TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Christopher Hitchens gets cancer, theists expose their idiocy again.
Pages (6): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »

To long to read after only an hour of sleep and before i got my morning coffe A comment afthe the caffeine kicks in.


Though just a quick thought, Hitchens might have a strong approach in his debates, but you cant use calm and reason with people whos whole world view is based on rejecting reason. Even the well spoken and (at least in public) mild manered Stephen Fry, has been known to be inpatient in some of his debates on the topic.

Another quick thought. I love Stephen Fry.

John Gray can suck my dick.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN John Gray can suck my dick.

And why is that?

cuz he is an idiot, trying to tie lack of belief in something to a positive movement/motivation like marxism or nationalism. Just because atheism is compatible with these things doesn't mean it leads to them. You simply can't connect the dots from a lack of a belief to any positive action. Something else had to be piled on top of atheism to justify the genocide of Stalin..whereas the Bible alone can be used to justify it (as demonstrated by the Crusades).. Commands to oppress and kill nonbelievers are built into the religion. There are no equivalent atheist doctrines or dogmas and these dumbasses need to stop pretending there are.

God damn ninja edit!

Hold on...

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt cuz he is an idiot, trying to try lack of belief in something to a positive movement/motivation like marxism or nationalism. Because atheism is compatible with these things doesn't mean it leads to them. You simply can't connect the dots.

No, this is not quite what he is saying. And, like I said before, I knew this bit would lead to some misunderstandings, but if you go back to the text...

quote:

Contemporary opponents of religion display a marked lack of interest in the historical record of atheist regimes. In The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, the American writer Sam Harris argues that religion has been the chief source of violence and oppression in history. He recognises that secular despots such as Stalin and Mao inflicted terror on a grand scale, but maintains the oppression they practised had nothing to do with their ideology of "scientific atheism" - what was wrong with their regimes was that they were tyrannies. But might there not be a connection between the attempt to eradicate religion and the loss of freedom? It is unlikely that Mao, who launched his assault on the people and culture of Tibet with the slogan "Religion is poison", would have agreed that his atheist world-view had no bearing on his policies. It is true he was worshipped as a semi-divine figure - as Stalin was in the Soviet Union. But in developing these cults, communist Russia and China were not backsliding from atheism. They were demonstrating what happens when atheism becomes a political project. The invariable result is an ersatz religion that can only be maintained by tyrannical means.

The problem is not atheism itself, but the intolerance against religion that I find problematic both in socialism and contemporary pop-atheism.

There's no reason to think that the decline in the popularity of religion in Europe, for example, is leading to anything like a violent revolution or anything. It just became more and more discredited as time passes by. However, I have some suspicion regarding the "New Atheist" programme of ushering everyone into the marvellous world of disbelief. It never worked.

quote:

Something like this occurred in Nazi Germany. Dawkins dismisses any suggestion that the crimes of the Nazis could be linked with atheism. "What matters," he declares in The God Delusion, "is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does." This is simple-minded reasoning. Always a tremendous booster of science, Hitler was much impressed by vulgarised Darwinism and by theories of eugenics that had developed from Enlightenment philosophies of materialism. He used Christian antisemitic demonology in his persecution of Jews, and the churches collaborated with him to a horrifying degree. But it was the Nazi belief in race as a scientific category that opened the way to a crime without parallel in history. Hitler's world-view was that of many semi-literate people in interwar Europe, a hotchpotch of counterfeit science and animus towards religion. There can be no reasonable doubt that this was a type of atheism, or that it helped make Nazi crimes possible.

I'd disagree with John Gray here that the problem is atheism, but rather, what went wrong was a faith too passionate in science when you don't have the proper training. Hitler used the eugenic agenda to validate the views of religious origin that Jews are damned, and this is the problem of praising science way too much when science is a self-correcting enterprise that is correcting itself at every moment. Including now

quote:

Oh, and his idea that "enlightenment values" came out of religion?

Once again, this is an over-simplification of his words. However, even if this were the case, do you really think that a continent embedded in Christian thought would manage to spawn a movement completely devoid of any Christian values?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Something else had to be piled on top of atheism to justify the genocide of Stalin..whereas the Bible alone can be used to justify it (as demonstrated by the Crusades).. Commands to oppress and kill nonbelievers are built into the religion.

But what he is getting at is that it was piled on top of atheism, not that atheism must lead to it, so it is not a chimera or anything. And, the way I read it, the contemporary poster children of atheism managed to ditch all they could from their religious past - except the urge to oppress nonbelievers through a harsh rhetoric... or, in this case, the believers

quote:

Originally posted by Lira The problem is not atheism itself, but the intolerance against religion that I find problematic both in socialism and contemporary pop-atheism.

I don't see any problem with personal intolerance and ridicule.. These things are very different from oppression/censorship. I don't think any of the "new atheists" want to limit religious freedom in any way. They just aren't going to treat it with kid gloves and give it respect that it doesn't deserve.

quote:

There's no reason to think that the decline in the popularity of religion in Europe, for example, is leading to anything like a violent revolution or anything. It just became more and more discredited as time passes by. However, I have some suspicion regarding the "New Atheist" programme of ushering everyone into the marvellous world of disbelief.

Is there really a "programme"? I think this is a misperception.. For the first time in history we have popular atheist books and people "coming out" and not being ashamed of their dislike of religion.. This is such a radical change from the past 1000+ years (where religion got automatic/universal respect) that people perceive it as a bigger "movement" than it really is. The zeitgeist may changing, but I don't think there is a concerted attempt to destroy religion.

quote:

Once again, this is an over-simplification of his words. However, even if this were the case, do you really think that a continent embedded in Christian thought would manage to spawn a movement completely devoid of any Christian values?

I do.. People often use this same argument in talking about America being founded on "Christian values"..but honestly, what are those values? Where in the bible is freedom of thought promoted? Where does it give people permission to worship different gods, to vote for their leaders, to base society on secular law rather than mosaic law? What commandment includes the separation of powers or anything else in the bill of rights? Of the so-called "supreme laws" of Christianity (the 10 commandments), 8 out of 10 are PERFECTLY LEGAL in America and always have been.. I really don't see anything around the enlightenment or America's founding that can be tied specifically to Christian ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I don't see any problem with personal intolerance and ridicule.. These things are very different from oppression/censorship. I don't think any of the "new atheists" want to limit religious freedom in any way. They just aren't going to treat it with kid gloves and give it respect that it doesn't deserve.

You don't see a problem with intolerance? Well, I do.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Is there really a "programme"? I think this is a misperception.. For the first time in history we have popular atheist books and people "coming out" and not being ashamed of their dislike of religion.. This is such a radical change from the past 1000+ years (where religion got automatic/universal respect) that people perceive it as a bigger "movement" than it really is. The zeitgeist may changing, but I don't think there is a concerted attempt to destroy religion.

I'm not saying there is a concerted attempt to destroy religion, but there's surely a collective hostility against it. By "programme", I didn't mean anything organised or something of that sort, just this common set of ideas.

And criticism against religion has been going on for quite a while, Bertrand Russell being quite free to express his thoughts long before Dawkins became famous. Though Hume had to publish his criticism anonymously, he did have an interested readership on his criticism of religion and it only became more and more explicit as time passed by. Why do you reckon Laplace had the audacity of telling Napoleon he had no role for God in his theories?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I do.. People often use this same argument in talking about America being founded on "Christian values"..but honestly, what are those values?

I'm not talking about the American Christian values. Bear with me there, because I don't come from the same background and I had something completely different in mind.

The Christian notion that everybody is equal in a sense under God and may achieve salvation did come to play a role in the Enlightenment, where anyone using the faculty of reason could reach for the truth. This is one example of Christian value I'm talking about. Even the idea that there's a progress to a better world (through the use of reason) is essentially Christian, whose apocalypse culminates in an all-you-can-rejoice eschatology unless, of course, you happen to be among the doomed (but hardly anyone thinks they're going to hell anyway). Even Marxism sounds a bit like Christianity when you put the ideas side by side as Russell did in his History of Western Philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Where in the bible is freedom of thought promoted?

Nowhere, as far as I'm aware of.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Where does it give people permission to worship different gods, to vote for their leaders, to base society on secular law rather than mosaic law?

Nowhere, as far as I know.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt What commandment includes the separation of powers or anything else in the bill of rights?

Don't you think societies back then needed a bit less bureaucracy than the contemporary states? I mean, why the hell would you need a separation of powers when countries had so few people?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Of the so-called "supreme laws" of Christianity (the 10 commandments), 8 out of 10 are PERFECTLY LEGAL in America, and always have been

Touche. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's very naïve to say contemporary atheism, or the enlightenment, or the renaissance or what-have-you is a complete break with whatever came before. No, it isn't.

Each and everyone of these movements criticises what came before, but none of it ever managed to turn everything upside down and come up with something completely new under the sun. All ideas have to be built upon an anterior foundation. Even Descartes failed to ignore scholastic though when he doubted everything.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I really don't see anything around the enlightenment or America's founding that can be tied specifically to Christian ideas.

You really don't see how the founding of a country that was colonised first by religious settlers could be somehow tied to religion?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Is there really a "programme"? I think this is a misperception.. For the first time in history we have popular atheist books and people "coming out" and not being ashamed of their dislike of religion.. This is such a radical change from the past 1000+ years (where religion got automatic/universal respect) that people perceive it as a bigger "movement" than it really is. The zeitgeist may changing, but I don't think there is a concerted attempt to destroy religion.

Exactly. After reading their books I felt that if there is any "programme" at all, it is not to destroy religion in the same dogmatic way that religion is spread. It is my perception that what they are pushing is a scientific world-view, to show that the advancements made in biology, astronomy, cosmology, neuroscience and other fields are all moving towards demonstrating the absence of the supernatural and explaining the universe in a naturalist way.

They also, of course, focus on explaining the reasons why religion isn't the benign force that the vast majority of people think it is. You would be surprised at the amount of Christians (most of them Catholics) I've discussed religion with that really have no knowledge of the massacres conducted by Popes, the Malleus Maleficarum, Pius XII's attitude towards the Nazi regime, and countless other barbarities.

What they are doing is just putting all this stuff out there for whomever is interested in learning about it. As much as religious apologists want to equate militant atheism with religion, I have never seen Richard Dawkins giving away free audiobook copies of The God Delusion to Haitian people affected by the earthquake, or Christopher Hitchens getting together with people on Sunday mornings to teach them the infallible truths contained in God Is Not Great or Sam Harris going on marches to convince Congress to make The End Of Faith mandatory reading in high-schools.

All these efforts to paint the new atheists with the same brush as the religious is quite telling of the pathetic state they are in. Is "Yeah, well so are you!" the best argument they can come up with?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira You don't see a problem with intolerance? Well, I do.

I don't think we should tolerate stupid ideas. Should they be legal? Yes...but I think Jefferson got it right when he said "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." The time for polite and passive acceptance of crazy ideas is over, especially when people want to use government power to impose them on others.

quote:

The Christian notion that everybody is equal in a sense under God and may achieve salvation did come to play a role in the Enlightenment, where anyone using the faculty of reason could reach for the truth.

Christianity and reason have been enemies dor years.. I don't know where you're getting this. You should read the George Smith book I recommended a while back.

quote:

This is one example of Christian value I'm talking about. Even the idea that there's a progress to a better world (through the use of reason) is essentially Christian

Most Christian stuff I read is about otherworldiness..de-emphasizing the importance of this world..looking forward to the passing away of this "veil of tears", in favor of the better life to come.

quote:

Touche. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's very naïve to say contemporary atheism, or the enlightenment, or the renaissance or what-have-you is a complete break with whatever came before. No, it isn't.

On a popular level..yes it is. The numbers of people identifying themselves as "none of the above" in religious polls is soaring..not necessarily people who identify themselves as atheists..but all agnostic/secular/non-religious people. This is the fastest growing segment of the population and I'm pretty sure that's a new thing.

quote:

You really don't see how the founding of a country that was colonised first by religious settlers could be somehow tied to religion?

Many religious people colonized America, but the founders made a conscious effort to keep religion completely out of the business of government. Aside from "don't kill" and "don't steal" (which are universal laws in every stable society), I don't see anything that can relate our government (or enlightenment values in general) to the Christian faith.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira You don't see a problem with intolerance? Well, I do.

I think we should first define "intolerance" in the context of this discussion. What I think Capitalizt means by intolerance is to not put up with religious people's attempts to jam their beliefs down our throats. To speak out against their attempts to legislate according the their Bibles, and why.

EDIT: Yeah, Capitalizt explained it better.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar I think we should first define "intolerance" in the context of this discussion.

On social issues for instance..the social agenda religious conservatives are pushing against gays, etc. There is simply no good secular argument for their position. They do it because their magic book says gays should be stoned to death....barking mad. The same goes for pushing intelligent design/creationism in schools. Hell no those beliefs shouldn't be respected. I think Dawkins has right when he compares evolution deniers to Holocaust deniers. Ideas with no rational justification deserve to be marginalized. They deserve ridicule, not tolerance and equal time.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I don't think we should tolerate stupid ideas. Should they be legal? Yes...but I think Jefferson got it right when he said "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." The time for polite and passive acceptance of crazy ideas is over, especially when people want to use government power to impose them on others.

What John Gray is doing is calling atheists out of this hysteria. The reason why religion went berserk last decade is because a bunch of clueless guys trolled the world saying they did it because of religion. And then a bunch of other people kept feeding the trolls. We don't need people saying religion poisons everything. We need people remind others that we can poison pretty much everything if we're not critical enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Christianity and reason have been enemies dor years.. I don't know where you're getting this. You should read the George Smith book I recommended a while back.

No, they haven't ever been sworn enemies or anything. Attempts of reconciling Christianity and reason are as numerous as the attempts to divorce them.

Just because I don't agree with them, it doesn't mean I should completely ignore the endeavours of people like Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and countless others.

As a matter of fact, the strand of Christianity that most concerns me where I live happens to be a very rational science-friendly sect.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Most Christian stuff I read is about otherworldiness..de-emphasizing the importance of this world..looking forward to the passing away of this "veil of tears", in favor of the better life to come.

The sole difference is that the concept of a paradise in another realm has shifted to a concept of a paradise in a world without religion where we can all live in peace thanks to reason and science.

As if.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt On a popular level..yes it is. The numbers of people identifying themselves as "none of the above" in religious polls is soaring..not necessarily people who identify themselves as atheists..but all agnostic/secular/non-religious people. This is the fastest growing segment of the population and I'm pretty sure that's a new thing.

Reason why, more than ever, it's crucial that we understand what's going on rather than just turn this into a simple battle between the enlightened and the cursed by religious superstition.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Many religious people colonized America, but the founders made a conscious effort to keep religion completely out of the business of government. Aside from "don't kill" and "don't steal" (which are universal laws in every stable society), I don't see anything that can relate our government to the Christian faith.

Oh, yeah? Just a little something you probably have never thought about : the law system.

How does it work? If you do something wrong, you're punished, right? What's Christian about it? Well, the fact that this is far from being the only possibility. The Hittites had a completely different take on this, as far as I recall it: their society focused on repairing the things you did wrong rather than just punishing your for messing up.

Homosexuality is still a legal problem and, for that matter, even suicide is sometimes punishable by law. How more Christian can you get!?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I don't have any more use for a book which aims to tell me why god is not great than I do a book explaining why unicorns do not fly.

Shows what you know about unicorns.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Oh, yeah? Just a little something you probably have never thought about : the law system. How does it work? If you do something wrong, you're punished, right? What's Christian about it? Well, the fact that this is far from being the only possibility. The Hittites had a completely different take on this, as far as I recall it: their society focused on repairing the things you did wrong rather than just punishing your for messing up.

Calling this system "Christian" is a bit naive, Marcus. Our current system of punishing transgressors has been with us for a long, long time way before Christianity emerged. Recent research has shown that it is a product of evolution and that it isn't even an exclusive trait of the human species. Marc Hauser's book Moral Minds explains this in a more detailed fashion.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Calling this system "Christian" is a bit naive, Marcus. Our current system of punishing transgressors has been with us for a long, long time way before Christianity emerged. Recent research has shown that it is a product of evolution and that it isn't even an exclusive trait of the human species. Marc Hauser's book Moral Minds explains this in a more detailed fashion.

Sure, that is the tendency and it was present long before Christianty popped up, but nativist arguments against homosexuality notwithstanding, if we had a different religion/culture, it could be different, reason why I mentioned homosexuality and suicide along with that. In this case, religion helped sanction this kind of thought.

quote:

Originally posted by leph555

awesome.

quote:

Originally posted by Marcus Summers

That's not the theory at all. Learn2Astrophysics.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz That's not the theory at all. Learn2Astrophysics.

It's nice that you can't explain it yourself. Most "Atheists" claim they understand science when most of them can't even add or subtract! It's amazing that the numbers god created are least understood by non believing heathens and the true followers of Christ are given the brains to do the work for them!

quote:

Originally posted by Marcus Summers It's nice that you can't explain it yourself. Most "Atheists" claim they understand science when most of them can't even add or subtract! It's amazing that the numbers god created are least understood by non believing heathens and the true followers of Christ are given the brains to do the work for them!

omg marc, tell me this is a parody post.

If not, kindly tell me how the idea of an infinitely complex magical being who creates universes by wishing them into existence explains anything. If you demand an explanation for matter, why do you not demand an explanation for a being who creates it by magic?

Give us a coherent answer that doesn't boil down to special pleading..then tell us how you draw the line from "some god" to the CHRISTIAN god..who cares about us, reads our minds, is concerned about what we do in private with our "naughty bits", etc..and I'll become a theist immediately.

is marc an alt or is it really the original summers? i remember original marc being quite the troll, but not nearly so thick.

quote:

Originally posted by Marcus Summers It's nice that you can't explain it yourself. Most "Atheists" claim they understand science when most of them can't even add or subtract! It's amazing that the numbers god created are least understood by non believing heathens and the true followers of Christ are given the brains to do the work for them!

A. I'm not an atheist
B. I can actually expand quite a lot on how, when and why.
C. Dickhead

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz A. I'm not an atheist

melting!!!!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.