Summer means no religion or politics?

[loominous]

I think atheists/agnostics tend to underestimate the importance of the christian tradition that has lead us up to our current western civilization. In a way it's akin to grandchildren bashing the dated ideas of grandparents, forgetting that they're part of the same evolving idea tradition.

The main quite radical contribution of christianity in my opinion is the concept of everyone having been created equal. There are of course passages about women being subordinated that muddies the waters, but it's a strikingly modern view in any case.

I personally fear that we wouldn't have adopted this view in a purely secular tradition, or that at least it would've taken quite a bit longer.

And frankly there's no guarantee it would've or will prevail in a purely secular society, which makes religious moral absolutes like these quite handy, though other nonsensical ideas and the blind faith mentality brings along other severe problems.

The odd thing is that seculars have started to outperform christians in their own game in many respects. If you would have an objective observer judge what group most embodies caring for the poor and shunned of today (with the one exception of fetuses, though it's a kind of gray area), it would most likely be the left, famously secular.

I think this is a real shame, and a serious problem for christianity, which undermines its legitimacy and detracts followers.

I would welcome a sort of radical religious section of society, which truly embodied empathy, could go as far as to be vegans, which would act as a moral extreme, kind of like green parties, to keep secularism from heading off in wrong directions.

Otherwise, the left to me is doing a heck of a better job of being the movement of the poor and ostracized.

[Nacho]

Of course it's not necessary... But if you are told by your parents, when you were 4, that there is a guy who can walk over the waters, it' s easier to believe that a wristband can cure your reume when you are 30.

Not necessary, no, but helps a lot. Also, the politically correct no sense of "respect my beliefs" that has spread aover the society make more difficults for skeptics to attack lot of supernatural stuff hidden into a religious disguise, like "voodoo ceremonies", "oriental ki channels" and "reiki" stuff, for example.

[miguel]

Why would sceptics attack other people?
To defend their non-believing position forcing others to be non-believers?
Even you, Natcho, you don't believe, fair enough, why do you want me not to believe?

[Akatosh]

Hm... maybe, maybe not. It probably depends on the education you've gotten in the mean time; it's a rather trivial observation that the more you understand about how stuff works, the less vulnerable you are to "magical thinking" like that. I've been raised a Protestant, and so far the only crystals I have in my room is a geode (which looks neat, but has so far failed to cure my short-sightedness).

Also, you really really don't need religion for a pro-"common good" society like that. Case in point: Kantianism. Plus, the RCC actually enforced a caste-like system during less-than-honorable parts of its history, with a monarch on top (because you are to honor rulers, as they are appointed by god), followed by the clergy (because they alone know how to interpret the sacred word) and assorted nobles (because they, having or being capable of raising soldiers, protect agains the unbelievers), with everybody else being rock bottom (peasants because they're pretty much a consequence of God's curse upon humanity, traders because YHWH hates wealth, ...). To this day, the RCC still has an authoritarian structure. Christianity is not above being interpreted in this way.

And we don't attack other people... just their beliefs. Ultimately, you're free to belief whatever you want, but as soon as you make falsifiable claims, they will be scrutinized like every other theory out there. Why should we treat you guys any different than anybody else?

[Khris]

loominous:
That's really a weird way of seeing the past.
I'd rather say that equality was rising in several respects in spite of the firm grip of the church. Which also perfectly explains why secular people are on the forefront of equality movements today.

Humanists don't underestimate the importance of Christian tradition, they usually just doubt it has any.
Our secular morals developed out of a resistance against traditional Christian "morals".
All people or groups who really tried to make a difference were usually hunted down by church people.

One doesn't need a 1500-years long history of oppression, lying and bloodshed to come up with ideas like "all humans have equal rights".


Miguel:
I'm sure Nacho (without a "t") meant something more like "expose" rather than "attack".
There are armies of frauds out there using mainstream religious belief to screw people over.

[miguel]

Akatosh, is there any other sceptics purpose than attacking the beliefs of people? I mean, you can discuss and debate religion and organized religions but at least they have something to say. Instead the existence of sceptics is just absurd, it's a non-existence.
Also, I think it's funny that you keep going back to Middle-Age to support your hate on religion, because in 1000 years from now people may consider our time to be "middle-age" as well.
Why do you sound like you are being called out by the inquisition in the middle of the night? Were you somehow injured by priests in your lifetime?

Khris, religion has been established long ago as one of the pillars of humanity in what we all consider decent laws towards human rights. That is a fact, no point denying it. So were the thinkers of history with equal amount of responsibility I accept that, meaning Man can, by its intelligence achieve a greater state of mind that makes him responsible and fair towards other men. The difference here is that a single man does little for the sake of mankind, without backup (military, money, land, Jesus only had his Father btw) to drive people together to fight for what we consider right, he will often be considered a nut case.
And I'm not so sure Nacho (sorry about writing your name wrong pal) did not meant attack literally considering his view on this topics. Do you not think this thread is a deliberate attack/revenge on religious people? Many do sound like it. Thank God, some like yourself are willing to expose your thoughts without trying to make it ridiculous.
 
   

[Akatosh]

... so rational thought doesn't actually exist? Critical thinking is non-existence? It's better to believe in any old garbage, as long as you believe in something? By gosh, excuse me for thinking about stuff instead of accepting it at face value! I shall believe in anything I'm told from now on.

I don't hate religion, and I haven't been hurt by priests either (although Mr. Himmelmann has a tendency to bore you to tears, despite his awesome name). I think it rather silly, that's all, but as I said... you are free to believe whatever you want. However, your philosophical views will be debated and your falsifiable claims will be examined, just as with every other theory or philosophy on the planet. I quite frankly don't see why we should enforce a double standard for you guys.
I cited the Middle Ages purely because it was the first example that came to mind, that's all. Religious persecution still goes on in the world, to this day. Try saying you're an unbeliever in, say, Saudi Arabia. They're still somewhat polite to the "people of the book", but Atheists or Agnostics? Better have a fast method of transportation near.

Nice claims there. Why should religion be a "pillar of humanity in what we all consider decent laws towards human rights"? The Bible directly denies us Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Religion and basically aims to force us to adhere to a strict set of arbitrary orders (go Book Leviticus!) under threat of extreme torture, without a fair trial. Heck, the system it proclaims is no more and no less than a dictatorship, what with Judicative, Executive and Legislative powers concentrated in the hands of one person, who threatens a fate worse than death upon us if we dare to dissent. Plus, that guys actually violates the laws he himself set up. That... doesn't sound very humane to me.

[miguel]

Sorry to hit on the same piano key here but you did say that sceptics attack people beliefs and I don't know how rational that can be or its value to humanity.
Critical thinking is perfect if the point is to achieve a goal, not to deny every other ideas.

The same old garbage you mention are people that help others without monetary reward in countries and conditions that I hope you'll never have to face. Why don't you mention that? Why don't you talk about the thousands of free thinking Christians that today, not in the middle-ages or in any given period of time you may mention give away part of their salaries to families in Africa? Do you have any idea of what your local church contributes to your town/city? Can't you please go there and listen to them for 10 minutes and ask what is their current concern and what plans they have?
If you want numbers I can give out some dozens of Christian orphanages that we have in Portugal. Do you know how much this people earn?
Please respect yourself by respecting others.

[Akatosh]

Simply put, if a belief collapses as soon as it is questioned... why hold it? If it doesn't line up with reality... why pretend it was true? If a concept is not needed to explain the facts... why slap it on? If you were right, you should be able to defend your worldview without resorting to attacks on logic, of all things.

Sure, people help other people. Sometimes the former people are religious, sometimes they aren't. From what I have seen, the distribution sort of reflects that within the general population, so I'm not really sure what your point is. I left church after a lot of agonising soul-searching, and am now donating the money I save that way (Germany has a 'church tax') to charity directly, ensuring that the money goes to the needy, instead of risking it to be sunk into more church pomp. Personally, I'd be much more comfortable if people used their money to further, say, cancer research instead of having it wasted on bigger mosques or better ceremonial wine.

It's nice of religions to use some of their income to help the needy. I'm just not sure why you would need the middle man.

(Also, with all the suffering they have caused and, sometimes, still cause, I think they have a lot to make up for, as well. )

[loominous]

Khris:

Not sure if you're still stuck in science vs religion mode, but what I wrote about involved the moral idea that "All humans are equal". While it may sound trite to us in this day and age, it's still a radical one and has made its way to us through our christian tradition.

I have plenty of beefs with christianity, but I think we should give credit where credit's due, and as far as I know, we owe this radical idea, adopted and cultivated later on by secular movements, to christianity.

I don't see how it's by any means a natural idea, though it would be really nice if it was/is.

Having faith that a secular culture would've developed the idea without a similar religious tradition seems a bit optimistic in my view, but as we don't have any purely secular cultures to compare with, I guess we're stuck with speculation.

[Matti]

But that's only half of the truth. While saying that all humans are 'equal', throughout the middle ages the christian church defended the idea that kings and other absolutist leaders were chosen by god, thus not questionable*, unless of course the church was in conflict with said man. Also, as it's been said already, women NEVER had the same rights as men and non-christians neither.

And if christianity wouldn't have put europe into a 1000 year long complete downtime, who knows if the western civilizations wouldn't have come to modern systems of equality rights even earlier?

* even Martin Luther told the poor that they have no right to stand up against their opressors (only to read the bible in their mother language..)

[miguel]

Well Akatosh, that belief hasn't collapse yet and 2 millennium have passed since Jesus walked among us. The Church has nothing but old stories and uncool things to defend but still it hasn't collapsed. Among the thousand of daily crimes committed only in the USA the ones that show in the papers are the ones involving priests or characters like O.J.Simpson but still the belief in God hasn't collapsed. Yet, you claim it has and are ready to label and call believers persons without logic.
You rather pay a fee to your government (can you not pay?) and trust them with your money because all politicians are honest and care for the needy, right?
You will never trust your money to your local priest because he doesn't make sense to you. Besides he'll probably just spend it on Armani clothes, right?
As a side note, just google for Christian Universities around the globe and check what they are doing concerning cancer treatment.
       

[loominous]

Mr Matti:

Sure, we can't know what would've occurred without christianity: perhaps a secular utopia, perhaps a social darwinistic nightmare.  All we know is that we're currently adopting the same absolute that was introduced to our culture by a christian figure, and that while we currently hold it as self evident, there's little self evident about it.

[Khris]

We can take a look at other religious countries though. Women are still worth less in countries dominated by Hinduism and Islam and they usually have societies similar to what we had decades or even centuries ago.
To me it seems that industrialization, higher average wealth and a free-market economy are the main factors that drive equality movements. Not some Christian idea that was neglected by Christians for over a millennium.

We mustn't forget that organized religion is mainly a tool to control the masses using fear. That's what the romans instrumentalized Christianity for in the first place and that's how it got to become as big as it is today.

While the absolute of "all men are equal" might not be self-evident, being a Christian is much less so. And wasn't it "all men are equal before God"? (Which isn't exactly the same in my book.)

[miguel]

Khris, you're absolutely right. The "Do you fear God" question was and still is the main tool used by organized religions when dealing with undeveloped societies. The thing is, today and in the modern world we (meaning us at the forums) live, information is at the end of our fingertips and if I'm interested I can just follow some anti-Christ movement and have all the history about it, achievements, failures, main news on the media, and so on, within 10 seconds. Meaning people were never this free to choose what to believe. And that, in my opinion is a good thing.
I don't agree when you say Christians have abandoned their original ideas, they still are the force towards charity.
As for women rights, it's clear that they have evened the balance this days, with a lot of effort sometimes against prejudice and manly habits than the Church.
On a personal level, do I fear God?
I fear not have lived knowing Him. Not because I plan on going to heaven but because I'd feel unfulfilled without Him.

   

[Lionmonkey]

Lionmonkey:
Science invented axioms. Your point being...?
Stating that "A and B implies A" isn't exactly the same as "The Holy Ghost impregnated a women."

A mere choise of words.
My point being that people always attribute what happens around them to some super-potent forces.

There is an infinite amount of statements that cannot be disproved. Need an Example? "There is a god."

Okay, let me expand this: There is an infinite amount of statements that both can be neither proven nor disproven, They just stay as a person's opinion.

Yes, science's and religion's methodology of getting to truth is fundamentally different.

First, don't confuse theory with practise. Second, you actually can put the 3rd and 4th step in faith-based metology somewhere in the middle or in the end of the Scientific Method, depending on the science. Humans are quite not trustible.

Yes, if properly conducted, the reproductions will be genuine.

They won't be perfectly genuine, because the reproducer won't be able to keep all of the billion conditions in mind.

I don't mean communist countries, I'm talking about Scandinavian ones or the Netherlands, for example. Social Democracies, afaik.

Sorry if I confused something, it's just that doesn't the communist regime prohibit religion? Is there any way to become less religious?

Read up on what kings and popes told the people why they wanted to go on the crusades. No matter what other motives they had (if any), the people fought and killed each other to get back the holy land from the respective infidels.

Actually, if I was taught properly, most europeans came there because the pope promised to clear out the sins for everyone who participated.

The Quran plainly tells believers to convert or kill infidels.

You're the first person I head saying that Quaran tells anything plainly.

But did you ever hear about an army of Newtonians raiding a university that teaches relativity?
Wait, you're right, I'll wait what the future holds. It's bound to happen sometime.

Were all the evil geniuses in comics just a fruit of brainstorming? Let's pick one that doesn't have any parauniversal superpowers and ask ourselves: Is this really impossible for this to happen in real life?
Plus, people have done homicide in the name of far less important things.

One can't "justify" anything using anything, not in the sense I was using the word at least. There are people who think it's OK to kill an abortion doctor because they view him as a mass murderer. These people don't consider themselves wrong or as criminals, they're doing what they think is right and just. Same with suicide bombers. They think that what they do is what Allah expects them to do.
A sane atheist can't justify bad deeds in the same way, he'll always know that what he does is wrong.

Then why are there atheist criminals? Are they all insane because they don't act as a "normal" atheist would? Or maybe they've foud some way to justify their deeds, at least for themselves.

I don't see how you learned anything here; and you're still failing basic logic.

Well, then tell me please, what do you mean by "basic logic"? And how have I failed it?

[Nacho]

Why would sceptics attack other people?
To defend their non-believing position forcing others to be non-believers?
Even you, Natcho, you don't believe, fair enough, why do you want me not to believe?

Because it makes me feel embarrassed to see adult (and supposedly intelligent) people to believe some things...

[Khris]

Lionmonkey:
What you're doing sounds an awful lot like trolling since there doesn't seem to be a shred of consistency to some of your arguments. Either that or me replying without quotes badly derailed your trains of thought.


How is "A and B implies A" a super-potent force? Do you even read what ends up in your posts?

You were asking "Is there anything that can not be disproved?"
So I told you, yes, many things. How does your answer even apply to my answer?
Logic FAIL.

You're discrediting science again. Oh my. There might be a few scientists who indeed hold on to ideas despite contradicting evidence, but they end up being ignored by the scientific consensus, got it?
And yes, exactly, properly conducted reproduction will be genuine. It's just that you questioned that in your last post, and now you're confirming it yourself? Make up your mind.
Logic FAIL.

I was talking about countries with a high living standard; that doesn't exactly apply to communist ones, as anybody with a basic knowledge of economy would know.
See, you don't really attack my argument if you twist and maim it beforehand.
So, NO, not North Korea or Cuba, the NETHERLANDS, for example, or NORWAY, or FINLAND.
Logic FAIL.

And there's the next brainfuck: I was the one who said people went on crusades for religious reasons. Then you said you learned it was actually for territorial, political and economical reasons. One post later you tell me you learned people participated to get their SINS cleared.
FAIL, just FAIL.

"Then why are there atheist criminals?"
Aargh. How does that contradict my statement that atheists are aware they're doing something bad? Again, EXTREME LOGIC FAIL.
To spell it out: Atheist criminals are aware that they're doing something bad, just like catholic criminals.
My point was that a (sane) atheist wouldn't kill an abortion doctor in the first place, and if he did, he'd know he deserved punishment.
But the guy who shot Dr. Tiller DOESN'T. He feels he did the right thing.

From now on I'll simply ignore statements of yours that contradict what you've said before. If there is a valid argument in your response, I'll address it.

[Misj']

Just about everything you said

I hate to do this, but apparently I have to: KhrisMUC, you sound like an arrogant idiot who completely lacks any sense of (even the most basic) reason and logic (let alone creativity, because just about each of your flawed arguments are a direct copy-paste from others). Your argumentation is largely based on bashing, attacking, and insulting those who do not share your opinion. But even more importantly (to me at least): you lack even the most basic understanding of what science is.

Despite this total lack of understanding even the most basic properties (and limitations) of science, you consider yourself to be worthy of being a teacher in exactly these subjects as shown by the quote below:

I think if just one believer with an open mind learned something about science or atheism, the existence of this thread is justified.

Based on what so called logic or reason do you consider yourself to have that credibility?

And if someone points out that your views are wrong, you immediately claim that this person is attacking the rationalist/scientific viewpoint...

I'm still curious by the way why you're almost exclusively attacking the rationalist/scientific viewpoint.

Even though he's just trying to correct YOUR incorrect (non-rational, and non-scientific) ideas about science itself.

Of course you will disagree with this, because you claim:

Which is consistent with their world-view, btw., because rational behavior includes the ability of accepting the own belief system to be wrong.

Truth is, that you have shown over and over that you are incapable to accepting just that. So that either means that you are not a rationalist (which is a conclusion I agree with), or that you are flat-out lying to us (and I give you the benefit of the doubt by considering you irrational rather than liar).

So KhrisMUC, to quote you:
I knew it would be only a matter of time before you'd start to piss me off with silly posts. Business as usual I guess. If there really is a point to [those] posts of yours, try to convey it like an adult please.

Please tell me, why would anyone listen to you even though your view of science is flat-out incorrect (as pointed out several times)?


Ps. What you have achieved in this thread is that I have lost all respect that I've had for you...if that is the kind of achievement you're thriving for then I congratulate you.
Pps. I consider you an insult to atheists, and even though you (apparently desperately) want to be a teacher and a spokesperson for them, you neither represent them nor their ideas in my opinion.

Ppps. These remarks do not address atheists or atheism in general!

[Akatosh]

That's a great post there, Misj'. Now, would you mind going to play outside while the adults talk?

Seriously. Khris has so far been one of the most level-headed people in this thread, and I daresay his understanding of science is a fair bit better than that of most people who posted here. Also, I seem to have missed the point where he accused believers of having been responsible for National Socialism, or claimed skepticisim was worse than satanism (miguel's post implied that), or has been trying to discredit critical thought and observation. I mean, what the heck?