BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:11 PM

(and this morning in the hour or two I've burned writing that post, there have been several more... fortunately, I think mine still follows on o.k.!)

~ B in T
gotta pack and get on the road!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:07 PM

Just want to pipe up and say that I'm pretty much in John P's group, a quiet non-theist (have we used that term yet?), in an attempt to counter the local (Mudcat) and national (and global, I suppose) effect of those with strong and sometimes extreme positions being the most often heard from.

Also to echo his point about history: good and bad people have their representatives all along the spectrum. Humans are a mixed bag.

[as to "piping up", apologies for what has become a long post that results from accumulating and processing thoughts on the topic, rather than actually participating in the conversation properly.]

If I am feeling "spiritual" or having to define my perspective on cosmology, it's most likely to fall in the realm of what's labelled religious naturalism, although I'm not religious (as in, formally ceremonial) about it. (I'm an evolutionary biologist, and I have to say that the stuff on this site smacks of a "born again" excess of enthusiasm to me... for me it's just acceptance and comfort that "that's the way it is".)

Reading about religion in the news lately, following this thread, and also the philosophical challenge that results from having relatively recently married someone who is Christian have caused me to spent more time than usual in trying to learn more about religion and examining my own perspective in some attempt to define it.

One conclusion about the conversations (that I've had and that I've observed) is that it's really difficult to have a rational conversation on personal beliefs without some strong emotion, because if the beliefs are not the same then at some level you have to believe that the other person is wrong (in the sense of "mistaken") -- and also understand that the other person believes you are wrong. It's difficult to have the words that come out of that conflict not cause some distress. It requires treading very carefully, for both the speaker and the listener, and not everyone's very good at that. Misapprehensions are inevitable, even if you're careful, and we have it even worse when we're not face to face.

I think a natural human inclination (with the exception of the paranoid!) is to start from the point of assuming that other people think the way we do (and this is not just about spirituality, of course, take politics, for example). If we don't get close enough to other people to find out otherwise, we can go on in blissful ignorance. I've spent a lot of time there -- and it has been pleasant and peaceful. :-)

The other natural behavior is to tend to hang out with people who believe as you do. This makes it even easier to be ignorant of or forget about other perspectives. I know that having spent lots of my time among other biologists (who, among scientists, are least likely to be religious), I have been happily ignorant and sometimes mistaken about religion. It's certainly seems to be as true between religions, or sects, as between the a-religious and the religious.

Here's a little thought just from my own experience: social activities that aren't conducive to extended conversation, like playing tunes and dancing, foster this blissful ignorance, in some ways. In the advent of Facebook, I find myself learning things about my casual friends' beliefs and affiliations that I might have been happier not knowing... Similarly, spending one's time above the line at Mudcat is generally less emotionally challenging than the personally revealing conversations below the line (excepting of course the threads on our deeply held beliefs on the definition of "folk" ;-)

My other personal perspective on humanity comes from my training in animal behavior. I tend to look at religion as a behavior that promotes community, and religious conflict as an expression of territoriality. This is my way of trying not to see various groups as "other", or judging groups on their beliefs. Humans are messy animals, and we really still have a long way to go to evolve beyond our "baser instincts", to use an archaic phrase. Sometimes I despair, but have to be reassured that the mass of humanity is made of individuals who mostly are just trying to survive and reproduce, and because they're humans, trying to be happy. That is, they're trying to get on with their lives without interfering in others. It's the noisy few that make us nervous.

I've been collecting a set of web links for sites that discuss the non-theistic perspective (for those few who actually do stop to examine that perspective!). If you're interested, PM me.

A funny side note: some of the time I spent thinking/exploring about the topic this weekend arose from this essay, "My Covenant With Mystery" by Washington University, St. Louis, biologist Ursula Goodenough in the 13.7 blog on the NPR web site. She is a founder of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science. As I looked into this I realized that I had waltzed with and had a conversation with her husband (they were relatively recently married) three years ago at a contra dance weekend in New Hampshire! It really is a teeny-tiny world sometimes.

I think I'd better quit here. Thanks if you've hung in with me.

~ Becky in Tucson
heading to Long Beach today
still with a LOT to learn about humans

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:02 PM

Hey John
didn't mean to blast at ya on this thread, you been a good friend to me here on mudcat. Sorry i gave you some grief buddy

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 01:55 PM

"Gnosis--the Greek form of "knowing""

Aye. For the Gnostic, it's the only kind of evidence that one desires or seeks. This is why Gnostics deal in experience rather than faith and there is no Priestly intercessor: for the Gnostic seeks direct personal revelation.

Such an experience is not necessarily easily communicable to another (and it's certainly not 'provable') unless that other has shared an equivalent Gnosis.

Very much like falling in love, it's a powerful subjective experience. And one open to personal interpretation, depending on how the individual having such an experience chooses to understand it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 01:47 PM

Sorry, John P, I'm not flying any great flag for Ignosticism which, I suspect, wouldn't stand up to a proper analysis (I'm not a fundamentalist Ignostic) but why do you feel it doesn't fulfil your needs? It basically says "Does God exist?" is a meaningless question unless you can come up with a proper definition of God.

Ebbie

Ignosticism? I would probably consider the condition 'IgNOREsticism'

Er....ignoring what?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 01:42 PM

FYI, I think it is generally attributed to Rabbi Hillel.

Thanks! Honestly that was my second guess. :)

And I am still waiting for the charitable orders, hospitals, books saved for posterity--and music produced by atheists.

For books, I'll give you Being and Nothingness by Sartre. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged by Rand. Not saying how good or bad they are, but they are classics and will be saved for posterity.

But perhaps what a State should be is agnostic, leaving all such matters up to the individuals.

Amen, amen, and amen!

In that case we need to excise the word from the dictionary.

I don't think it's as bad as all that. It's just that it's off-limits to people who want to say they are being open-minded about a question, or who protest that they're not claiming to have proved God doesn't exist (for proofs are subject to critical analysis and refutation and who wants that?!). In short, it's hypocritical for Dawkins to use it the way he does.

A story told by someone long-dead in a heavily-edited and translated book is not verifiable (unless you can somehow find several different completely independent sources, and verify that independence). Even then it's still a story and you can't grill the bloke who wrote it. There is a difference.

Yep, and that's why belief in God isn't a scientific belief, and subjecting it to scientific tests/procedures is naff. Sorry, that's rude. It's a category error.

How does one verify independence of sources? One way is to show that they disagree on some details -- if they agree on everything it's probable that one is copying the other. And the gospels do disagree on a lot of fiddly details (Matthew has 2 animals on Palm Sunday, for instance, where Luke has 1). Of course the response to this will be that this just proves that they're not accurate and so can be dismissed! We can't win. A man who has bought a theory will fight a vigorous, rearguard action against the facts (Lord Acton).

The heavily-edited and translated thing approaches an urban legend. We have (literally hundreds of) chunks of the NT (on papyrus mostly) that can be physically dated back into the 2nd and sometimes 1st century, and the differences between that and the later full manuscripts are teensy. Modern translations are made from the most attested manuscripts and thus are coming straight from the horse's mouth, as it were. The whole thing about a translation of a translation of a translation (ya-da) held in the 16th century. It's no longer the case.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 01:35 PM

"My main point, as I've said before, is that in an atheist state the leader is seen as God. "

This is not an atheist position. No leader among atheists is seen as a "God". That's strictly
a doctrinal idea. The only example you might give for an "atheist state" is Stalin's USSR
or China and I argue that neither of these states are true atheist states. They follow a party line that most self respecting atheists would never allow. These party lines are tantamount to religious beliefs. A true atheist is (I re-emphasize since it seems to be lost on some) a non-believer in any god.

As to the use of the word "atheist", I would consider that to be a bad choice because an "a-theist" to many means "anti-theist" and this is subject to interpretation. I think there is a difference in that "a-theism" allows for others to believe what they like whereas "anti-theism" is exactly what it says. It's against any religious belief. Since I don't accept a religious belief as being "real" for me then I can't be against it.

I personally have no problem with anyone who wants to believe whatever they want to so long as it doesn't produce harm. (Kinda' the hypocratic oath...do no harm).

Instead of the term atheist, I prefer to call myself a Freethinker. To me this means that
I will not be shackled by someone else's dogma whether a bible, koran, torah or Marxist Manifesto. I don't ascribe to any individual a "higher power" but look at others in egalitarian terms as equals.

This would preclude popes, bishops, kings, authority figures, reverends, priests, messianic people, rabbis, monks and imams. Also, I have no problem with flat-earthers, astrologers, or any other bandwagon which is protected by the US Constitution. I do not, care for religious evangelism and feel that this activity is harmful to social good.

I also do not put a god above the US Constitution.

I think the "delusion" occurs when one allows others to do their thinking for them.

I can respect that some others will not share my views. This doesn't mean that I believe that they're bad people. Many of my friends are religious and I love them.

I think that there are some religious people that do a lot of good for society but I don't
attribute this to their religion. They are just good people and behave accordingly.
.
A lot of clarity needs to be presented about this topic. Fortunately, I live in a country
where my views are protected by the US Constitution and I hope that this will continue
to be the case otherwise our democracy will be lost.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:56 PM

Gnosis--the Greek form of "knowing"--rendered negative by the prefix a- or i- as "unknowing" or "not-knowing".

As always the core "sense of truth" of a given religious system is to be carefully differentiated from the organizational culture and dramatization that sets in when said core tries to bring abount an organization.

A dramatizing, expansion-driven organization is NOT a religion. A moral code of random and arbitrary strictures about how to act is NOT a religion. But in the common parlance, these things get heavily conflated and identified. They are as different as Christ was different from an abusive pedophilic bishop with high cholesterol.

All the brouhaha surrounding organizations flying the colors of a religion has no bearing on the actual spiritual tenets of the creed, regardless whether it is Christian, Mohammedan, Zen Buddhist, Universalist, or Scientologist-ian.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:52 PM

thank you Ebbie... very good. I am now a converting to Ignoresticism. Since you came up with the term, you can be the leader.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:47 PM

Ignosticism? I would probably consider the condition 'IgNOREsticism'. Isn't that where 'ignorant' comes from? :)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:14 PM

in an atheist state the leader is seen as God

Various Catholic Popes have been responsible for the inquisition, the crusades and harbouring of priests and nuns who do horrible things to children, orphans and unwed mothers. To some Catholics the Pope is God's authority on earth. This puts that office in a position to do great good or cause great evil, depending upon the office holder. And the Catholic church is not the only Christian religion where leaders abuse office, manipulate and accumulate power. It is simply the first Christian religion and has the misfortune of longest recorded history of abuses.

Middle East and Africa various areas and religions (Christian and Islam) suffer genocide, oppression, torture, maiming and murder of women and children and the frail. Whole tribes and their cultures and traditions gone. The Ayatollah is a religious office. Some men in the office have been tyrants and the people follow and do terrible things because the leaders tell them to.

Just this week Ovadia Yosef former chief rabbi of Israel and now founder Shas Party said "all Palestinians should perish from the world." Thank goodness the Israeli leaders are condemning this statement at least publicly as tantamount to genocide. How big is the Shas party I wonder? What is the likelihood of its increase in numbers and influence?

US of A which is/was predominantly Christian at given points in history has abused Native Americans, Mexican Americans, African Americans, Japanese Americans, Irish Americans, Chinese Americans, etc. on its own soil. Why? Because the leaders in power could!

A fair few of the states of the former USSR are still struggling with shatterbelts, as are Africa and Asia.

It all boils down to individuals and groups commandeering and abusing belief systems in order to manipulate others and accumulate power. The problem is too many people are sheep because they do not have the knowledge, experience, socio-economic means to be anything but sheep. More people in the world than not have to put all their energy into surviving. Often this means joining a group for the sheer protection it provides, whether or not they adhere to the ideologies of the group.   Fortunately, everyone contributing to this thread has had the opportunity to not be sheep. We all think and decide for ourselves what fits us best. We are all very lucky on that point. Most people are not.

Dagnabbit... Why can't I stay out of this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:04 PM

Ignosticism.

Nope.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 11:39 AM

(thanks for remembering, Kevin...I try to say things I mean & have thought about, but never think about my own remarks as being 'memorable') Several people picked up on the Wittgenstein quote, and re-reading it now, it feels even more insightful.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 11:35 AM

John P (a few days ago)

I wish there were better words than "atheist" or "agnostic", since both of these carry lots of connotations that don't apply to me. What's the word for "I've never been given any reason to even consider it" or "it really doesn't make any sense to me"?

Ignosticism

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 11:30 AM

Is it any worse than the secular myths that pass for history?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 11:26 AM

If only we had it in real life...

You wouldn't believe the Christian crap that passes for history and science in US public schools!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 10:32 AM

But perhaps what a State should be is agnostic, leaving all such matters up to the individuals.

vide U.S. Constitution, separation of church and state.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 10:15 AM

Thanks for reminding us of that old thread, Bill. Some good stuff in there - including especially a throwaway remark you made which deserves repeating and thinking about: "If you cannot clearly argue the opposite viewpoint, you cannot truly defend your own."

One good thing about doing that is that it gets people out of the habit of glibly using words like "inane".

And another quote worth thinking about in that thread comes from Wittgenstein, and it is worth pondering in the context of the easy comments made about religion and education: ""The child learns by believing the adult. Doubt comes after belief."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 10:14 AM

I think you overstate the case a bit, using an extreme example, Ron. But perhaps what a State should be is agnostic, leaving all such matters up to the individuals. A State, after all, is not a sentient being, but a conglomerated set of live individuals making agreement as to certain procedures and codes. It has no business messing with that which it cannot comprehend.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 09:58 AM

Ron, people who love power seek it, and often become totalitarians. Religion or atheism isn't really part of it, even if the totalitarian says so.

And can we avoid getting into the history of atrocity and enlightenment in this thread? Bad people do bad things and good people do good things and they always have and always will. There are good and bad people who are atheists and there are good and bad people who are believers. That's all completely beside the point of this discussion.

John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 08:03 AM

"tortured or killed"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 08:02 AM

By the way, people don't have to be tortured on killed in the name of atheism in order for their deaths to be chalked up to atheism.

My main point, as I've said before, is that in an atheist state the leader is seen as God.   So it becomes rather difficult to contradict him.   Since he is infallible, every decision he makes is seen as coming from the God-figure.   So in every misjudgment he makes--whether he intended it to cause death or not-- which results in deaths, those deaths are directly traceable to the fact that he heads an atheist state.

See for instance Mao and the sparrows.

And I am still waiting for the charitable orders, hospitals, books saved for posterity--and music produced by atheists.

Seems like it may be a long wait.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 07:35 AM

"Thou hast..."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 07:20 AM

For those who don't believe in God.....

Dan and Joe, I think you'll both love this film...

Taken from the link below....some words given to , during her medi Eileen Caddy, founder of Findhorn during her meditation times..

‎"A whole new world is opening up for you, be not afraid. This centre is becoming a beacon of light, which will draw souls to it. Turn no one away. Judge no one but see my hand in everything. Expand your thinking. You can do your part by ...holding the viisons I give you. This place is my fortress. It will flower and flourish because I my blessings are poured upon it, because I am guiding and directing all that is done here. The young and old, all nations, all colours, all creeds, shall gather together in perfect peace and harmony in this place. See the work expanding beyond anything you've ever imagined, sweeping across the world like a mighty flame."

The Findhorn Film

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 07:07 AM

"No evil priest can prevent us from feeling
That we are the children of Hitler
We follow not Christ but Horst Wessel
Away with incense and holy water
The Church can hang for all we care
The Swastika brings salvation on earth"

"Fuehrer, my Fuehrer
Thou has rescued Germany from deepest despair
I thank thee for my daily bread
Abide thou long with me, forsake me not
Fuehrer my Fuehrer, my faith and light"

(From songs sung at the 1936 Nuremberg rally.)



"A favorite Storm Trooper song had the refrain: 'Hang the Jews and and put the priests up against the wall.' "


Richard Grunberger, 'A Social History of the Third Reich


I'm sorry the author did not give the original German, since I speak
German and could have easily checked for accuracy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 06:22 AM

"Any atheist who says "delusion" of belief in God is dealing in certainty. Delusion implies that you know it is wrong."

In that case we need to excise the word from the dictionary. There can clearly never be a suitable context for its use. Or we can continue to use it for people who fiercely hold to beliefs that have a vanishingly-small chance of being true. If I told you and everyone else that little blue men with seven legs and sixteen eyes skated on the rings of Saturn every Friday, preached it from pulpits and handed it down to the kids you would call me deluded (and a few other things). But, of course, it might just be true...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:54 AM

"That's one type of evidence. There is no repeatable, corroboratable evidence for anything that happened in the past because the past is not repeatable. Much of archaeology, evolution, history are that way. As is some of astronomy. There is evidence, just not repeatable evidence. But really you're treating the question of the existence of God as if it were a scientific hypothesis, and accepting only scientific evidence (and of a particular kind as used in many but not all sciences) for it.

Most of what Science tells us, the vast majority of us accept on faith -- faith in the scientists doing the experiments, or making the observations, or whatever. I have no way of knowing whether or not most propositions in science are true, and don't have the time or inclination (or funds or time off work) to do the sort of research/experimentation it would require to settle the matter before my own eyes. But mostly I just accept what those people say. It's all about trust."

There's plenty of verifiable (better word - OK?) evidence from the past. You can go and see fossils or visit archaeological sites. YOu can study geological formations and carry out radio-isotope dating. None of it will ever yield certainty and every scientist will cheerfully admit that, but the evidence is verifiable. That's the basis of scientific progress. Same with astronomy - you may not be able to corroborate evidence personally but that is not to say it can't be verified by people qualified to do so who are in the right place with the right gear. A story told by someone long-dead in a heavily-edited and translated book is not verifiable (unless you can somehow find several different completely independent sources, and verify that independence). Even then it's still a story and you can't grill the bloke who wrote it. There is a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:50 AM

Suppose all religion really is a delusion.
Dawkins should apply his understanding of selection and evolution.
The principles apply to ideas also.
If a belief did not confer any advantage on the believers, it would be supplanted by a belief that did.
Religion probably gave tribal groups cohesion and encouraged co operation.
Don't do to others what you would not like.
If you can persuade people to behave like that your group will prosper.
Without CCTV cameras or belief, people would just seek their own advantage and be in perpetual conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:29 AM

>>There is a pre-bible statement that stems from earlier religions that says (and I paraphrase) "Don't do anything bad to someone that you wouldn't like to have done to you." (It's the Golden Rule in reverse and it predates Christianity.

It predates Christianity but not the Bible. It is the saying of a 1st Century Rabbi (I want to say Gamaliel but I'm not sure of that).<<

FYI, I think it is generally attributed to Rabbi Hillel.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:22 AM

"Here and there we get a religious nut at Mudcat who wants to condemn people for their unbelief, that that's rarely the case here.

Which the above post proves wrong, Joe.

One post can't disprove that something is rare. It can disprove a claim that it doesn't exist, but not that it's rare.

repeatable, corroboratable evidence

That's one type of evidence. There is no repeatable, corroboratable evidence for anything that happened in the past because the past is not repeatable. Much of archaeology, evolution, history are that way. As is some of astronomy. There is evidence, just not repeatable evidence. But really you're treating the question of the existence of God as if it were a scientific hypothesis, and accepting only scientific evidence (and of a particular kind as used in many but not all sciences) for it.

Most of what Science tells us, the vast majority of us accept on faith -- faith in the scientists doing the experiments, or making the observations, or whatever. I have no way of knowing whether or not most propositions in science are true, and don't have the time or inclination (or funds or time off work) to do the sort of research/experimentation it would require to settle the matter before my own eyes. But mostly I just accept what those people say. It's all about trust.

If I really trusted you as an ornithologist, then I would trust you when you said you had found the Large Blue (that is a bird, right?). There was a story on NPR a few years back about a person that had a recording of some woodpecker thought to be extinct (ivory bill? does that sound right?), and went into the wild and played the recording. At one point he said he heard a sound in the bush like the same call being repeated back. Maybe, he suggested, there are some of this kind of woodpecker still left. Unfortunately he didn't have recording equipment running, so all we have is his word to go on. Also there was no sighting. Did he really hear it? It all depends on what you think about him as a person: primarily his honesty and his aural acuity (and the reliability of his memory of course).

Thank goodness atheists don't deal in such certainties, not even Dawkins.

Any atheist who says "delusion" of belief in God is dealing in certainty. Delusion implies that you know it is wrong. It is an insult word, and it is used by someone wanting to insult somebody because they believe something the insulter knows to be false. Despite what he may protest at some times, Dawkins acts at other times as if he is certain there is no God. At which point the evidence trail leads from quacking and walking to duckosity.

There is a pre-bible statement that stems from earlier religions that says (and I paraphrase) "Don't do anything bad to someone that you wouldn't like to have done to you." (It's the Golden Rule in reverse and it predates Christianity.

It predates Christianity but not the Bible. It is the saying of a 1st Century Rabbi (I want to say Gamaliel but I'm not sure of that).

The GOP is hopping on the religious bandwagon as well as some Democrats.

Is hopping? The GOP hopped on the religious bandwagon in 1979 and hasn't hopped off yet. Some evangelical Christians are hopping off the GOP bandwagon, which can only be a good thing, IMHO. I want religion and the US government to be watertight separate compartments. Theocracy/caesaropapism never ends well -- especially for people with minority beliefs, which includes mine (a little enlightened self-interest going on here!).

The problem that is being presented is that churches, mosques, synagogues and cathedrals do infringe on these rights sometimes. They need to stop doing that.

I agree they need to stop doing that. I disagree that presenting that problem is all that the non-theists are doing on this thread. I'm with Joe: I have no need to try to convert people here, and am perfectly willing to listen to and learn from atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Pastafarian, and would expect them to respectfully listen to me (whether they learn from me, I can't require, and it's probably unlikely even so). But also I will not ridicule somebody for being an atheist or Jew or whatever. I will tell them their belief (or lack thereof) is stupid or a fantasy or a delusion. If you catch me doing so, give me a boot to the head. (Saying somebody's logic/argument is stupid, by the way, is not saying their belief is stupid. Maybe you can stomp on my foot if I do that, but not boot my head.)

When have people ever been tortured or killed in the name of atheism?

Stalinist Russia. Not all of the people killed under Lenin and Stalin were killed because of their religion, but many were. Churches were looted and burned, nuns were raped and killed, priests and bishops and monks and laypeople were killed because they were Christians by people whose motivation for doing so was their atheism. Others were thrown into the Gulag system to rot and die. Note that I don't say that all of the people killed under Lenin or Stalin were killed because of religion. That's clearly not the case. But some were, especially in the early days of the October Revolution/Civil War in Russia.

[tangent] (People always want to give Lenin a break and make out that all the bad stuff was Stalin -- but it was under Lenin that the NKVD (precursor to the KGB) was formed, and it was Lenin who said that the country must be ruled via a state of constant and continual terror.) [/tangent]

Also whoever said that Religion has killed more people than Hitler and Stalin and Mao put together was deluded. There weren't enough people alive before the 19th/20th centuries to make that even possible. And Stalin's policies/rulings alone are responsible for the deaths of between 25 and 50 million non-combatants.

I question whether or not Hitler was an atheist; but I don't have enough evidence to say. He certainly used people's belief in God to further his own aims (remember "Ein Reich, Ein Gott, Ein Führer") but that doesn't mean he believed in God himself, so it leaves the question open (to me -- I will always look at evidence one way or the other, if time allows (I'm not going to read some big tome -- I have too much other reading to do!)).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 01:32 AM

When have people ever been tortured or killed in the name of atheism?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 01:14 AM

"atheism has in fact been a total disaster for mankind. Religion has not. And I have given exact examples."

& you have had some pretty exact examples back of where it HAS, for all your "has not" ~~ like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the St Bartholmew's Day Massacre, the Holocaust, the concept of jihad leading to current militant Islamism, &c &c &c: but in typically fair-minded 'religious' fashion you have elected to ignore those bits.


~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:57 PM

"doing to atheists what... they do to Christians..."

Bingo.

Go to the head of the class.

And if by some chance atheists don't like it, they may, as I noted--did you not read what I wrote earlier?-- start to realize what the religious feel like with the singularly absurd smears and sneering remarks they aim at all Christians.

The shoe is on the other foot.   Fair is fair.

And, not being bound by the Golden Rule, since I am not religious, I will opt rather for the Code of Hammurabi.

If the atheists stop their smearing of Christianity and Christians in toto, I will withdraw my requests of the illustrious atheists we are honored to have on Mudcat. And not before.

All I am interested in is fair play.   But if the other side does not believe in it, I can live with that.   And act accordingly.

Though, as I have said, it's obvious to anybody with any grasp of history that atheism has in fact been a total disaster for mankind. Religion has not. And I have given exact examples.

Still waiting for the requested contributions by atheists in the categories I cited.



And the opening poster's remark I cited on Obama is from another thread--which I also cited. Does nobody here read anything?

I think 'genteel racist' fits rather snugly.   The alternative might be "clumsy and boorish prig". Perhaps you prefer that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:42 PM

(Quoting from a fictional world without religion) ***Kill the wise one!***

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010---and more
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:14 PM

I've been mulling this over all day, and re-reading one of the rare threads I personally started ...5½ years ago, called "Thinking about recent threads"

I considered refreshing it, but some people never note the date, so I will just let those who choose read what they will. The title is still appropriate, and many of the comments folks added are quite valuable. If you DO read it, please remember it IS 5 years old and consider whether to post to it. (should I have it closed?)

It is interesting that 5 years ago, I 'worked harder' to say what I wanted...perhaps advancing age is relevant *wry grin*. I have no idea how much energy I'll devote to it all in another 5 years.

What is it about? It is about thinking and believing and knowing and relevance and pausing and.... other things...by many famous, and not-so-famous, writers.

It made me (mostly) feel good to re-read it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:16 PM

As far as I am concerned any belief system that informs a civil and courteous interaction with others in the world is earning its keep. Any belief system that can be used to justify the eradication of human lives without provocation (including some warped versions of materialism AND of Christianity) is a risky belief system.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:34 PM

It's the public that is drifting.....off to sleep. Many non-believers have connected the dots.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:18 PM

This one really is drifting...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:18 PM

"Get rid of religion and something else would take it's place. Imagine a world without a religion. Do you see a world of peace then? Probably not. Because humans hide behind banners of various labels and names. Politics, business, military, tribal, supporters of this team or that.... no religion there but there is plenty of competition and power grabbing. Money is at the bottom of a lot of it."

I think that the point can be taken that religion is not the only delusion. Greed and power are forms of delusion as well. The problem is that today, the latter are tied to the former.

Answer: Separation of Church and State. As for world peace, this is something that has to be taken seriously without infusing it with religious belief. World peace and religious belief is almost an oxymoron. However, in a free democracy, people have the right to worship their shoes if they so desire so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. The problem that is being presented is that churches, mosques, synagogues and cathedrals do infringe on these rights sometimes. They need to stop doing that.

One of the big problems is the evangelical movement in the U.S. There is an arrogance,
here, in which a religious group actively tries to impose their religion on others whether
they like it or not. This has carried over into U.S. foreign policy. Don't think for a moment that the concept of a Christian "crusade" is not out there.

Also, religious evangelizing is exacerbating the problems in the Mid-East between Israel and Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 05:54 PM

all you can Chinese Buffets in China Town

You tumble my not-so-secret vice, CS; trouble is I take all you can eat as a personal challenge & like nothing better than quenching an MSG thirst with gallons of ice-cold lager. Not good health wise of course, but there are times... Actually the best Chinese buffet in the NW is Buffet@Preston - seriously good. China in Lancaster does a lot of western stuff too - all you can eat fried fish, pizza, Yorkshire Puddings & roast lamb.

In answer to an earlier question, food is among my comforts, one of them; it keeps me alive & brings me ever closer to the eternal.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 05:39 PM

I must qualify my previous statement. There are some politicians who are not corrupted
by the war-mongers. Dennis Kucinich is one. Bernie Sanders, another. There are responsible members of Congress who are not going along with the generals and their
interest in extending troops. They haven't fallen for the jingoism that's out there today
about Mr. Obama's War. The Senate and Congress may have been hoodwinked by the
Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex but if you poll Americans today, you will
see by the numbers that Iraq and Afghanistan wars are not popular.

There should be a cautionary tale about LBJ's foray into Vietnam. We see how that ended.

The "delusion" is that "god is on our side". It goes along with the religious-right who are the religious-wrong. The GOP is hopping on the religious bandwagon as well as some Democrats. The point is that religion has intruded into politics as a bad house guest.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 05:04 PM

The generals in the Pentagon are as much in touch with their "spiritual" selves as anyone else. They are attempting to Christianize the U.S. military. They think it's fine what they are doing.

Of course the Senate vote was that high. The Senate has been corrupted. So?

What is idiotic is beating the drums for war and further expansion into the Mid-East.

This has to be laid at the feet of the Congress, the President and the Pentagon.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 04:21 PM

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 04:03 PM

just saw comedienne on channel 4+1 told of a woman who approached her on the street and asked, "Will you let Jesus into your heart today?" After a pregnant pause the comedienne answered

"No! If Jesus fancies he me, he should come and ask me himself."

Well, guess you actually had to see it for it to strike as funny.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 04:00 PM

"whaur shall we gan and dine the day-o?"

The Trafford Centre is pretty 'nur' compared to other interests of Manchester. Including the abundance of eat all you can Chinese Buffets in China Town. If you enjoy indulging in "proletarian common-folk" culcha then you can't beat the all you can eat Chinky's in China-town with their paper lanterns and piped cheesy Chinese pop music.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:50 PM

I sought, I found, now I seek to apply. Wow, what a pun, there!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: pdq
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:50 PM

"Don't the military generals at the Pentagon think they are doing something good for humanity based on their spiritual beliefs? Hence, Iraq and Afghanistan."

That statement is idiotic.

The generals do what they are told by the govennment which is run by politicians. The vote to take down the Taliban and retaliate against al-Qaeda was the decision of the US Congress.

The Senate vote was 98 to 0.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:44 PM

"The All-Knowing and All-Seeing Simple Seeker After Truth is NEVER wrong, oh blasphemous disbeliever."

This is the kind of rhetoric that really ticks people off.

I would paraphrase, "The All-Knowing and All-Seeing Simple Seeker after Truth
is often wrong."

Arrogance comes in neat little packages of bumper-sticker statements.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:40 PM

"Whether or not they actually are is open to interpretation dependant on on'es own belief system. Anyone doing good and using their spiritual base with it cannot possibly be doing anything bad."

"Doing good" is often a matter of interpretation. There is a pre-bible statement that stems from earlier religions that says (and I paraphrase) "Don't do anything bad to someone that
you wouldn't like to have done to you." (It's the Golden Rule in reverse and it predates
Christianity.

Don't the military generals at the Pentagon think they are doing something good for humanity based on their spiritual beliefs? Hence, Iraq and Afghanistan.

When you get into the area of "spiritual beliefs" you can run into trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 01:36 PM

I've never really equated the Trafford Centre with the enriching of life

Let me tell you - we live about an hour's drive away from the Ladywell Park & Ride, by which means we make our invariably joyful entry into Manchester, there to sample the delights of The Rylands Library, Forsyths, Cathedral, Afflecks, Northern Quarter, Arndale, Picadilly, Fopp, Subway, Art Gallery, China Town, etc. etc. in a number of well trodden routes all of which have us suitably footsore by closing time, when like ravenous corbies we invariably ask ourselves whaur shall we gan and dine the day-o? The answer to which is usually The Trafford Centre! - which looms like a heavenly Bethlehem as painted by Paul Klee as we cross the ship canal on the M60. Once within, I am transported by the Post-Modern excess of it all; Selfridges & all, but my chief delight is partaking of a Subway / McDonalds beneath the painted skies of the foodhall wherein I am as humbled as in any cathedral & just as joyful. It is the perfect end to an invariably perfect day - like yesterday when we went to Warrington IKEA after a day in Liverpool.