Well, I do care
Offline This is a response I sent to someone's YouTube comment via YouTube in-mail:
Respond if you want, just thought I'd express myself.
A reply to your comment on the video "MythBusters: Does God exist?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9izVu_TtAE&feature=related
You said:
"if you are athiest and you think that religon is wrong,
WHY DO YOU CARE?
why do you try to prove religon wrong?
Are you dumb and cant mind your buisness? or is it that you know you are wrong and just dont want to atmit it? "
Why I Care
Here's the problem with your last sentence. If I knew I was wrong, and I really thought there was a God, admitting I was wrong would be a far cry short of burning in hell for all eternity, so I wouldn't worry too much. I'm a naturalist. I admit I'm wrong when I have evidence to suggest that I'm wrong. But you ask if we know we are wrong. How could I know I'm wrong? Wouldn't someone have to prove it to me? And if they show that proof, what would be the point of not admitting it and changing my ways?
I care about religion. Understand something. There are a lot of atheists in the world, but not all of them are active. Only some, like myself. You don't know about the atheists that aren't active (that is, they don't really do anything with there belief like try to convert others to atheism), because, well, they're not active. You'd never know they were atheists unless you asked them.
But I'm an active atheist, and I care. There are a lot of reasons why active atheists have the tendency to be active. Most of them are related to infringments that religion has placed on our freedoms, like blue laws, the placement of "In God We Trust" on our currency, the words "Under God" in our pledge of allegiance, and the attempt for Christians to teach creationism as a science in our public schools. But in truth, I don't really care that much about these.
I care a LOT because of what religion has done for us in our history, and what it will continue to do for us in the future, which is nothing good at all. Religion has got us nothing in all of world history. Science has gotten us everything that we have. It has saved millions of lives. And if we had more resources and time, it could save us all from so much more in the future. But since the beginning of philosophy, religion has suppressed and rebuked science. It has accused us of false teachings. It has robbed us of our freedom and resources. The amount of man hours, resources, and attention that religion has received since the beginning of our social world has be wasted so hazardly when all of that couldn't have been better spent on improving our race and our technology, rather than suppressing it.
If we'd have spent all those resources on science and discovery, by now, we'd have AIDS cured, cancer cured, global warming and climate change solved, travelled to other solar systems, harnessed the energy provided by cold fusion or even the sun, solved every genetic and nerve disease you can think of, and so much more. If possible, we may have even been able to cure old age. Think of it, eternal life.
But every single individual since humans began existing has died and will continue to die until we solve these issues. And the suppression of science by religion is the one responsible, therefore I hold religion responsible for the death of every one of the billions of human beings that has ever lived and died.
Truely, I care for the sake of caring. Because I see Christians spending their lives in a lie, and I care about my fellow man and don't want to see that happen. I can show you something better than a make believe God, and I want Christians to drop their lie and be better. If you saw someone believing something that wasn't true, and living their life about it, wouldn't you care?
I care, because I'm a good person. We, as atheists don't try to prove religion wrong. We've already proven it a thousand times over. It's just very difficult to get religious people to accept it. Because your religious due to blind faith. Which means it doesn't matter how much proof we have, you're going to believe no matter what. Without caring about the evidence against it, without listening to the arguments. You're going to believe blindly.
But let me ask you a question. Why DON'T you care?
- Login to post comments
Offline Those are Hoxha's words not mine.
And they're still inaccurate, no matter who's mouth they came out of.
I'm not saying that. Sheesh
I never said he derived from atheism. Christ on a stick.
Good. In that case your comparison with Enver and Mahmoud is invalid.
I'll consider this a retraction of your argument.
EDIT:
Yeah he did. I'm trying to pull references but I have a horrible memory.
The same 'fuzzy memory' you had when it came to the Madrid train bombings, Alison? Y'know, when you were just plain wrong, but refused to admit it and scurried away like a scolded toddler claiming that you were going to 'look more into it'?
Your inability to admit when you've made an error is astounding.
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:Quote:If we'd have spent all those resources on science and discovery, by now, we'd have AIDS cured, cancer cured, global warming and climate change solved, travelled to other solar systems, harnessed the energy provided by cold fusion or even the sun, solved every genetic and nerve disease you can think of, and so much more. If possible, we may have even been able to cure old age. Think of it, eternal life.
Wow, over-speculate much?
I wholeheartedly agree with Pinapple.
You won't convince many theists with naked assertions like that
Um?.....Uh......You do know whom you are agreeing with? Piney is into the universe being a giant brain(program)....or some faxsimely or spin off of such.
Didn't you read the terms of service? We are not allowed to agree on anyone who doesn't call themselves an atheist (mind you, it is tpyed in invisible ink, that, and I like shiney objects)
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline I'll consider this a retraction of your argument.
Do you even know my argument involving Iran and Albania?
I know, I'm not the most clear writer but sheesh.
- Login to post comments
Offline both brutal leaders, one atheist, one Muslim.
atheist pounce on this "See [insert secular ideology, Communism/Socialism/Nationalism etc... here] is a religion!"
No, they are both expressions of human greed and thirst for power, but of course some people take religion too far. WAY too far.
Alison, this argument specifically says, 'Atheism is to Enver Hoxha as Islam is to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad'. You even reinforce this position by ridiculing and denouncing the position that communism is it's own dogma.
Based on that premise, you then conclude that it must be human nature that leads to these brutal regimes.
So if that's not what you're trying to say, what are you trying to say?
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline Alison, this argument specifically says, 'Atheism is to Enver Hoxha as Islam is to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad'. You even reinforce this position by ridiculing and denouncing the position that communism is it's own dogma.
What I'm comparing is their actions. Notice how I said brutal leaders, as in I was summarizing their actions?
I have no idea where you got that I was saying Hoxha did it because of atheism.
Oh, for the record I never said that Communist regimes weren't dogmatic, I said they weren't religions. Squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Based on that premise, you then conclude that it must be human nature that leads to these brutal regimes.
No, the fact two different ideologies can lead to strikingly similar results says that human nature plays a role.
Like I said in a previous post, Cougars can exhibit extreme aggression.
Come to think of it pretty much EVERY animal slaughters mauls, other animals and even their same species due to it being in their nature.
What makes you think humans are unique in this regard? Which is why I threw in that snarky remark asking for the religion of the Cougar who just showed extreme tendacy to brutality.
- Login to post comments
Offline
EDIT:
Quote:Yeah he did. I'm trying to pull references but I have a horrible memory.The same 'fuzzy memory' you had when it came to the Madrid train bombings, Alison? Y'know, when you were just plain wrong, but refused to admit it and scurried away like a scolded toddler claiming that you were going to 'look more into it'?
Your inability to admit when you've made an error is astounding.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1783986.stm
Under communist rule, hundreds of priests and leaders of other religious faiths were shot and imprisoned and the country was declared atheist in 1967.
Okay, hundreds, but my point still stands.
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh and for shits and giggles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457031/html/nn3page1.stm
BLAME: The government, who lost elections held three days after the attacks, initially blamed Basque separatists Eta. But al-Qaeda soon became main line of inquiry.
Detonators and a tape recording of Koranic verses were found inside a white van at Alcala de Henares. Eta denied involvement, while groups linked to al-Qaeda claimed responsibility in a letter and video message.
- Login to post comments
Offline I don't think it's that far off. The Dark Ages lasted about 1000 years, give or take a few hundred. If religion hadn't caused the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, we might have landed on the moon in 969 instead of 1969.
That is the second most ridiculous statement I've ever read on these forums. You have to be kidding.
You also supported this nonsense Mr. natural.
"If possible, we may have even been able to cure old age. Think of it, eternal life"
This is why I sometimes accuse people on this forum of worshiping science.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
- Login to post comments
Offline natural wrote:I don't think it's that far off. The Dark Ages lasted about 1000 years, give or take a few hundred. If religion hadn't caused the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, we might have landed on the moon in 969 instead of 1969.
That is the second most ridiculous statement I've ever read on these forums. You have to be kidding.
You also supported this nonsense Mr. natural.
"If possible, we may have even been able to cure old age. Think of it, eternal life"
This is why I sometimes accuse people on this forum of worshiping science.
I'd say most people don't think we could ever possibly have the techonology to delay old age indefinately. Understanding the details of biology at a molecular level can be a daunting task. Nonetheless, we know that the nature of life, and the workings of the cells are not mysterious at all. Rather the function of life is quite mechanical. Should something break, it can be fixed. Just because we do not fully understand the cause and effects of old age, doesn't mean we won't.
Thinking of the body as an incredibly complicated stack of legos might help. Our body goes through changes throughout life, yes. But if you took every atom in your body at the age of 80, and replaced them with the exact arrangement of your body as they were when you were twenty, then your body would again be as healthy as it were when you were 20.
I'd like to make it clear that I don't believe this is the exact nature of how we could delay death by aging indefinately. It's clear however, that the process of aging is a phyical attribute, and fixing this problem requires a physical response. What reason should we have to believe that we couldn't acquire the understanding necessary in order to respond to this, outside of religious reasons. Science has quite successfully contradicted religion before, and it will time and time again.
Now, you may not believe any of this. But then, I suppose that some people refuse to believe in evolution by means of natural selection, simply because they don't understanding it. All I could do is assure you, that having looked into this a bit, I have no reason to believe that old age couldn't be averted in its entirety. I will say however, that we've made some quite amazing discoveries in only the past fifty years regarding cell biology, and at this rate there's no telling where we'll be in only another fifty years, except to say that it will be much farther than we are now. Unless, science continues to be supressed by religion.
- Login to post comments
Offline But if you took every atom in your body at the age of 80, and replaced them with the exact arrangement of your body as they were when you were twenty, then your body would again be as healthy as it were when you were 20.
Okay then:
1] Wouldn't we lose our memories even if we manage it?
2] How would we do this?
3] How would we re-arrange someone's brain and not kill them?
And that's just the surface.
- Login to post comments
Offline Psychosavant wrote:But if you took every atom in your body at the age of 80, and replaced them with the exact arrangement of your body as they were when you were twenty, then your body would again be as healthy as it were when you were 20.
Okay then:
1] Wouldn't we lose our memories even if we manage it?
2] How would we do this?
3] How would we re-arrange someone's brain and not kill them?
And that's just the surface.
Again, I'd like to reiterate the following:
I'd like to make it clear that I don't believe this is the exact nature of how we could delay death by aging indefinately.
- Login to post comments
Offline natural wrote:I don't think it's that far off. The Dark Ages lasted about 1000 years, give or take a few hundred. If religion hadn't caused the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, we might have landed on the moon in 969 instead of 1969.
That is the second most ridiculous statement I've ever read on these forums. You have to be kidding.
A thousand years of progress is a long time. Compared to 1000 years ago, our technology would appear as magic. Even just anti-biotics would be considered a magical healing potion or whatever.
What's ridiculous is pretending that you know what *isn't* possible.
You also supported this nonsense Mr. natural."If possible, we may have even been able to cure old age. Think of it, eternal life"
Note the words 'if possible' and 'we may'. This is not a prediction, but a speculation. It is not nonsense. If you can develop the technology to indefinitely replace aging tissue with young tissue, then you could potentially live indefinitely without dying of old age. Think about it. There's no obvious reason why it could not happen, given sufficient technology. We're already experimenting with stem cells.
This is why I sometimes accuse people on this forum of worshiping science.
And it's also why you look foolish everytime you do. Science is a tool. We don't worship it, we use it.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
- Login to post comments
Offline Psychosavant wrote:But if you took every atom in your body at the age of 80, and replaced them with the exact arrangement of your body as they were when you were twenty, then your body would again be as healthy as it were when you were 20.
Okay then:
1] Wouldn't we lose our memories even if we manage it?
The brain is actually quite plastic and robust. If the therapy occurred over time, then you could replace a little bit of neurons at a time, and you wouldn't notice any discontinuity. It is quite possible that you would indeed lose your memory, but it would be lost very slowly over long periods, just as we forget things that happened to us in our pasts.
2] How would we do this?
We've already experimented with inserting stem cells into damaged nerve tissue, and the cells automatically arrange themselves to participate in nerve function, regenerating lost function. This was done in some animal, I can't remember the species; maybe rat, maybe monkey, not sure.
It is not so hard to imagine that we can develop stem cell technology sufficiently to insert human brain neuronal stem cells into aging parts of the brain. The stem cells would develop to take part in normal brain function. We already know that the brain is quite plastic, and neurons are constantly re-wiring themselves all the time, as you learn, as you do things.
And that's just the surface.
Actually, you're right. It's only one technique whereby we could conquer old age. Another technique would be to develop machine intelligence sufficiently to have conscious minds in machines. There are about a bazillion ways this could be done. One simple way would be to develop sufficiently powerful simulated neurons. If we study neurons enough, we may be able to develop a functionally identical mechanical counterpart. We could then slowly replace aging neurons with new mechanical ones, as a kind of neural prosthesis.
Another way would be to develop sufficiently advanced software that can simulate a human brain. Then you could upload a copy of your mind onto a computer.
If we develop an even more sophisticated theory of cognition, it might be possible to simulate a mind without going through the trouble of simulating actual neurons.
You're right. Given 1000 years of progress, biological solutions to aging are just scratching the surface of all the possible solutions.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
- Login to post comments
Offline natural wrote:I don't think it's that far off. The Dark Ages lasted about 1000 years, give or take a few hundred. If religion hadn't caused the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, we might have landed on the moon in 969 instead of 1969.
That is the second most ridiculous statement I've ever read on these forums. You have to be kidding.
You also supported this nonsense Mr. natural.
"If possible, we may have even been able to cure old age. Think of it, eternal life"
This is why I sometimes accuse people on this forum of worshiping science.
Which just goes to show that you don't know the first thing about science and reality. Poor guy doesn't realize how technological progress works. It took a hundred years for us to go from horse riding witch burning superstitious idiots who think the world is flat to a space faring society that can cure most of the diseases we've encountered, know that the world is best referred to as an oval sphere, and has harnessed nuclear energies. What kind of idiot are you to think the rest couldn't have been accomplished in another thousand years that religion helped waste? A complete idiot, that's what kind.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Which just goes to show that you don't know the first thing about science and reality. Poor guy doesn't realize how technological progress works. It took a hundred years for us to go from horse riding witch burning superstitious idiots who think the world is flat to a space faring society that can cure most of the diseases we've encountered, know that the world is best referred to as an oval sphere, and has harnessed nuclear energies. What kind of idiot are you to think the rest couldn't have been accomplished in another thousand years that religion helped waste? A complete idiot, that's what kind.
I'm well aware of the scientific progress we have made in the last 100 years. I just don't believe that even without religion, people 1000 years ago could have gone to the moon. If the Holy Roman Empire had been a secular empire, that wouldn't make them suddenly capable of space travel.
And although psychovant made some good points about how exactly a cure to old age would work, I'm just skeptical of something like that actually happening. Human minds have accomplished a lot through scientific discovery, but I don't see eternal life ever happening. Plus, hopes and aspirations for eternal life sound an awful lot like religion to me.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
- Login to post comments
Offline Vastet wrote:
Which just goes to show that you don't know the first thing about science and reality. Poor guy doesn't realize how technological progress works. It took a hundred years for us to go from horse riding witch burning superstitious idiots who think the world is flat to a space faring society that can cure most of the diseases we've encountered, know that the world is best referred to as an oval sphere, and has harnessed nuclear energies. What kind of idiot are you to think the rest couldn't have been accomplished in another thousand years that religion helped waste? A complete idiot, that's what kind.
I'm well aware of the scientific progress we have made in the last 100 years. I just don't believe that even without religion, people 1000 years ago could have gone to the moon. If the Holy Roman Empire had been a secular empire, that wouldn't make them suddenly capable of space travel.
You aren't very good at predicting patterns through time, are you? We were more advanced at the beginning of the dark ages than we were at the end. 5000 years ago there existed construction techniques that still have not been recovered. Technology builds on technology. The dark ages set technology back. If it didn't, it would have progressed naturally as it has more recently.
And although psychovant made some good points about how exactly a cure to old age would work, I'm just skeptical of something like that actually happening.
You have no reason to be. Our bodies are chemical. Other life based on the same chemicals has extended lifespans. Into the thousands of years. There's not a single thing to prevent the same for us, except our lack of technology and knowledge.
Human minds have accomplished a lot through scientific discovery, but I don't see eternal life ever happening. Plus, hopes and aspirations for eternal life sound an awful lot like religion to me.
So learn.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline The thing about this type of speculation is that it assumes all other things are constant.
This aging this is the perfect example. Inserting these stem cells could produce other effects that we just don't know about yet.
Kinda like when scienctists said that smoking didn't cause health effects.
I mean all these "what ifs."
What if we would of had the technology to reach the moon in 969, but it was under a mushroom cloud in 968 because Communist and Capatalist nations decided to have a pissing contest with nuclear weapons.
Pffft like that would ever happened eh?
blah blah blah.
Don't get me wrong speculation isn't really a bad thing, but going over the top with it is. At least this eternal life thing makes less assumptions than the moon in 969.
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh and for the record, I'm not saying it will have negative side effects, or if it did we can't overcome them, I'm saying we don't know.
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm well aware of the scientific progress we have made in the last 100 years. I just don't believe that even without religion, people 1000 years ago could have gone to the moon. If the Holy Roman Empire had been a secular empire, that wouldn't make them suddenly capable of space travel.
Who said anything about 'suddenly'? We're talking about a period of more than 600 years, at a minimum. Rome fell around 400 CE and was declining before that. We could pick an end to the Dark Ages around 1000 CE (many people claim 1066 as a significant date), but you could make an argument to stretch it even longer to the rediscovery of classical philosophical texts at the beginning of the Renaissance. So, at least 600 years, arguably 1000.
Did you know that there were working prototypes of the steam engine as early as 1 CE? Because of the Dark Ages and the loss of so much culture, it took until the mid 1500s to finally bring steam power back.
The steam engine was what drove the industrial revolution. It's not an exaggeration to say that we could have had an industrial revolution in 500 CE instead of 1500. 400 years after steam, we landed on the Moon. So, no, I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that if it weren't for the Dark Ages, we could have landed on the Moon in 969 instead of 1969.
The Dark Ages are the equivalent of having a stroke and having to relearn how to talk, walk, read and write again. Clearly, if you didn't have a stroke, you could have spent those years of rehabilitation doing something much more productive. Instead of writing your Magnum Opus at age 50, you might have written it at age 30.
Human minds have accomplished a lot through scientific discovery, but I don't see eternal life ever happening.
This is simply a lack of imagination. It's like a creationist saying, "Yes, I can see that microevolution happens, but macroevolution is impossible!!!"
Plus, hopes and aspirations for eternal life sound an awful lot like religion to me.
This is silly. So non-religious folks can't have hopes and aspirations? Speculating about what might have been is not religion. Religion is when you turn speculation into dogma. "This is true and you must believe it." That's clearly not what we're doing here.
And by the way, I don't actually aspire or hope for eternal life. I just don't think it's impossible in principle, given sufficient advances in technology.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
- Login to post comments
Offline There's absolutely nothing to indicate that extended life spans in humanity would be any different than extended life spans in another species. Assuming otherwise is a fallacy.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh and for the record, I'm not saying it will have negative side effects, or if it did we can't overcome them, I'm saying we don't know.
Speculation is not about knowing. It's about what is plausible. Going faster than the speed of light is not plausible, given what we know about reality. Developing advanced stem cell technology to regenerate aging brains is plausible. Assuming the Dark Ages had somehow been avoided, then the idea that progress could have continued in a similar fashion to how it occurred after the Renaissance is plausible.
If you force speculation to conform to what we know, then you will kill specuation. The whole point of speculation is to plausibly explore what-if scenarios and things we don't know.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh and for shits and giggles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457031/html/nn3page1.stm
Article wrote:BLAME: The government, who lost elections held three days after the attacks, initially blamed Basque separatists Eta. But al-Qaeda soon became main line of inquiry.
Detonators and a tape recording of Koranic verses were found inside a white van at Alcala de Henares. Eta denied involvement, while groups linked to al-Qaeda claimed responsibility in a letter and video message.
Yeah. So you were wrong.
You can go ahead and say, 'I was wrong' if you like.
The priests in question were killed during a period of sectarian violence, as I already mentioned - not by government hit squads.
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Wow, over-speculate much?
I wholeheartedly agree with Pinapple.
You won't convince many theists with naked assertions like that
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
I don't think it's that far off. The Dark Ages lasted about 1000 years, give or take a few hundred. If religion hadn't caused the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, we might have landed on the moon in 969 instead of 1969.
Of course, that's in a world without religious oppression. We don't live in such a world. So, yes, it is speculation. But as a hypothetical thought experiment, *assuming* no religious oppression, then it's not such a wild idea.
For me the interesting thing about this idea is how religion was able to cause the Dark Ages in the first place. How was Greek philosophy tossed in the trash? Why couldn't it defend itself? What lessons from that event can we bring into our current conflict with religious dogma?
The main lesson I see is not to be complacent, and to tackle religion head-on, rather than assuming it will go away on its own.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
That's about as stupid as saying without Islam we wouldn't have algebra.
Oppression happens in all forms.
The Library could have been destroyed by some various invasion from a rival tribe.
And excuse my excessive skeptisim that all those wars were caused by religion.
No, it's about as accurate as saying that without Islam, the Twin Towers would still be standing.
And it wasn't Islam that discovered Algebra, it was people who happened to live in an Islamic culture. Nothing in the Quran or Hadiths pointed the way. If anything, it is *despite* Islam that some Muslims discovered algebra, just as it was despite Christianity that Galileo, Newton, and Darwin made their discoveries.
But it was endemic Christianity that led to the Dark Ages. I was just using the Library as a symbol for the beginning of it. It is not the burning of the Library that I'm blaming the Dark Ages on, it is the religious culture that led to the Library's destruction, which also brought about similar anti-intellectual destruction throughout the Roman Empire. (Not that I think the Roman Empire was so great either, but it happened to be the region that Christianity infected and destroyed, and which was the patron of Greek philosophy at that time. When Rome fell, Greek philosophy fell with it, barely surviving ironically in Muslim hands.)
Religion, as a tool used to influence large masses of people, and which often even influences the leaders who instigate wars, is undeniably linked to wars that would have been impossible or unlikely without it. It's hard to motivate people to fight for you if you proclaim, "My cousin refuses to pay taxes to me, so go and get me my money," but it's easy if you can proclaim, "I am your rightful king, by God's decree, and I command you to destroy the blasphemous Duke of Whatevershire, who consorts with the Devil, by the way." It especially works if larges numbers of people buy into that myth. If you are 'skeptical' of that, are you also skeptical that the 9/11 hijackers committed suicide because of their religious beliefs?
At what point, after hearing their religious declarations on video tapes, crying God is Great as they cut off people's heads, will you finally say, "Okay, that's a genuine act of religiously motivated violence"? Why not just believe them at their face value? When someone says "I killed my son because God told me to", why don't you believe them, rather than making excuses like, "Well, that's just someone who's mentally ill, and their religious language is just their language for expressing their illness"? Why don't you accept that maybe, just maybe, the actual religious beliefs could be causing all this crazy behaviour?
It sure makes for a more parsimonious answer. Religions are full of crazy ideas. Some people actually believe these ideas. Some of those people actually act on those beliefs.
To believe that religions are responsible for many wars is about as uncontroversial as you can get, in my book.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Rival tribe? Did I read that right? These were large nations, not tribes. And the people who destroyed they Library were apart of the same movement that denied Greek writings to all of Europe for centuries on end. We are lucky that people in the middle east preserved ancient Greek writings. I think the point is that an anti-intellectual culture was created by the members of a particular religion. That culture plunged the West in the Dark Ages.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
I attrubite it to human nature.
I see remarkable similarities between secular and religious groups.
From Enver Hoxha to President Ma........however the fuck you spell the President of Iran's name
both brutal leaders, one atheist, one Muslim.
atheist pounce on this "See [insert secular ideology, Communism/Socialism/Nationalism etc... here] is a religion!"
No, they are both expressions of human greed and thirst for power, but of course some people take religion too far. WAY too far.
Of course Hamas, for example, are religious extremests, but I also think the Marxist-Lennist PFLP should take at least some credit [about 1/3 of the credit between 1980 and 2003 to be exact] of the Palenstian suicide bombings.
You can try to pin 9/11 on Islam, but I think U.S foreign policy deserves it's slice of the pie.
Other wise, how could we possibly speak out against Abu Gharab or Gtimo bay? "Well they're Muslim, they beleive we're infidels."
Or for that matter, it doesn't matter how many people the U.S pisses off. They're going to attack us anyway.
Bin Laden sure as fuck didn't preach to us when we gave him Stinger Missiles during the 80s.
I'm not going to sit here and say "They're not a TRUE Muslim/Christian/Civil Engineer" I'm saying there's more to it than that.
No one knows for sure who burned the library.
Was it Julius Caesar in 48 BCE? Or was it Aurelian in the 3rd century? Or the result of a decree by the patriarch of Alexandria Theophilus in 391 CE? Or was it the Muslims invasion in 642CE?
Blame can't be clearly placed on religion for this destruction.
see for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria
or:
http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Of course you do.
It's easy to lay blame on things you have no understanding of.
EDIT:
No. He thanked the Americans for assisting him in killing the, "Evil Communist Atheists".
But I suppose that sentiment has absolutely nothing to do with religion either?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Of course. Because it couldn't *possibly* be the case that what people believe influences their actions. No. It all comes down to some mysterious 'human nature'. That's just the way it is, and we'll never be able to predict or understand what someone does based on their mere beliefs.
Nope. When people go to the bank machine to withdraw money, it's not because they believe they have money in a bank account and an agreement with the bank that they can withdraw their money from the bank machine. Nope. It's because they have 'human nature' to push buttons on certain machines and to take the pieces of paper that emerge. It has nothing to do with their beliefs at all.
When the American people (most of them) went along with the Iraq War, it wasn't because they actually *believed* what Bush and his cronies told them about WMDs and whatnot. Nope. Nothing to do with their beliefs at all. Human nature, I tells ya. Just go on random wars with countries that have nothing to do with recent terrorist events. No connection at all between beliefs and actions.
Both with silly beliefs.
I never said that religion was the *only* cause of crazy behaviour. You're pulling out all the typical responses. "Well dumbasses who happen to be atheists do dumb things too!!!!!oneoneeleventyone!!" No shit. My thesis is not that religion is the only cause of dumbassery, it is that dumbass beliefs lead to dumbass behaviours, and religion happens to be chock full of dumbass ideas. And it's also contagious dumbassery.
Please quote me saying that.
No, they are both dumbass ideas that people actually believe, and base their behaviour on. Religion just happens to be the more popular variety, and also the most deeply embedded, and hence more dangerous.
You are defending dumbass ideas by pointing out that there are also *other* dumbass ideas???
Here's what I *actually* asked you:
You have failed to answer this question. Instead you toss out a straw man and a bunch of red herrings.
I did not claim that 9/11 was solely the result of Islam. I *asked* you if you were skeptical of religious beliefs motivating the hijackers' actions. Are you?
What a ridiculous and insulting non-sequitur. You really believe I would make an argument like this?: "Muslims were motivated to fly planes into buildings because of their beliefs about the afterlife -- therefore nobody can criticize US torture." Seriously, WTF!?!? Are you high? Do you read what others write before you respond?
You know what? The US torture crimes are just as good ammunition for my arguments as the 9/11 hijackers. US officials *believe* that torture is a valuable and worthwhile tool for interrogation, therefore they *act* to develop 'legal' justifications for torture. Then, their subordinates *believe* that they are justified in torturing prisoners, so they *act* to torture said prisoners.
If they didn't believe they were justified, do you think they would have tortured them? After all, it's just human nature, right? Captors torture prisoners, that's just the way it is, regardless of beliefs, right?
Please, Captain, make a solid argument, next time, would ya?
You know who he *did* preach to though? His followers. He told them about martyrdom and afterlife. And they believed it. And look what happened.
But you never say exactly what 'more' there is. Please, Captain, exactly what 'more' is there to beliefs influencing actions? Especially actions on a large cultural scale, like how large populations make war on other large populations. And how large groups of people turn into anti-intellectual thugs, murderers, and vandals, that specifically target certain kinds of cultural artifacts (such as Greek philosophical writings) while protecting and proliferating other scarcely indistinguishable cultural artifacts (such as Bibles). Please explain these phenomena without reference to people's crazy beliefs.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I took psych courses in University.
Hate to tell you this, but humans are not alone in aggressive behaviour.
So when a cougar mawls an innocent hiker, what religion should I assume the cougar is?
Yeah the Soviets were there for tea and cookies.
Interesting he never attacked Moscow since hmmm?
Do you know how many Muslims are there in the world?
I'm quite sure they beleive they will get a ticket to hevean and yet, no ka-boom.
So what? They don't actually believe? Or maybe the religious belief has to be coupled with another belief?
Not you specifically, but I have heard it several times.
Just trying to cover all the bases
Motivate what? The aggression against America, or committing act itself?
If it's the aggression towards America, then I think it can play a role [saying America is Satan for example], but it's so much easier for them to portray America as Satan when America is acting the part.
If it's committing the act I don't know. It most certaintly had some part. See last point.
Prisoner's dilema much?
I think the religious belief would have to coupled with another one. The question of course is said belief is enough to motivate the action.
Which is why I brought up *other dumbass ideas*, keeping with the example, I wonder if Hamas dropped their religious views, would they just become PFLP II?
It's because they're the only ones they have, and it's more or less the moderate's sworn duty to protect & enable the fundies.
It also doesn't help that Alison pretends to know more about history and politics than she actually does. I mean, let's take a look at the Enver Hoxha example: in order for it to be valid, we'd have to see that his totalitarian policies were based on premises he derived strictly from secularism. Of course, since deriving any such premise is impossible, that's not what we see at all.
Hoxha was a devout admirer of Joseph Stalin and emulated his policies. Of course, he wasn't a sociopath like Stalin was (which was the real cause for that particular leader's horrific crimes) - he was simply convinced of the effectiveness of Stalin's social policies. In some areas this was extremely positive; he managed to almost erase the abhorrent problems with illiteracy in Albania, he illegalized blood feuds, he encouraged such significant growth in medical care that Malaria and Syphillis were both effectively eliminated and bridged the lingual gap in his country through ingeniously simple policy measures.
In others areas, however, the policies were jaw-droppingly horrifying. Women were relegated to a bizarre 3rd-rate citizenship class, afforded essentially no more rights than a classical era slave. Abortions were completely illegalized (not for relgious reasons, but for what Hoxha saw as a pragmative directive to exponentially increase Albania's population - and, thereby, increase it's industrial and military capacity. What he apparently failed to grasp was that newborn babies required considerable time and resources to grow before they could make contributions to the economy). Trade was impeded by paranoia (some of which Stalin himself happily supplied), and later severed entirely over the perception of invasive 'revisionist' socialism.
Between failed communist economic plans, trade barriers and a tragically timed famine, Albania's coffers emptied and Hoxha stubbornly blamed and purged his colleagues. He finally had a heart attack and had to choose a successor and retire, paving the way for a future recovery.
Now, it's true that Enver rather coldly shut down just about every Mosque and house of worship in the country, seized all of their assets and enforced 'atheist schooling' (somewhat similar to what Stalin did in the Soviet Union) - however, it should be emphasized that this is not what caused Albania's woes (in fact, it proved invaluable with respect to some of Hoxha's most successful policies; in particular, ending the nation's illteracy rate). The leader's lack of certain fundamental principles of science are what caused them.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Michael Behe took courses on evolutionary science; clearly he didn't grasp what he was being taught either.
This would be a strawman.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I'm sure that is an interesting fact in imagination land.
Of course, here in reality, the nearly 400 people killed in the Beslan school crisis is rather at odds with that idea.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Sorry, I left the "We love terrorists" meeting during Arts and Crafts so I missed the latest arguments.
HOLY SHIT ID MUST BE RIGHT!!!
Did you grasp's' basic grammar?
Your last post was the perfect example of that. I never said Hoxha did it because he was secular.
Hey, wanna guess what I think the reason is?
But oh wait maybe if the cougar thought about it's beliefs it wouldn't have done it right?
Those were Chechen seperatists but thanks for playing.
So you're renouncing your prior comparison of him & his 'secular ideology' (your words) with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his support of Sharia law, then?
That was a typo, you pampered little eastern coast bitch.
Did you 'grasp' basic grammar, by chance? Because the quoted sentence is gramatically abysmal.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I was comparing their actions, not ideologies.
By your own admission Hoxha enslaved women, Pres Iran does the same.
Hoxha will cap your ass if you even looked at him funny, Pres Iran will stone you.
Hoxha made not being an atheist illegal, Pres Iran, made not being a Muslim illegal.
LOL
I'll be fair: this depends on whose intelligence you favor. Personally, given the relatively successful track record of Russian intelligence over the years, I tend to trust them.
Russian intelligence linked Shamil Basayev with an international terrorist ring, several of whose members had connections with Al Quaeda, not the Chechan seperatist movement (Aslan Maskhadov himself denied any connection with the attack and insisted that Basayev was acting independently of the seperatists). They based this off of phone calls they intercepted from the school being made to sympathizers in Saudi Arabia and an undisclosed muslim nation.
Unfortunately, Putin's hotheaded policies with regard to both groups has largely closed-off opportunities for further investigation. Maskhadov was killed by commandos in a raid shortly after having a bounty put on his head, and Putin refused any and all opportunities to negotiate with Basayev.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
A) You're incorrect on the last two charges. It was not illegal to be a theist in Albania; Hoxha simply refused to house the orthodoxy in his country. Hoxha was also not an absolute despot, and was not notorious at all for iron fisted policies of silencing dissent. He was stubborn and naive, and in the later portion of his rule, desperate (as he tried to live in denial of some obvious fatal flaws in his beloved doctrine) - but it would hardly be accurate to portray him as a Stalin-esque totalitarian.
B) If you aren't comparing the ideologies, what's the point of even bringing them up then? If you aren't attempting to establish a common thread between the actions of two seperate people, your posts are just a waste of space.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Well, their demands pretty much spell out a Chechen separatists agenda, since they literally asked for Chechen separation.
A) Hoxha attempted to create the first atheist state and atheism was written in the consitution. And yeah, he kinda killed a couple thousand religious leaders. But if you want to be nit picky replace Hoxha with Stalin or Pol Pot.
B) If two people have completely different ideologies, then why do they exhibit remarkably similar behaviour?
...As well as the release of up to 200 terrorists from Russian prisons.
Albania was not an 'atheist state'. Again, if you want to make that claim, you need to explain how it is that Hoxha derived his policies strictly from the premise of atheism.
And Enver did not kill a few thousand religious leaders. That's just plain incorrect. There was unrest and sectarian violence throughout the country as he seized property from Muslim churches, be he did not condone it or set his own agents out to participate in it.
Alison, are you trying to compare the two or not? If you are, then go ahead and retract your argument that I constructed a strawman fallacy when I demonstrated that Hoxha did not derive his policies from atheism.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Hey Soapy Sam, answer the fucking question that you've dodged twice. Here it is one more time:
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
This is true. Theists only accept naked assertions if they appear to conform to the naked assertions they were indoctrinated into believing before they could formulate thoughts. But once that's true, their acceptance of naked assertions is a virtual frenzy.
I was actually going to write that myself, but decided against it for fear of going into yet another of my long meandering posts.
But I agree.
The point is, all people have the capasity for sceptisism. Indeed, most people will be naturally sceptical towards something which is either completely alien, or counter to what they allready believe.
A theist could say to the above naked assertion: "How can you know that?" and they would be right in saying so.
I agree with all of the objections Alison has raised to it. I too believe people are naturally inclined to doing all sorts of destructive things, and to me Religion is just an incidental reason for these destructive things. It's just an excuse for being a dickhead.
And certainly, I'll say that Religion can make you a dickhead, even if you weren't from the beginning.
The quote: "with or without religion there'd be good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion" is very true to me.
I believe many people do things that they at some level don't want to do, because they feel compelled to do so because of their religious delusions.
However, war and destruction and pain and so on happens all the time, in secular societies as well. And had human civilisation been "secular" from the get-go, then who's to say that it would have been so much more peaceful and beautiful?
After all, people used to sometimes kill and burn down libraries in the name of their King, rather than their God, and a secular society can have a King as well.
History would have looked wildly different without religion, of that there can be little doubt. But exacly how it would be diiferent I think is not for anyone to say. There are far far too many variables to make an educated guess on how human history from the very beginning would be different if one major component of human culture was taken out.
I feel compelled to ask: "how can you know that?"
I mean, let's just take 60 years, and one variable: Hitler.
If Hitler had died in the trenches in WWI, then there is no doubt that the last sixty years of world history would look very different indeed.
But I defy anyone here to give an educated guess on how exactly the world would look today if that had happened.
Think about Israel, if the holocaust hadn't happened. The Cold War. Would the Japanese still have bombed Pearl Habour? And if they didn't, what would Japan be like today? And what about The European Union?
The point is, speculating about alternative histories is very fun, but it is just that: speculation. Don't pretend like it is more than that.
...see how I start to meander? This is why I shouldn't post anything but short quick replies.
But for the record, the whole problem with Theists is that they accept naked assertions, so obviously it's not that they are sceptical towards everything.
But when they are, they are not always wrong. Being sceptical towards an assertion like the above excerpt from the OP is not at all unreasonable.
Consider this: If there had never been religion, then maybe the tribal wars of pre-history might have been different, because they would not be religiously motivated. Human expensantion across the globe would thus have been different, and maybe more would have stayed in Africa longer than they did in real history, thus putting a different strain on the African biosphere.
Maybe therefore, animals that would have otherwise been crucial in the evolution of the AIDS virus, would have gone extinct a long time ago, thus resulting in AIDS never even appearing in the first place.
If AIDS was never here in the first place, then how could we cure it a thousand years ago with our no-religion empowered science?
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
Meh. Using those assertions against the standard uneducated christian will work at least some of the time. But if you use them against one who has an education, you're not only going to get screwed by him, but everyone witnessing it will have been lost to the merits within your arguments.
Ironically, many of your assertions are likely accurate. But there's just no way to prove it or even suggest the likelyhood of such. Religion was not the only cause for the dark ages. There was an impact that has been theorized to have done much of the harm.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Those are Hoxha's words not mine.
I'm not saying that. Sheesh
Yeah he did. I'm trying to pull references but I have a horrible memory.
Alison, are you trying to compare the two or not? If you are, then go ahead and retract your argument that I constructed a strawman fallacy when I demonstrated that Hoxha did not derive his policies from atheism.
I never said he derived from atheism. Christ on a stick.
I already answered this. Right below the comment you quoted.
I said I didn't know, but it's most likely that they did. Before you jump on me for that, see the rest of my post.
BUT GUYS WHAT IF SCIENCE PROSPERED AND THEN THE JAPANESE ENGINEERED GODZILLA AND THEN HE CAME AND BURNED DOWN MY HOUSE BEFORE I COULD POST THIS MESSAGE!!!!!!!!