1. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #72375 by wallace on September 20, 2007 at 10:00 pm

Also, a word on the birth of modern science. I continuously used the term "modern science" to refer to the time of Copernicus and beyond. Whether this is true time of the birth of modern science is obviously up for debate, but it represented a definite break from many ideas promoted by Aristotle. Aristotle may have indeed helped birth the scientific method, but my usage of modern science was clearly meant to signify a time far later than the time of Aristotle.

2. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #72359 by wallace on September 20, 2007 at 8:13 pm

I understand that Judaism has evolved, but it seems like the original version that emerged from its inception was strong enough to maintain a certain spiritual and ethnic identity no matter what.

Perhaps we all do have false beliefs, but do you reserve the right to have those beliefs? Do you have the right to appeal to law if those false beliefs are challenged?

Do you honestly think the conception of sin that is foisted on Catholics from birth would just be replaced by some other hang-up if Catholicism did not exist? I'm willing to accept that some of the problems of religion are perhaps overstated, but I also think some of the general misery that has resulted from religious teachings is accepted more often than not as simply normal and everyday, when in fact in need not be. If people want to say that human nature would cause people to have hang-ups and complexes no matter what the circumstances, then all well and good ( even though it isnt necessarily true), but that does not mean that adults have the absolute right to force these complexes onto children and cause them lifelong misery (I don't know of a single Catholic who does not complain of being messed up on some level by their Catholic upbringing).

To be honest, my main problem with religion is not that its anti-science.....its that it has far outlived whatever usefulness it may have had and now inhibits more than enhances.

3. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #72272 by wallace on September 20, 2007 at 3:47 pm

J.J.Ramsey:

Well, it must have been successful in some sense, considering the success of Judaism. It molded a group of people into a very strong shared ethnic and spiritual identity that still persists to this day, even though Jews have been scattered worldwide.

I understand about the armchair part, and I actually did read a bunch of that thread. I must admit there were some eye openers in there for me, but it was by no means a closed case. It piqued my interest enough though that I'm going to look into it by myself.

I agree that the biggest divide between science and religion has been in more recent times. It makes sense though that the most learned people would come from the ranks of church or aristocracy (or be patronised by them) given their free time and access to libraries. It seems though that with the birth of capital the need to seek funds from the church grew less, as many of the new capitalists were liberal in the sense that they wanted a technological advantage and didnt care whether it stepped on Gods (proverbial) toes. It could be a coincidence that the most radical scientific findings increased with the birth of capital though...that was just an inkling of mine that I also intend to explore.

As for God being NOT delusional, don't you think the fact that you can declare God an imaginary being, but still defend others for believing in it is a bit patronising? It seems like you're saying "We'll obviously I think God is imaginary, but its ok for those people to believe it and lets not challenge that because its actually normal". And anyway, it seems like Dawkins main problem is not the belief per se, but that belief as justification for unreasonable behaviour.

4. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #71884 by wallace on September 19, 2007 at 8:51 pm

J.J. Ramsey:

I realise God is an imaginary being. That means that all the authoritarian bile that clogs up the Bible was written by a human being, who was certainly demanding absolute obediance. Are you claiming that nobody ever obeyed the laws of the Bible? Those laws were authoritarian and were successful in molding a strong ethnic unity amongst a group of people. It is very comparable with fascism. Just because people ignore many of the laws now doesnt mean they arent fascistic in tone and ideal, and wernt obeyed for many years. Religion is still holding back science because of its blinkered approach.

The difference between modern scientific thought and the Greek thinkers is that modern scientific thought does not take the existance of God as apparent, be it in an interventionist or non-interventionist sense. There is a definite break in that kind of thinking that produced skeptics like Hume in the philosophy field. I don't think anyone was doing science to tarnish religion, they were simply publishing conclusions that went against orthodox religious teachings. Quite simply God was no longer needed. To Greek thinkers who influenced the church and Western thought, he still was.

Isnt the worship of an imaginary being somewhat delusional? What exactly is your problem with Dawkins and/or atheism?

5. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #71850 by wallace on September 19, 2007 at 7:06 pm

While we're at it....

"Also, the "seeks to forge a type of religious unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes" is for the most part backwards. For most religions, the ethnic, cultural, or racial came first"

You have misunderstood. The ethnic, cultural and racial came first in Nazi Germany too. The point being that it was exploited for a "higher purpose". The message being...we are different from those other people, we are better...more special. Let us not be sullied by their presence.

6. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #71842 by wallace on September 19, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Did I call you a supporter? No, I called you a defender of religion because you were defending religion. Seems pretty straightforward. Did I say you were incapable of criticising religion? No, I called you a defender of religion because you were defending religion. Seems like the classic bad move was on your part.


Second classic bad move on your part: Why are you talking about religions I did not mention? Was that a supposition on your part perhaps? I mentioned specifically Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of whom's holy books are filled with God as the ultimate authority figure who must be obeyed upon pain of death. Sounds pretty authoritarian to me. Other religions I could mention are Mormonism, Christian Science, Scientology,etc.

The influence of the Greek philosophers did not curb the excesses of religion, they merely prompted in-house religious debate. The modern scientific revolution ignited by figures like Copernicus and Galileo had a more profound effect in terms of showing up the ludicrous shortcomings of religious thought

So now you claim that religious people are responsible for modern science, but can in no way be connected with fascism? Because some religious people (many of whom were at odds with the religious authorities of their day) promoted the scientific method, that makes them responsible for modern science. But even though the religious books of the three major monotheistic religions are filled with the worst kind of "obey or die" and "kill those who disobey" type garbage, to make a connection from that to fascism is simply ridiculous? It takes a special kind of thinking to reach that conclusion I must say.

7. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71724 by wallace on September 19, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Read him and find out.

8. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71717 by wallace on September 19, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Most religious people made the decision to believe in God before they were 14.

Plenty of Christian web sites mention atheism and Dawkins. Some are even obsessed with him. http://ship-of-fools.com/

I don't remeber Richard Dawkins ever saying life had no purpose.

9. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #71708 by wallace on September 19, 2007 at 2:07 pm

J.J. Ramsey:

I would say that the analogy with fascism is closer than you think. Did the majority of people in Nazi Germany actually believe most of what Hitler said? Could the majority be described as fascists? Or did they, in their daily lives ignore the majority of fascist writings/ideologies and coldly turn a blind eye to its most hateful, violent excesses?

Now, as a defender of religion, what are you doing to curb its excesses? What steps are you taking to stop the catholic church's attempts to stop condoms being issued in Africa? AIDS is killing millions, and the policies of the catholic church are excacerbating things to a horrendous degree. The rampant sexism and homophobia at the heart of many biblical teachings are still very much believed by millions of people, and lives are destroyed as a result...etc,etc

To be honest, I could go on and on documenting the worst excesses of religion, but something tells me the thing you get most upset about is New Atheists and their supposedly ill informed attacks on religion, rather than the damage religion can cause. Each to their own I suppose.

Heres a very normal definition of fascism:

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes."

Now lets change a few words:

"Religion is an authoritarian spiritual ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of God, and seeks to forge a type of religious unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes."

Now, that seems like a perfect description for the beginnings of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and many other religions. If religions are different these days, it is not because of ruling figures in the church liberalising it, it is because of outside pressure...pressure that really began to exert force with the birth of modern science and reason.

10. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #71438 by wallace on September 18, 2007 at 7:15 pm

J.J. Ramsey:

OK, if we're being pedantic, show me where somebody, anywhere, said "Religious people ALWAYS obey their holy books". The fact that they sometimes do, and that this can be a dangerous thing because they would not do it without the holy books justification, would suggest to me that both criticism and parody is more than apt.

11. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #70876 by wallace on September 17, 2007 at 6:17 am

If people are so apt to ignore religious teachings when reason dictates otherwise, why is the Intelligent Design debate so huge? Now, can somebody give me an example of a non-religious person supporting Intelligent Design? The Intelligent Design debate is religiously fueled anti-science in every sense. It may seem more benign compared to debates about suicide bombers, but would this "debate" even exist without religion? No, it would not. People are spending millions, and engaging in mass self-delusion, because of their religious beliefs. Just because death is not involved, doesnt mean its harmless.

12. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #70013 by wallace on September 13, 2007 at 4:31 pm

J.J. Ramsay:

"By that logic, I should endorse pseudohistory, propaganda, and sloppy methodology if it helps deconvert people"

Are you talking about "The Bible" again?

13. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69803 by wallace on September 12, 2007 at 9:09 pm

J.J. Ramsey:

So you must support Richard Dawkins and any attacks on religion, because the less religious a religious person is, the more moral they are. So what exactly are you so upset about again?

14. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69780 by wallace on September 12, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Perhaps people would stop judging religious people by their holy books when they reject their holy books which are filed with vile garbage. You asked for a comparison between fascism and religion, and the Old Testament provides the perfect one. A tribe of people claim they are the chosen ones, and are entitled to land as a result, and are also entitled to kill whoever is not one of them and rape women as part of their spoils.

Your defense of religious people seems to go something like this..."You cannot judge religious people by their holy books because many of them ignore them, never read them, and are in many ways not religious". It seems like you're making the perfect case for people to ignore holy books and religious teachings.

15. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69771 by wallace on September 12, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Or perhaps you follow the Quran:

The Cow
2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

The Family Of 'Imran
3:116 Lo! the riches and the progeny of those who disbelieve will not avail them aught against Allah; and such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein.

The Children Of Israel
17:16 And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation.
17:17 How many generations have We destroyed since Noah! And Allah sufficeth as Knower and Beholder of the sins of His slaves.

etc,etc,etc

16. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69769 by wallace on September 12, 2007 at 4:34 pm

I agree that the comparisons between fascism and religion are very tenuous. I mean, where in books written by fascists can you find stuff as bad as this:

Exodus
32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Leviticus
20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Numbers
3:10 And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.

etc,etc,etc...murder,violence,killing of people with different beliefs,etc

Mark
6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

John
3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

2 Thessalonians
1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

etc,etc,etc

17. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18921 by wallace on January 23, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Zappi

By poor I mean the opposite of rich. You know those millions of people who fill up the sweatshops of the world? Those are the poor I'm talking about. The ones by whom the majority of clothes, toys, etc that the west buys. Without them, no profit. Its very simple. Ideas are nothing without people making product. The people who profit most from "free trade" are the richest 2% of the world.

What Chomsky is defending is a peoples right to elect in the government it chooses. If the people choose Chavez, then thats democracy. Chomsky has never been afraid to criticise any regime. The American government is very fond of undermining democratically elected governemnts. Its not up to America to decide who another country votes in. If that government is Marxist, then so be it. If they break international laws (like America had done countless times) then there should be international pressure for reform. Other than that, hands off.

I have no idea what you're talking about in refering to Marxist theory about creation of wealth. I was refering to the fact that there are thousands of sweatshops all over the third world and we are clothed by them. They are all but slaves. The world may be flat to Freidman, but I'm afraid sweatshop workers are not living in the same world. Indeed, the "flat" world will simply mean that American workers can no longer bargain for higher pay as their company can simply relocate to a third world country for far cheaper production (the whole point of NAFTA).

I never said all scientific progress was useless for business. The scientific method, however, is not conducive to business. Intellectual curiosity freed from market demands has produced all but every important scientific advance. Without taxpayers, we would be living in a world devoid of scientific advance, esp in America where Creationists and ID people want to stop the teaching of Darwin. They are usually very rich people too.

18. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18719 by wallace on January 22, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Zappi

I think you are forgetting that without poor people, there would be no wealth. The rich would not have any money without workers and consumers. Have you read stuff like "Confessions Of An Economic Hitman", or indeed any recent history of rich nations exploitation of the third world? If America is so interested in freedom of association, why did it support Saddam Hussein all through the 80's? Could it be that it was not interested in freedom of association, but simply maximising the wealth of a select few individuals? If you're supplying arms and diplomatic support to a tyrant, it seems to me theres only one answer. America's support of dictators is shameful. Who's interests are they serving? Did the American people want to support Saddam? Maybe, just maybe it was Big Oil that wanted Saddam in power.

Scientific progress is, in the vast majority of times, funded by the government. Most scientific enquiry has no market value as such and is therefore useless to the business world.

How come the richest nation on earth has the worst infant mortality rate of any western nation? Is universal healthcare something that the majority of people truly do not want? Its almost like, the governments thinking is being influenced by private investors who make billions from healthcare, and not influenced by the millions of uninsured people of America, noit to mention the millions more who want universal healthcare. Who's interests are being served?

What do you mean at Chomsky's times? He's alive right now. And let me assure you, wealth very much belongs to people. Maybe not in the same sense that gold did, but try telling any billionaire that they dont have any money, or that its actually yours, and see what the reaction is.

19. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18569 by wallace on January 21, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Zappi

Pinochet hardly brought about the freedom of association you claim. His policies resulted not only in murder and torture of thousands, but malnutrition under Pinochet was at absurd levels. Not to mention the fact that during the worst times the Chilean government was supported by the copper mines, which were still governemnt owned. Do you applaud Hitler for turning Germany's economy around and fighting off communism?

Canada is higher up than America on the standards of living league. While America's average wages, adjusted for inflation, sit round about the level they were at in the 1950's, the ammount of million and billionaires America has produced just grows and grows. The only reason America's average wages look as high as they do is because the numbers are dragged up by the number of billionaires. Clearly the American economy is being run to benefit a select few people.

America, and by extension the rich countries of the world either need a poor third world for cheap labour, or they need cheap labour from their own countries. Seeing as some "awful" labour laws are still in place in America, then the third world is where America will have to go. Every nation cant be rich. Or if they are, then there has to be a majority of people living in poverty in order for free markets to be able to maximise profits. Corporations just wouldnt be able to function without either a)cheap labour and b)governemnt handouts.

Its funny you mention the air we breathe. Do you also think global warming is a scam invented by liberal scientists? Or is it the result of destructive corporations acting as they please?

I'm all for societies being more free and open, but if thousands of people need to die to create any changes then something is wrong.

20. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18526 by wallace on January 21, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Zappi

Yes. Pinochet was a great defender of liberty and freedom of expression. Do you really want me to list every South and Central American dictator with blood on their hands who supported "free market" ploicies? And no, you may not call it natural market forces. America makes billions every year from arms sales, and who pays for the parts, the labour, the research, etc? The American taxpayer. Do they see any of the profit? Not a bit. That would be "socialist". The internet was created by the American military on the taxpayers dollar. Taxpayers dollars went into "research" that helped American computer systems stay ahead of other countries. Without the taxpayer, Microsoft would not have able to exist. The American government handed out the technology and research about the internet to private companies who then proceeded to charge the American public. The American Airline business is protected from the free market by the American government. They hand out billions to keep them afloat. Corporate American farms can grow what they like, knowing that anything they dont sell will be bought by the American government. No free market there. If the free market is so "right" and "natural", how come it wouldnt survive without taxpayers money?

21. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17922 by wallace on January 17, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Going from "Under certain horrible conditions torture is the only choice" to "We should make torture illgeal but turn a blind eye to the breaking of that law under certain conditions" is a huge leap on Harris' part. Considering there has been no documented case of the ticking bomb scenario it seems like he's not just advocating THAT kind of torture. Them, add to that the "If we accept collatoral damage" arguement I think Harris is in favour of handing certain powers the right to torture if it serves their purposes. I smell a rat. Harris is not this brilliant logician that people seem to think he is. I see no difference between openmindedness to God and openmindedness to reincarnation. Anyone with an ounce of honesty can see huge flaws in Harris' logic. I'm not saying his books dont have insight or arent worth reading, its just that he deserves the same kind of criticism as anyone else who uses bad logic.

22. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17907 by wallace on January 17, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Fondness For Beetles

So you must also be saying that there are "some" situations in which it would be ok to murder a child.

23. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17903 by wallace on January 17, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Fondness for Beetles

My point was bigger than what you are taking. If someone were to say yes, they would torture someone in such an implausable scenario, then theres a sense of "Well I've won then. You're basically saying that in some situations its ok to torture. Arguement over" when in fact this is a distortion of the truth. My above scenario was meant to show that if you did kill a child to save thousands, it could hardly be said that in some situations you think it is ok to murder a child. Despite your actions, you would probably still feel that it was very wrong to kill the child, you were just in a horrible situation. And the same goes with torture. Saying you would torture says nothing about your feelings about torture.

24. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17888 by wallace on January 17, 2007 at 9:58 am

The ticking bomb scenario for torture is ridiculous. Lets make another scenario. You are trapped with a terrorist and a child. The terrorist says that unless you shot the child he will set off a bomb that kills thousands of people. Now, lets just say you shot the child and the terrorist was true to his word, does that mean you can then say "There are some instances where murdering a child is acceptable"? Of course not. It is clearly a unique and horrible scenario that should not be taken as a precedent on which all ideas about mudering children should be taken. Same with the idea of torturing a terrorist when a bomb will be going off in 2 hours. It says nothing about your ideas about torture. I can guarantee you that I can think of similar scenrio's that would make any kind of repulsive human behaviour acceptable AT THAT MOMENT, but that SHOULD NOT be taken as any normal human beings stance on that act in general.

25. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16485 by wallace on January 6, 2007 at 8:06 pm

This is where Harris' "perfect weapon" scenario falls flat on its face. A perfect weapon would produce no collatoral damage, but would not prevent widespread torture. Unless we could invent a "perfect guilt detector" so we could not torture innocent people. Then we could invent a "perfect torture machine" that only tortures people just enough. To be honest, the whole "perfect weapon" idea is a blind alley which we should avoid.

26. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16482 by wallace on January 6, 2007 at 7:58 pm

I can do the same thing Mr Schulman is doing. Lets find an easy way to dismiss him:

Mr Schulman's main problem with the new atheists is that they lacked "charm" and were an "incurious" bunch. Is this truly an intellectual response? Perhaps to a struggling 3rd year theology major. He will have to try harder to convince others though.

27. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16461 by wallace on January 6, 2007 at 4:57 pm

If you are ok with collatoral damage, you should be ok with torture. OK, what if you're not ok with collatoral damage?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Harris seems to equate collatoral damage with a skiing accident or death on a rollercoaster (in his completely misjudged attack on Chomsky). Overall I liked "The End Of Faith", but his reasoning was quite absurd at times and he seems to exist in a different universe from Richard Dawkins.

28. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16270 by wallace on January 5, 2007 at 7:03 pm

When somebody doesnt have an arguement, they will resort to two things 1)Name calling 2)Trying to show that you are just like them. This article does both, except without the charm of some other atheist critics. The thing is, in bygone days, the realisation that there was no God would perhaps have been devastating, and for some people it still is. But many of us these days have not grown up in the claustrophobic Victorian atmosphere of blind acceptance. The idea that there is no God is not new (neither is the idea that there is a God), but its much easier these days to simply come to the realisation with no tears or public displays of mourning. Enough tears have been shed in the name of God (or lack thereof), and the reason for the easy acceptance of non-theistic ideas is actually the opposite of what the writer suspects it is. The reason is maturity.

Only a mind completely shackled by faith could find greif in Gods non-existance. To "open-minded" "free-thinkers" (note the scorn with which theists use these terms and recoil in fear) who finally reject the idea of God, the chances are they were never that firm in their minds to begin with. It becomes as easy as letting go of the idea of Satan being real.

Note also that the author is plain wrong at points, sometimes painfully so (I'm sure Sam Harris is aghast at the accusation that he did not focus on Islamic extremists). It becomes obvious that he has never read any of the books he has mentioned. He merely finds these upstart atheists distatsteful. And well he should. They are brushing away the foul cobwebs of archaic thinking and rendering his warm and cosy fireside faith obsolete. Just as the church found the ideas of Copernicus (to say nothing of Darwin himself) distatsteful for obvious reasons, so the writer feels the brisk winds of rational thought, and they make his teeth chatter and the ground beneath his feet dissolve. No wonder he is afraid. Retreat, retreat you fool. Run to the nearest Churchhouse. Return to safe ground where talk of Bible passages and the high ideals of St. Augustine is not dismissed for the empty, shell-like wisdom that it obviously is. We will leave the mourning to the writer of the article. There is still much religious damage to be undone and we must be up to the challenge.