence of the faith. Christianity was and is, an aggressive, militant, xenophobic faith, which encourages active conversion and strives to eradicate unbelievers, sometimes violently, sometimes "peacefully" but almost always, with little regard or respect for the desire of those unconverted to remain so.

Dave: you claim that "Christianity was and is..." many things. But what makes you think that xenophobia, violence, etc. etc., is a consistent part of the Christian worldview? Are these things biblical? Is it "xenophobic" for Christ to command us to preach the Gospel in all nations (Matthew 28)??

typhon:
Neither Hitler nor Stalin were "disciples" of Nietzsche. Please again, show how you have information that reputable historians have somehow overlooked.

Dave: I suggest you read Hitler's Mein Kampf, where he explicitly gives thanks to Nietzsche. Secondly, I would note that much of Nietzsche and Marx's thought were almost part and parcel of Stalin's Communism.

typho: The deaths caused by Fascists in Europe and those suffered at the hands of Stalin in Russia, had little if anything to do with the religious or non-religious feelings of either leader. For certain, neither one pursued such a course based on the dictates of atheism, unlike the many previous examples of famous historical figures who killed, tortured, and went to war, in the name of the Christian faith.

Dave: really? For CERTAIN??


typho: This shows that you neither understand atheism, nor the phrase "survival of the fittest." You certainly don't display a solid grasp of modern history.

Atheism says nothing about any such social Darwinism. Nor did either Stalin or Hitler used this misconception of natural selection as the driving force of their respective and brutal dictatorships.

Please do you homework and at least look up the many, many times this weak theist argument for atheism to be without or in opposition to a moral society has been debunked on this forum.

One can consistently argue with Hitler and Stalin because they were murdering nut jobs, totalitarian dictators who killed their own people in an effort to retain brutal, total political control of their respective countries.

Dave: well, your criticism is somewhat off-the-mark. I did raise the principle of "survival of the fittest" because many atheist indeed DO try to base ethical systems around a pseudo-Darwinian model. I just got done responding to such a chap in another thread! But I never claimed that ALL atheists have this sort of ethical construct.

I suggest that you actually deal with the substance of the arguments I gave. If survival of the fittest or utilitarianism is not the standard of ethical norms - what is? On what basis can the atheist POSSIBLY object to those atrocities?

Dave Gadbois