EPT![[image loading]](http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/darkages.gif)
Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't lose 1000 years of development. We'd probably have terraformed Mars by now or something. Maybe even developed near-light speed travel.
Pope compares secularism to Nazism - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't lose 1000 years of development. We'd probably have terraformed Mars by now or something. Maybe even developed near-light speed travel. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On September 20 2010 03:41 Half wrote: Why are people like you so fucking arrogant? Some of the most powerful nations on earth were built upon the absence of religion, and many world powers today are mostly irreligious, like Japan and Korea, and many moderate European Nations like Sweden and Denmark. my history might be a little iffy, but the only two powerful nations I know of that were built upon the absence of religion would be Communist China and the USSR (both of which are modern) almost every Great Empire in history has had some form of religion or another which either it was directly founded upon or had a significant role to play in it's founding | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On September 20 2010 05:02 Sadist wrote: Even DARWIN was a priest (or monk forget) when he studied the Galapagos Islands (sp?). What a horrid example, so Darwin had lost his faith becouse of his scientific research, and that shows that science, and religion goes well together? On September 20 2010 05:02 Sadist wrote:In fact people who are religious are people who question and see order and wonder why this is or that is. In fact people in general are interested in knowing answers to such questions, and religion stop people from thinking by saying them that there is an invisible being that can't be understand behind it all. Hawking was told by a pope that scientist should not try to discover why Big Band had happen, becouse that should be left for religion. Scientist don't give God as an explanation, naming physical laws with the world god is not religion but semantics. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On September 20 2010 05:13 Pioneer wrote: Please don't dissect parts of my posts and only choose bits and pieces that might help your argument. Argue against the whole statement not parts that you manipulate and take out of context. I also realize you said 'Some of the most powerful nations'. All I did was take the examples given and dispute what you said with fact. I didn't say that it was the predominant belief, I said it's still a prominent belief in these countries. Many politicians and leaders in these countries still hold to their beliefs as do the older generation. I said that it is less common now among the younger generation (generally 30 years old and younger). I also stated that they played a significant part in history not that they are the be all end all now. Please don't act like I have a hate on for atheists, I have never once stated in any post that I have an issue with Atheism, it is a belief and you're perfectly entitled to it. I don't think it's wrong or right, it's just what you choose to believe or not believe. I don't think a persons religious beliefs make them inherently a bad person. A priest doesn't decide molest children because he Catholic nor does an Atheist. The world doesn't work like that. People aren't 'A Christian who is a bad person' or 'A Atheist who is a bad person' it's 'A bad person who happens to be Christian/Atheist/Muslim/etc.' If you're going to argue at least do it intelligently and logically, not by nit picking, twisting words, and demonizing anyone that doesn't believe as you do you are no better than the extremists of any religion who do the same thing. You're right, I often do argue at a lower standard in threads like this, because they are so intrinsically based upon presumption and faith that an intellectual analysis isn't worth the time or effort. This is the post I responded to. op is a little misleading. i feel that he's not saying that without christianity, society would crumble, but rather that with christian values in mind, society could improve. He has absolutely no analytical, logical, or correlative evidence to back up this statement. Yet in order to prove him empirically wrong, one would need to waste his time forming a complex dissertative analysis to an opinion whos only rationale behind it was an intuitive insight that was formed as a result of a religious upbringing. Instead, I chose to respond in the simplest way possible. A statement of simple truths to expand his narrow perspective. Now I'm assuming your smarter then he is, and now your trying to say these simple truths don't empirically disprove his statement. Well no shit. Because his statement was not one that had any sort of scientific rationale behind it what so ever. but fyi, stop using Japan as an example. Shintoism and Buddhism have almost nothing in common with Christianity. my history might be a little iffy, but the only two powerful nations I know of that were built upon the absence of religion would be Communist China and the USSR (both of which are modern) See if I wanted to be pretentious like L would say something like how Chinese religious values ingrained in the culture were instrumental in the development of the PRC, despite being formally repressed by the government during the earlier years, despite that fact contributing little to the discussion at hand or something :o. But not really. No nation is truly devoid of religious influences. Not really even then ones you mentioned, so yes. However, religious values have shown consistent decline in the years after WW2 in most developed countries, to the point where many countries are predominantly irreligious (like the ones I had mentioned), the primary point being that despite this, the moral values expressed by the nations have only improved in relation to humanism. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On September 20 2010 05:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote: my history might be a little iffy, but the only two powerful nations I know of that were built upon the absence of religion would be Communist China and the USSR (both of which are modern) almost every Great Empire in history has had some form of religion or another which either it was directly founded upon or had a significant role to play in it's founding Before modern times, the only way for a ruler to actually exert control over a vast land was through superstition and religion. How could a King make people follow his rules without having 1 guard per citizen? It's not like they had video surveillence or forensics to figure out who was breaking the law. By getting everyone to fear and worship one or many gods, you can use this fear of divine supervision as a way to get people to follow the rules. Remember, back then, vast distances of land couldn't easily be crossed. Guards would be at guard posts rather spread out, so in small villages (most of the population) by the time you send a messenger to a guard, it could be days or weeks later before they come to investigate a crime. Nowadays police can get almost anywhere super fast in cars. Cities have response times of 7 to 15 minutes to a 911 call, while rural areas might take an hour. Even if they miss the crime, they can collect forensic evidence. The criminal law system was basically one man's word against another. Law enforcement is exponentially better now, so we don't need religion to keep people afraid of breaking the rules. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On September 20 2010 04:24 Half wrote: It truly is amazing hearing this from the other end. Considering I distinctly remember posting the exact same thing in another religious thread somewhere. Yes, when it comes down to it, Atheism is a system of belief, just as Religion is a system of belief, which can be further divided into individual religions. These systems of belief are ways we interpret value from world. Systems of belief are inherently subjective, and thus, none can be objectively better then another. People need systems of beliefs in order to function in this world, and any argument whos basis is inherently subjective is just a confliction of values in differing systems of beliefs. You just realize that? Indeed If you tried to argue any actual position, you yourself would fall into the same fallacy's you deride us for falling into. But of course, your better then arguing for any actual position right? You just get your kicks from laughing at people with ideals and convictions. Every single person marginalized or derided is just another mental victory. In the end, your viewpoint becomes nothing more then an useless structure to preposition yourself as superior to your fellow man, because you lack actual convictions. A kind of mental device to vindicate yourself as superior to everyone else, by the shear virtue of being detached and effectively redundant. Its amazing how you can write so much and say absolutely nothing. I'm sure you feel really proud about yourself. You want a cookie? Its funny because despite your purported sophistication, you present an argument that has no more merit then Blitzkriegs criticism of Atheism. + Show Spoiler + You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it. When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD. Essentially, you attempt to attack the integrity of an argument for Atheism from the role of an outsider. due to its lack of empirical merit, despite the fact that Atheism does not claim to have emperical merit (in terms of "moral value"), only empirical social value in the context of the world today (not the world two thousand years ago), and subjective personal value. The entire critique of cultural relativism that you posit in this over-long post is pretty standard and dealt with in a number of ways by memetics or by Nietzsche's philosophical utilitarian perspective theory. I also disagree with the proposition that all worldviews are equally valid, and I never stated that they are. More to the point, you're incredibly defensive about a post that just said "take a step back and look at the history of the concepts you're looking at" while giving some examples. Its as if you want to violently reject that most westerners operate out of unexamined assumptions which stem from their theistic cultural history. In trying to do so, you're trying to 'cleanse' yourself of a philosophy that you view as barbaric and primitive. Its very much, again, akin to Nietzsche's mocking of Socrates. I mean, you think I'm attacking the 'merit of Atheism'. Did I? Or did you infer that, then make it the center of your post? Seems like a rather emotional reaction from someone claiming to come from such a place of enlightened rationality. The benefit of taking a step back from culture isn't to stand above it all and mock others in superiority. Its to find solutions to problems. More importantly, its also to allow you to see patterns in thought which are recurrent and fast forward through similar themes which have been exhausted in the past. In the current instance, there's a cultural divide between theists and non-theists which is exaggerated by the effects of group thought. The irony, however, is that the arguments being deployed claim the opposite of the actual dialog. And not just in this thread, although there are countless threads like this, but in popular discourse as well. This isn't an empty statement; I'm asking both sides to actually go do some research and look at the core of their convictions and start acting through them instead of just mouthing support while collectively acting like 7 year olds. | ||
|
HeIios
Sweden2523 Posts
This thread is great, here's my viewpoint: | ||
|
Kraid
United States6 Posts
On September 20 2010 05:13 Pioneer wrote: Please don't dissect parts of my posts and only choose bits and pieces that might help your argument. Argue against the whole statement not parts that you manipulate and take out of context. I also realize you said 'Some of the most powerful nations'. All I did was take the examples given and dispute what you said with fact. I didn't say that it was the predominant belief, I said it's still a prominent belief in these countries. Many politicians and leaders in these countries still hold to their beliefs as do the older generation. I said that it is less common now among the younger generation (generally 30 years old and younger). I also stated that they played a significant part in history not that they are the be all end all now. Please don't act like I have a hate on for atheists, I have never once stated in any post that I have an issue with Atheism, it is a belief and you're perfectly entitled to it. I don't think it's wrong or right, it's just what you choose to believe or not believe. I don't think a persons religious beliefs make them inherently a bad person. A priest doesn't decide molest children because he Catholic nor does an Atheist. The world doesn't work like that. People aren't 'A Christian who is a bad person' or 'A Atheist who is a bad person' it's 'A bad person who happens to be Christian/Atheist/Muslim/etc.' Point is, avoiding using phrases like 'Atheist scum' to try and make me come across as some non-religious hating person. If you're going to argue at least do it intelligently and logically, not by nit picking, twisting words, and demonizing anyone that doesn't believe as you do you are no better than the extremists of any religion who do the same thing. Edit: This is actually Meta talking, I'm at my friend's house and didn't realize I was logged in on his account. You don't think the overwhelming sexual oppression the priesthood bestows upon themselves leads to a lifetime of built-up sexual urges? You don't think that this might at least aid in the littlest bit to the priest's explosion of sexual misconduct over the past 40 years? If not, it seems a little odd to me that SO MANY catholic priests have been charged with child rape. Also, I gotta respond to the dude who responded to my post on page two, where I claimed that 93% of scientists are atheists. According to this website, it's actually more like 64%, which is still an overwhelming majority when compared to the average atheism among non-scientists. Also, that Dawkins video expressed exactly the thought process behind the Pope's speech. It wasn't about secularism at all, it was about diverting attention away from the horrible atrocities that catholic priests have been carrying out against children for decades. It was about covering up the fact that Ratzinger was the soul individual behind the cover-ups of these molestation cases for the past 30 years. He's trying to divert attention away from his own illegal and immoral activities for fear of secular retribution for his heinous crimes, and talking about anything else at this point is exactly playing to his agenda. It's sickening, thinking about all the poor child victims of the catholic church, and how many of them may never see the criminals behind their torture locked away. | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. The irony of this statement is fantastic. | ||
|
Pioneer
994 Posts
On September 20 2010 05:21 Half wrote: You're right, I often do argue at a lower standard in threads like this, because they are so intrinsically based upon presumption and faith that an intellectual analysis isn't worth the time or effort. This is the post I responded to. He has absolutely no analytical, logical, or correlative evidence to back up this statement. Yet in order to prove him empirically wrong, one would need to waste his time forming a complex dissertative analysis to an opinion whos only rationale behind it was an intuitive insight that was formed as a result of a religious upbringing. Instead, I chose to respond in the simplest way possible. A statement of simple truths to expand his narrow perspective. Now I'm assuming your smarter then he is, and now your trying to say these simple truths don't empirically disprove his statement. Well no shit. Because his statement was not one that had any sort of scientific rationale behind it what so ever. but fyi, stop using Japan as an example. Shintoism and Buddhism have almost nothing in common with Christianity. I wasn't addressing his post whatsoever, you covered that just a little inaccurately. His post is asinine, moral standards are what keeps society from crumbling not a belief in a god. Religion just happened to be the outlet that this was expressed through for a long time. I think you need to take a break from this, the stupid is wearing you down. You can't argue with most of the people in these threads, Atheist or Theist, because they are unwilling to think logically about it and resort to insulting rather than taking a step back and think about what they are saying. You started of very strong with good posts but it's easy to see the gradual decline in your posting as the thread went along. Rule of thumb that is hard to follow sometimes, is to avoid religious threads and discussions offline and online because they will always be plagued with idiots on both sides. I broke the rule and became partially invested in the thread but most of the time if you can avoid these types of discussions you'll be a much happier person. You can't change peoples beliefs just like you can't fix stupid, all you get by trying is a headache and shitty day. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
Jews were persecuted so hard by Christians before the Nazis. They didn't slaughter the Jews, but they sure didn't treat Jews equally or with respect. Many Western countries actually banned Jews from immigrating before WWII. After the war, they freed millions of Jews, but they kinda still didn't want too many Jews to move in and so the Allies helped to create Israel to put the Jews elsewhere. | ||
|
Pioneer
994 Posts
On September 20 2010 05:30 Kraid wrote: Edit: This is actually Meta talking, I'm at my friend's house and didn't realize I was logged in on his account. You don't think the overwhelming sexual oppression the priesthood bestows upon themselves leads to a lifetime of built-up sexual urges? You don't think that this might at least aid in the littlest bit to the priest's explosion of sexual misconduct over the past 40 years? If not, it seems a little odd to me that SO MANY catholic priests have been charged with child rape. Also, I gotta respond to the dude who responded to my post on page two, where I claimed that 93% of scientists are atheists. According to this website, it's actually more like 64%, which is still an overwhelming majority when compared to the average atheism among non-scientists. Also, that Dawkins video expressed exactly the thought process behind the Pope's speech. It wasn't about secularism at all, it was about diverting attention away from the horrible atrocities that catholic priests have been carrying out against children for decades. It was about covering up the fact that Ratzinger was the soul individual behind the cover-ups of these molestation cases for the past 30 years. He's trying to divert attention away from his own illegal and immoral activities for fear of secular retribution for his heinous crimes, and talking about anything else at this point is exactly playing to his agenda. It's sickening, thinking about all the poor child victims of the catholic church, and how many of them may never see the criminals behind their torture locked away. I'm sure that it's a factor in their actions, but there is still something wrong with them overall. There are many priests, pastors, etc. that don't do this. My statement still stands that they aren't Catholics that are pedophiles, but rather pedophiles that are Catholics. Really the issue is that you get people in a position of power that have skewed beliefs and ideals. It all comes down the line, the Bible doesn't state that you should beat/kill Jews, gays, etc. nor does the Qur'an state that it's people must kill all non-believers. These issues arise because you have someone in a position of power that perpetuates these beliefs to those that listen to him thus causing issues. The real issue is with organized religion rather than religion or a belief in god. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
| ||
|
Pioneer
994 Posts
On September 20 2010 05:42 Zzoram wrote: Remember, not all sexually deviant Priests are pedophiles or even gay. Something like 20% of the children abused are girls, and Priests also use hookers and stuff, that just isn't as big a news story. I used pedophilia as the example since it has been the topic of discussion regarding the Catholic Church and it tends to be a larger part of the whole sexual deviancy (this is not the exact phrase I wanted to use but I can't brain right now) aspect than the use of hookers, or other means. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On September 20 2010 05:23 Zzoram wrote: Before modern times, the only way for a ruler to actually exert control over a vast land was through superstition and religion. How could a King make people follow his rules without having 1 guard per citizen? It's not like they had video surveillence or forensics to figure out who was breaking the law. By getting everyone to fear and worship one or many gods, you can use this fear of divine supervision as a way to get people to follow the rules. Remember, back then, vast distances of land couldn't easily be crossed. Guards would be at guard posts rather spread out, so in small villages (most of the population) by the time you send a messenger to a guard, it could be days or weeks later before they come to investigate a crime. Nowadays police can get almost anywhere super fast in cars. Cities have response times of 7 to 15 minutes to a 911 call, while rural areas might take an hour. Even if they miss the crime, they can collect forensic evidence. The criminal law system was basically one man's word against another. Law enforcement is exponentially better now, so we don't need religion to keep people afraid of breaking the rules. all of this is true, however it would be a mistake to say that the only purpose religion ever served was that of fear or political control/manipulation of the masses | ||
|
csfield
United States206 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
Eventually the secular court systems around the world will follow the paper trail and prosecutors will finally achieve something that the current regime within the catholic church could never offer: justice. Ratzinger's just biding his time until then. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On September 20 2010 03:59 krndandaman wrote: If he means that, it's all the more surprising to me why he thinks that way. Is it really impossible to be some form of afterlife? And how is believing that there isn't an afterlife 'manning up' as he calls it? We can neither prove it or refute it. Same with the universe. Is there really an end to the length of our universe? Who knows? Which is why I don't see why people have to keep arguing about whether their view on the unknown is right or wrong. We never really can know for sure in our lifetime, so it's really up to personal belief. The problem is when people believe stuff because it makes them feel safe or comfortable. This is where manning up comes in. The question isn't whether there could possibly be an afterlife. Sure, noone can prove there couldn't. But, given what you know about the world is there any indication of it? If you truly, honestly examined the evidence, without letting your hopes and fears getting in the way, what would be your answer? If it's "I'm not sure", which one looks more likely: yes or no? The problem with faith (not necessarily religious fate) isn't that the conclusion is wrong. It may or may not be. It's that whole process is wrong. Instead of looking at the evidence impartially faith ignores it unless it's absolutely owerwhelming. You really do not see a problem with this thinking process? If someone did this in other areas of their life what would you think? Maybe something that could hurt someone else: like convincing themselves that they could drive safely when they haven't slept for 24 hours. After all there's no way to know for sure if it's going to lead to an accident or not. I would think that the person is irresponsible or even callous. In the end faith is just a dishonest way of looking at the world. In its most harmless form it just weakens our defense against self-deception. At its worst it hurts others, possibly costing lives. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On September 20 2010 05:23 L wrote: The entire critique of cultural relativism that you posit in this over-long post is pretty standard and dealt with in a number of ways by memetics or by Nietzsche's philosophical utilitarian perspective theory. I also disagree with the proposition that all worldviews are equally valid, and I never stated that they are. More to the point, you're incredibly defensive about a post that just said "take a step back and look at the history of the concepts you're looking at" while giving some examples. Its as if you want to violently reject that most westerners operate out of unexamined assumptions which stem from their theistic cultural history. In trying to do so, you're trying to 'cleanse' yourself of a philosophy that you view as barbaric and primitive. Its very much, again, akin to Nietzsche's mocking of Socrates. I mean, you think I'm attacking the 'merit of Atheism'. Did I? Or did you infer that, then make it the center of your post? Seems like a rather emotional reaction from someone claiming to come from such a place of enlightened rationality. The benefit of taking a step back from culture isn't to stand above it all and mock others in superiority. Its to find solutions to problems. More importantly, its also to allow you to see patterns in thought which are recurrent and fast forward through similar themes which have been exhausted in the past. In the current instance, there's a cultural divide between theists and non-theists which is exaggerated by the effects of group thought. The irony, however, is that the arguments being deployed claim the opposite of the actual dialog. And not just in this thread, although there are countless threads like this, but in popular discourse as well. This isn't an empty statement; I'm asking both sides to actually go do some research and look at the core of their convictions and start acting through them instead of just mouthing support while collectively acting like 7 year olds. How am I arguing against cultural relativism? I'm arguing for it. I'm making a case for the value Atheism within a subjective and cultural set of variables in a specific point in time. Nor for that matter, was I unaware of any of the facts you pointed out. I wasn't personally taken aback by your post. If your core point is that some of the criticisms against Christianity are perhaps too harsh, in the end simply renders atheism as another tool used to marginalize a varied group of people, I'd be inclined to agree. In fact, I've argued repeatedly in this thread in others for the exact same ideal. However, what I took issue with is how you expressed them. Specifically, you expressed them without any clear stance, instead, simply as a criticism of the behavior of Atheists in this thread. If your goal was to foster a better mode of dialogue, then posting self justifying pretentious monologues about displays of group thought which are a clear reaction to the shear incoherence displayed by some theistic individuals earlier in this thread was not do so. Despite advocating a position of balance, your own post was not balanced in the slightest. Is Atheism driven by rigid conventions that are not questioned and group and oppositional mentality any better then religion? Of course not, but if your goal was to dissuade that, then posting a relevant and balanced critique of both sides was the way to accomplish it. Instead, your post vehemently berates some Atheists in this thread presenting flawed arguments still grounded in rationale to the pure undiluted bullshit that some theists posted early in this thread, and you do so for what I would assume to be for personal gratification. | ||
| ||
