[kenberg]

 Scarabin, on 2012-February-23, 03:16, said:

But there has to be something more than knowledge. Science does not give a reason for it but we must have morality, wherever it comes from.




"Dear God, I'd rather be a pagan suckled in a creed outworn so might I, standing on this pleasant lea, have some vision that would make me less forlorn."

I have heard variants on this argument going back forever. In college in the 50s, existentialism was having its fifteen minutes of fame. I was discussing such matters with one of my professors, a Christian Existentialist. Basically his view was that if there is no God then life would be meaningless, he did not want his life to be meaningless, so there was a God. It's always difficult to fairly present the views of someone you disagree with but I think this was pretty much it.

I am content to leave others to their faith. I have no great regard for my own philosophical prowess. But an argument that basically runs "There must be a God because otherwise I would be forlorn" is not going to make much headway with me.


Mostly I regard the chance of anyone on this thread changing his mind about such fundamental issues as a result of what you or I say as being zip.

[mikeh]

 Scarabin, on 2012-February-22, 22:40, said:

As a small personal point I see dogmatism as out of place in any scientific approach. I also view the holocaust as one of secular "science's" achievements (and one to rival the conquistadores), and when I get too confident about scientific method I remember Schiller's essay on logic (which I read many,many years ago but which still impresses me).

I see this kind of ahistorical nonsense promulagated by some religious people, to whom truth appears incidental to the point they are trying to make.

Hitler repeatedly invoked the christian god in support of his drive to power in Germany. He was a Christian! Maybe not a completely orthodox christian, but a believer in a christian god.

Anti-semitism in europe existed, often in violent form, for more than a thousand years before nazism. Jews were blamed for spreading the plague at the time of the Black Death, altho (in fairness) some leaders of the RC church denounced that rumour. Jews were, over the ages, routinely demonized as the killers of christ. Nazism didn't invent anti-semitism. And the jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust....the romany people (gypsies as they were referred to when I was a kid) were rounded up, along with communists and, yes, athiests. Hitler told the Pope 'secular schools can never be tolerated' because of their irreligious views. The nazis outlawed atheist groups and organizations early in their reign.

Does that sound like a secular attitude?

Let me suggest that before you start blaming atheism for such an atrocity as the holocaust, you take the minimal effort required to actually learn something, rather than merely spouting some deliberate lies spouted by a religious leader......and, once you have made the effort, reflect on the morality that permits a religious leader to utter such lies, and the gullibility of people like you who absorb this poison without even thinking of the possibility that you may be wrong.

I am not denying that atrocities have been committed by people who lacked a belief in god. Some of the communist regimes....pol pot is a classic example....were led by atheists, but it wasn't the absence of god that drove them, it was the presence of a belief structure that can be seen as a subsitute for god, coupled perhaps with a degree of psychopathy.

However, as others have pointed out, there are no historical accounts of people committing atrociteies in the name of atheism.....while our history books and current news reparts are full of accounts of murder and warfare in the name of a merciful and loving god. Ever wonder just how that merciful and loving god, if it existed, sees all of this slaughter?

[barmar]

 Scarabin, on 2012-February-23, 03:16, said:

But there has to be something more than knowledge. Science does not give a reason for it but we must have morality, wherever it comes from.

Evolutionary psychology provides some insights into the reasons for our moral sense. Google "evolution of morality" and you'll find plenty of references.

Of course, if someone doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution, I don't suppose they'll find such explanations compelling.

[mikeh]

 Scarabin, on 2012-February-23, 03:16, said:

But there has to be something more than knowledge. Science does not give a reason for it but we must have morality, wherever it comes from.




"Dear God, I'd rather be a pagan suckled in a creed outworn so might I, standing on this pleasant lea, have some vision that would make me less forlorn."

Why does there 'have to be' something more than knowledge? Because you don't think you could enjoy being alive without that belief?

Let me tell you.....I and millions of others don't have that belief, and we haven't killed ourselves out of despair, nor have we run around killing or tormenting others, and many of us do volunteer work and/or make charitable donations.

The beauty of the physical world fills me with a sense of awe. The contemplation of the fact of our existence in this universe fills me with a sense of awe. Reading the 'written for a layperson' books explaining current thinking on the nature of the universe fascinates me.

I think it was mark twain who said, when being asked whether he feared death, words to the effect that he didn't have any such fear before he was born and he won't have any after he is dead. Do you remember the billions of years that passed before you were born? How difficult is it to accept that, from your point of view, you will no more exist after your death than you did beofre you were born?

Finally: the universe 'is'. We may not understand it perfectly as yet and maybe we never will, but it exists......and it doesn't care about how you feel about it. Hoping that it exists in a certain way won't make it exist that way. I take it that you'd rather live in the false comfort of an imaginary god-system than experience the magnificent reality of the universe as it really is. Frankly, I see that as pathetic....very human, but also very sad.

[onoway]

 mikeh, on 2012-February-23, 10:29, said:

Why does there 'have to be' something more than knowledge? Because you don't think you could enjoy being alive without that belief?

Let me tell you.....I and millions of others don't have that belief, and we haven't killed ourselves out of despair, nor have we run around killing or tormenting others, and many of us do volunteer work and/or make charitable donations.

The beauty of the physical world fills me with a sense of awe. The contemplation of the fact of our existence in this universe fills me with a sense of awe. Reading the 'written for a layperson' books explaining current thinking on the nature of the universe fascinates me.

I think it was mark twain who said, when being asked whether he feared death, words to the effect that he didn't have any such fear before he was born and he won't have any after he is dead. Do you remember the billions of years that passed before you were born? How difficult is it to accept that, from your point of view, you will no more exist after your death than you did beofre you were born?

Finally: the universe 'is'. We may not understand it perfectly as yet and maybe we never will, but it exists......and it doesn't care about how you feel about it. Hoping that it exists in a certain way won't make it exist that way. I take it that you'd rather live in the false comfort of an imaginary god-system than experience the magnificent reality of the universe as it really is. Frankly, I see that as pathetic....very human, but also very sad.

Perhaps less insulting terms might lead to a more interesting discussion. The attitude of superiority often demonstrated by atheists imo, shows those particular atheists to be as close minded about anything anyone might say on the other side as any fundamentalist from the deep south (or Alberta, for that matter). Which suggests as much a clinging to the faith that there is no god of any sort as anyone who as devoutly believes there is.

Since we don't KNOW the universe as it really is, but are constantly making new discoveries we might find out if we could live long enough, that there is indeed a consciousness of a sort unimaginable to us at work..the sort of problem a fruit fly might have trying to imagine what humans were up to for example. So both sides would be both right and wrong. I think that the world really really needs to get over the "Them vs Us" mentality.

[Scarabin]

 kenberg, on 2012-February-23, 07:24, said:

I have heard variants on this argument going back forever. In college in the 50s, existentialism was having its fifteen minutes of fame. I was discussing such matters with one of my professors, a Christian Existentialist. Basically his view was that if there is no God then life would be meaningless, he did not want his life to be meaningless, so there was a God. It's always difficult to fairly present the views of someone you disagree with but I think this was pretty much it.

I am content to leave others to their faith. I have no great regard for my own philosophical prowess. But an argument that basically runs "There must be a God because otherwise I would be forlorn" is not going to make much headway with me.


Mostly I regard the chance of anyone on this thread changing his mind about such fundamental issues as a result of what you or I say as being zip.

I did not say that I am a believer. If anything I would confess that I find it difficult to come to a dogmatic conclusion and, being me, I would expect any thinking man to have the same problem.

I do not expect to change anyone's mind. I do empathize with your professor: I cannot see any sense in espousing a belief which gives me no benefit. Perhaps we could distinguish between argument and emotion: I enjoy beauty and poetry but I do not confuse it with "holy writ"

I expect you to understand me because you give the impression of an open mind.

[Scarabin]

 mikeh, on 2012-February-23, 10:19, said:

I see this kind of ahistorical nonsense promulagated by some religious people, to whom truth appears incidental to the point they are trying to make.

Hitler repeatedly invoked the christian god in support of his drive to power in Germany. He was a Christian! Maybe not a completely orthodox christian, but a believer in a christian god.

Anti-semitism in europe existed, often in violent form, for more than a thousand years before nazism. Jews were blamed for spreading the plague at the time of the Black Death, altho (in fairness) some leaders of the RC church denounced that rumour. Jews were, over the ages, routinely demonized as the killers of christ. Nazism didn't invent anti-semitism. And the jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust....the romany people (gypsies as they were referred to when I was a kid) were rounded up, along with communists and, yes, athiests. Hitler told the Pope 'secular schools can never be tolerated' because of their irreligious views. The nazis outlawed atheist groups and organizations early in their reign.

Does that sound like a secular attitude?

Let me suggest that before you start blaming atheism for such an atrocity as the holocaust, you take the minimal effort required to actually learn something, rather than merely spouting some deliberate lies spouted by a religious leader......and, once you have made the effort, reflect on the morality that permits a religious leader to utter such lies, and the gullibility of people like you who absorb this poison without even thinking of the possibility that you may be wrong.

I am not denying that atrocities have been committed by people who lacked a belief in god. Some of the communist regimes....pol pot is a classic example....were led by atheists, but it wasn't the absence of god that drove them, it was the presence of a belief structure that can be seen as a subsitute for god, coupled perhaps with a degree of psychopathy.

However, as others have pointed out, there are no historical accounts of people committing atrociteies in the name of atheism.....while our history books and current news reparts are full of accounts of murder and warfare in the name of a merciful and loving god. Ever wonder just how that merciful and loving god, if it existed, sees all of this slaughter?

Perhaps you could point out which parts of my statement are "ahistorical nonsense", and perhaps you could cite some evidence backing your statements about Hitler?

[Scarabin]

 barmar, on 2012-February-23, 10:28, said:

Evolutionary psychology provides some insights into the reasons for our moral sense. Google "evolution of morality" and you'll find plenty of references.

Of course, if someone doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution, I don't suppose they'll find such explanations compelling.

In another reply I pointed out that I do not claim to be a believer. I would expect however that you should not have difficulty in accepting that I do not find evolution intellectually appealing. I would give Darwin's theory the same respect which I give to Berkeley's. Why is it so strange to actually think about what you think about?

[Scarabin]

 mikeh, on 2012-February-23, 10:29, said:

Why does there 'have to be' something more than knowledge? Because you don't think you could enjoy being alive without that belief?

Let me tell you.....I and millions of others don't have that belief, and we haven't killed ourselves out of despair, nor have we run around killing or tormenting others, and many of us do volunteer work and/or make charitable donations.

The beauty of the physical world fills me with a sense of awe. The contemplation of the fact of our existence in this universe fills me with a sense of awe. Reading the 'written for a layperson' books explaining current thinking on the nature of the universe fascinates me.

I think it was mark twain who said, when being asked whether he feared death, words to the effect that he didn't have any such fear before he was born and he won't have any after he is dead. Do you remember the billions of years that passed before you were born? How difficult is it to accept that, from your point of view, you will no more exist after your death than you did beofre you were born?

Finally: the universe 'is'. We may not understand it perfectly as yet and maybe we never will, but it exists......and it doesn't care about how you feel about it. Hoping that it exists in a certain way won't make it exist that way. I take it that you'd rather live in the false comfort of an imaginary god-system than experience the magnificent reality of the universe as it really is. Frankly, I see that as pathetic....very human, but also very sad.

OK, Fair enough as a statement of your vision of life. However you wrong me when you assume I must be conventionally religious. Perhaps you could try thinking of me as an agnostic who has doubts about all explanations.

I might allow myself to say that I think your view of life and the universe lacks something?

[mikeh]

 Scarabin, on 2012-February-23, 22:00, said:

OK, Fair enough as a statement of your vision of life. However you wrong me when you assume I must be conventionally religious. Perhaps you could try thinking of me as an agnostic who has doubts about all explanations.

I might allow myself to say that I think your view of life and the universe lacks something?

And that would be what?

[Scarabin]

 onoway, on 2012-February-23, 20:06, said:

Perhaps less insulting terms might lead to a more interesting discussion. The attitude of superiority often demonstrated by atheists imo, shows those particular atheists to be as close minded about anything anyone might say on the other side as any fundamentalist from the deep south (or Alberta, for that matter). Which suggests as much a clinging to the faith that there is no god of any sort as anyone who as devoutly believes there is.

Since we don't KNOW the universe as it really is, but are constantly making new discoveries we might find out if we could live long enough, that there is indeed a consciousness of a sort unimaginable to us at work..the sort of problem a fruit fly might have trying to imagine what humans were up to for example. So both sides would be both right and wrong. I think that the world really really needs to get over the "Them vs Us" mentality.

Thanks for your insight. Your comment opens up a deeper level of truth.

[Scarabin]

 mikeh, on 2012-February-23, 22:03, said:

And that would be what?

Forgive me if I appear rude, but I have to say imagination and original thought. I hasten to say that is just my opinion.

[mikeh]

 onoway, on 2012-February-23, 20:06, said:

Perhaps less insulting terms might lead to a more interesting discussion. The attitude of superiority often demonstrated by atheists imo, shows those particular atheists to be as close minded about anything anyone might say on the other side as any fundamentalist from the deep south (or Alberta, for that matter). Which suggests as much a clinging to the faith that there is no god of any sort as anyone who as devoutly believes there is.

Since we don't KNOW the universe as it really is, but are constantly making new discoveries we might find out if we could live long enough, that there is indeed a consciousness of a sort unimaginable to us at work..the sort of problem a fruit fly might have trying to imagine what humans were up to for example. So both sides would be both right and wrong. I think that the world really really needs to get over the "Them vs Us" mentality.

how was what I said insulting? Or closed minded?

I don't know any atheist who argues that it is impossible for some god entity to exist. How can we? Until we come up with a testable theory that explains everything, there will be gaps in our knowledge. Ancient cartographers used to mark their maps with legends such as 'here be monsters'...it turned out that they were wrong. But at the time they made the maps, they didn't know.

Religion is similar....the gods and later the god were the explanations for the enormous areas of human experience for which no better explanation existed.

Science is like the mariners who carefully, slowly mapped the earth and filled in the gaps. Except we still have gaps.

We haven't found any evidence that the filled-in gaps were supernaturally caused, so logic would suggest that believing that god exists in the ever-reducing number of gaps remaining isn't probable...but no-one can rule it out.

The fact that we can't yet and maybe never can 'prove' that god doesn't exist is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the notion that he does exist. There is a saying: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But even more powerful is the argument that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of presence!

And the normal response, in any field other than religion, to an utter lack of verifiable evidence of a phenonomen is to arrive at the tentative hypothesis that the phenonomen probably does not exist. The more obvious the absence, and the greater the realm of exploration, the less probable becomes the phenonomen.

How is that argument 'closed minded' or arrogant?

I suspect the main problem...the reason godbots are so hurt when their fantasies are challenged (and in this passage I am being insulting, but I think you have it coming)....is that they aren't used, in our culture, to being called out on their superstitions. Most human societies are incredibly deferential to religious nonsense. Well guess what...your emperor has no clothes and it is NOT an insult to point that out. If I'm wrong...show me his clothes.

Otherwise cut the crap about this false equivalence between religious faith and an appreciation of the power of the scientific method...it may make you feel like an intellectual, but it only reveals that you aren't.

[mikeh]

 Scarabin, on 2012-February-23, 22:11, said:

Forgive me if I appear rude, but I have to say imagination and original thought. I hasten to say that is just my opinion.

I am sure that you are a towering intellect, who has arrived at his current worldview by starting with a simple axiom and proceeding to invent the world single-handedly.

Wait a second...I read your posts. You ascribe the holocaust to secular science. And then, when I call you on it, you are too lazy to even use google or wikipedia. I think you can find the quote about secular schools inside of 90 seconds if you can read with any speed at all.

I am not saying my understanding is limited to that...I have read, albeit in translation, Mein Kampf. In case it escapes you...that was written by Hitler and set out his political philosophy. It became required reading in Germany. I have also read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Speer's memoirs, Keegan's histories, Churchill, The Arms of Krupp, and a few others......get back to me when you learn to fact check before making silly statements. History, and in particular, European history has been an interest of mine for many years.

[onoway]

 mikeh, on 2012-February-23, 22:33, said:

how was what I said insulting? Or closed minded?

I suspect the main problem...the reason godbots are so hurt when their fantasies are challenged (and in this passage I am being insulting, but I think you have it coming)....is that they aren't used, in our culture, to being called out on their superstitions. Most human societies are incredibly deferential to religious nonsense. Well guess what...your emperor has no clothes and it is NOT an insult to point that out. If I'm wrong...show me his clothes.

Otherwise cut the crap about this false equivalence between religious faith and an appreciation of the power of the scientific method...it may make you feel like an intellectual, but it only reveals that you aren't.

You know nothing whatever about me or what I believe and yet you feel free to scream I have it coming to be insulted, which is about the same reaction I would expect from a small time backwoods revival preacher who was confronted with someone he believed to be talking about people evolving from monkeys. You seem to be incapable of holding a discussion without bringing it down to the personal level , which is just ..well .. boring.

[Codo]

 mikeh, on 2012-February-23, 10:19, said:

I see this kind of ahistorical nonsense promulagated by some religious people, to whom truth appears incidental to the point they are trying to make.

Hitler repeatedly invoked the christian god in support of his drive to power in Germany. He was a Christian! Maybe not a completely orthodox christian, but a believer in a christian god.

Anti-semitism in europe existed, often in violent form, for more than a thousand years before nazism. Jews were blamed for spreading the plague at the time of the Black Death, altho (in fairness) some leaders of the RC church denounced that rumour. Jews were, over the ages, routinely demonized as the killers of christ. Nazism didn't invent anti-semitism. And the jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust....the romany people (gypsies as they were referred to when I was a kid) were rounded up, along with communists and, yes, athiests. Hitler told the Pope 'secular schools can never be tolerated' because of their irreligious views. The nazis outlawed atheist groups and organizations early in their reign.

Does that sound like a secular attitude?

Let me suggest that before you start blaming atheism for such an atrocity as the holocaust, you take the minimal effort required to actually learn something, rather than merely spouting some deliberate lies spouted by a religious leader......and, once you have made the effort, reflect on the morality that permits a religious leader to utter such lies, and the gullibility of people like you who absorb this poison without even thinking of the possibility that you may be wrong.

I am not denying that atrocities have been committed by people who lacked a belief in god. Some of the communist regimes....pol pot is a classic example....were led by atheists, but it wasn't the absence of god that drove them, it was the presence of a belief structure that can be seen as a subsitute for god, coupled perhaps with a degree of psychopathy.

However, as others have pointed out, there are no historical accounts of people committing atrociteies in the name of atheism.....while our history books and current news reparts are full of accounts of murder and warfare in the name of a merciful and loving god. Ever wonder just how that merciful and loving god, if it existed, sees all of this slaughter?

When Hitler was voted in the early 30s, he needed any support he could get. He needed the support of the big churches, so he looks like a christian for a while. But after he became the Führer he showed his support for the nordic mythology.
In his concetration camps had been all people who did not fit into his belive of the german Superbeing. So you forgot homosexuals, retarted people, the resistance and many christians priest who did not support him. This does not sound like motivated by religion, just by hate and the will to protect his power and to gain even more in the future.
And he outlawed "all" groups, not just the atheists. Actually these had been one of the smallest group. He prohibited the scouts, many clubs had to close down, all parties. He wanted the total control of his nation.

You claim that "religious leaders" claim that the Holocaust had been the work of atheists? Do you mind to tell me which leader said so?

Stalin, Mao and other atheist leaders had their concentration centers, there genozids etc too. You can check it in history: Cruelty is not on earth because of religions, it is because humans are often cruel. This had been checked by tests and mostly by the test of time.

That "all" leaders wanted to be supporteds by "their" God and that everbody claims his war as just reasonable and godgiven is another evidence of history.
But again, this is human, not at all just a problem of the theists. If someone claims that his war/torture/suicide bomb is godly, do you believe him? I mean, you repeatly write about the wars in the name of God. Do you really believe that God told President Bush to invade Afghanistan/Iran, whatever? I don't. And the same is true for any given war in history.

That there had been and are hatred theist who think that they must support their religion by murder, torture etc. is sadly true. But again, this is human, not religious. This happens to Theists and Atheists. The difference is that psychopatic theists can claim that they heard voices of God, who told them to kill. Atheist psychopatics claim just that they heared voices.

If your logic would be right, that life would be better without religion, this must haved worked at least somewhere.
Humans tried this more then once. It never worked. Not to my surprise, I must admit.

And one last point:
Maybe some religious blinded leaders really made war because of their hate against other religions. But I still wait for just one piece of evidence that this ever happened. 99 % of all wars had been made to gain/protect influence. Some had been made because of personal defamation, but just a few (if any) just because of religion reasons- I do not know about just one, do you?

[Bbradley62]

 Codo, on 2012-February-24, 06:15, said:

You claim that "religious leaders" claim that the Holocaust had been the work of atheists? Do you mind to tell me which leader said so?

The pope: http://www.guardian....heist-extremism

[Codo]

Thank you.
I have read the article now.

It says:
" ... 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," he said.

As far as I have understood him (the headline paints another picture), he claims that the Nazis tried to establish Atheism and that they did established the Holocaust. The first part may be true, but they had surely not been completely successful in the twelve years they had. So much too many theists had their part in the Holocaust too.

[Winstonm]

Concerning the current debate, I always liked how Sam Harris stated his position: We either have good reasons for what we believe or we do not.

As for anti-semitism, that was a cultural phenomenon of Europe, especially Germany, well before Adolf Hitler was a glimmer in his father's eye. Anyone interested may want to research Martin Luther's book, On the Jews and Their Lies to see how hateful was the anti-semitic message from this early Christian church leader. If memory serves, Hitler at some point praised Luther's views. The heart of anti-semitism is due to the conflict caused by the refusal of the Jew to accept Jesus as messiah, just as the conflict between Islam and others is due basically to the refusal to accept Muhammed and Allah. These are first and foremost religious arguments.

As Martin Luther wrote:

Quote

Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...

Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it...

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

The evidence used by Martin Luther to form his worldview is the same evidence used by Islam for theirs and is the same evidence used by Martin Luther for his hate-filled rages - subjective, authoritative narrative.

Had people compelled others to produce objective, testable evidence prior to adopting a belief system, the world would have evaded a mountain of evil and outrage. Or, as again Sam Harris puts it (paraphrased), No group of people has ever been the cause of war because they demanded evidence prior to belief, because they became too reasonable.

[hrothgar]

 Codo, on 2012-February-24, 06:15, said:

Maybe some religious blinded leaders really made war because of their hate against other religions. But I still wait for just one piece of evidence that this ever happened. 99 % of all wars had been made to gain/protect influence. Some had been made because of personal defamation, but just a few (if any) just because of religion reasons- I do not know about just one, do you?

There have been any number of conflicts that have included a strong religious element:

1. The expansion of Islam
2. The 30 Years War (1618 - 1648)
3. The French Wars of Religion
4. Any number of crusades in Europe
5. The long term strife between Christians and Muslims on the Iberian penisula

Here's the rub... All of these conflicts include both a secular and a religious component...
Who's to say that the Moroccan wouldn't have invaded Spain even without Islam?
(Gold and land are attractive in their own right)

In much the same way, the Protestant reformation lite the powder keg in Europe, but its entirely possible that Sweden, the Holy Roman Empire, and France would have found something else to fight over...

My own take on matters is that the root of most conflicts boils down to politics, economics, and class...
However, its really difficult to convince the yokels that they need to go to war in order to (further) enrich the powers that be.

In order to do that, you need some way to whip folks up into an unthinking frenzy and religion is GREAT for that...