Comments by knox
Comment #38480 by knox on May 8, 2007 at 9:15 am
Dylan - Rainy Day Woman - exactly. Thanks.
2. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it
Comment #38402 by knox on May 8, 2007 at 2:31 am
"In a another passage Harris goes even further, and reaches a disturbing conclusion that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them".
I don't know which is more chilling. The fact that Harris said this or that people on this thread have defended it. To kill people for believing something! I have been arguing on numerous threads on this site that the danger of fundamentalist atheism is that it is intolerant and without restraint. When I say so the usual suspects come on and ask for proof. Sam has provided it in spades. This is not a fringe nutter on an atheist MB but one of the founding prophets of the new atheism. It is really scary.
For once I agree with Brian. It may be right (although personally I do not think it is) to kill people who do things that are so evil that it deserves death. How can it ever be right to kill people because they believe the wrong thing?
God help us.
Comment #38400 by knox on May 8, 2007 at 2:21 am
40. Comment #37984 by Carter Maxwell on May 6, 2007 at 3:08 pm
"But I'm pleased beyond measure if I was proven wrong about your response. Of course, that was part of my intent -- to shame you into a displaying a modicum of intellectual integrity."
I think this is the equivalent of an atheist apology so I'll take it thanks. Glad to have enlightened you.
.
42. Comment #38018 by Creeping Jesus on May 6, 2007 at 5:09 pm
"Hi Weefree and Knox.
Do your lot still chain up the swings on a Saturday night in the Western Isles so the kids can't play on them on a Sunday and risk damnation?
Just asking like. "
Yes this is a key question and totally in the context of the discussion. Good point and one that has me reeling from the force of its logic, the cogency of its argumentation and its relevance to the whole world. Oh in case you were wondering 'my lot' don't and never have locked up swings on Sunday. Perhaps you could go to this MB in another parallel universe and discuss this wonderful topic to your hearts content. Meanwhile back in this universe
43. Comment #38024 by NormanDoering on May 6, 2007 at 6:03 pm
"knox/WeePee wrote:
The information came from Prospect's August 2005 edition under their 'In fact' section. The exact quote is "The secular Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka are responsible for more suicide bombings than any other terrorist organisation in the worldup to two thirds of the total."
You're information is out of date. The issue of Prospect is 2005 (it's 2007) about two years old and it uses an older book as a source."
Yes I had noticed that the issue of Prospect was 2005 (a wee hint that's why I wrote August 2005!_ Doubtless you are up to date with current figures on 2007 bombings!
44. Comment #38028 by Robert Maynard on May 6, 2007 at 6:35 pm
"All I can really point out to try and illustrate the point I originally made is that these actions were the result of religiously motivated discrimination, and not the results of being too reasonable."
But then the whole argument becomes absurd. I could just as easily say that if someone was being unreasonable they were not being Christians. The definition of atheist as someone who is essentially reasonable and who would not do reasonable things is one that is to say the least, questionable!
"I have grave doubts that someone from, say, the National Academy of Sciences (essentially an atheist organisation), would threaten you with physical violence for no reason."
And I have grave doubts that anyone from the council of churches would threaten you with violence for any reason! But that does not stop this site putting up videos and articles by 'religious' nutcases and then claiming that all religion is to blame.
"However, it is a false charge that "believing" in materialism requires anywhere near as much faith as a supernatural belief, and it is also "desperately untrue" to claim they are anywhere near equal in validity. "
Again that is your presupposition. Boldly stated. And yet ironically without any empirical evidence. I think it takes an extraordinary amount of faith to believe that there is only the material.
"What science does give us are three possibilities regarding the supernatural -
1) There are supernatural phenomena which interact with natural phenomena
2) There are supernatural phenomena which do not interact with natural phenomena
3) There are no supernatural phenomena."
No. You missed one. There could be a combination of 1 and 2.
.
"Not exactly true. I am merely concerned that the bad may outweigh the good. If (for example) I had to choose between thousands of alcoholics not reforming through Jesus and Bush Jr. vetoing stem cell bills.. do you see where I'm going with this?"
Yes and I think I agree. There are good atheists and there are bad atheists I am merely concerned that the bad may outweigh the good.
In terms of Mao no problem. I have met and interviewed several Chinese communist officials who went through the cultural revolution they all said that all religions and religious people were to be put down because they contradicted 'scientific materialism'. In late 1954 Mao told the Dalai Lama that 'religion is poison'. It's been a while since I read his 'Little Red Book' but I do recall his hatred of religion is clearly expressed in that.
"Did you ask them why intellectuals, particularly university students, had to be "put down" (suppressed, killed, or otherwise)? Did they also offend 'scientific naturalism', or Comrade Mao's atheist sensibilities?"
Yes indeed. You seem to be reverting to the fundamentalist sterotype here that only one answer is possible. Mao wanted to remove anyone who was a threat. Many intellectuals of course flourished under him as well. But it takes a peculiar form of ideological blindness to not see that his atheistic presuppositions were not a major guiding and motivating force. This is not the same as saying that all atheists are Maoists any more than saying Ben Laden is motivated by Islam (amongst other things) is saying that all muslims are terrorists.
"The Cultural Revolution had many goals, and it is disingenuous to single out the persecution of religion and attempt to correlate it with Mao's atheism, when the perfectly tenable alternate hypothesis of Marxism is staring you in the face. "
Indeed. And a central principle of Marxism is that atheism.
"Just as with science, the best hypothesis for accounting for Mao's actions is the one that can explain ALL the data."
The trouble is that history is not science. And humans are not science. In the real world there is more than one overriding 'hypothesis'.
"Don't fundamentalist churches (churches in general) involve authoritative and linear communication to an audience? What fills that role on this website? I could only say that the news feed does that, but as you've just admitted, the news feed has liberal editorial control and relies on user submissions - I don't submit stuff myself, but I would encourage you to submit Christian stuff that relates to science/reason/dawkins if you are unsatisfied with the content and want to expose atheists to alternative opinions."
Have done so but strangely it has been rejected. I have also noted less and less intellectual critical articles being posted and more soundbites, tv items and 'look how dumb the opposition is' stuff. Admittedly it is more subtle than some of the stupider fundamentalists but the message is still the same. We are right and look how stupid the rest of the world is.
"As for our alleged elitism, to say nothing of atheism, "reason and science" ARE the only clear thinking positions, so I'll have to concede that one."
And you just can't get past this. Despite the fact that there are many reasonable scientists who believe in God you still maintain that atheism is de facto the only reasonable and scientific position.
"Intelligent design and Christian dominionism aren't going to help save America's slowly crumbling dollar. A healthy science and education budget would have"
Now forgive me if I'm mistake but is it not the case that the US spends far more per head on science than any other country and this in such a religious nation! And as far as I can recall it is Christians who have promoted education wherever they have gone. I don't recall atheists starting too many schools or founding many Universities (I admit that once we get them going, pay for them and set them on their way with Christian principles, atheists come in cuckoo like, take them over and get others to pay for them!).
"There is very little listening.
I hope you will identify where my correspondence has avoided important points in your comments addressing me in future."
Yes you are a listener and a very useful contributor. As it J who follows.
45. Comment #38030 by _J_ on May 6, 2007 at 6:44 pm
"I am very angry that someone said this to you. People shouldn't behave like this and that's that. Of course, I know nothing of the context and it would be unwise of me to speculate. I wonder, though: in your honest opinion, were they people who might equally have said something like 'I'll kick your head in, you shortarse bastard/ginger bastard/Celtic-supporting bastard/[just plain] bastard'? (And, for my own personal interest, did they happen to shout 'In the name of atheism!' at all?)"
I am intrigued that you all seem obcessed by the words 'in the name of' as though motivation could only be ascertained if people shouted these words out before they did anything. Let me give you another example of how atheists can be motivated to do 'bad' things because of their atheism. I have been involved in speaking in a number of bookshops on TGD and my own response. These events are usually very well attended, involve stimulating debate and result in the bookshop selling lots of books including TGD. In fact the one I am going to this Friday in Borders in Inverness has had to make it a ticket event because of the demand. Yet one shop we went to we were told in no uncertain terms by one manager that he would ban me from speaking because he was an atheist and he did not want any religious people in his shop.
"Making a sandwich is a Christian act?! I'm delighted please explain! "
Well you see we do everything to the glory of God. And we are told to feed the hungry. My only problem is that I have not quite mastered the water into wine stuff yet.
"---'And all of a sudden Stalinism is not atheism. Despite what Stalin said. And how do our friendly 'nice' atheists come to this conclusion? Elementary my dear Watson. It's logical. Atheists are reasonable and nice having evolved to a higher consciousness and not having nasty religions to make them bad. Stalin was bad and did bad things. Therefore he cannot have been an atheist. In fact he was really religious!'---
Come now, David; this is beneath you. You make a lot of good arguments but this is not one of them. Sure, Stalinism incorporates atheism, but that does not make it synonymous with atheism. I am an atheist. I am not a Stalinist. "
You will forgive me saying this. I am not claiming that all atheists are Stalinists. I am claiming that Stalin was an atheist and that this was a significant motivationg factor in his actions. My point was simply mocking the ridiculous logic that Stalin could not have been a real atheist because he did unreasonable things and atheists are de facto reasonable!
"But, some of my favourite experiences in life have been the moments when someone I had hitherto completely disagreed with said something that made me stop, think my position over, and realise that I had spent some time being utterly wrong."
Me too. Sometimes it is embarrassing. Other times it is a relief.
"If you, or any Christian or other theist, can argue me back into belief, then you've earned the scalp. Fine. But I haven't seen a convincing argument yet."
I don't think I can argue anyone into belief. Nor can I convert anyone. All I aim to do is challenge prejudice and presupposition and try and remove some of the barriers to belief. God will do the rest
.
"As a point of interest and in case I'm just getting hopelessely entangled in misused words can you think of a position that is not within an ideology?"
No.
---'I cannot conceive of any circumstances where it would be justified for me to kill in the name of Christ.'---
This doesn't surprise me, but I am nevertheless pleased to hear it. The type of Christianity to which I understand you to belong is - taking a nice long historical view - progressive and very close to what an atheist would consider decent moral behaviour in our society. "
I think the most significant thing here is what is contained in Madeline Buntings report in The Guardian (see the thread on this site). Sam Harris has apparently said that there are circumstances where people should be killed for what they believe! I have never heard any Christian say that. I can conceive of no circumstances in which that would ever be right. But if there is one thing that indicates for me the dangers of fundamentalist atheism it is Sam Harris. In one statement he has provided proof of what I have been saying all along.
"But it does upset me and strike me as important that your view of life is that, without god, we'd all be valueless, directionless, empty, depressed, apathetic mutual abusers."
Yes that is my position. If we were being logical. But most human beings are not logical and most atheists act inconsistently with their own creed.
"Anyway: yes, nice quote from Bertrand Russell. But, once again, you and I both know that you are not such a simpleton that you can't appreciate a bit of enlightening emphasis for rhetorical and educational effect without getting all literalistic about it. I mean, if I quoted Jesus' 'seeds on stony ground' parable to you and said 'Your Messiah said we're just seeds! Nothing more than crappy little seeds!' you would legitimately complain that I am an idiot. You are not an idiot. Please cease the impression."
Jesus was speaking a parable and making an illustration. Russell was not. You realise the difference?
"In a very meaningful sense, each single person *is* the universe."
No. This is actually small minded, self centred and morally really harmful.
---'I prefer the grandeur of truth.'---
"I'm sure it is not a wholly unanticipated irony if I appropriate this remark as rightly belonging to my own position. If you object, I will be happy to meet you at an intermediate location (perhaps Newcastle?) for an armwrestle."
Better still invite me to a book shop in Manchester and we can have a public discussion! Meanwhile Edinburgh or Dundee will do for a coffee I promise not to stone you!
By the way as regards the Theonomists (and yes I admit they do exist although almost solely in the US they once tried to make inroads in my church and I'm afraid we banned them) I am told that their theme song is Bob Dylan's 'Everyone's gonna get stoned'!
Comment #37980 by knox on May 6, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Again I apologise for taking so long to reply to some good points but it is kind of hard to get time to interact properly with two threads.
28. Comment #37838 by NormanDoering on May 6, 2007 at 12:44 am
"wo possiblities:
1) You misunderstood (or lied about) what 'Prospect' magazine wrote -- provide an in context quote. Sri Lanka is where Arthur C. Clarke has lived for a long time, by choice. People go on vacations there. Your claim just doesn't add up.
or2) You're talking about old information. In the 1980s the Tigers may have been the most deadly. Maybe even in the 1990s. But I don't see how they could be now with what seems a suicide bombing or two almost every day in Iraq. "
O dear. There could of course be a third. I was telling the truth. The information came from Prospect's August 2005 edition under their 'In fact' section. The exact quote is "The secular Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka are responsible for more suicide bombings than any other terrorist organisation in the worldup to two thirds of the total. [PBS]"
Apologies will be gratefully accepted!
By the way the same edition also reported the following that might interest you -
Mein Kampf was second on the Turkish bestseller lists in March. [Harper's, June 2005]
Seven of America's nine founding fathers denied the divinity of Jesus. [Harper's, July 2005]
30. Comment #37842 by Donald on May 6, 2007 at 1:17 am
Donald:
"But to most people who understand the complexity of modern human knowledge, the verdict is clear. God was invented in man's image. Not the other way around."
"Oh dear. And your post was going so well up to this point and then you go and cotradict yourself by giving us a simplistic and arrogant answer. If you are religious then you are stupid and do not really understand the 'complexity of human knowledge'. So I guess that's it then. End of discussion?"
My apologies for not being clear. Although I did not say so, I had in mind that the main reason that people do not understand the complexity of modern human knowledge is that they do not know enough of it."
I think your meaning is clear enough. The more knowledge we have the less likely we are to believe in God. It is the old and common myth.
"ost of the people here on this site would like to conduct debates at a less simplistic level, for example:
reasons for belief in god:
people I trust told me so;
holy book;
awe at complexity of life;
feelings of love;
other special human qualities;
prayer helps me.
reasons against:
other trustworthy people say there is no god, preachers have motives other than pursuit of truth, and childhood indoctrination is commonplace;
different holy books say very different things;
individual holy books contain gross contradictions;
excellent and ever-increasing scientific explanation of complexity of life;
alternative scientific explanations for feelings of love;
similarities of human qualities to other animals;
prayer shown to be ineffective at producing any results outside the brain of the person praying.
Less simplistic judgement: OVERWHELMINGLY probable that god (of the bible/koran) is a human invention.
Do you want to add constructive comment to any of that?"
Yes but not on this thread. I believe this thread is about whether Amis was right to suggest that secularists cannot be fundamentalists or dangerous. In terms of my own belief I think your reasons are good but I would add more if you go to the Free Church website www.freechurch.org you will see the final chapter of my book which lists the ten reasons (you could of course also buy the book- The Dawkins Letters out in the US this month see Amazon). I would also add to the reasons why people do not believe bad experience of religion when a child; misunderstanding of who God is; hatred for God; and the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy.
31. Comment #37853 by Robert Maynard on May 6, 2007 at 3:11 am
" don't think that an atheist would assume that if their house was broken into, and christian perpetrators are caught, that they would literally account for their motivations with religion. That's absurd. You're absurd. Could you.. stop being absurd?"
Absurd? I think if you posted a video of an honour killing on this site you would get lots of people saying that it is religion that does this and would then lump together all religions and religious people as being fundamentally the same.
"This is a fundamental schism between our claims and yours - both theism and atheism can be equally (almost) incidental to misdeed, but a religious doctrine is capable of motivating a misdeed, while atheism isn't. "
I am sorry but this is an extraordinary statement without any empirical evidence (which surprises me for you). Atheism is not capable of motivating a misdeed. I can take you to a number of people who have been beaten or tortured because they were believers. I myself have experienced atheists who have called me a Christian Bastard etc and threatened to kick my head in. Of course they could have been lying about their motivation but why should I not take them at their word?
"Secularism is not a belief system. It is literally nothing more than a description of things which are neutral in regards to religion. Look it up, for the love of words. Making a damn sandwich is a secular act.
If you believe it to be a belief system, I expect that you will need to describe its basic tenets for us, as we are unaware of them, and certainly do not follow them."
Actually making a sandwich is a Christian act although admittedly making a 'damn' one may be a secular act. The basic tenets of secularism. There is no God. Naturalistic philosophy. Materialism. Logical positivism.
"Without a religion (or similar dogma), you could not make such a claim, as in the light of rational inquiry the immediate immorality of the actions is inescapable. Without dogma, you don't have a preconceived 'end' to jump to from your means."
My wife works as an Mental Health Officer and there are plenty people who do not have 'dogmatic' beliefs who do bad things. Just as there are plenty who do. I accept fully that for some people religion is a motivating factor for doing things that they would not otherwise normally do. I accept that there is good religion and bad religion. You guys seem to think there is only bad.
" dare you, I double dare you, motherfucker - to find a quote from Josef Stalin or Mao Zedong, which gives us a similar glimpse into the motivational role of their respective atheisms, while they were dismantling educational and religious groups alike. "
Charming. Is it not the case that one has a weak argument one feels the need to swear or shout louder? In terms of Mao no problem. I have met and interviewed several Chinese communist officials who went through the cultural revolution they all said that all religions and religious people were to be put down because they contradicted 'scientific materialism'. In late 1954 Mao told the Dalai Lama that 'religion is poison'. It's been a while since I read his 'Little Red Book' but I do recall his hatred of religion is clearly expressed in that. And it was interesting that he was supported by other influential atheists such as Jean Paul Sartre who praised the revolutionary violence of Mao as 'profoundly moral'!
"RichardDawkins.net is hardly some kind of online "atheist church". As it says in the banner of every page, it is a "clear thinking oasis". "
Don't believe everything adverts tell you. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. This site has all the characteristics and hallmarks of a fundamentalist church with the honourable exception of Josh being willing to put anti-Dawkins articles as well. But even then I have noticed a deterioration in both the number and the quality of these.
"Do we uniformly want anything, aside from the acknowledged freedom to hold no supernatural beliefs?"
Yes you do. You already have that 'freedom'. However you want to impose it upon other people as well. You have a desire to privatise religion whilst at the same time politicizing your own opinions and philosophy as the only clear thinking position.
"I noticed you moaning elsewhere that "it does appear as though this 'oasis of clear thinking' really does limit that thinking to only those who tow the party line". Yeah. The 'party line' being "Try to think clearly."
All I can say is that you've been excluding yourself, by repeating nonsense claims without evidence, and ignoring the arguments that contradict your claims."
I fine example of Orwellian Newspeak! 'trying to think clearly' is obviously a euphemism for 'thinking like an atheist'. I am sure that some of what I write is 'nonsense' but I do not think it is fair to say that I keep making claims without evidence (eg. I am accused of lying about Prospect but provide the evidence above). I also do not think I can be accused of ignoring arguments that is why my posts are so long! However it is very difficult because most (but not all) of you guys just shoot off accusations like bullets. If they are answered you go of to another one. There is very little listening.
32. Comment #37860 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 6, 2007 at 3:33 am
"Let me tell you, your patience is worth it. This may not change the mind of the nutjob you are debating with, but a neutral party should be able to see how completely devastating your retort is. "
Indeed. A neutral party would be thrilled by the evident wit and wisdom of those whose idea of intellectual and reasonable discussion is to call me a m----f----- and a 'nutjob'. Keep up the good work!
33. Comment #37898 by jeepyjay on May 6, 2007 at 7:16 am
"The idea of a "secularist suicide-bomber" is therefore a contradiction in terms, since it is a total waste of the suicide's own life as well as those of his victims".
Logically this just does not work. What if the secularist decided that the greater good could be served by his own death? What if he thought, I am going to die anyway and since there is no God to answer to, I can go anyway that I want. What does it matter? What if he says life is meaningless and the universe is all going to implode anyway so what difference does it make if I kill a few people? And are you really suggesting that only religious people commit suicide?
Empirically this also does not work. The Tamil Tigers are a secularist group who suicide bomb.
36. Comment #37913 by Carter Maxwell on May 6, 2007 at 8:32 am
"He will then either ignore the rest of your argument, pretending that he has just effectively refuted it, or begin searching for some other sentence fragment he can focus on in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance brought on by confronting the entire body of thought."
Yet another self appointed prophet proved wrong. You may not agree with my arguments but how about dealing with what I say instead of the pseudo psychoanalysis and the things I don't say.
37. Comment #37917 by bouwe on May 6, 2007 at 8:57 am
"Unfortunately you called him a motherfucker...he will probably base his entire next post around the fact that you called him a "dirty word" and be blind to every well-argued point you just made. Nevertheless, I and others appreciate the elucidation you have brought to the subject."
Well I did try to answer the points made. And I do think as well that the use of expletives to insult those you are arguing with is a sign, not of elucidation, but weakness. Maybe the atheist dictionary has a different meaning though?
Here is the Weinberg quote in full:"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."The only thing "Bushesque" is David's inability to perceive the wisdom in this quote. For "religion", read "all dogmatic ideological thinking".
Thanks for the quote. It is very in line with Bush's doctrine of the axis of evil. The world is divided, aka Hollywood into 'good people and bad people'. I'm afraid that I reject that simplistic and fundamentalist analysis as dangerous, divisive and destructive.
38. Comment #37919 by _J_ on May 6, 2007 at 9:22 am
"Now then. I was not 'forgetting several things'. I was simply concentrating on one thing the absurd notion that sheer atheism can positively motivate murder in the same way that Islam or Protestantism or Stalinism can."
And all of a sudden Stalinism is not atheism. Despite what Stalin said. And how do our friendly 'nice' atheists come to this conclusion? Elementary my dear Watson. It's logical. Atheists are reasonable and nice having evolved to a higher consciousness and not having nasty religions to make them bad. Stalin was bad and did bad things. Therefore he cannot have been an atheist. In fact he was really religious!
"But, clearly, 'I want to kill you' is not a sentiment unique to atheists anyone of any creed can feel personally motivated to atrocity. My original point was just that a simple atheist, by definition, cannot be prompted into atrocity by their ideology, because they don't hold one."
The fact that you really believe that your ideology is not an ideology is really worrying.
"Theist: 'I want to kill you and it's alright with God if I do.'
Political Ideologue: 'I want to kill you and it's alright with The Leader if I do.'
(you know what's coming, of course)
Atheist: 'I want to kill you and it's alright with precisely no one if I do.'"
Again too simplistic and too narrow. I cannot conceive of any circumstances where it would be justified for me to kill in the name of Christ. And the third one does not go far enough. It could easily be 'I want to kill you and because I can get away with it and I am more powerful than you and I believe that the universe has no ultimate meaning then tough
bye bye.". Or 'I want to kill you because I believe you have been infected by a mind virus which is destroying humanity and you are impeding human progress".
"As an atheist, I'm stuck with the fact that I've killed another person and there's no way of undoing the damage."
What damage? It's just another bunch of chemicals gone to a non-existence to which they were going to anyway? Why should you as an atheist be bothered at all?
Now I want to continue with your comment. I'm grateful to you here, because this is the clearest expression I've seen you give of what worries you about 'atheist ideology'. I think one part of it is really worth talking about:
---'because you are infected with the religious virus and we must, for the sake of humanity, stamp it out. You have refused to be 'reeducated' so in the name of humanity and for the good of the human race you have to go.'---
"Unfashionably, I agree that this is a risk. This sentiment is latent in all of us"
Thanks. I agree.
"Now I'm an atheist and I can see that that is all absolute nonsense. That sort of nihilistic terror stems not from atheism but from the psychological addiction to religious faith that our theistically drenched society has imbued us with."
Ain't my society. The vast majority of people grow up in a secular society and are soaked and indoctrinated with atheist presuppositions. And yet many still manage to find faith. Besides which your comment does not answer the main point. It is really just an account of your own experience 'I once was blind, but now I see'.
"You are not 'just a lump or carbon' you are a living human being, the most astonishing and valuable thing we know of, an entire universe's worth of subjective experience every bit as precious as my own."
Forgive me from quoting from my own book "As you indicate it is changeable according to the whims of society. Indeed, if we are, as your favourite philosopher Bertrand Russell puts it, 'tiny lumps of impure carbon and water crawling about for a few years, until they are dissolved again into the elements of which they are compounded', there seems to be no basis for absolute morality."
"What does it matter if I kill you? The same as it matters if you kill me: a universe is snuffed out; "
Nice language. But empirical nonsense. When Hitler was executed a whole universe was snuffed out?! Such a small view of the universe. So man centred. So tiny. I prefer the grandeur of truth.
"The core of rationalistic atheism is to stick to the facts and value the observable."
Yeah right. Like when I die a universe dies! .
.
5. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy
Comment #37922 by knox on May 6, 2007 at 9:43 am
Again because I do not want to take up too much space nor do I want to be banned yet again as a Troll let me restrict my comments to a few relevant to this thread.
I agree with Fedlar and also with J. I am not arguing that religion is never a motivation. Indeed I would argue that religion per se is one of the most dangerous things that human beings have.
However that is a world away from the purpose of posting this video here. It is quite clear that it is a simplistic attempt to use this kind of sick behaviour to make yet another ad hominem attack look how badly these religious people behave ain't all religions bad. All you have to do is read some of the comments on this thread to realize how effective a tactic it is. Not fair, not just, not intelligent but very effective in appealing to the emotions and prejudices who already know that all religions are evil.
43. Comment #37756 by Donald on May 5, 2007 at 3:55 pm
David, #37742.
"The stoning is horrific. It is religiously inspired."
And your evidence for this statement is? What religions are being referred to?
46. Comment #37763 by Robert Maynard on May 5, 2007 at 4:21 pm
"Woops, no evidence! Have there really been studies parsing the contextual motivations for 'honour killings'? That's a serious question - I don't know. Even if it were the case that most are non-religious, and rely on some other source of unjustified patriarchal bullying besides religion, it is not the case in this particular story."
How do you know? I asked an Islamic sociologist about the whole question of honour killings and she told me that honour killings are not part of the religion but part of the tribalism of certain areas. I see no reason to doubt what she is says. But I doubt that anyone on this site will actually consider the wider scenario.
"ut yes, perhaps it was wrong to "use" this horrible incident to further a philosophy here, by showing a story which explicitly demonstrated the mortal dangers of faith. I hope that in the interests of "overcoming ignorance" and the simplistic exploitation of tragedies, you promptly wrote a letter to Ken Ham following the Virginia Tech massacre, voicing your similar disapproval at his (in this case, completely baseless) attempt to link the killer and evolution/naturalism. "
If I had known I would have. Ken Ham was being insensitive, stupid and simplistic.
54. Comment #37803 by Ohnhai on May 5, 2007 at 6:57 pm
"ow DO you stop people teaching this crap to their children? how do parents stop others teaching this crap to their children? How DO you make nation after nation, religion after religion sit up and take head when you say "enough of this crap!"?
This is what I feared. Ohnhai sees a video like this and it only takes him one step before he is blaming all parents, preachers etc who teach their children about God for causing mass murder. Sadly when people think as illogically as this it will not be too long before they will end up persecuting people in the name of 'tolerance'.
world depresses the crap out of me more often than I truly care for. "
I guess you need the hope of the Good News!
59. Comment #37820 by Yorker on May 5, 2007 at 9:29 pm
"hen I see creatures like these, I literally feel that they are not of the same species as me; I could not envisage any circumstance that may induce me to even consider their brutality in any way appropriate, for whatever reason. Whether the cause is tribalism or religion is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, such behavior is completely unacceptable no matter what mind virus is to blame."
And here we have a fundamental difference between us. I think that this behaviour is totally unacceptable. But I also think that I cannot ever write off any other human being. Once you start regarding yourself as part of a different species you are opening up all kinds of problems.
61. Comment #37824 by RickM on May 5, 2007 at 10:21 pm
"found the videos. Incredible. Insane.
Someone said Christians would not do this. I disagree.
Given sufficient political power, homosexuals would be put to death. Then adulterers, then those that worked on the Sabbath, etc. "
This comment and Eugene's again illustrate the folly and danger of posting this video here. You will accuse all religious people of being responsible. With such 'thinking' it is quite irresponsible to stoke up such hatred and irrationality.
70. Comment #37863 by Logicel on May 6, 2007 at 4:00 am
"obertson's popping up with new user IDs into the main discussion thread after being relegated as a troll is becoming absurd. However, his stubbornness, if it could only be channeled into positive results, is admirable. "
If I respond to the posts I am writing 'profusely'. If I do not I am ignoring people. It's impossible to win. Stick to the point and we may be able to get somewhere.
74. Comment #37872 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 6, 2007 at 4:20 am
"h and Dave Robertson - you brainless fuck
Get your head around this - if there was no religion the girl would be alive. Religion justified her murder."
Yep I can see that you have thought this one through rationally and having gathered the information you are able to bring enlightenment and calm reasoned logical analysis to the situation.
75. Comment #37873 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 6, 2007 at 4:22 am
" It taps some visceral well of primitive, atavistic anger, in me at least. I want to kill these fuckers.
I want to personally strangle every one of those men, and watch the life drain out of them as I do it. Maybe because I have a daughter, who in just a few short years will be 17."
Which is again why this video should not have been posted. It taps into such anger (and on this site largely directed against the religious) that it is really scary.
77. Comment #37879 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 6, 2007 at 5:08 am
"Precisely. And religion is the cause with them all. "
Again illustrates my point exactly.
79. Comment #37882 by epeeist on May 6, 2007 at 5:17 am
My opinion is that he is here to provoke, and then use the responses to prove that atheists are unreasonable and "fundamentalist".
No I am here to discuss. But then if you can't handle the heat I guess you throw out anyone who can, from the kitchen.
" Its about time he invited us round to his place for a while instead of constantly posting here like an over active five year old. "
You are very welcome. Come to www.freechurch.org and click on the Forum and join in the Dawkins section.
Comment #37826 by knox on May 5, 2007 at 10:59 pm
I will try to reply but I am not sure if I should really bother as yet again I have been banned as a troll. It does appear as though this 'oasis of clear thinking' really does limit that thinking to only those who tow the party line. As I have said more than once - this site bears all the hallmark of fundamentalism. Anyway in the hope tha somehow this will be left alone let me return to the question under consideration.
2. Comment #37602 by steve99
"The really important struggle is not really between theists and atheists. (I am beginning to think that this is something of a distraction). it is between those who have faith, and those who are prepared to doubt. This applies just as much in other areas (scientific, political) as it does in religion."
I agree totally.
3. Comment #37604 by briancoughlanworldcitizen
"This is a flat out lie. Neither of these two absolute certainty addicts ever killed people "in the name of atheism".
Sorry Brian. How do you know that? Is it because you presuppose that no-one would ever kill in the name of atheism? Could you at least entertain the possibility that someone might kill because of their atheism?
"The killed them to gain power, or for the cultural revolution, or because of misguided agricultural policies that ignored the overwhelming evidence of evolution and basic biology."
Indeed. As do many killers who use religion as a cloak for their attempts to get power. I am fascinated by the notion that Mao and Stalin's agricultural policies were due to their ignoring evolution. Please explain, enlighten and provide the evidence? Or would this be yet another case of your squeezing history intoyour worldview?
"The Dogma, the unshakeable faith, the absolute certainty that characterises the true believer is the problem. The details of the "faith" are almost completely irrelevant. "
Indeed. And these are all characteristics of your own posts. Just when have you ever expressed doubt about your atheism?
5. Comment #37624 by Robert Maynard
"Haven't you made a bit of a leap there?"
Yes - the same leap that atheists make when they assume that because people are religious or even use religion when they are committing their crimes, then somehow it is all the fault of all religion.
"The problem is that you are intent on reviewing secularism as a coherent belief system,"
Are you suggesting it is an incoherent belief system? If so I am inclined to agree!
"I can't think of a single (reputable) atheist that has ever claimed that ALL violence is directly motivated by religion, and if one has, they're demonstrably wrong."
I think you will find that RD cites Dennett (?) to the effect that there are good people in the world who do good things and bad people who do bad things but for good people to do bad things it takes religion. A hopelessly simplistic Bushesque type of statement.
"If it has a characteristic feature, it is a reliance on reason and evidence in decision making, where non-atheists tend to rely on dogma."
I'm afraid that this is the crux of the matter. In my experience many atheists can be just as dogmatic as religious people - and it is not self-evident that you are more reasonable than other people. Although believing that you are is part of your creed. If you want I could write the rest of your creed for you?!
" You could never make a case that the actions of Stalin and Mao were motivated by their non-religiousness."
Yes - I could. At least as much as you can make a case for many religious people.
"It has nothing to prove, nothing to defend, and no agenda to advance."
The sad thing is you really believe that. Despite having read TGD and come on this site. The notion that this atheistic website has nothing to prove, nothing to defend and no agenda to advance' is seriously laughable.
Comment #37659 by Robert Maynard
"I accused him the other day of simply coming here to provoke. The fact that he put a copy of his missive here would seem to prove it."
And this is the version of atheist reason and evidence I love. Agree with us and you are clearly a good person who thinks straight. Disagree and you are an idiotic supporter of mass murderers and horror of horrors, a Troll!
11. Comment #37676 by NormanDoering on May 5, 2007 at 12:54 pm
"weefree wrote:
The largest number of suicide bombings in the world have been done by the Tamil Tigers...
That's one big fat lie."
If it is then I would suggest that you sue 'Prospect' magazine (the intellectual British magazine which voted RD as one of the top three intellectuals in the world). I normally take them as a reliable source - I just don't have time to go and check all the suicide bombings in the world myself.
"I would agree that the question "if Islamists shout 'God is great' as they crash passenger planes in to buildings, what do secularists shout?" is rather silly. "
Thank you. That was all I was trying to say.
12. Comment #37678 by Fanusi Khiyal
"Okay, I have absolutely, well and truly _had it_ with the cases of Hitler and Stalin being brought up and noone bringing up the right arguments."
We wait with bated breath to be enlightened...
"1. First of all, Hitler - regardless of whether or not he was a Christian - had millions of devoutly Christian followers. Most Nazis were Christians."
Not a good start. Please cite your evidence for this. I fyou mean most Nazis were Germans and most Germans were brought up in a country which still had a state church system then you are right. Otherwise you are talking nonsense.
"2. The morality and philosophy of fascism and Communism has religious roots."
Of course. Let me see how this works. Atheists are good reasonable people. Religous people are BAD. Therefore those who do bad things must be closet relgious people. Hey with this formula you could win any argument - I am amazed that no atheist has thought of this before? What? They have? Too bad!
"And where did Marx get his filthy philosophy from? Where does "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" come from? It comes from the Acts of the Apostles."
Actually no - it comes from Pauls letter to the Corinthians. And you think that the fair distribution of wealth according to need and not greed is 'filthy'?! Is this atheist morality?
"Why did Communism take off in Russia and in Western Europe? Because the religious, life-hating, world-renouncing ethic of Russian Christianity was perfect for Communism."
I look forward to the communists taking over the US then!
14. Comment #37706 by _J_ on May 5, 2007 at 1:51 pm
"'God wants me to kill you!'
'The Leader wants me to kill you!'
and
'No one wants me to kill you!'
Is the idea sounding a bit silly, yet?"
Umm - yes. Nice try though. It will certainly have the believers here in spasms of delight at your wit and wisdom! Such simplistic formulations always do.
You are forgetting several things. Not least that the first two cries could be false. Or that the third cry could be "I am going to kill you because I think you deserve to die, because you are a bad person, because you are infected with the religious virus and we must, for the sake of humanity, stamp it out. You have refused to be 'reeducated' so in the name of humanity and for the good of the human race you have to go. Besides which as their is no God to whom I am accountable and no judgement, it does not matter if I get it wrong. Anyway you are just a lump of carbon floating round in a meaningless universe, what does it matter if I kill you anyway?" Admitedly it's not as snappy and simplistic - but then life never is...
22. Comment #37747 by Donald on May 5, 2007 at 3:24 pm
"Notice that the reasons against tend to be longer, and require more detail to explain. "God did it" is much simpler."
Good point. Always beware of simplistic one line answers ie. 'it's the fault of religion'.
"But to most people who understand the complexity of modern human knowledge, the verdict is clear. God was invented in man's image. Not the other way around."
Oh dear. And your post was going so well up to this point and then you go and cotradict yourself by giving us a simplistic and arrogant answer. If you are religious then you are stupid and do not really understand the 'complexity of human knowledge'. So I guess that's it then. End of discussion?
7. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy
Comment #37742 by knox on May 5, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Fishpeddlar et al,
I am very sorry but apparently I was banned again for writing the following. It really does appear to me from this website that fundamentalist atheists are incapable of discussing with, or allowing anyone who is not of their opinion, to have an opinion. I cannot see how what I wrote below is a troll. It is a serious point that there is an enormous danger in making the simplistic and fundamentalist point that it was religious people who did this - de facto all religious people are murderous nutters or at least supporters of. That is not an extreme statement - witness Stuart's post "Religion = mental illness. Fuckin. End. Of."
If you are only going to allow posts that agree with your fundamental beliefs then I am afraid that you are proving my jibe that you are the secular equivalent of fundamentalists. For the benefit of those who wonder what I am talking about - my original post is below.
"The whole thing is disgusting and yet another example of how human beings can use religion to reinforce tribalism and all manners of evil behaviour.
However one wonders why this item was placed on this site. I suspect that it was because of the rather simplistic notion that this is something motivated by religion and since this is an anti-religous site, it is put here to demonstrate how all religions are the same and have the same effect. Such simplistic ad hominem attacks ironically do nothing to help with our greatest need - overcoming ignorance. In fact it just reinforces the (non) faith of the (un) believers here and the general sense of superiority that many of you feel. Look how evil, wicked, stupid etc these religious people are and look how wonderful, wise, enlightened we are.
Of course the real world is much more complex and difficult. Most 'honour' killings (what a disgusting use of the 'honour' term) are done within a tribal/racial context and have little to do with religion. I suspect that most of the 20,000 plus murders in the US have little to do with religion and a whole lot more to do with money, sex and general human wickedness. The notion that human beings are basically good until the ignorance of religion gets hold of them is one that is of course very attractive to many atheists. But I would urge a little more caution before making such simplistic, triumphalist and simplistic statements. And please stop using disgusting incidents like this to further your own philosophy. "
David Robertson
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
