1. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #91087 by BorisCvek on November 27, 2007 at 7:14 am

Dr Benway - is it from Naked Lunch? Amazing book and amazing author (Burroughs) - I love it :-).

2. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #91085 by BorisCvek on November 27, 2007 at 7:12 am

But it's not rational to believe in an interventionist God, as we have no corroborative evidence in favor of any alleged interventions. One can still believe, but one shouldn't expect praise from others for this belief, as it offends our collective need for corroboration.


Boris: My opinions on science are close to Feyerabend´s ones. From this point of view, the believe in an interventionist God can be more important that "rationalism". Yes, I am not a "rationalist". Human mind and human thinking can not be reduced to intellect. Intellect is only an instrument - a human, narrow instrument.

3. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #91082 by BorisCvek on November 27, 2007 at 7:06 am

Hi Boris! Free thinkers reject the notion that man can speak for God - either because God doesn't exist, or because God doesn't fiddle with his creation, or because God wants no middle men. Pantheists, transcendentalists, deists, humanists, and agnostics stand alongside atheists on this team of free thinkers.

Boris: Hi! :-) Yes, I know and I like this people, although my opinions and faith is different. I would like to collaborate with them on freedom for all of us (even for fundamentalists and creationists).

4. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #91056 by BorisCvek on November 27, 2007 at 5:53 am

Anyway, there is very useful distinction between religion (personal faith) and church, between theism and clericalism (I mean: an application of church-based theory or thought to secular issues). I am strongly anticlerical, although I am theist and Old-Catholic. The same example can be Kierkegaard or even Jesus Christ :-).

5. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #91051 by BorisCvek on November 27, 2007 at 5:44 am

Dear Keith, I live in Czech Republic, the most atheistic country in the world. My parents are atheists (or agnostics), my friends are atheists and I like them all. I was atheist as well, but I have converted about 10 years ago (I am 31). I think atheism/faith is really private and many people have various kinds of atheism/agnosticism/faith. The very nature of a person does not depend on his/her opinions on religion or faith, but anyone should be free to have his/her own opinions - on the religion, on the art, on the morality, on the relatioships with surrounding persons, on the death, on his/her emotions and so on. There is no science to reduce human life to engine - the human life is something more important, more deep, more authentic than science can ever be. Science is our invention, not we are an invetion of science. Science is an instrument (still changing), not a Lord or a Truth. And religion is not the Lord or the Truth as well. Religion is only human way to try to be more close to them. You can ridicule at it, but I think you can try to understand as I understand my atheist friends and parents. People can fight - or listen each other and value persons for thier personal qualities. I prefer the latter way and hate the fromer one.

6. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #91032 by BorisCvek on November 27, 2007 at 3:06 am

This claims that there is a relationship. A relationship with what?


Boris: Of course, with the God.

7. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #91028 by BorisCvek on November 27, 2007 at 2:57 am

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that there is some kind of religious belief that is knowledge and not a mystery. Or do you mean biblical history?

Boris: For example, Roman Catholicism (thanks to Aquinas) is closely linked with metaphysics (contrary of the calvinism which depends on "sola scriptura").

I'm afraid you have to speak just for yourself on this point rather than extrapolating from you own personal experience to that of the whole human race. Some of us manage to get by quite happily without a belief in the supernatural. I actually find inventing imaginary gods more rather than less depressing.

Boris: Of course. Thank for this point. I think this is the basic question: may I live my private life in my way? Are there people (priests, scientists, philosophers) which understand my life better than me? If so, it is Platonic State or tyranny.

What makes matters worse in your case is that at least you are an adult and it's more than possible that the object of your idolatry doesn't even exist.

Boris: Of course, you can even say that poets do silly thing or that everything what resembles, in your view, teenagers thinking is wrong and stupid. But I think human life and human culture is pretty more deep.

8. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #90781 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 10:25 am

I think the Evolution is the best what is available through the whole history of science. But the theory is rather a heuristic vision than the strong scientific theory. Despite this fact, I am an evolutionist.

9. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Comment #90779 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 10:16 am

If faith is a relationship (as between Abraham and God or between Jonas and God), as I believe, the question has no sense in my point of view.

10. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising

Comment #90777 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 10:11 am

Over the centuries we have seen life defined ever more precisely by science and theory. Where is God in this?

Boris: I am afraid that you talk about life as THING.... but I mean life as something what is lived by human beings (cf. existentialism). Let me cite Eddington´s Messenger Lecture:

Sir A. Eddington: New Pathways in Science, Cambridge at the University Press 1947, page 324):

„There are two factors which, it seems to me, explain the comparative success of the mathematician. In the first place the mathematician is the professional wielder of symbols; he can deal with unknown quantities and even unknown operations. Clearly he is the man to help us to sift a little knowledge from a vast unknown. But the main reason why the mathematician has beaten his rivals is that we have allowed him to dictate the terms of the competition. The fate of every theory of the universe is decided by a numerical test. Does the sum come out right? I am not sure that the mathematician understands this world of ours better than the poet and the mystic. Perhaps it is only that he is better at sums."

11. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #90772 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 10:02 am

This is a strong manipulation... When Hitler said that English nation was his friend, do you believe that English people really were nazis?

12. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising

Comment #90766 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 9:55 am

I think you underestimate Buber´s concept of "YOU". Buberian thinking on God is based on this concept. / I am not sure if the aim of our discussion is to reject entire western philosophy because anyone can say about anything: "This is a silly idea!" This is the question if atheists want to hate anything different, it means almost entire European culture, or if they want to study and to listen their partners in the debate. / Regarding definitions... this is a good point! Scientific definitions are instrumental, mathematic definitions (if they are not platonic as believed Russell or Godel) are conventional (as I believe) - but definitions in our life? I think life is much more than definitions (and the God is involved in the life, not in the science or theory).

13. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #90760 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 9:34 am

Hello Keith, the Christian dogma was introduced under political pressure (of Emperors) in 4th century... so about 300 years Christians live without dogma. The dogmas of ortodox church are mysteries and not knowledge. / Of course, I understand that scepticism is so important... but scepticism is too little to live a human life. My faith (and I am Old-Catholic) is, let me say, "buberian" or "existentialistic". This has not anything common with dogmatism. And I think that biblical experience is not a church doctrine, but to be open to a relationship with the God.

14. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising

Comment #90745 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 8:47 am

Then it is somewhat rash to even consider that a God exists.

Boris: Of course... that is a great question what does the word "exist" mean when it is said "God exists" or "God doesnt exist". I would like to call your attention to Buber´s philosophy.

15. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'

Comment #90716 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 7:46 am

We do not say, like the creationists, that evolution is "just a theory".


Boris: Of course. I agree. On the other hand, there are so many interesting projects linking Creation with Evolution (for example Teilhards one) that - because they are not scientific - we can enjoy this fascinating diversity of opinions without nervousness. Entire western philosophy is "just a theory" - often "abuseable" for bad purposes, but always intelectually nice and incentive. The only reason (if any) for fight against creationist is not, in my view, creationism itself, but the political influence of the dogmatic religion.

16. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #90705 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 7:22 am

I think faith is not about claims, but about the relationship - this is more likely TRUST PERSON than knowing the correct answers. Only the God knows. See the thirteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. --- And science... science is not about faith, but about proposing, hypothesis making, testing and falsifying. Scientific theories are instruments for life.

17. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising

Comment #90703 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 7:12 am

God is not mine or yours. God is the Absolute that doesnt depend on our ideas or on our criticism. We dont know anything about what the God is (so called "negative theology" - an orthodox theology) - we have only the way, the faith, the trust, the hope, the mysteries. Good example of Christianity is, in my view, Thomas a Kempis or John of the Cross. Maybe the most important thing in Christianity is the humility - towards God, but also towards people (e.g. we cannot condemn anyone, because this is not job of man, but job of the God).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_%C3%A0_Kempis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_the_Cross

18. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #90698 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 6:58 am

I now this form of atheism... this atheism (so called "scientific atheism") was the state ideology of communist countries. Terrible. I think any idea can become a terrible terror and ignorance if this idea is to serve as political means of tyranny (see Orwell). We need freedom, freedom for our minds and our conscience - we dont need any tyrany, not matter what theistic, atheistic, agnostic, gnostic...

19. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #90694 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 6:48 am

Couldn't agree more. Its a pity there are many theists around the world who do not see it that way.

Boris: OK, but the lines are not between theist/atheist, but between dogmatic ideology/common sense. It seems very important to me to try understand that the religion is not bad in itself, but only as blind, dogmatical ideology.

20. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'

Comment #90691 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 6:39 am

To Peacebeuponme:

I mean that science is a still flowing river of interpretations and revolutions. The scientist should - e.g. from popperian point of view - falsify scientific theories and replace them by better ones.

21. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'

Comment #90669 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 4:59 am

I am a scientis and a Catholic (Old-Catholic). There is no problem. Neither religion nor science should be taken literally and dogmatically... a humanism (common sense) can join religion and science each other to make a liberal society.

22. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90667 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 4:49 am

I think morality is closely connected with God. Indeed, morality in the Universe without God has the same value as anything because nothing has a value (or values are only our dream). However, I strongly disagree that an atheist must be condemned by God. I think God can be different than churches would want :-).

23. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #90666 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 4:39 am

I think anyone can be tolerant/intolerant person - this is based on the psychology, individual history, family, but not on religion or atheism. I think we need to return to 18th century, to enlightenment debate about freedom, toleration, human rights, art and culture. Any blind ideology without common sense is dangerous and leads to Inquisition, Oswiecim, Gulag...