There was a great letter in today’s Economist magazine (subscription needed). Replying to the lame argument that Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union were atheist states, and so atheism has as much bad stuff to answer for as religion, someone called Mark Eaton from Vancouver replied:
The Marqués de Tamarón used an old and easily refuted argument in his attempt to defend religious faith against atheism by pointing to the godless regimes of communism and National Socialism (Letters, October 7th). He should have considered that Stalin's regime (like that of China under Mao) was based on a personality cult, and that Nazism was underpinned by a warped Nordic mythology and ideology centred on an Aryan master race. These cultish, quasi-religious qualities have little in common with atheism. Atheists believe that rationality and critical thinking serve humanity better than blind faith and religious dogma. The regimes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao did not come into being in order to defend atheism. And the horrors of communism and Nazism occurred not because these societies applied too much reason and critical thinking, rather because they did not apply enough.
(My bold.)
Precisely.
Nazis were more religious than the christian winners of the war are willing to acknowledge. As physical evidence of this:
1. They had the equivalent of our Chaplins in their army.
2. The buttons on their uniforms had the saying "Got Mit Uns" stamped on them. For those that don't speek German, this translates to "God is With Us".
And as a personal example, my grandfather told me that they left Germany for 2 reasons.
1. There was little if any work, and it was almost impossible to get a liveable wage.
2. It was his christian neighbors who were going around beating and killing the Jews even before WWII started.
I guess its true. The winners get to write history. And sadly in this case the actual causes of the Holocost are being lost to people who do not have any idea what actually happened, and therefor why it happened.
Posted by: Bruce Williams | October 21, 2006 at 10:21 PM
Himmler for one was a hard-core woo, spending millions searching for the Spear of Longinus and other mystical relics.
Hitler consulted astrologers and believed in destiny. The Swastika was an Indian religious symbol.
So, using the same logic as the good Marques, WOOS START WARS!
Posted by: Big Al | October 23, 2006 at 12:41 AM
The Crusades
The Spanish Inquisition
Salman Rushdie's death sentence
9/11
7/7
What do all these have in common? They were all done in the name of religion.
Supposedly, Osama Bin Laden and his friends justify their actions because of the Crusades. So they can blow me and my family up with religious fervour because 800 years ago, some people who lived in my country did nasty things to people who lived in their country out of religious fervour.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone is free to believe whatever they want - that's one of the freedoms of living in a democratic society - but they're not free to force me to believe the same at the point of a gun.
Screw 'em.
Posted by: Big Al | October 24, 2006 at 08:42 AM
Dawkins makes the point in The God Delusion that really settles it for me. Even if Hitler was an atheist, the people who carried out the Nazi atrocities, the people who served in the Nazi armed forces, would have been, by and large, christian. Does the Nuremberg defence now apply to christianity as well?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 24, 2006 at 02:59 PM
Jimmy/Bruce:
One cannot find Christianity at fault for the errors of its practitioners. It is not a pragmatic enterprise. Yes, there have been Christians throughout the centuries and even today that carry the Christian flag, but are acting contrary to the teachings of Christ. SO what?
Skeptico: Mark Eaton is right on one thing: “Atheists believe that rationality and critical thinking serve humanity better than blind faith and religious dogma.” When put this way, I suppose I agree that rationality and critical thinking serve humanity better than religious dogma, but that sets up a false dichotomy. Not everyone of faith adheres to religious dogma. Moreover, there isn’t anything incompatible with a faith/God and rational, critical thought.
The point of the atheistic regimes argument is to point out that, as a whole, mankind is better with God than without him. The fact that significant political figures throughout history looked to the stars of some cult only goes to prove this point. They were looking away from God and to their own concocted solutions for the answer. The atheist fairs no better in this regard. His cult ultimately bows to self autonomy and that is where the problem begins.
Posted by: Scott Swanigan | October 26, 2006 at 05:23 AM
Scott:
One cannot find atheism at fault for the errors of its practitioners. It is not a pragmatic enterprise. Yes, there have been atheists throughout the centuries and even today that carry the atheist flag (whatever that would be), but are acting contrary to the teachings of secular humanism. SO what?
The point of the christian regimes argument is to point out that, as a whole, mankind is worse with God than without him. The fact that significant political figures throughout history looked to the leaders of this cult only goes to prove this point. They were looking toward God and to their own concocted solutions for the answer. The christian fairs no better in this regard. His cult ultimately bows to unquestioning obedience to a supernatural power and that is where the problem begins.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 26, 2006 at 07:49 AM
Skeptico replies to Scott
Re: One cannot find Christianity at fault for the errors of its practitioners.
Yes you can if the activities of the practitioners are inspired by the religion. Religion is used to justify the activities. For example, if there were no Catholic church there would have been no inquisition. No atheists would have tortured people to accept “their brand” of atheism. The key feature of most religions is that its practitioners are absolutely certain they are right – God is telling them what to do. Combine this certainty believers feel with the total lack of any objective evidence they are right, and you have the recipe for all the terrible things done in the name of religion.
Atheism has no such has no such basis at variance with the facts, nor absolute certainty of correctness. There is no dogma: there are no authorities telling atheists they have to believe in certain things or behave in a certain way. Atheism didn’t inspire Hitler, the way Christianity inspired and initiated the crusades, the inquisition, the Northern Irish conflict etc etc.
Re: It is not a pragmatic enterprise. Yes, there have been Christians throughout the centuries and even today that carry the Christian flag, but are acting contrary to the teachings of Christ. SO what?
Well, there are other religions. For example, it is claimed that the Koran instructs its followers to kill infidels, and kill apostates. The theology on some of this is disputed, but some certainly believe this. Muslim clerics, quoting the Koran, have instigated murders.
Re: Skeptico: Mark Eaton is right on one thing: “Atheists believe that rationality and critical thinking serve humanity better than blind faith and religious dogma.” When put this way, I suppose I agree that rationality and critical thinking serve humanity better than religious dogma, but that sets up a false dichotomy. Not everyone of faith adheres to religious dogma.
Yes, but the “moderates”, in promoting their faith and demanding respect for, and no criticisms of, their religion, allow extremists to flourish. If there were no religions there would be no dogma, regardless of how many religious people don’t follow dogma.
Re: Moreover, there isn’t anything incompatible with a faith/God and rational, critical thought.
Nonsense – faith and critical thinking are polar opposites. Religion is only possible when there is a suspension of reason and critical thinking.
Re: The point of the atheistic regimes argument is to point out that, as a whole, mankind is better with God than without him. The fact that significant political figures throughout history looked to the stars of some cult only goes to prove this point. They were looking away from God and to their own concocted solutions for the answer.
I agree that if other made-up dogmas simply replaced religion, the result could be as bad as religion. (Actually I’m not sure that is really true, but let’s say I’ll accept it for the purposes of a discussion.) Atheism needs to be coupled with critical thinking – which would include rejection of pseudo-religious ideas such as Nazism and Soviet style communism. Regardless, atheism did not inspire Hitler.
Re: The atheist fairs no better in this regard. His cult ultimately bows to self autonomy and that is where the problem begins.
Please explain how atheism could be defined as a cult.
I think you, as a theist, have trouble understanding how the atheist thinks about God. Perhaps this quote from Stephen Roberts would help:
Atheists don’t bow to self autonomy as you put it. We don’t “bow” to anything. We don’t even think about God, except when we bump up against theists and have to explain to them the problems with religion.
Posted by: Skeptico | October 26, 2006 at 03:18 PM
From my point of view: "There is (probably) no God." falls below the level of "I'm out of creamy peanut butter" on the measure of urgency.
The problem is that there are lots of people who artificially inflate the issue enough to get the legislature involved.
Posted by: BronzeDog | October 26, 2006 at 10:50 PM
You're out of peanut butter, Dog? That's interesting. I, myself, have just run out of mayonnaise - isn't that remarkable?
We have SO much in common, we must start a new religion together!
Perhaps "The Ancient and Divine Church of Missing Kitchen Supplies."
I'd find that more interesting than begging forgiveness from a crotchety old guy who creates people but sends them to roast for all eternity if they don't continually tell him how great he is.
Well, I'm still here - no lightning bolts yet. Perhaps the old feller's lot his reading glasses.
Posted by: Big Al | October 27, 2006 at 08:57 AM
Make that "lost"!
:}
Posted by: Big Al | October 27, 2006 at 08:58 AM
Skeptico:
You wrote: "Yes you can if the activities of the practitioners are inspired by the religion."
But that’s just it. The terrible events of Christian history such as the crusades or the inquisition are not inspired by Christianity. Rather, they stem from a misinterpretation of it and run contrary to its core tenets.
Skeptico wrote: "The key feature of most religions is that its practitioners are absolutely certain they are right..."
And that’s also true of atheism, but psychological confidence never proves anything. I think you are right on here. Religious people think God is telling them something, but atheists are just as sure God isn’t (pun intended).
Skeptico wrote:"Atheism didn’t inspire Hitler, the way Christianity inspired and initiated the crusades, the inquisition, the Northern Irish conflict etc etc."
There needs to be a distinction here. The greatest contributor to Nazi anti-Semitism that led to the holocaust originated from naturalism, a philosophical concept that denies that any such agent exists that can act apart from the natural world and unconstrained by its physical laws – i.e.: denies the existing of God (ref: http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html). As such, naturalism is a philosophy attractive to and adopted by many atheists. Hence, the two are closely related. That said and to be fair, Hitler could not have been considered an atheist or a Christian. Yes, he often sighted his allegiance to God in public speeches, but by no means can the context and intent of his statements be construed as Christian orthodoxy. So, by that we agree it to be a cult.
As for the crusades, inquisition and Northern Irish conflict, I have already covered that ground above.
Skeptico wrote: "Well, there are other religions. For example, it is claimed that the Koran instructs its followers to kill infidels, and kill apostates. The theology on some of this is disputed, but some certainly believe this. Muslim clerics, quoting the Koran, have instigated murders."
I agree. In principle it can be argued (and convincingly so) that the Koran teaches Muslims to rage Jihad against others, but it does not follow from this that all religions are dangerous.
Skeptico wrote: "Yes, but the “moderates”, in promoting their faith and demanding respect for, and no criticisms of, their religion, allow extremists to flourish. If there were no religions there would be no dogma, regardless of how many religious people don’t follow dogma."
We agree again! I am not one to adhere to the idea that people should respect a religion simply because their proponents say so and that includes the one I practice, Christianity. I am a proponent that for public critique and debate of religious ideas. Of course, I hold that Christianity would win the day and I am sure you disagree, but for now we can agree to disagree.
Religions do not hold the market on dogma. I would argue that secularism is at least equally as dogmatic as religion. Also, your statement is ironic. “If there were no religions there would be no dogma”… other than the dogma that there can be no religions.
As for social solutions, all are based on some form of dogma. In their earlier stages societies and governments throughout history have established opinions that eventually become popular dogma regardless of their thoughts regarding God or that lack thereof. Going back to Eaton’s context then, the better lesson from history is that the worst of mankind’s social solutions are those that steer the farthest from orthodox Christian principle.
Skeptico wrote: "faith and critical thinking are polar opposites. Religion is only possible when there is a suspension of reason and critical thinking."
Perhaps the definition of faith in the dictionary would map to your statement, but what I think as a Christian to in fact be the case is that Christ is God. I come to this conclusion not based on blind faith but given a critical analysis and applied reason/logic. In this case I am sure you would argue my conclusions are erroneous and hence categorize them as “non-critical”. But words and statements like this and “suspension of critical thinking” do little to forward a conversation.
Skeptico wrote: "Atheism needs to be coupled with critical thinking – which would include rejection of pseudo-religious ideas "
I like the continued emphasis on critical thinking. Again we are of like mind here. Christianity needs to be coupled with critical thinking as well. In fact, the Bible mandates as much.
Skeptico wrote: "Please explain how atheism could be defined as a cult. "
My statement that the atheist “bows to self autonomy” was meant to convey the bridge between atheism and naturalism. So help me understand your position better. It seems as if your philosophy isolates atheism from any belief whatsoever – philosophical naturalism included. Given that, atheism as you practice it could be describe as a constant critique of other ideas, but offers no solution of its own. Is that accurate?
Posted by: Scott Swanigan | October 28, 2006 at 09:39 AM
RE:But that’s just it. The terrible events of Christian history such as the crusades or the inquisition are not inspired by Christianity. Rather, they stem from a misinterpretation of it and run contrary to its core tenets.
Misinterpretation of it or not, they were still inspired by it. If christianity did not exist, it could not be misinterpreted could it? The fact that you claim the events have nothing to do with christian teaching is irrelevant because christian believers carried out the actions believing they were supporting their faith. There has never been such an atrocity committed by someone claiming to do it in the name of there being no god/s.
RE:There needs to be a distinction here. The greatest contributor to Nazi anti-Semitism that led to the holocaust originated from naturalism, a philosophical concept that denies that any such agent exists that can act apart from the natural world and unconstrained by its physical laws – i.e.: denies the existing of God
Nonsense, antisemitism has nothing to do with naturalism or atheism, but low and behold can be attributed to christianity's view of jews as 'christ killers'. For instance, Hitler made a speech in 1922 that stated:
'My feeling as a christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them... How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.'
And in Mein Kampf wrote:
'Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almight Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.'
(Quotes taken from Dawkins, The God Delusion, its been a long time since I had to read Mein Kampf.)
Then of course we have the passage you link to, which states:
'At times of the bitterest distress, fury against him finally breaks out, and the plundered and ruined masses begin to defend themselves against the scourge of God.'
i.e. The Jew is the scourge of God, or the christ killer. Thanks for providing a link that helps prove our point.
Or also from your link, a nice insight into how this non-christian gets so upset about the denigration of christian blood:
'To be sure, he sometimes palms off his women on influential Christians, but as a matter of principle he always keeps his male line pure. He poisons the blood of others, but preserves his own. The Jew almost never marries a Christian woman; it is the Christian who marries a Jewess."
Naturalism has nothing at all to do with the Holocaust, and you have not even come close to demonstrating that yet. In fact, please point out where in the chapter you link to it is demonstrated that Nazism or Hitler were inspired by naturalism, and this naturalism led to the Holocaust.
Even if (and its a big if) naturalism (and therefore in your opinion the closely linked atheism) were responsible for inspiring the Holocaust, you yourself said this earlier:
'One cannot find Christianity at fault for the errors of its practitioners.'
The same is true of any ideology surely? Therefore you cannot blame atheism for the actions of its practitioners, right? Therefore, by the standards of your own argument, atheism is not to blame for the Holocaust. Something I note you ignored when it was pointed out above.
Please provide your evidence that naturalism led to the Holocaust.
RE:the better lesson from history is that the worst of mankind’s social solutions are those that steer the farthest from orthodox Christian principle.
Total crap. Please provide your evidence that such a bold statement is true.
RE:but what I think as a Christian to in fact be the case is that Christ is God. I come to this conclusion not based on blind faith but given a critical analysis and applied reason/logic.
Perhaps the definition of reason/logic in your dictionary would map to your statement, but what I think as an atheist to in fact be the case is that there almost certainly is no god. I come to this conclusion not based on blind faith but given a critical analysis and applied reason/logic.
By all means say your faith leads you to god, but where is the logic ,reason or critical analysis applied to the belief in a tri-partite omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent sky fairy that exists outside the laws of space, time and physical reality?
Better yet, please explain how your critical analysis led you to the christian god, but dismisses all other gods. I am specifically interested in the logical rules that allowed you to determine that one diety does not exist but another does.
Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. Why do theists have so much trouble with this concept?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 28, 2006 at 01:37 PM
Skeptico replies to Scott Swanigan
Re: The terrible events of Christian history such as the crusades or the inquisition are not inspired by Christianity. Rather, they stem from a misinterpretation of it and run contrary to its core tenets.
But they wouldn’t have taken place if there had been no Christianity.
Re: Religious people think God is telling them something, but atheists are just as sure God isn’t (pun intended).
Actually, most atheists are not certain there is no God, they just see no reason to believe in one.
The problem with religion is that believers think god is telling them the truth. Therefore, if someone else’s god tells him something else, that other person is just wrong – no room for compromise. Couple that with belief in an afterlife and you have the reason for the problems created by religion.
I’ll give you an example. I might say Picasso was the greatest artist of the last century, and I have his pictures everywhere in my house. (Reproductions of course – I’m not that rich.) You might disagree, and think his pictures were terrible (you prefer the old masters, say). I might think you a philistine for this, but ultimately I don’t care – you can have what pictures you want at your house.
Now suppose god is telling me Picasso was the greatest artist of the last century. Your god tells you Picasso was terrible – an imposter, a “false prophet” say. This is not a difference of opinion – god is always right and he tells me Picasso is great, but he tells you to look at Rembrandt. No compromise is possible. Add to this, the certainty that I will go to heaven for my belief in Picasso, and ultimately, I will go to war with you over this. I will be happy to die, because my reward is in the next life. That is the problem with religion – the absolute certainty that your god is telling you the other person’s god is wrong, coupled with your belief of a reward in the afterlife. I realize this is the extreme position, but it is a position that only religious beliefs will lead you to.
Atheism doesn’t have a set of beliefs (certain or not). Problems are caused by the religious “god-is-telling-me” certainty coupled with the “reward in the after life” carrot; atheism is simply incapable of causing those problems.
Re: The greatest contributor to Nazi anti-Semitism that led to the holocaust originated from naturalism, a philosophical concept that denies that any such agent exists that can act apart from the natural world and unconstrained by its physical laws – i.e.: denies the existing of God (ref: http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html). As such, naturalism is a philosophy attractive to and adopted by many atheists. Hence, the two are closely related.
Your Mein Kampf cite doesn’t really support this. From your own link:
And:
So your own link directly contradicts your claim that Hitler’s anti-Semitism that led to the holocaust, originated from naturalism.
Hitler’s ideas of the superior Aryan race were quasi religious mythology based Christian and/or occult beliefs. This is what inspired the extermination of the Jews – not naturalism.
Re: That said and to be fair, Hitler could not have been considered an atheist or a Christian. Yes, he often sighted his allegiance to God in public speeches, but by no means can the context and intent of his statements be construed as Christian orthodoxy. So, by that we agree it to be a cult.
I never said he was an orthodox Christian. So what? Nazism was not inspired by atheism or naturalism – it was religiously inspired.
Re: I agree. In principle it can be argued (and convincingly so) that the Koran teaches Muslims to rage Jihad against others, but it does not follow from this that all religions are dangerous.
I never said all religions were dangerous. What I have said is that religion is the root cause of the worst of human conflicts. Without Islam, and the promise of 72 virgins, no one would have flown those planes into buildings on 9/11. Catholics tortured “heretics” for believing in the “wrong” version of Christianity. Atheism could not have inspired those things.
Re: We agree again! I am not one to adhere to the idea that people should respect a religion simply because their proponents say so and that includes the one I practice, Christianity. I am a proponent that for public critique and debate of religious ideas. Of course, I hold that Christianity would win the day and I am sure you disagree, but for now we can agree to disagree.
You are perhaps unusual then in accepting that your religion should not be immune from criticism.
Re: Religions do not hold the market on dogma. I would argue that secularism is at least equally as dogmatic as religion. Also, your statement is ironic. “If there were no religions there would be no dogma”… other than the dogma that there can be no religions.
I guess that would depend on your definition of dogma. I would define dogma as a belief handed down by authority, that cannot be questioned. Atheism has no beliefs – it is a lack of belief. There is no atheist dogma that says “there can be no religions”. Atheists are happy for you to have your religious beliefs – it is when the religious decide to impose their beliefs on us that we get angry.
Re: …what I think as a Christian to in fact be the case is that Christ is God. I come to this conclusion not based on blind faith but given a critical analysis and applied reason/logic. In this case I am sure you would argue my conclusions are erroneous and hence categorize them as “non-critical”. But words and statements like this and “suspension of critical thinking” do little to forward a conversation.
Please present your evidence to support the claim that Christ is God.
Re: My statement that the atheist “bows to self autonomy” was meant to convey the bridge between atheism and naturalism. So help me understand your position better. It seems as if your philosophy isolates atheism from any belief whatsoever – philosophical naturalism included. Given that, atheism as you practice it could be describe as a constant critique of other ideas, but offers no solution of its own. Is that accurate?
Yes. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Theists seem to have a real problem in understanding atheists – in really getting their heads around the idea that it just wouldn’t occur to us to think about god if the religious didn’t bring it up all the time. That’s all it means.
Posted by: Skeptico | October 28, 2006 at 04:17 PM
Great stuff! Especially the Hitler quotes. I knew Hitler was a Christian, but I didn't know that he was so explicit in his rejection of atheism.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 28, 2006 at 06:59 PM
I understand from Richard Dawkin's book, "The God Delusion" that, in parts of the US, the line "and no religion, too" is changed in broadcasts of John Lennon's "Imagine". John must be revolving in his grave.
I regard rational reasoning as a cornerstone of humanity. Absolute, unquestioning faith has always struck me as positively animalistic.
When I was at school, I once asked the chaplain if he'd always wanted to be a clergyman. He told me that he'd had a "sign" while he was in the army. I said "OK, so you had what constituted proof for you, and you didn't believe before you had it.
"Why should I be expected to believe without any proof?"
He got very angy and called me a troublemaker, and he went as far as saying that the fact I was pursuing physics, chemistry, biology and maths was polluting my mind.
What a joke.
Posted by: Big Al | October 29, 2006 at 03:16 PM
*? - Who Needs Absurd ‘Beliefs’ - ? - - - Reflections of an Octogenarian.*
Religiosity? – Throughout life, I’ve never regarded this subject as deserving of any serious thought. However, with quietus in the offing, the excessive religious coverage in the media inevitably agitates the neurons. Of late, these irritations have provoked a deep re-appraisal - *& has utterly confirmed my basic intuition!*
Logical conclusions after a lifetime of listening *inadvertently* to broadcasters of religious ‘Faiths’. A simple story. No need for the meandrine moonshine of ‘erudite intelligentsia’. Just take yourself back in time & examine unvarnished facts.
Please acknowledge that the primitive mind was bound to generate, quite naturally, mythological imagery of an Elysian nature.
Also, one must accept that the relative ignorance of early Humanity, coupled with understandable fears of the unknown, provided those individuals seeking power over their fellows (a natural human trait), with the conditions to set up as Medicine-Men, Witch-Doctors, Sorcerers, Soothsayers, et al, all claiming to have insights & contact with a ‘power’ - of sorts. So began the blight of Shamanism - leading on to airy-fairy religions. As time unveiled the past, these facts have not been fully appreciated; hence, the ensuing rash of religiosity has not been branded for what it really is - - -
*An early conceive - of ignorance & apprehension - Perpetuated through millennia by IMPOSTORS - Preying on credulous naivety.*
The natural process of evolution, via many devious pious paths, has now landed us with the present crop of Archbishops, Ayatollahs, Rabbis, Popes, Imams, JWs - & a host of other hypocritical sect leaders, incessantly brainwashing the largely unthinking masses with their ridiculous & childish ‘Holy Beliefs’. The Billy Grahams of the world, gifted with gab & showmanship, use their ‘bewitching powers’ to prey on the gullibility of the artless. *Yes indeed, in modern form, the Witch-Doctors are still at it! - Mountebanks All!*
With it’s initiation as above, religiosity can’t be recognised by any sane person to have the gravitas necessary for any authentic ‘Belief’. Seeking reality is anathema to the pious ones. They critically comment on facts of life that are painstakenly unearthed by the practical hard-working talents of seekers of truth. Knowledge of physics & biology would never have advanced if left to ‘Holy’ men.
Sun would still be orbiting Earth. The dim past is their’s, with mystical rites that are still prevalent, albeit with modern trappings.
They are an absurdity! Their endeavours to exalt religiosity by the erection of ever more imposing ‘Places of Worship’ merely highlights – *Monumentally* – the benighted phases of Man’s past. Hell’s Bells! - - - What a shambles!
Weighing up the World-wide situation, a substantial proportion of Humanity are unable to let go of their forebears’ primitive ‘belief’ in a Creator that demands a daily dose of supplication. A person’s specific ‘belief’ is dictated by that part of the globe from where they originated; a simple inheritance of the parents’ unreal ancestral teachings, largely unquestioned! No need to be a ‘Religious Scholar’ (what a fatuous preoccupation) to comprehend why all of this utter humbug survives.
Persistent indoctrination over millennia leave the susceptible with feelings of unease when they attempt to ditch the ingrained silly ‘beliefs’ inherited from similarly misinformed forebears. Most take an apathetic route & run with the various childish theosophical myths passed down through the generations via pious, shallow-thinking naivety - preferring illusion to reality - fantasy to truth.
It has *always* been decreed that acting on *evidential communal common-sense*, ie, utilizing *everyday experience & research* is the only way forward. The need to consult Biblical, Qur’anic, or any other ancient crap-laden fairy tales in order to pursue a *decent & considerate existence* beggars belief!
The facts listed above are beyond dispute – Deism? / Divinity? – Absolute Man-made hokum!
Any thinking person realises that the Universe is truly an awesome Quantum / Astronomical creation. As part of that creation, our attempts at it’s full understanding seem futile. Probing the atom or ‘heavenly’ space & we’re contemplating infinities. Fouling up our minds with a rag-bag of archaic religiose twaddle does nothing to help enlighten our ignorance! Anyone taking this farcical subject seriously has to be absolutely pickled in traditional folklore and/or in a sad mental state. Using it’s bogus validity for an easy living and/or monetary gain, it’s impostrous practitioners must have no damn conscience at all.
Far too much reverence is devoted to the abstract of religiosity. Vast volumes of impotent bombastic rhetoric has been generated by impostors who use their dominant dishonest acumen to sublimely charm others to wander in an unreal ‘Spiritual Wonderland’ that is totally unworthy of any honest meditation.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
/A rational response to the ‘standard’ questions posed by Alpha & similar organisations./
/What is the point of life?/
After 85 years of it, I’m still in the dark. There would seem to be no purpose in view, other than to reproduce. One can conjecture but that’s no more than chimerical thought. We are a life-form that has evolved to suit a particular Earthly environment. Nature is red in tooth & claw & is pitilessly indifferent to an individual’s quality of life. Genetic functioning ensures that the most suitable life-forms thrive in any specific environment; Survival of the fittest! Individual quality of life is a lottery. We have arrived & must make the best of it! Self-deceivers pray for Ethereal help; none is discernable - - - Quite definitely a DIY job!
*We live, utilising facts that the experience of life plus research, provides!*
The paralogism of religious charlatans can’t match the knowledge we now possess, scant though it be. Mystical Theosophy is drivel of the first order.*Certainly, life’s purpose cannot be identified by any ancient decrepit ‘Belief’!*
/What happens when we die?/
A ‘Spiritual Future’ ????? - - - Pure self-indulgent fantasy. The chemo-electrical activity of the brain – the mind – is capable of generating any illusive metaphor. If that imagery is not backed up by factual proof, then it remains a fantasy. Starkly, when the brain ceases to function, that ‘being’ ceases to ‘be’. The motivation driving that unique combination of elements is no more. One must be round the bend, if not well up the straight, to give any credence to life after death!
*Common sense insists that a life’s future lies only in reproduction!*
/Is forgiveness possible?/
With almost limitless mutations possible inside the human skull, genetic functioning can be expected to produce individuals with characteristics of an exceedingly complex gradation, in a myriad of aspects – eg, Brilliant to Thick – Jovial to Morose – Benign to Sadistic – Hetero to Homo – ad inf. Religions provide a very accessible dump for the guilt generated by the various indiscretions to which all humans must, in some respect, be victim. Do not kid thyself – No one is immaculate!
*Those gifted with conscience & a degree of ‘normalcy’ just have to live with the unfortunates & scallywags - amongst
whom - the ‘Confidence Men’ - enjoying a very comfortable living with their pretentious ‘Divine’ prognostications!*
/Further Thoughts/
With the barbarous & brutal acts of differing factions, the mutiplicity of silly ‘Beliefs’ has always been a handicap. Humanity can well do without any of these lunatic conceptions. *Let common sense prevail!* The sponge-like mind of an infant readily absorbs info, authentic *or* fallacious. In teaching the necessary basics of life, the follies of illogical & delusory religions should be emphasized - - - *Strongly!* Offspring should be brought up from birth unprimed with needless pestilential ‘beliefs’. - *Glaringly Obvious!*
Preachers pontificate on a subject so ‘Holey’, it is artlessly transparent. Visualise it’s benighted origins & it’s quite obvious that the early human mind was bound to generate mythological imagery of an Elysian nature & from there, a receptive fanciful mind took over. ‘Beliefs’ were surely born of ignorance & fear! With this realisation, why can’t we all recognise simple basic facts & treat all ‘faiths’ of today as ever they really were – A continuing evolution of irrational early thought.
*In this more enlightened age - Pure Phantasmic Godswallop!*
The Rt Rev Fred Flintstone & his equally-misguided confederates of other ‘Faiths’ should have dug themselves out of the Stone-age long long ago!
*Time unveils the Past! - Let’s all Profit from it! - Not Perpetuate it! - A M E N*
Bill Davison / UK - - - [email protected] - - - http://hometown.aol.co.uk/bill45690/DE.html
In Verse format - - - http://hometown.aol.co.uk/bill45690/BB.html
Posted by: Dava | November 03, 2006 at 01:09 PM
Scott’s reply to Skeptico:
Skeptico wrote: "The problem with religion is that believers think god is telling them the truth. Therefore, if someone else’s god tells him something else, that other person is just wrong – no room for compromise. Couple that with belief in an afterlife and you have the reason for the problems created by religion."
You think you are right. I think I am right. We can’t compromise, so what? It doesn’t follow that just because parties disagree that there must be a problem. That’s where tolerance comes in – i.e. I disagree with you, but we can still be civil toward one another. Of course some make problems (i.e. exercise intolerance), but to claim that behavior is isolated to those that hold religious positions is ridiculous.
Skeptico wrote: "Your Mein Kampf cite doesn’t really support this. Please provide your evidence that naturalism led to the Holocaust."
Nice try. The brunt of my point lies in the first several paragraphs of the document. From the same link:
“…the most patent principles of Nature's rule: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on this earth”
“No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, night be ruined with one blow.”
And
“Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people.”
And
“The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following:
• Lowering of the level of the higher race;
• Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness.”
Hitler’s result (last quote above) is a conclusion he argues from a rationale based on natural selection – i.e. NATURALISM/EVOLUTION.
And the quotes you sight with Hitler aligning himself with Christianity only prove my original point. Hitler was acting in contrast to the teachings of Christianity regardless of what he claims. If someone were to stand up and call a circle square, that wouldn’t make it so.
And to address your claim (and apparently the claims of others here) that Hitler’s atrocities would not have happened if Christianity did not exist: Nonsense. Given what Hitler lays down in Mein Kampf, he would have had a strong argument from naturalism alone to commit the atrocities he did.
To blame the violence and cruelty of this perversion on the subject that is being perverted without some rational and principled reason is faulty thinking. To make such an argument you must show how Hitler was acting in accordance with Christian principle. Show me.
Skeptico wrote: "I never said all religions were dangerous. What I have said is that religion is the root cause of the worst of human conflicts. Without Islam, and the promise of 72 virgins, no one would have flown those planes into buildings on 9/11. Catholics tortured “heretics” for believing in the “wrong” version of Christianity. Atheism could not have inspired those things."
How is the statement “all religions are dangerous” any different from “religion is the root cause of the worst of human conflicts”?
You continued to miss the point. Muslims who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 were acting in accordance with the teachings of the Koran. Catholics who tortured were acting contrary to the teachings of Christ. Show me what passage in the Bible supports torture for believing the wrong thing.
Skeptico wrote: "Atheism has no beliefs – it is a lack of belief"
Then you must not be practicing atheism when you make statements like “religion is the root cause of the worst of human conflicts” and “the problem with religion is …”. What are you practicing? Your sight is full of statements of belief, belief that what you say is indeed the case. It is the same for me. What I say and write is indeed what I think to be the case. So we don’t differ so much in that regard. We both believe something (albeit two mutually exclusive and opposite things) to be true.
I think you meant to end that statement with "...in god".
Skeptico wrote: "it is when the religious decide to impose their beliefs on us that we get angry."
What constitutes imposing beliefs?
Skeptico wrote: "Please present your evidence to support the claim that Christ is God."
The resurrection.
Posted by: Scott Swanigan | November 04, 2006 at 07:11 AM
Dishonesty is certainly one of the least charming traits of believers.
RE:
“The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following:
• Lowering of the level of the higher race;
• Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness.”
Hitler’s result (last quote above) is a conclusion he argues from a rationale based on natural selection – i.e. NATURALISM/EVOLUTION.
I notice you for some reason don't quote the very next line though, let's see what it says shall we?
'To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator.
And as a sin this act is rewarded.'
Gee, I wonder why you didn't want to mention that line. Could it be because it makes your conclusion utterly incorrect? Did you somehow think we wouldn't notice? Or could it be you are quote mining and ignoring context?
So lets be clear. You quote a lot of Hitler's nonsense showing his views on Aryan racial superiority and social Darwinism (which has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection). You claim the quotes on religion prove your point. You conclude this means the Holocaust was the fault of evolution, then you argue that you can't blame christianity when christians do bad things, but you can blame atheism when people who almost certainly weren't atheists do things that have nothing to do with atheism.
Genius.
But let us not forget how you defined naturalism though:
a philosophical concept that denies that any such agent exists that can act apart from the natural world and unconstrained by its physical laws – i.e.: denies the existing of God
So, please explain where in your cited quotes this definition is met. Specifically, where does Hitler deny the existence of god in any of those quotes? In any of that chapter? It's your definition remember, not ours.
RE:And to address your claim (and apparently the claims of others here) that Hitler’s atrocities would not have happened if Christianity did not exist: Nonsense. Given what Hitler lays down in Mein Kampf, he would have had a strong argument from naturalism alone to commit the atrocities he did.
Nice strawman. Where is it argued that religion is the sole cause of the Holocaust?
The point of showing Hitler used religion to argue for the Holocaust is to demonstrate there is no one single cause of the Holocaust (did I really just have to point that out?), neither religion or Hitler's twisted social Darwinism fully account for the Holocuast on their own.
Having said that, anti-Semitism existed before the theory of evolution, before Darwin, and before Hitler, and has nothing to do with Naturalism. It does however, have a strong connection to christianity and other religions. Would the Holocaust have occurred without anti-semitism?
To make such an argument you must show how Hitler was acting in accordance with Christian principle. Show me.
You first, we're still waiting for you to show us how Hitler's thoughts in Mein Kampf constitute naturalism, even as you defined it yourself.
RE:Show me what passage in the Bible supports torture for believing the wrong thing.
OK.
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
'If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.'
How's that for starters? Or how about:
2 Chronicles 15:13
'Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. '
Or:
Deuteronomy 25:2
'Some people should be beaten as as a punishment for their crimes.
And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten. '
Or:
Exodus 21:20-21
'And slaves may be beaten, as long they survive for at least a day or two after the beating.
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.'
Or:
Proverbs 23:13-14
'Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.'
Or:
2 Samuel 12:31
'And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. '
Or:
Matthew 18:34
'And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors.'
Or:
Matthew 22:12-13
'And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
Or:
Luke 12:46-48
'The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.'
Or:
Revelation 9:5-6
'And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.'
That should do for now don't you think? Not all quotes are for torture about believing the wrong thing, but there is a definite propensity for torture in that book wouldn't you agree?
RE:Skeptico wrote: "Please present your evidence to support the claim that Christ is God."
The resurrection.
Let's just examine the absolute absurdity of your response shall we? You just tried to present evidence for an unproven claim by citing, another unproven and unprovable claim. Is this what constitutes your critical analysis, logic and reason? Your answer is the equivalent of proving dragons exist by citing St George. Mind bogglingly dense.
Please present your evidence for the resurrection.
And since you ignored it first time round:
Better yet, please explain how your critical analysis led you to the christian god, but dismisses all other gods. I am specifically interested in the logical rules that allowed you to determine that one diety does not exist but another does.
Since you claim to have come to god through critical analysis and logic, I would like to see your evidence that there is no Zeus. Or Apollo. Or Baal. Or Ganesh. Or Thor. Or Odin. Or Zoroaster. Or Hera. Or Ra. Or Anubis. Or Reshef. Or Seth. Or Korrawi. Or Vishnu. Or Prithivi. Or Freyja. Or Isis. Or Loki. Or Horus. Or Athena.Or Asclepius. Or Cerberus. Or Cupid. Or Posiedon. Or Eros. Or Aphrodite. Or Hades. Or Helios. Or Hephaistos. Or Hermes.Or Juno. Or Janus. Or Jupiter. Or Pandora. Or Persephone. Or Saturn. Or Mars. Or Amaethon. Or Aonghus. Or Dagda. Or Anu. Or Belenus. Or Balor. Or Aegir. Or Balder. Or Fenrir. Or Heimdall. Or Potrimpo. Or Svantovit. Or Tapio. Or Bunyil. Or Bacchus. Or Gurrangatch. Or Hephaestus. Or Maui. Or Hine-nui-te-po. Or Morpheus. Or Nai-No-Kami. Or Quetzalcoatl. Or Wotan. Or Xolotl. Or Artemis.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | November 04, 2006 at 08:52 AM
Forgot this bit:
RE:I think you meant to end that statement with "...in god".
I think that Skeptico and I both thought the meaning was blatantly obvious in a discussion on religion, god and belief. Of course if you are so desperate to try and 'score points', knock yourself out.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | November 04, 2006 at 08:55 AM
Skeptico replies to Scott
Re: Skeptico wrote: "The problem with religion is that believers think god is telling them the truth. Therefore, if someone else’s god tells him something else, that other person is just wrong – no room for compromise. Couple that with belief in an afterlife and you have the reason for the problems created by religion."
You think you are right. I think I am right. We can’t compromise, so what? It doesn’t follow that just because parties disagree that there must be a problem. That’s where tolerance comes in – i.e. I disagree with you, but we can still be civil toward one another. Of course some make problems (i.e. exercise intolerance), but to claim that behavior is isolated to those that hold religious positions is ridiculous.
I didn’t say that intolerance “is isolated to those that hold religious positions” did I? I said that religious intolerance is (a) inevitable and (b) ultimately inflexible. Religions are by definition intolerant of the views of the non-believer. And the reason for the intolerance and inflexibility is that God is telling the believer he is right and the non-believer wrong. Couple that with a belief in the afterlife – heaven is the reward for those who follow your beliefs – and that is the reason for the problems created by religion. The absolute certainty provided by God, and the rewards in the next life apply specifically and solely to the religious. Why can’t you address this point?
Re: Nice try. The brunt of my point lies in the first several paragraphs of the document. From the same link:
[Snip]
Hitler’s result (last quote above) is a conclusion he argues from a rationale based on natural selection – i.e. NATURALISM/EVOLUTION.
No. Not even close. Your ability to quote mine and ignore what Hitler is actually saying is quite extraordinary.
First, none of the passage you quoted indicates Hitler was an atheist or was inspired by atheism. Remember, the purpose of this post, the premise I reject is “the lame argument that Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union were atheist states, and so atheism has as much bad stuff to answer for as religion”. The only time “atheism” is mentioned in your cited article is in connection with “atheistic Jewish parties” – atheism is cited as a bad thing, not something Hitler agrees with. Your attempt to take the word “nature” and parlay that into atheism is dishonest. You have not shown that atheism has to answer for the holocaust.
Second, Jimmy blue already quoted the very next two sentences that you ignored:
And this without doubt proves the absolute opposite of what you want it to mean. It shows, quite clearly, that Hitler was inspired by religion. It’s there in black and white.
Finding a few references to “Nature” and saying this is the same as atheism while simultaneously ignoring the multiple references to God and Christianity is nothing but astonishingly blatant and dishonest quote mining.
Re: And the quotes you sight with Hitler aligning himself with Christianity only prove my original point. Hitler was acting in contrast to the teachings of Christianity regardless of what he claims.
So what? The point is (one more time), he wasn’t inspired by atheism. He wouldn’t have acted that way if it were not for his religious beliefs. Why do you keep ignoring this?
Re: And to address your claim (and apparently the claims of others here) that Hitler’s atrocities would not have happened if Christianity did not exist: Nonsense.
That’s not really what I said, is it? I wrote:
The holocaust was religiously inspired, and (once again), atheism did not inspire the holocaust.
Re: Given what Hitler lays down in Mein Kampf, he would have had a strong argument from naturalism alone to commit the atrocities he did.
But he didn’t base it on “naturalism alone”, did he? It was religiously inspired. Your claim is based on nothing but a few lame references to “nature” which you claim is the same as atheism, while ignoring all the religious justifications. You’re clutching at straws, Scott.
Re: To blame the violence and cruelty of this perversion on the subject that is being perverted without some rational and principled reason is faulty thinking. To make such an argument you must show how Hitler was acting in accordance with Christian principle. Show me.
I have to show you no such thing. I did show you (using your own cited article) Hitler was inspired by religion, not atheism. Who cares if the “religion” was a perverted version of Christianity – it was inspired by religion and not atheism.
Re: Skeptico wrote: "I never said all religions were dangerous. What I have said is that religion is the root cause of the worst of human conflicts. Without Islam, and the promise of 72 virgins, no one would have flown those planes into buildings on 9/11. Catholics tortured “heretics” for believing in the “wrong” version of Christianity. Atheism could not have inspired those things."
How is the statement “all religions are dangerous” any different from “religion is the root cause of the worst of human conflicts”?
Some religions may not be dangerous.
Re: You continued to miss the point. Muslims who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 were acting in accordance with the teachings of the Koran. Catholics who tortured were acting contrary to the teachings of Christ. Show me what passage in the Bible supports torture for believing the wrong thing.
Jimmy blue provided a few quotes for you to look at. But you are missing the point again. The point is that religion, by its very nature, results in the atrocities I mentioned. Atheism cannot inspire such acts.
Re: Skeptico wrote: "Atheism has no beliefs – it is a lack of belief"
Then you must not be practicing atheism when you make statements like “religion is the root cause of the worst of human conflicts” and “the problem with religion is …”.
Don’t be silly. You can’t practice atheism any more than you can practice not collecting stamps.
Re: What are you practicing? Your sight is full of statements of belief, belief that what you say is indeed the case. It is the same for me. What I say and write is indeed what I think to be the case. So we don’t differ so much in that regard. We both believe something (albeit two mutually exclusive and opposite things) to be true.
I am practicing critical thinking. The difference between what I claim and what you claim is that I can back up my claims with evidence while you have to quote mine and distort my position to back up yours.
Re: I think you meant to end that statement with "...in god".
Obviously. Atheism is a lack of belief in God.
Re: Skeptico wrote: "it is when the religious decide to impose their beliefs on us that we get angry."
What constitutes imposing beliefs?
Here’s a few off the top of my head (in no particular order):
• Preventing the teaching of science in schools, and imposing religious ideas dressed up as science
• Discrimination against gay people because the bible says homosexuality is a sin
• Demanding that cartoons making fun of religion be removed
• Demanding no criticism of religion (you are unusual in not minding this)
• Murdering a film maker for making a film critical of religion
• Demanding that someone who wishes to deconvert has his head cut off
• Preventing condom use that could prevent the spread of AIDS and other STDs, as well as preventing unsupportable population growth in the poorest countries
• Trying to have books like Harry Potter banned
• Getting people expelled from their homes for believing in the wrong religion
• Insisting that the Sun orbits the Earth, contrary to the evidence.
Please show me where atheism results in these things.
Re: Skeptico wrote: "Please present your evidence to support the claim that Christ is God."
The resurrection.
Please present your evidence the resurrection happened.
Remember you said you arrived at this belief based upon “a critical analysis and applied reason/logic”. Remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I’m sure that as a critical thinker you would agree that someone dying and being resurrected two days later, would be an extraordinary claim. We can’t even do that now with all our scientific medicine. Please present your extraordinary evidence that the resurrection happened.
Posted by: Skeptico | November 04, 2006 at 12:18 PM
And the quotes you sight with Hitler aligning himself with Christianity only prove my original point. Hitler was acting in contrast to the teachings of Christianity regardless of what he claims.
A few points I think are worth making:
1. Acting "not-Christian" is not the same as being an atheist. There are other religions out there, you know.
2. This sounds an awful lot like a "No True Scotsman" argument. Does that mean, for example, that the book of Joshua should be kicked out of the bible? He practiced genocide.
Posted by: BronzeDog | November 04, 2006 at 02:36 PM