|
On September 20 2010 06:46 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 06:44 Boblion wrote:On September 20 2010 05:14 Zzoram wrote:On September 20 2010 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 20 2010 04:05 LaLLsc2 wrote:On September 19 2010 15:40 matjlav wrote:
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS. Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity. ![[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. Yea blaming Christianity for those 1000 years without development... What about Goths ? Huns ? Vandals ? Franks ? Saxons ? Vikings ? etc .... They didn't really help too. Causes of Western Roman Empire's collapse and Western Europe's subsequent stagnation are different things... EDIT: woops, Western, not Eastern
Yea that's right all those wars and invasions have definitly helped the development of Science.
edit: why i'm even trying to argue on General ? :S
Christianity is and has always been evil, other historical factors don't matter obviously.
/ case solved.
|
On September 20 2010 07:09 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 06:46 TOloseGT wrote:On September 20 2010 06:44 Boblion wrote:On September 20 2010 05:14 Zzoram wrote:On September 20 2010 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 20 2010 04:05 LaLLsc2 wrote:On September 19 2010 15:40 matjlav wrote:
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS. Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity. 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. Yea blaming Christianity for those 1000 years without development... What about Goths ? Huns ? Vandals ? Franks ? Saxons ? Vikings ? etc .... They didn't really help too. Causes of Western Roman Empire's collapse and Western Europe's subsequent stagnation are different things... EDIT: woops, Western, not Eastern Yea that's right all those wars and invasions have definitly helped the development of Science.
Similar to all those wars and invasions from the 16th Century onwards? Funnily enough, scientific progress was never hindered by THOSE wars.
One glaringly obvious correlation can be made between the beginnings of humanism and the Enlightenment, and scientific progress. To put simply, as secularism grew, science advanced. Is there a causal relationship somewhere in there? Possibly, that's for your to decide.
|
On September 20 2010 04:51 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Japan is 65% irreligious. Denmark is 80%. Scandinavia is 70%. I said "mostly", not entirely. Unless your case is that the 20-35% of those societies is alone holding up the other % that is Atheist scum. And buddhist values are not Christian values. They are not comparable. In fact, buddhism has as much in common with many non-religious philosophies as it does with Christianity.
Nm misread
|
On September 19 2010 15:46 Ciryandor wrote:
He was PART of a Nazi-related group; and that is different from being a Party member.
jesuits
|
Arguing for the primacy of a value system is pretty much the opposite of adopting relativism. You haven't made reference to subjective and cultural factors which produce a superior outcome for Atheism, but rather you pointed to absolutes.
I'm arguing for a value system within the context of our current culture and our current point in time. Atheism and its values of intelligentsia are not the best for every culture at every point in time, but they are the best for this culture at this point in time, and how Atheism has been better for some nations at some other points in time. I've never made the empirical case that Atheism is better intrinsically. Instead, I've made the cases like Atheism would not cause any sort of moral degradation in the world today. Perhaps your confusing me with some other people in this thread.
You took issue with the fact that I wasn't willing to label myself with respect to a basket of the most fundamental and primary assumptions facing humans? Well, I'll have to pardon myself, but I find these concepts a bit too important to be simplistic to the point of reducibility.
By not outlining your intentions all you've made yourself is a tool to be misinterpreted and used by people who don't understand your well formed but ill presented ideals for there own agendas.
All you have to do is look at how the Theists parroting Einsteins views concerning religion in this thread to see the process.
Go back and read my first two posts. You will find that they aren't 'unbalanced'. They lightly remark upon certain things and don't offer a condemnation of a worldview, but rather a simple critique of a single post.
Note that I didn't respond to your first two posts.
As for your contention that this was a criticism of atheism, I'm pretty sure I criticized both sides of the debate, because both sides are guilty of acting in the exact same way. After all, they're both human. If you think giving a historical account of why atheism is directly in line with the western theistic conception of the world is a criticism of atheism, then again you're attempting to 'cleanse' yourself and deluding yourself in the process.
Well, first of all, I never claimed that the facts you presented were criticisms. Actually, I was fine with that, and I liked that.
It was your subsequent opinion that made me respond.
There's quite a bit more, but pretending that the two phenomena are distinct and that there's only room for antagonism is pretty contrary to the historical account. Its kinda like pretending that Christians are conservative, whereas in the majority of the world they're more akin to progressive liberals. There's so much context and back-story lost from these little 'my belief is better than yours' threads that its almost impossible to surmount. I've always found it odd that people loudly championing atheistic beliefs as a clarion call for rationality have substantial deficits in knowledge which prevent them from making rational judgments and viewing their own inherent assumptions. On the other end, I've always found it odd how confrontational many theists get, especially catholics, given how positive a golden rule approach would be.
Oh well, go back to throwing shit at each other. That's more fun to read.
This is primarily where I took issue to your stance. Well not so much your stance as your presentation of your stance. It indiscriminately derides both "sides" of the argument with broad overarching claims that aren't even true in this thread alone. Its a blanket statement, and its one that is especially critical of Atheists. You use a broad overarching statement to generalize and marginalize Atheists and laugh at there ignorance. While your only criticism of religion is that they are too confrontational. Which is especially hilarious because if you look at this thread alone, the loudest and most ignorant voices have come from religion, not Atheism.
That alone isn't enough to make me be so critical of your post. You made that post without clear direction, without clear stance. And without one, combined with your self serving criticisms of Atheism (that are very generalizing), the end effect is that your somewhat rationale if misguided post simply becomes another tool to be flung like shit by the reflective sides.
In the end, you haven't put yourself above the shit flinging. By not presenting a coherent stance, and instead posting for intellectual fulfillment alone, you basically just made yourself the shit thats being flung around, no offense.
Your posts, however, have been ramping up in terms of their aggressive nature, so I'd ask you to use that rational mindset and think about the value of civility when it comes to having a public discourse. If you think this is a critique of one or two atheists who have presented 'flawed arguments' (who are obviously redeemed of their errors by their resort to rationale? I'm not sure of your objective in that line), you've missed the point entirely.
I'll show you how far off 'the point' you were. You think I'm asking for balance. A harmonization, perhaps. Wrong. I asked for the complete opposite. I told people to go and do research and learn as much as they could, then present arguments in a manner which is consistent with their beliefs. Neither side's tone matches the content of their rhetoric. Both attempt to claim lofty ideals, yet neither are here practicing them. That's not a balance issue. That's actually the opposite. I'm telling people to be more extreme with their views and act on them, maybe even to live them out completely when it comes to the discourse, at least, instead of settling for shit flinging.
Semantics. What you characterize as "extremism" is what most people here characterize as balance. Balance is not the lack of conviction. Balance is a careful and thoughtful analysis of your opponents ideals, and an equally careful and thoughtful refutation of them.
Extremism is when you is when you do not give rationale and fair consideration to your opponents views, but deny them out personal belief alone.
Either way, we understand each other here, you just have a funny definition of extremism. One that apparently includes rationally disproving your opponents from intellection and scholastics. Huh.
|
People, lets - for the sake of the discussion - differentiate between religion in the sense of individual religious beliefs and institutionalized reilgion.
The latter is the problem whereas the first is usually not. The catholic church is basically a company that is continually losing market shares. Hence, the CEO needs to pull some PR stunt. Institutionaleized religion is all about control and power. Its usually some old men claiming the have premium access to some higher power and are, therefore, allowed to tell others how to think and to act. If you don't do as they say, fine, burn in hell or be stoned to death.
Read any holy book of your choice and see what it says. Then look at what the repective religious instution does. You will, in most cases, find that the institutions give a shit about the writings if it does not suit them. Thou shalt not kill (unless the other guys is a douche). Thou shalt not give falsew testimony (unless, of course, the truth sheds a bad light on the church).
Preach water and drink wine...and then wonder why people get upset about it?
|
On September 20 2010 07:22 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Read any holy book of your choice and see what it says. Then look at what the repective religious instution does.
Unless you're talking about those "sola scriptura" protestants, that's really not the criticism you should be making. I, for one, am glad Jews aren't shedding blood the way the Tanakh tells them to.
|
On September 20 2010 07:22 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Read any holy book of your choice and see what it says. Then look at what the repective religious instution does. You will, in most cases, find that the institutions give a shit about the writings if it does not suit them. Thou shalt not kill (unless the other guys is a douche). Thou shalt not give falsew testimony (unless, of course, the truth sheds a bad light on the church).
Preach water and drink wine...and then wonder why people get upset about it?
And I'm very glad that Christians for the most part ignore what their holy book says. After all, I don't want to see people executed for heinous crimes such as cursing their parents, gathering wood on the wrong day or having consensual sex with the wrong person.
|
And I'm very glad that Christians for the most part ignore what their holy book says. After all, I don't want to see people executed for heinous crimes such as cursing their parents, gathering wood on the wrong day or having consensual sex with the wrong person.
I like the part where jesus beats people up D:
what a bad as motha fucker. :D
|
On September 19 2010 16:05 On_Slaught wrote:
Reading that quote is both disappointing and frightening.
You said it brother-man.
|
Edit your post in light of my edit please. You uh, should probably read what you replied to.
Note that I didn't respond to your first two posts. I don't really care, when you attack their content as 'unbalanced' and make that your entire position.
Your position vis a vis me, clearly stated in this post is "regardless of the validity of your views, please don't state them because it might give fire to my opposition". Either you aren't all that certain in your views, or you don't think you have the intellectual abilities to defend them despite your certainty.
Sad.
|
On September 20 2010 02:02 Valikyr wrote:
(agnostic) Atheism is the only intellectually honest position to take, however much the child-rapist defending Pope wants to make atheism look evil.
Pope is an evil, vicious man who just got nothing to say about other people's morals or acts done in the past. Hitler was a roman catholic, anyone that read mein kampf or other works by Hitler knows this.
Hitler was not a Catholic he was an atheist. This isn't debatable, its not about giving the other side the bad guy, it is fact. Mein Kampf was what he wrote in prison when he was trying to create a movement, whether or not he was religious at the time of the writing is debatable, however it is concluded by many historians that he used religion to gain popularity. You can use the Bible to prove anything and he used that to his advantage.
In his later writings it is evident that he was an atheist:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
|
From the very article you quoted.
In conclusion, I think that Hitler was not an atheist, but he was not a Christian either. While he was materialist and rationalist in a lot of things, he also talked a lot about "Providence", or "Nature", as a sort of mystical force of fate, and he saw himself as somehow destined for victory even when the war was going badly for him, simply because of the purity of his purpose, his strength of will, and his feeling of destiny. I have even read that he believed in reincarnation. To me, some of his quotes and writings make it sound like he worshipped the German national identity; some make it seem like instead of God he worshipped or idealised or divinised Providence / Nature / Fate, with his glorious destiny assured no matter what; and in some ways it seems to me like he worshipped himself.
What is wrong with you?
I guess you could make that case if you define Atheism as inclusive of "Mystic Agnosticism".
|
On September 20 2010 06:27 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 06:11 hadoken5 wrote:http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.htmlHe was not an Christian, he was an atheist, he used religion to gain popularity, much like many politicians do today. As for the Pope's statement, all he's really saying that extremisms of any form are dangerous and should be avoided. I don't want to anger or start a flame war but atheist extremists have killed more people then religious extremists and in a much shorter time as well. Hell, in my country at least 6 million people died in less then a year and nobody seems to know about it. I wouldn't call him an atheist because he believed in the supernatural and destiny, even if it wasn't exactly the Christian God. Believing in the supernatural and destiny suggests that he believed in some sort of god or gods, since it doesn't make sense to think there is a divine plan for your life if you don't believe in a diety that crafted the plan.
Not necessarily, there are a lot of people that believe in the supernatural but not or destiny but not in a deity. Albert Einstein himself believed that everything that happens is meant to happen and couldn't have happened any other way, this could be interpreted as in that everything follows a law and that is why it happened that way, however we know(and probably him as well) that the nature of the human mind would dictate otherwise
|
On September 20 2010 04:41 Cantankerous wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 04:34 Jonoman92 wrote:On September 20 2010 04:22 L wrote:On September 20 2010 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 20 2010 04:05 LaLLsc2 wrote:On September 19 2010 15:40 matjlav wrote:
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS. Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity. Case in point. It's a pretty big assumption to say that scientific advancement is synonymous with making the world a better place. I think I'd rather be a hunter gatherer than go to college. Off-topic perhaps, but how come?
I think it'd be a more fulfilling way to live. I mean, in this day an age I'm not going to become Amish, but I do think the current way we live isn't necessarily better than living in a world without technology.
|
On September 20 2010 08:12 Half wrote:From the very article you quoted. Show nested quote +In conclusion, I think that Hitler was not an atheist, but he was not a Christian either. While he was materialist and rationalist in a lot of things, he also talked a lot about "Providence", or "Nature", as a sort of mystical force of fate, and he saw himself as somehow destined for victory even when the war was going badly for him, simply because of the purity of his purpose, his strength of will, and his feeling of destiny. I have even read that he believed in reincarnation. To me, some of his quotes and writings make it sound like he worshipped the German national identity; some make it seem like instead of God he worshipped or idealised or divinised Providence / Nature / Fate, with his glorious destiny assured no matter what; and in some ways it seems to me like he worshipped himself. What is wrong with you? I guess you could make that case if you define Atheism as inclusive of "Mystic Agnosticism".
This is the opinion of the author. He goes on to say that Hitler believed in destiny and reincarnation, Buddhists believe the something along those lines, yet many of them are atheists. In the many quotes you can see that he seems to despise religion. The author says he wasn't a theist either and attempts to find a balance. If you've read any of Hitler's works(especially Mein Kampf) you would know that anything relating to "destiny" or "purpose" was often linked to him and total control.
|
On September 20 2010 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
you can't prove it, I can't disprove it
conclusion: it is unknown whether unicorns exist.
However, the probability of unicorns existing or not is NOT 50-50 just because there are two possibilities. You are right when you say that no one can disprove god, but similarly you can't disprove the existence of Thor, Zeus, Quezacotl. Suddenly you're not faced with either believe in god or not, you have to choose which god to believe in. Given no evidence for any of these gods, how is your god anything but an arbitrary product of your culture?
you can safely make a strong inferential assumption that unicorns probably don't exist as there is basically no reliable evidence to believe otherwise, but you can't be certain.
So because we can't be certain, you're advising us to assume that unicorns definitely exist?
|
I don't really care, when you attack their content as 'unbalanced' and make that your entire position.
I didn't attack your intrinsic viewpoints as imbalanced. In fact they are almost identical to my own. I attacked your presentation as imbalanced, and obviously, presentation can differ from one post to another.
Your position vis a vis me, clearly stated in this post is "regardless of the validity of your views, please don't state them because it might give fire to my opposition". Either you aren't all that certain in your views, or you don't think you have the intellectual abilities to defend them despite your certainty.
Sad.
Hilarious. You've literally been straw-manning this entire argument. I'd expect more from someone with such an academic demeanor.
I criticized your presentation, not your views. Are you saying that is irrelevant? Are you saying the way I present my views is not relevant to there impact?
please don't state them because it might give fire to my opposition". Either you aren't all that certain in your views, or you don't think you have the intellectual abilities to defend them despite your certainty.
So much strawmanning here I find it hard to believe your trying anymore. You said you posted your posts to encourage a greater level of dialogue on both sides. I am criticizing them because due to there imbalanced presentation, and the academic level of this thread, or rather, the lack of therof, cause a converse effect.
I don't oppose your views, in fact, I share them, and I actually reiterated them at times earlier in this thread. I just didn't do so in such a pretentious, self justifying and counterproductive way.
|
|
|
On September 20 2010 08:29 Nadir wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
you can't prove it, I can't disprove it
conclusion: it is unknown whether unicorns exist. However, the probability of unicorns existing or not is NOT 50-50 just because there are two possibilities. You are right when you say that no one can disprove god, but similarly you can't disprove the existence of Thor, Zeus, Quezacotl. Suddenly you're not faced with either believe in god or not, you have to choose which god to believe in. Given no evidence for any of these gods, how is your god anything but an arbitrary product of your culture? Show nested quote +you can safely make a strong inferential assumption that unicorns probably don't exist as there is basically no reliable evidence to believe otherwise, but you can't be certain. So because we can't be certain, you're advising us to assume that unicorns definitely exist?
No, you meant to say : "So because we can't be certain, you're advising us to" seriously entertain the possibility of unicorns existing.
The reason why religious people often take issue with people pointing out that they don't really have a leg to stand on, is IMO that they see their beliefs are such an integral part of their identity. Everyone would like the universe to make some kind of sense from a human perspective, but I don't see that anyone besides hardcore philosophers really care passionately about the actual possibility of a god existing. The flaming and defensiveness is all about identity, way of life...
I really hate it when people start nagging that atheists aren't as enlightened as they make themselves out to be. Being atheist (or at the very least agnostic) should be everyone's starting point. We don't need to be smart or enlightened. It's the people who confidently make outrageous claims who should be.
Sorry about going off on a tangent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
