# The Value Of Religion For Atheists and Secular Society



## starthrower

I turned on C-Span the other night and Chris Hedges was interviewing author Alain De Bottom about his book Religion For Atheists. De Bottom, an atheist, had some interesting things to say about the lessons and rituals of religion for the modern world. The last point De Bottom made in his conversation with Hedges concerned the value placed on the individual. The modern capitalist/secular view based on money, status, talent, verses the importance of the inner self regardless of all the worldly crap. Of course religion is wiser on this point, imo. Here's a short interview pasted from Amazon.

Q: Is it possible to be a good person without religion?

A: The problem of the man without religion is that he forgets. We all know in theory what we should do to be good. The problem is that in practice, we forget. And we forget because the modern secular world always thinks that it is enough to tell someone something once (be good, remember the poor etc.) But all religions disagree here: they insist that if anyone is to stand a chance of remembering anything, they need reminders on a daily, perhaps even hourly basis.

Q: What do you think of the aggressive atheism we have seen in the past few years?

A: I am an atheist, but a gentle one. I don't feel the need to mock anyone who believes. I really disagree with the hard tone of some atheists who approach religion like a silly fairy tale. I am deeply respectful of religion, but I believe none of its supernatural aspects. So my position is perhaps unusual: I am at once very respectful and completely impious.

Q: Are you nostalgic for the deeply religious past?

A: Like many people, of course I feel nostalgic. How is it possible not to feel nostalgic when you look at 15th frescoes or the rituals of an ancient carnival? However, we have to ask: how should I respond to my nostalgia? My thought is that we can use it creatively, as the basis for a rebirth, for the creation of new things, for the creation of things that later generations will feel nostalgic about... So it frustrates me when people say things like, 'Well, they knew how to build in the 15th century, now it is impossible...' Why! Anything is possible. We should not sigh nostalgically over religion, we should learn from them. We should steal from them.

Q: If we were to replace religion with a secular equivalent, who would be our gurus?

A: We don't need a central structure. We are beyond the age of gurus and inspirational leaders. We are in the age of the Wiki structure. This means that it is up to all of us to look at religion and see what bits we can steal and place into the modern world. We might all contribute to the construction of new temples, not the government, but the concerned, interested individual. The salvation of the individual soul remains a serious problem--even when we dismiss the idea of God. In the 20th century, capitalism has really solved (in the rich West) the material problems of a significant portion of mankind. But the spiritual needs are still in chaos, with religion ceasing to answer the need. This is why I wrote my book, to show that there remains a new way: a way of filling the modern world with so many important lessons from religion, and yet not needing to return to any kind of occult spirituality.
Q: Don't you think that, in order to truly appreciate religious music and art, you have to be a believer--or, at least, don't you think that non-believers miss something important in the experience?

A: I am interested in the modern claim that we have now found a way to replace religion: with art. You often hear people say, 'Museums are our new churches'. It's a nice idea, but it's not true, and it's principally not true because of the way that museums are laid out and present art. They prevent anyone from having an emotional relationship with the works on display. They encourage an academic interest, but prevent a more didactic and therapeutic kind of contact. I recommend in my book that even if we don't believe, we learn to use art (even secular art) as a resource for comfort, identification, guidance and edification, very much what religions do with art.


----------



## Sator

Essentially, de Bottom's position is that of the psychological-philosophical view of religion. The first author to articulate this was Feuerbach. Others who followed in his wake were Schopenhauer, Edward von Hartmann, Carl Jung and to some extent Freud. However, much of the thought of these latter thinkers was further developed and adapted by Richard Wagner. If you look at _Parsifal_, there is not a single mention of God in the whole work.

This website covers things well:

http://www.wix.com/horsegal_11/psychology-of-religion


----------



## starthrower

Yeah, it's not a new subject. But it was refreshing to turn on the TV and not be subjected to another shallow spectacle of believers verses atheists controversy for effect.


----------



## Polednice

I think de Botton is a weasal and his ideas are pathetic.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> I think de Botton is a weasal and his ideas are pathetic.


 The guy is probably not a varmint, but 'his ideas' seem to be borrowed, and the subject compilation of them intended to assist him in making a living. If he has the formula right, maybe a good living.


----------



## starthrower

Polednice said:


> I think de Botton is a weasal and his ideas are pathetic.


I think you need to live a little and gain some wisdom and experience. Your mean spiritedness and quick judgments proves De Bottom right.

As for borrowed ideas, you can include De Bottom among thousands of other writers. I'm not here to prise the author, I never heard of the guy before a few days ago. But he's right. People need to be reminded, and they need to practice right conduct. And this is only one aspect to begin with.


----------



## Crudblud

He has a funny name, I'll give him that.


----------



## kv466

The only thing that bothers me about 'being reminded' is that,...what? Is being reminded constantly supposed to just magically make us better people? What about priests and all of the sins they commit? I can't think of any other lifestyle that could be more constantly reminded of how to do good and what to do than a priest and yet they are victim of the flesh just as much as any of us.

_Q. Is it possible to be a good person without religion?_

Hell, yes!


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> [...]
> As for borrowed ideas, you can include De Bottom among thousands of other writers. I'm not here to prise the author, I never heard of the guy before a few days ago. But he's right. People need to be reminded, and they need to practice right conduct. And this is only one aspect to begin with.


And I disagree. People (read 'adults') don't need to be reminded every week, day or hour about 'right conduct'. Art is not a useful substitute for any aspect of religion. If, and I understand it's a big if, the interview represents fairly the contents of the book, the tome is the home of a lot of sloppy thinking. Based on the interview, the book is worthless. Maybe the guy needs to be interviewed again, after getting his **** together.


----------



## starthrower

The priests you are referring to are sociopaths, so the concept of right conduct has no bearing on their behavior. And the impunity many have enjoyed is due to the institutional power structure of the Catholic church which is another topic altogether. And I'm not arguing that one needs religion to be a "good" person. But to get back to the the topic which is much more broad concerning civil society.

It's the social and ritualistic aspects of religion which serves people's needs in other areas of living and dying. And yes, it's not for everyone. We all need what we need to stay sane and get through this absurd experience called life.


----------



## starthrower

Hilltroll72 said:


> And I disagree. People (read 'adults') don't need to be reminded every week, day or hour about 'right conduct'. Art is not a useful substitute for any aspect of religion. If, and I understand it's a big if, the interview represents fairly the contents of the book, the tome is the home of a lot of sloppy thinking. Based on the interview, the book is worthless. Maybe the guy needs to be interviewed again, after getting his **** together.


Well those a-holes on Wall St. destroying people's lives need to be reminded.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I think de Botton is a weasal and his ideas are pathetic.


Now, now, Polednice - let's not engage in bullying. Or is it only bullying when directed against a group you associate yourself with?


----------



## starthrower

We all know Poley is too sensitive to be a bully. I like to think of him as a button pushing provocateur!


----------



## Guest

That's the problem with bullying legislation, though - who gets to decide where the line is drawn between bullying and simply being provocative?


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> Well those a-holes on Wall St. destroying people's lives need to be reminded.


Yeah; reminded with a concurrent slap up-side the head. Memory reinforcement.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> I think you need to live a little and gain some wisdom and experience. Your mean spiritedness and quick judgments proves De Bottom right.
> 
> As for borrowed ideas, you can include De Bottom among thousands of other writers. I'm not here to prise the author, I never heard of the guy before a few days ago. But he's right. People need to be reminded, and they need to practice right conduct. And this is only one aspect to begin with.


You might want to gain more experience with de Botton's ideas and writings. He childishly wished a failed career and death on a negative reviewer, and wrote a patronising book about careers where he looked down on people whose professions he disliked. In talks, he never ceases to be a smug *******, and his ideas about atheism are only ever common sense ideas about behaviour wrapped in misguided naivete on the uses and purposes of religion.


----------



## Cnote11

I completely disagree with the original post.


----------



## Polednice

I also think the idea that we need constant moral reminders is a subtly pernicious one - if we are to be reminded of right and wrong, we presumably have a source of moral answers, which is what religion claims to be. I think society would be much better served if we reminded ourselves of moral questions rather than answers, and always assumed that no matter.how strongly and instinctually we feel about something, we may still be wrong and so should always be open to investigation and change, even - or especially - when the results point to something that goes against everything we learned as children.


----------



## Couchie

Shame Christopher died and people are free to make such weak-willed displays of shortsightedness without fear of being Hitch-slapped to pieces.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> Shame Christopher died and people are free to make such weak-willed displays of shortsightedness without fear of being Hitch-slapped to pieces.


Hitchens was frequently informed, mostly interesting, and almost always entertaining - but as we discussed in a thread some time ago, where it came to his attacks on religion, often he played fast and loose with the facts and showed a real sloppiness in scholarship. Indeed, my own esteem for him - despite the fact that he was actively atheistic and still very liberal on many issues - dropped quite a bit after reading his god is not Great. I documented some of the most glaring errors that were easily identified from simple internet searches in that thread - I'll try to find it.


----------



## Cnote11

Please do, Dr. Mike. That sounds like a highly informative read.


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> Hitchens was frequently informed, mostly interesting, and almost always entertaining - but as we discussed in a thread some time ago, where it came to his attacks on religion, often he played fast and loose with the facts and showed a real sloppiness in scholarship. Indeed, my own esteem for him - despite the fact that he was actively atheistic and still very liberal on many issues - dropped quite a bit after reading his god is not Great. I documented some of the most glaring errors that were easily identified from simple internet searches in that thread - I'll try to find it.


Personally I have never read a Hitchens book and don't really care to. But I have watched enough of his debates that fast and loose or not he would have made utter mincemeat of de Botton had de Botton been foolish enough to make the above remarks in Christopher's presence.


----------



## Guest

The thread was actually "Christopher Hitchens Has Died." It took place around December of last year. There was much discussion of his book god is not Great, and out of a desire to honestly criticize the book, I actually read it. I documented in that thread some of the falsehoods I found. This is a link to one particular page of that thread that gives some specific examples of the shoddy research he did for the book, but you can peruse the thread to see my other critiques of it.
http://www.talkclassical.com/16911-christopher-hitchens-has-died-8.html

A few quick points, as I remember them:
He claims that there is no historical evidence that a consensus was conducted around the time when Jesus was reportedly born as a refutation of the story of the birth of Christ - but there is evidence of at least 3 around that time.

He states that all religions have always suppressed any attempt (his hyperbole, not mine) to translate scripture into commone languages - not true. The Bible, or parts of it, are some of the most translated works in human history, with some of the earliest translations dating to before the birth of Christ (follow the link, and I actually cite the examples of this).

He claims that 3 individuals were burned at the stake for making translations of the Bible into English - which they were not. Only one of them actually died an unnatural death, but it was more likely due to the fact that he had spoken out against Henry VIII's adulterous ways and was hunted down for it.

The book was truly pathetic. And I'm saying this as someone who LIKES Hitchens. I like listening to him speak. I still enjoying going on YouTube and watching him. But this book is no credit to him, or to the cause of atheism.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> Personally I have never read a Hitchens book and don't really care to. But I have watched enough of his debates that fast and loose or not he would have made utter mincemeat of de Botton had de Botton been foolish enough to make the above remarks in Christopher's presence.


So you value form over substance? Yes, I will admit that he could talk circles around just about everybody. But after looking into how grounded in actual facts he was, it strikes me that he might have focused a bit too much on his wit and eloquence and not enough on the actual substance.


----------



## Cnote11

Well, Hitchens at times was a guy who tried to be proactive for the hell of it and tended to make a shift towards hyperbole. I think that it takes away the seriousness of it sometimes. Plus he was drunk 90% of the time! I've always wondered what effect that had on his writing.


----------



## starthrower

Polednice said:


> I also think the idea that we need constant moral reminders is a subtly pernicious one - if we are to be reminded of right and wrong, we presumably have a source of moral answers, which is what religion claims to be. I think society would be much better served if we reminded ourselves of moral questions rather than answers, and always assumed that no matter.how strongly and instinctually we feel about something, we may still be wrong and so should always be open to investigation and change, even - or especially - when the results point to something that goes against everything we learned as children.


You and Hilltroll are the ones who brought up the constant reminder aspect. That's not what the author said. He never said people need to go to church every week to get brow beaten by sermons, so stop making up this crap.

As intelligent, sensitive people like yourself should know, you remind yourself from values instilled if you have a living conscience, as opposed to a dead one possessed by the exploiters in this world.


----------



## science

Without generally realizing it, we are currently in the midst of an experiment to see whether we can replace religion with secular substitutes.

I'll use the US for my examples because I'm most familiar with it. We have pilgrimage sites (~ the Lincoln Memorial), hymns (~The Star-Spangled Banner), processions (~parades), initiation rituals (~graduations, swearing in the President, etc.), charity (~Social Security), scripture (~the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address), almost anything you would associate with religion. But we have failed to create the kind of local communities that churches provide, in part because we don't have any ritual occasion with the frequency of Sunday morning meetings.

Another aspect of our attempt is to build up secular art to replace religious art. On the whole, I'd say this has gone fairly well: something like _The Magic Mountain_ or _Huckleberry Finn_ stands up fairly well to anything in the Bible; secular art for a few hundred years has been as good as religious art; at least some Hollywood films are much more moving and interesting than the Mass ever was; and the majority of the music most people listen to today is secular. But we will do better than we have.

Finally, the stories that science tells us are better than the religious myths usually were. Noah's flood is peanuts compared to the comet that destroyed the dinosaurs. Is it more wonderful to think that a god made us from mud or that all the larger atoms (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, etc.) in our body were forged in primordial stars? If you know a little about the big bang, then the picture of the cosmic microwave background radiation (below) will inspire far more awe than any icon of a god creating the universe ever could.










(That is essentially what our universe looked like in the first moment of time that it was visible.)

Still, many people say they need religion to be good, and I want those guys to stay religious just in case they're right.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> You and Hilltroll are the ones who brought up the constant reminder aspect. That's not what the author said. He never said people need to go to church every week to get brow beaten by sermons, so stop making up this crap.


??? De Botton brought it up in your OP! I'm not making any crap up, de Botton is, and I never characterised what a "constant reminder" would be like, only what the implications of the basic idea are.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> Without generally realizing it, we are currently in the midst of an experiment to see whether we can replace religion with secular substitutes.
> 
> I'll use the US for my examples because I'm most familiar with it. We have charity (~Social Security)


Social Security is not a charity. More like a prepaid annuity.


----------



## science

Hilltroll72 said:


> Social Security is not a charity. More like a prepaid annuity.


On paper.

But at this point you have essentially given it to the wealthy (who arranged to fund the government by borrowing it, so they could cut their taxes), and you will have to tax them to get it back (to have the government pay back the debt it owes you).

There are a lot of people out there who are hoping not to pay it back.

It's an odd thing - the wealthy (well, a certain sector of them) even oppose a social service like that when it's paid for by a _regressive_ tax. It's not that they don't want to pay for it - they don't' want you to receive it. It's something to wonder about. My best guess is that they can feel that any independence of the working class manages to carve for itself hurts their relative dominance over it. You wouldn't want to think such an unflattering thing - but I really can't conceive of any other motivation for opposing it so fervently that they're even willing to risk their credibility by systematically deceiving the public about its costs and benefits.


----------



## starthrower

science said:


> Without generally realizing it, we are currently in the midst of an experiment to see whether we can replace religion with secular substitutes.
> 
> I'll use the US for my examples because I'm most familiar with it. We have pilgrimage sites (~ the Lincoln Memorial), hymns (~The Star-Spangled Banner), processions (~parades), initiation rituals (~graduations, swearing in the President, etc.), charity (~Social Security), scripture (~the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address), almost anything you would associate with religion. But we have failed to create the kind of local communities that churches provide, in part because we don't have any ritual occasion with the frequency of Sunday morning meetings.
> 
> Another aspect of our attempt is to build up secular art to replace religious art. On the whole, I'd say this has gone fairly well: something like _The Magic Mountain_ or _Huckleberry Finn_ stands up fairly well to anything in the Bible; secular art for a few hundred years has been as good as religious art; at least some Hollywood films are much more moving and interesting than the Mass ever was; and the majority of the music most people listen to today is secular. But we will do better than we have.
> 
> Finally, the stories that science tells us are better than the religious myths usually were. Noah's flood is peanuts compared to the comet that destroyed the dinosaurs. Is it more wonderful to think that a god made us from mud or that all the larger atoms (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, etc.) in our body were forged in primordial stars? If you know a little about the big bang, then the picture of the cosmic microwave background radiation (below) will inspire far more awe than any icon of a god creating the universe ever could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (That is essentially what our universe looked like in the first moment of time that it was visible.)
> 
> Still, many people say they need religion to be good, and I want those guys to stay religious just in case they're right.


I'm all for scientific explanations of physical reality. I don't need the bible for that. As far as answering the question of what makes somebody a "good" person, I couldn't tell you. I was sent to Sunday school and church as a kid, but I have no idea what effect it has on my conduct? I'm sure it's a result of many factors and influences. I haven't been to church regularly for almost 30 years, so as I said, the values I possess were instilled long ago and my conscience usually reminds me how to act in most situations. And that's how I interpret De Bottom's statement. Maybe he does mean attending religious services on a regular basis? But he was stating the religious view on this, not his own. He's an atheist. Sorry for the confusion, Polednice.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Social Security is not a charity. More like a prepaid annuity.


Hardly a prepaid annuity - that is the biggest fraud. There is absolutely no relation between what one pays into the system and what one pays out. The charade of sending people regular reports of how much they have contributed is just cover for politicians. The money is spent the second it comes in, if not before. All that exists is a series of IOUs, backed by the U.S. government. Yes, that makes it pretty safe that it will be paid back - the problem is, with the amount owed the Social Security fund, to pay for the ever-increasing amounts of funds needed, taxes will necessarily need to be raised on EVERYBODY, or benefits be cut, or - most likely - a combination of both.


----------



## Guest

Cnote11 said:


> Well, Hitchens at times was a guy who tried to be proactive for the hell of it and tended to make a shift towards hyperbole. I think that it takes away the seriousness of it sometimes. Plus he was drunk 90% of the time! I've always wondered what effect that had on his writing.


You know, it is funny. Lots of atheists I have talked with LOVED Hitchens and would cite him ad nauseum in these types of discussions. They would even praise his book god is not Great. Then I point out these glaring factual errors, which suggest either intellectual laziness, or straight up lying, and suddenly he is not as popular as he once was, and he is excused away.

Yes, he tended towards hyperbole, and he did a lot for shock value. But he always spoke with some authority, citing things and affecting a (false) air of having a firm grasp of the facts in the matter of discussion. And yet this book lays bare the fact that, at least in this case, he was willing to state blatantly false claims to support his assertions. One wonders how frequently he did this, and what an objective assessment of his other writings would reveal. His radical partisanship in whatever position he espoused and his obvious natural speaking and debating talents seem to be his strong points - knowledge of the subject matter does not seem to be.


----------



## NightHawk

Sator said:


> If you look at _Parsifal_, there is not a single mention of God in the whole work.


You are correct about Parsifal, but there are plenty enough sign posts in the work that no mistake can be made as to the Christian symbology of the work, these are only a couple of many examples.

from near the end of Act One:

TINTUREL: 
Uncover the Grail.

VOICES (_from high up_)
Take this My body,
take My blood.

...

BOYS: 
Take this My blood,
take My body,
in remembrance of Me.

near the end of Act III:

PARSIFAL
My first office I thus perform.
(_He bends over Kundry, still kneeling before him, and sprinkles her head._)

Receive this baptism,
and believe in the Redeemer!
(_Kundry bows her head to the ground and appears to weep bitterly_)

....

GURNEMANZ: 
That is the magic of Good Friday, my lord!

...

All uppercase usage and stage directions/descriptions are _presumably_ Wagner's.

Taken from the libretto accompanying Rafael Kubelik's complete 1980 recording of PARSIFAL.


----------



## Cnote11

DrMike said:


> You know, it is funny. Lots of atheists I have talked with LOVED Hitchens and would cite him ad nauseum in these types of discussions. They would even praise his book god is not Great. Then I point out these glaring factual errors, which suggest either intellectual laziness, or straight up lying, and suddenly he is not as popular as he once was, and he is excused away.
> 
> Yes, he tended towards hyperbole, and he did a lot for shock value. But he always spoke with some authority, citing things and affecting a (false) air of having a firm grasp of the facts in the matter of discussion. And yet this book lays bare the fact that, at least in this case, he was willing to state blatantly false claims to support his assertions. One wonders how frequently he did this, and what an objective assessment of his other writings would reveal. His radical partisanship in whatever position he espoused and his obvious natural speaking and debating talents seem to be his strong points - knowledge of the subject matter does not seem to be.


I don't know anybody like that. I hardly know any atheists or people who have even heard of Christopher Hitchens. Jeez, I really do live in a cultureless area.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> Hardly a prepaid annuity - that is the biggest fraud. There is absolutely no relation between what one pays into the system and what one pays out. The charade of sending people regular reports of how much they have contributed is just cover for politicians. The money is spent the second it comes in, if not before. All that exists is a series of IOUs, backed by the U.S. government. Yes, that makes it pretty safe that it will be paid back - the problem is, with the amount owed the Social Security fund, to pay for the ever-increasing amounts of funds needed, taxes will necessarily need to be raised on EVERYBODY, or benefits be cut, or - most likely - a combination of both.


You clearly miss the point. That the funds are stolen as they are received does not change the form of the contract. Your plutocrat friends are thieves; it's that simple. Many of us peons are aware of the thievery. It is just barely possible that the plutocrats' grip on our throats isn't as secure as they think.


----------



## Alberich

It's a shame Hitchens died of pneumonia.

As opposed to getting shot in the back of the head over a shallow grave.

Damned Trotskyist warmonger who wanted war in the middle east just to kill the last truly pious creed on Earth. I'm glad I believe in hell; oblivion is to good a fate for the Hitch. Either ignorant, a liar, or an ignorant liar, the man tried to pass off his own bile ridden atheist folk-history as fact, and made syllogisms to demonize religion without even thinking to include major premises.


----------



## Guest

Alberich said:


> It's a shame Hitchens died of pneumonia.
> 
> As opposed to getting shot in the back of the head over a shallow grave.
> 
> Damned Trotskyist warmonger who wanted war in the middle east just to kill the last truly pious creed on Earth. I'm glad I believe in hell; oblivion is to good a fate for the Hitch. Either ignorant, a liar, or an ignorant liar, the man tried to pass off his own bile ridden atheist folk-history as fact, and made syllogisms to demonize religion without even thinking to include major premises.


Wherever Hitchens ended up, I find it hard to believe that someone would wish another person dead and still hope to end up in a better place. I think that was a horrendous thing to write on your part. I don't know what religious tradition toy espouse, but mine teaches me that if the Son of God, while dying on the cross, could take the time to plead for the forgiveness of his killers, then I must be willing to forgive all men, especially if I, in turn, hope to ever receive forgiveness. To quote Bill Buckley, I will not insult your intelligence by assuming you meant what you said.


----------



## Alberich

The man actively tried to turn souls away from the true path with disgusting, vile, and dishonest polemics. The man utterly rejected the LORD's gift of his son's sacrifice and wanted others to come with him. Romans 12:9 says "Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good." Hitchens committed the one unforgivable sin: denial of the Holy Spirit. To be clear, I sincerely wish he did not travel the road to hell, and it's a terrible shame he did deny Jesus. This doesn't change the fact that he is unmistakeably suffering for all eternity.


----------



## Cnote11

What the **** am I reading?


----------



## mmsbls

Alberich said:


> The man actively tried to turn souls away from the true path with disgusting, vile, and dishonest polemics. The man utterly rejected the LORD's gift of his son's sacrifice and wanted others to come with him. Romans 12:9 says "Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good."


I don't want this thread to turn into a religion or anti-religion bashing exercise, but don't you think Hitchens honestly believed he was fighting evil and pushing good? You may disagree with his conclusions, but I think most people feel he sincerely believed he was trying to move society toward a better place. He seems to have thought much longer and harder about what is right and wrong than most people I know. Understanding reality is extraordinarily difficult, but I'm always happy to see those who try hard even if they come to different conclusions than I do.


----------



## Alberich

His intentions had nothing to do with the fact that he committed acts of supreme evil; Hitler also sincerely believed that what he did was good, but is widely considered one of the greatest forces for evil in the 20th century (alongside Mao and Stalin). In fact, I believe that atheist activists have done more harm than Hitler ever could: violence can only destroy the body, but Hitchens killed men's souls. However, we should be sure to acknowledge his profane crimes in addition to his crimes against the sacred: he relentlessly called for war with the Muslim peoples of the Middle-East for the purpose of utterly destroying their culture and the existence of those who upheld it.


----------



## Cnote11

I'm not sure why God took the time to create and guide Hitchens through life if he's more destructive to the human race and religion than Hitler was to the world. Guess he didn't see that one coming. Don't worry Alberich, God knows all and has a plan. Hitchens was part of it.


----------



## Alberich

He created Hitchens to live as God meant man to live: in total harmony with Him. The only way that being so is meaningful is if the creation has a choice in the matter, and Hitchens chose the worst path possible.


----------



## Cnote11

But did God not see that coming? God has planned everything and he sees everything! He should have sent Hitchens a picture of himself in his breakfast whiskey instead of a piece of corn in some Iowa farmers field.


----------



## Alberich

While it's certainly not our place to question or judge the author of existence, making people believe is just not His way: He will not reveal himself to hearts he knows will be unreceptive of Him. I'm more or less certain that nothing short of actually beaming belief into the Hitch's head would make him see.
Additionally, I don't believe God is something that can be even remotely represented on a physical medium.


----------



## Cnote11

Don't tell God what he can and can't do. Also, he was pretty damn insistent on getting people to believe through the entirety of the Bible. When did it suddenly become "not His way"?


----------



## Alberich

He wants to convince people to believe, not take control of their brain and force them to. Sometimes he'll be more subtle or more direct than other times. His methods of convincing people seem drastic to many of us, but its not our part to judge His measures.


----------



## Cnote11

Those ten plagues in Egypt were mighty subtle, but you're right, it isn't my place to formulate my own opinions.


----------



## Alberich

I never said all his measures were subtle; the Plagues were an example of the 'more direct' clause you apparently missed out on. Secondly, while it is never the place of the finite to judge the infinite, forming one's own opinion about the morality of a deity's actions is meaningless if one doesn't provide an alternative source for morality.


----------



## mmsbls

starthrower said:


> Q: Don't you think that, in order to truly appreciate religious music and art, you have to be a believer--or, at least, don't you think that non-believers miss something important in the experience?
> 
> A: I am interested in the modern claim that we have now found a way to replace religion: with art. You often hear people say, 'Museums are our new churches'. It's a nice idea, but it's not true, and it's principally not true because of the way that museums are laid out and present art. They prevent anyone from having an emotional relationship with the works on display. They encourage an academic interest, but prevent a more didactic and therapeutic kind of contact. I recommend in my book that even if we don't believe, we learn to use art (even secular art) as a resource for comfort, identification, guidance and edification, very much what religions do with art.


I don't understand what he means by museums "prevent anyone from having an emotional relationship with the works on display." What would be a better way to display art so that people could have an emotional relationship? I understand that museums do encourage an academic interest (which I think is a good thing), but I don't know how museums "prevent a more ...therapeutic kind of contact."


----------



## science

Alberich said:


> I never said all his measures were subtle; the Plagues were an example of the 'more direct' clause you apparently missed out on. Secondly, while it is never the place of the finite to judge the infinite, forming one's own opinion about the morality of a deity's actions is meaningless if one doesn't provide an alternative source for morality.


I am the source of my morality; you are the source of yours. And so on.

You (and many other religious people) project your morality onto the cosmos, call it a deity, and try to force us to recognize it as an objective reality. It has been a very effective political tool for millennia, helping rulers exploit their subjects. But now that democracy has come - and as long as we can keep it - we'll decide these things collectively.

And that is the only reason Hitchens was allowed to say what he did without being executed on the orders of a church.


----------



## Petwhac

Alberich said:


> While it's certainly not our place to question or judge the author of existence, making people believe is just not His way: He will not reveal himself to hearts he knows will be unreceptive of Him. I'm more or less certain that nothing short of actually beaming belief into the Hitch's head would make him see.
> Additionally, I don't believe God is something that can be even remotely represented on a physical medium.


It certainly _is_ our place to question and judge what you call the 'author of existence'. Or more correctly, to question the existence of the 'author of existence'.
Listen to science, he knows best.


----------



## Chrythes

> The man actively tried to turn souls away from the true path with disgusting, vile, and dishonest polemics. The man utterly rejected the LORD's gift of his son's sacrifice and wanted others to come with him. Romans 12:9 says "Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good." Hitchens committed the one unforgivable sin: denial of the Holy Spirit. To be clear, I sincerely wish he did not travel the road to hell, and it's a terrible shame he did deny Jesus. This doesn't change the fact that he is unmistakeably suffering for all eternity.


Who are you judge this man, when YOU are the one following the path of destruction and hatred!
When YOUR people came into our lands and banned our GODS, you took the soul away from us! Your people destroyed our spirit, our homes, our souls and eventually our lives! 
But remember, the GODS shall rise again and you, the sinners, those who follow The One Who Shall Not Be Named (Yeshua) shall be taken by the flames of Hades and drown into the river of eternal suffering, as you were the ones who betrayed the GODS and dishonored them, YOU were the ones who killed their children and worshipers, YOU angered them, but you didn't destroy them, and you never will!
As Zeus is my witness, you shall burn!


----------



## Guest

Alberich said:


> The man actively tried to turn souls away from the true path with disgusting, vile, and dishonest polemics. The man utterly rejected the LORD's gift of his son's sacrifice and wanted others to come with him. Romans 12:9 says "Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good." Hitchens committed the one unforgivable sin: denial of the Holy Spirit. To be clear, I sincerely wish he did not travel the road to hell, and it's a terrible shame he did deny Jesus. This doesn't change the fact that he is unmistakeably suffering for all eternity.


Interesting - you know, many Christians believe that my particular faith (I am a Mormon) is also evil and leading people away from the true faith in Christ. Is it also to be wished that I should meet my end with a shot to the back of the head and a drop into a shallow grave?


----------



## starthrower

Hmm? I've been away for a couple of days and this thread has dissolved into an us vs. them charade. To be fair, it started out on shaky ground using De Bottom's book as a launching pad. And as I mentioned, I'm not recommending his book, and I haven't read it. I only listened to a half hour interview on C-Span. The problem with these types of threads is that people like Alberich show up claiming to speak for God and try and save souls.

As an antidote I'm now reading Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian and Other Essays. According to Russell, fixing the calender is one of the few positive contributions to society by organized religion. In my opinion, religious organizations do provide other worthwhile services especially to the poor and destitute in society. The Rescue Mission and Salvation Army feed and shelter thousands of people in cities all over the country. This is great as long as they don't require hungry people to sit and listen to sermons. That should be optional.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Interesting - you know, many Christians believe that my particular faith (I am a Mormon) is also evil and leading people away from the true faith in Christ. Is it also to be wished that I should meet my end with a shot to the back of the head and a drop into a shallow grave?


I'd be interested to hear if it's a good Christian who's supposed to pull the trigger - would God make an exception for murder if the killing is righteous? Or are Christians all bile, hoping for others to do their dirty work?


----------



## Alberich

Petwhac said:


> It certainly _is_ our place to question and judge what you call the 'author of existence'. Or more correctly, to question the existence of the 'author of existence'.
> Listen to science, he knows best.


If you accept his existence, it becomes obvious that He is beyond questioning. Judging someone implies that they are somehow more powerful than the one being judged; you sir are certainly not more powerful than God.


----------



## Alberich

DrMike said:


> Interesting - you know, many Christians believe that my particular faith (I am a Mormon) is also evil and leading people away from the true faith in Christ. Is it also to be wished that I should meet my end with a shot to the back of the head and a drop into a shallow grave?


No: you are only a small step away from the truth. Mormon's would be Christians by any definitions without the Joseph Smith stuff. Mormons by no means belong to any of the churches that claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church; their is no succession from any of the apostles to Joseph Smith.


----------



## Alberich

science said:


> I am the source of my morality; you are the source of yours. And so on.
> 
> You (and many other religious people) project your morality onto the cosmos, call it a deity, and try to force us to recognize it as an objective reality. It has been a very effective political tool for millennia, helping rulers exploit their subjects. But now that democracy has come - and as long as we can keep it - we'll decide these things collectively.
> 
> And that is the only reason Hitchens was allowed to say what he did without being executed on the orders of a church.


There is only morality in us because He wrote His law on our hearts. He reveals Himself to us through our conciouses, the Holy Scriptures, and through His creation. 
Christianity tends only to work as a political tool with benevolent intentions; like inspiring people to lead lives of charity, raise prosperous families. Very rarely are actually malevolent purposes suited to being achieved through Christianity.


----------



## Alberich

Polednice said:


> I'd be interested to hear if it's a good Christian who's supposed to pull the trigger - would God make an exception for murder if the killing is righteous? Or are Christians all bile, hoping for others to do their dirty work?


The 5th Commandment does not, as popularly thought, say 'thou shalt not kill'; the hebrew word meant more along the lines of murder, which is to kill someone who is not a threat to anyone or didn't deserve it (only in the case of particularly heinous crimes). This also does not include soldiers who follow the laws and customs of war, and then only if the war is just (see St. Augustine for more on that one).


----------



## Cnote11

Thou shalt not kill must mean something else, because all they did in the Old Testament was rape and murder everybody.


----------



## science

Alberich said:


> There is only morality in us because He wrote His law on our hearts. He reveals Himself to us through our conciouses, the Holy Scriptures, and through His creation.
> Christianity tends only to work as a political tool with benevolent intentions; like inspiring people to lead lives of charity, raise prosperous families. Very rarely are actually malevolent purposes suited to being achieved through Christianity.


Morality is in us because we evolved it; and you are another Christian trying to give your tradition credit for the Enlightenment that has restrained it.


----------



## Cnote11

starthrower said:


> Hmm? I've been away for a couple of days and this thread has dissolved into an us vs. them charade. To be fair, it started out on shaky ground using De Bottom's book as a launching pad. And as I mentioned, I'm not recommending his book, and I haven't read it. I only listened to a half hour interview on C-Span. The problem with these types of threads is that people like Alberich show up claiming to speak for God and try and save souls.
> 
> As an antidote I'm now reading Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian and Other Essays. According to Russell, fixing the calender is one of the few positive contributions to society by organized religion. In my opinion, religious organizations do provide other worthwhile services especially to the poor and destitute in society. The Rescue Mission and Salvation Army feed and shelter thousands of people in cities all over the country. This is great as long as they don't require hungry people to sit and listen to sermons. That should be optional.


I disagree with this to an extreme. I think religion does a huge disservice to the poor. I dislike the idea of charity in general though.


----------



## starthrower

Alberich said:


> The 5th Commandment does not, as popularly thought, say 'thou shalt not kill'; the hebrew word meant more along the lines of murder, which is to kill someone who is not a threat to anyone or didn't deserve it (only in the case of particularly heinous crimes). This also does not include soldiers who follow the laws and customs of war, and then only if the war is just (see St. Augustine for more on that one).


Hmm? From what I've read in the gospels attributed to Christ, he flatly rejected violence against other human beings. He was himself rather violent towards an unsuspecting fig tree. At least that's how the story goes.


----------



## Cnote11

Jesus also said he came to uphold the laws of the Old Testament. Guy couldn't make up his mind.


----------



## starthrower

Cnote11 said:


> I disagree with this to an extreme. I think religion does a huge disservice to the poor. I dislike the idea of charity in general though.


I don't think it's fair generalize about these matters. There are the institutions of organized religion with their power and agendas, and then there are earnest, caring people of faith working to alleviate suffering in communities all over the planet. I don't care what kind of institution you are dealing with, there is always corruption.


----------



## Alberich

Jesus was certainly not against defending oneself; He knew the Apostles would be facing difficult times in his physical absence, so he advised them to buy swords to defend themselves with.

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
—Luke 22:36

As far as the modern Christian recognition of the minutia of Old Testament law goes, we distinguish between laws of bodily cleanliness and actual moral laws.


----------



## Cnote11

starthrower said:


> I don't think it's fair generalize about these matters. There are the institutions of organized religion with their power and agendas, and then there are earnest, caring people of faith working to alleviate suffering in communities all over the planet. I don't care what kind of institution you are dealing with, there is always corruption.


This has nothing to do with what I was saying. I think religion does a huge disservice to the poor due to the mentality it traps them in the "leave everything to Caeser" and suffer your life as poor members of society, because you have an after life ahead of you syndrome. The same can be said of charity. It doesn't help in moving a society forward, only giving enough to allow starving people not to die. It doesn't alleviate the cause of their suffering. I think the focus and energy that goes into charity could be better spent fixing the actual root of the problem, instead of continually glossing over it. If anything, it makes poverty palatable to the other classes morally, killing the chances of fixing the issues.


----------



## Petwhac

starthrower said:


> I don't think it's fair generalize about these matters. There are the institutions of organized religion with their power and agendas, and then there are earnest, caring people of faith working to alleviate suffering in communities all over the planet. I don't care what kind of institution you are dealing with, there is always corruption.


There are also caring people of _no _faith working to alleviate suffering. It seems some people think their actions more praiseworthy because they are following some ideology formulated in the bronze age.

@ Alberich: There are those interpreters of the Torah and Old Testament that are of the opinion that God was laying down his commandments and laws for _His_ people. Your 'neighbour' is not a stranger but one of your own. Feel free to kill/murder/enslave anyone else you feel like yeah?
You know what they say, charity begins at home.


----------



## starthrower

Well here in America, the message coming from most pulpits is anything but be content in your poverty stricken state. There is an awful lot of the prosperity gospel being preached. And these are the churches bursting with huge memberships. 

As far as getting to the root of the problems contributing to poverty, the government should be doing more, imo. And I'm not talking about welfare. 

Providing food and shelter for destitute people is compassion in action and it's just one step. The focus of homeless shelters is limited to the alleviation of immediate suffering.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> I don't think it's fair generalize about these matters. There are the institutions of organized religion with their power and agendas, and then there are earnest, caring people of faith working to alleviate suffering in communities all over the planet. I don't care what kind of institution you are dealing with, there is always corruption.


It should be obvious, then, that it is not the essence of religion that drives people to be charitable - there would be just as much charity in the world if religions didn't exist; maybe more, but certainly not less.


----------



## starthrower

Petwhac said:


> There are also caring people of _no _faith working to alleviate suffering. It seems some people think their actions more praiseworthy because they are following some ideology formulated in the bronze age.


I'm in complete agreement with your first statement, as for the second part, I don't want to generalize about individuals and their motives.


----------



## Alberich

Petwhac said:


> There are also caring people of _no _faith working to alleviate suffering. It seems some people think their actions more praiseworthy because they are following some ideology formulated in the bronze age.
> 
> @ Alberich: There are those interpreters of the Torah and Old Testament that are of the opinion that God was laying down his commandments and laws for _His_ people. Your 'neighbour' is not a stranger but one of your own. Feel free to kill/murder/enslave anyone else you feel like yeah?
> You know what they say, charity begins at home.


When Jesus came to die, He said He died for all men; now all are of His people, and the Covenant is therefor for everyone.


----------



## Petwhac

Alberich said:


> When Jesus came to die, He said He died for all men; now all are of His people, and the Covenant is therefor for everyone.


Tell that to Mullah Omar!


----------



## starthrower

Polednice said:


> It should be obvious, then, that it is not the essence of religion that drives people to be charitable - there would be just as much charity in the world if religions didn't exist; maybe more, but certainly not less.


I don't know what the statistics are, and I'm not implying that religious people are more compassionate than non-believers. The problem seems to be that so many charitable missions, contributions, works are trumped by government bureaucracy, corruption, theft, and continuous wars causing more suffering than can be alleviated. Not to mention idiotic government policies.


----------



## Alberich

Polednice said:


> It should be obvious, then, that it is not the essence of religion that drives people to be charitable - there would be just as much charity in the world if religions didn't exist; maybe more, but certainly not less.


No, it shouldn't be obvious, since it's a massive non-sequitur. There isn't even a minor premise in your syllogism
1. There is corruption in all humans
2. [omitted] 
C. Religion only decreases charity.


----------



## Petwhac

Alberich said:


> No, it shouldn't be obvious, since it's a massive non-sequitur. There isn't even a minor premise in your syllogism
> 1. There is corruption in all humans
> 2. [omitted]
> C. Religion only decreases charity.


If you want to talk logic, how about.

I exist
I can't explain why I exist
I was created by a God.

Very good!


----------



## Cnote11

starthrower said:


> Well here in America, the message coming from most pulpits is anything but be content in your poverty stricken state. There is an awful lot of the prosperity gospel being preached. And these are the churches bursting with huge memberships.
> 
> As far as getting to the root of the problems contributing to poverty, the government should be doing more, imo. And I'm not talking about welfare.
> 
> Providing food and shelter for destitute people is compassion in action and it's just one step. The focus of homeless shelters is limited to the alleviation of immediate suffering.


I'm sorry, but I spit on that. The people who create poverty turn around and give the impoverished people they create food to alleviate the suffering that they are causing. That is hardly charity to me. Also, I am in America.


----------



## Cnote11

Alberich said:


> When Jesus came to die, He said He died for all men; now all are of His people, and the Covenant is therefor for everyone.


I suppose Christopher Hitchens wasn't a man then?


----------



## starthrower

How do people running a homeless shelter create poverty?


----------



## Cnote11

starthrower said:


> How do people running a homeless shelter create poverty?


It wasn't the only thing you mentioned though. It wasn't necessarily what I was directing that at. Either way, time could be better spent elsewhere. Homeless shelters are a waste of time. I'm from the Detroit area and I see first hand that they don't do anything worthwhile in this city. They'd do better drawing their sword against the government they support, and the peoples whose ignorance creates suffering.


----------



## Alberich

Cnote11 said:


> I suppose Christopher Hitchens wasn't a man then?


One has to accept Jesus to be saved by him. This is partially why Hitchens's actions were so heinous; Jesus suffered for him and its going to waste because he doesn't believe it happened.


----------



## Alberich

Petwhac said:


> If you want to talk logic, how about.
> 
> I exist
> I can't explain why I exist
> I was created by a God.
> 
> Very good!


A) Don't put words in my mouth. I believe in God because He has revealed Himself to me and all believers through Scripture, though our hearts, and through his creation. Its not a question of logic for me.
B) There is considerable difference between making an essentially historical claim about statistical facts of human behavior like Polednice did and faith in God's existence. His claim requires logic to be accepted by those who are capable of accepting it; mine does not.


----------



## starthrower

Believing in final destinations such as heaven and hell is one of the major contributors to human suffering. Hitchens is just fine. He's asleep forever.


----------



## Cnote11

I hope you know, Starthrower, that I'm not disparaging the majority of people who do charity, and that when I say take up a sword I mean that figuratively. I just believe that their efforts could be better used elsewhere. The way charity is now makes it so impoverished people are locked in a cycle. It never actually gets better, and the charity has its large limitations. The homeless shelters here in Detroit cannot meet demand and do not keep people off the streets the majority of the day. They are inadequate, and we need to start looking for more permanent solutions. Charity for immediate relief is fine, but in this country we seem to believe that this is enough of a gesture. It isn't, and charity is worthless without working on a long-term plan to put an end to the issue.


----------



## Alberich

starthrower said:


> Believing in final destinations such as heaven and hell is one of the major contributors to human suffering.


How do you figure?


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Believing in final destinations such as heaven and hell is one of the major contributors to human suffering. Hitchens is just fine. He's asleep forever.


Well, I think you will have a hard time objectively proving that assertion.


----------



## Petwhac

Alberich said:


> A) Don't put words in my mouth. I believe in God because He has revealed Himself to me and all believers through Scripture, though our hearts, and through his creation. Its not a question of logic for me.
> B) There is considerable difference between making an essentially historical claim about statistical facts of human behavior like Polednice did and faith in God's existence. His claim requires logic to be accepted by those who are capable of accepting it; mine does not.


A) He may have revealed Himself to you through scripture. In other words, you read something and believed it. ( Or perhaps, as is the case with most believers, you had it read to you as a very young and impressionable child by an authority figure)
But I wasn't aware that a blood pumping organ could be a conduit for supernatural communication.
And I reject your completely unsubstantiated claim that it is His creation.
B) Yes, blind faith requires no logical thought, in fact no thought at all.


----------



## Cnote11

I'm just going to leave this here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g#t=0h5m06s


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Well, I think you will have a hard time objectively proving that assertion.


No, I can't prove the latter. But the doctrines are based on fear, and nothing more the dogmatic creeds.


----------



## Petwhac

Cnote11 said:


> I'm just going to leave this here
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g#t=0h5m06s


Thanks for that. Excellent.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> No, I can't prove the latter. But the doctrines are based on fear, and nothing more the dogmatic creeds.


The doctrines are not based on fear, rather on love. If I warn you that a bridge is out up ahead, and that if you continue down the road, you will crash and likely die, am I spreading fear? If I warn you of the dangers of smoking and the short and long term consequences of using tobacco, am I spreading a doctrine of fear? Certainly the consequences of not altering course in either of these situations could lead to life-threatening situations. So should I not issue the warning because I am just driving people to fear? Or should I issue the warning, because I don't want people to have to suffer? I don't understand how doctrines that warn people of the bad circumstances of incorrect choices are doctrines based on fear?


----------



## Cnote11

Petwhac said:


> Thanks for that. Excellent.


I remember watching this only a few months ago. I really do love Stephen Fry. They could have gotten better people to represent the Catholic church as I felt that the two they chose were very, very weak in the debate.


----------



## Cnote11

DrMike said:


> The doctrines are not based on fear, rather on love. If I warn you that a bridge is out up ahead, and that if you continue down the road, you will crash and likely die, am I spreading fear? If I warn you of the dangers of smoking and the short and long term consequences of using tobacco, am I spreading a doctrine of fear? Certainly the consequences of not altering course in either of these situations could lead to life-threatening situations. So should I not issue the warning because I am just driving people to fear? Or should I issue the warning, because I don't want people to have to suffer? I don't understand how doctrines that warn people of the bad circumstances of incorrect choices are doctrines based on fear?


There is a large difference between warning somebody about a bridge and warning them about an unsubstantiated claim that you expect them to base their whole entire life around or face ultimate punishment for eternity.. That's like saying Nazi Germany was the apex of love, because the Nazi party was merely warning Germany about the threat of Jews and Liberals destroying the German peoples. There is also a difference between tearing a person apart psychologically over such claims and telling them about physical dangers.


----------



## starthrower

The difference is you can physically verify that the bridge is out, so the warning has a positive meaning and value. Men warning other men of hellfire for whatever reasons cannot verify the existence of hell.

I'm in agreement with William James's position stated in the Varieties Of Religious Experience. I'm not going to argue with a person who has had a supposed direct revelation and religious experience. As for the rest of us who have had these teachings brought to us second hand, I'm free to accept or reject the creeds, texts, etc. unless they can be verified as more than purely religious dogmas.


----------



## Cnote11

On a more personal note, I'm curious to what brought you to Mormonism, Dr. Mike. This isn't an underhanded request or anything, just wondering about the nature of it. I don't run into many Mormons and I'd like to increase my understanding, especially if you converted into Mormonism instead of being born into it.


----------



## science

Alberich said:


> There is considerable difference between making an essentially historical claim about statistical facts of human behavior... and faith in God's existence. His claim requires logic to be accepted by those who are capable of accepting it; *mine does not*.


Well then, it's not worth consideration.


----------



## Cnote11

Yes, in that way it becomes impossible to make a judgement about its value, other than equating it with all the other claims of the same sort. In this way, I'm not convinced that I should give your claim more value than unicorns, for instance. How am I supposed to? I have nothing to go off of. It is impossible to evaluate.


----------



## Alberich

Petwhac said:


> A) He may have revealed Himself to you through scripture. In other words, you read something and believed it. ( Or perhaps, as is the case with most believers, you had it read to you as a very young and impressionable child by an authority figure)


I'm a Born Again, *******. Also, it extends beyond simply believing it; it means knowing the immense significance of it immediately and deeply.


Petwhac said:


> But I wasn't aware that a blood pumping organ could be a conduit for supernatural communication.


I bet your mother's proud she raised someone this smug and asinine.


Petwhac said:


> B) Yes, blind faith requires no logical thought, in fact no thought at all.


To have faith isn't to be blind; faith in a few basic 'starting points' is the only way we can see. You must believe that your eyes work, that what you see is real and not just electo-chemical stimuli being given to a brain in a jar, etc.


----------



## Ukko

Cnote11 said:


> There is a large difference between warning somebody about a bridge and warning them about an unsubstantiated claim that you expect them to base their whole entire life around or face ultimate punishment for eternity.. That's like saying Nazi Germany was the apex of love, because the Nazi party was merely warning Germany about the threat of Jews and Liberals destroying the German peoples. There is also a difference between tearing a person apart psychologically over such claims and telling them about physical dangers.


Either you or _DrMike_ or both of you (not easy to tell) are confusing the temporal with the eternal here. _DrMike_ may be expressing warnings regarding the consequences of 'bad acts' out of love. God could be doing the same. God, being God, has control over those consequences, but _DrMike_ does not. Considering those consequences, God's love may be a problematical concept.

_Cnotell_, if you are getting confused by _DrMike_'s posts, you could try reading in the Book of Mormon. It's in most public libraries, the LDS missionaries hand them out, it's readily available. I didn't find any love in it, but I didn't read all of it. What I read makes the Torah read like a love fest by comparison.


----------



## Alberich

science said:


> Well then, it's not worth consideration.


So logically unprovable questions like 'Am I a brain in a vat?' are not worth considering?


----------



## Chrythes

Would you call the police or kill me if I were your neighbor and once a week I were to conduct a Pagan ritual in my backyard?


----------



## Cnote11

Hilltroll72 said:


> Either you or _DrMike_ or both of you (not easy to tell) are confusing the temporal with the eternal here. _DrMike_ may be expressing warnings regarding the consequences of 'bad acts' out of love. God could be doing the same. God, being God, has control over those consequences, but _DrMike_ does not. Considering those consequences, God's love may be a problematical concept.
> 
> _Cnotell_, if you are getting confused by _DrMike_'s posts, you could try reading in the Book of Mormon. It's in most public libraries, the LDS missionaries hand them out, it's readily available. I didn't find any love in it, but I didn't read all of it. What I read makes the Torah read like a love fest by comparison.


I assumed Dr. Mike was relating temporal to eternal and calling them equal. Also, I have the Book of Mormon. I received it years ago when I put in an order on their site. They proceeded to call my house non-stop, but that didn't bother me too much. I collect religious literature and commentaries. I've read The Book of Mormon and am aware of its doctrines.


----------



## Chrythes

Cnote11 said:


> I assumed Dr. Mike was relating temporal to eternal and calling them equal. Also, I have the Book of Mormon. I received it years ago when I put in an order on their site. They proceeded to call my house non-stop, but that didn't bother me too much. I collect religious literature and commentaries. I've read The Book of Mormon and am aware of its doctrines.


If you were a christian would you choose to be a Mormon?


----------



## Cnote11

Alberich said:


> So logically unprovable questions like 'Am I a brain in a vat?' are not worth considering?


In my opinion a lot of these questions are non-sense. I had a philosophy teacher who liked to ask "is this chair really here?" and "when we go to sleep are we really waking up?". I find no point in such questions. If we are a brain in a vat we would never know it, nor does it affect the reality of our situations. Curious Alberich, what brought you to be a born again?


----------



## Alberich

Chrythes said:


> Would you call the police or kill me if I were your neighbor and once a week I were to conduct a Pagan ritual in my backyard?


I'd be seriously concerned with your direction in life, but as long as you keep it to yourself and don't harm anyone, I'd refrain from physical violence.


----------



## Cnote11

Chrythes said:


> If you were a christian would you choose to be a Mormon?


I certainly would not. I was raised in a Baptist Christian home, and I assume that I would be a baptist if I had not broken from it. If I could randomly make a choice if I had to be in a religion, I would not be Christian at all but another religion. If I had to be a Christian, I probably would be some Protestant denomination.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Alberich said:


> I'd be seriously concerned with your direction in life


Why's that? Paganism's usually all about positivity and nature. Not like that creepy, repressed, death-worshipping Abrahamic stuff (Christianity included).


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Either you or _DrMike_ or both of you (not easy to tell) are confusing the temporal with the eternal here. _DrMike_ may be expressing warnings regarding the consequences of 'bad acts' out of love. God could be doing the same. God, being God, has control over those consequences, but _DrMike_ does not. Considering those consequences, God's love may be a problematical concept.
> 
> _Cnotell_, if you are getting confused by _DrMike_'s posts, you could try reading in the Book of Mormon. It's in most public libraries, the LDS missionaries hand them out, it's readily available. I didn't find any love in it, but I didn't read all of it. What I read makes the Torah read like a love fest by comparison.


Really? I'm not going to ask you here to cite verses that, as you say, make "the Torah read like a love fest by comparison." But I would be curious as to what you read.

As to the availability of the Book of Mormon, Hilltroll is correct - I have seen it in most public libraries I have been to, LDS missionaries will gladly give you one (free of charge), or you can also read it online at www.lds.org.

@Cnote - I was born and raised in the church, was baptized when I was 8 years old, served a mission for my church at the age of 19 to Southern Germany and Switzerland. My mother's family has been in the church almost since the founding. My father was the first in his family to join the church, which he did while in his 20's. I have studed all of the scriptures that my church espouses - the Bible (Old and New Testament - we use the King James Version in the English-speaking portions of the church, but having taught in German, I have also used the Lutheran Bible and the joint effort Einheitsuebersetzung), as well as the Book of Mormon and other scriptures of my church - including some college level courses at BYU (where I obtained my ****** in Microbiology).


----------



## science

Alberich said:


> So logically unprovable questions like 'Am I a brain in a vat?' are not worth considering?


Maybe for a philosophical bull-session. But not when it's time to lay down the fundamental principles that I'm going to live by.


----------



## Chrythes

Alberich said:


> I'd be seriously concerned with your direction in life, but as long as you keep it to yourself and don't harm anyone, I'd refrain from physical violence.


I still don't understand why yours is the true direction. What if I were to tell you that I was born again, but not into Christianity like yourself, but into Paganism? Why is my "reborn" has less weight than yours? 
Would inviting new people to my ritual and advocating my religion would be considered as harm to you? Because by doing so I would essentially lead them to the "wrong" way.


----------



## Ukko

Cnote11 said:


> I assumed Dr. Mike was relating temporal to eternal and calling them equal. Also, I have the Book of Mormon. I received it years ago when I put in an order on their site. They proceeded to call my house non-stop, but that didn't bother me too much. I collect religious literature and commentaries. I've read The Book of Mormon and am aware of its doctrines.


<sigh> As usual, you miss my point, which was to differentiate _DrMike_'s responsibilities from those of God. _My_ assumption is that _DrMike_ does not 'get off' on people burning in Hell. None of the religious people I know confuse themselves with God. You seem to have constructed a sort of Golem, and given it the attributes of both God and the religious.


----------



## Cnote11

Thank you for the information, Dr. Mike. How did you find the environment and culture at BYU? I've seen plenty of videos of students and it always comes off as a bit insular and rather strange for an "outsider" I would say, like it has its own culture and common community that is quite different from most other places you would go. How would you say this perception from my limited knowledge of the BYU student body actually holds up to the reality of it? 

I actually took a few online courses at BYU, for the hell of it. Little known fact. I also was split between majoring in Microbiology and Social Psychology. I chose the Psychology, but I really do have a great love for Microbiology.


----------



## Alberich

Cnote11 said:


> In my opinion a lot of these questions are non-sense. I had a philosophy teacher who liked to ask "is this chair really here?" and "when we go to sleep are we really waking up?". I find no point in such questions. If we are a brain in a vat we would never know it, nor does it affect the reality of our situations. Curious Alberich, what brought you to be a born again?


If we are brains in separate, unconnected vats, it eliminates any and all meaning from our actions; if you found out that your actions are all morally null, it would change how you acted. Once you know there is not a person on the other half of any action, that it is just a figment of your imagination, your interactions with them lose whatever significance they'd otherwise have.
As far as what drove me to become a Born Again, one day I was struck by the immense majesty of God's works on Earth, be they natural, cathedrals, Holy Scripture, Divine Liturgy, etc. I was overcome with a sense of God's presence that no amount of reason could touch.


----------



## Cnote11

Hilltroll72 said:


> <sigh> As usual, you miss my point, which was to differentiate _DrMike_'s responsibilities from those of God. _My_ assumption is that _DrMike_ does not 'get off' on people burning in Hell. None of the religious people I know confuse themselves with God. You seem to have constructed a sort of Golem, and given it the attributes of both God and the religious.


I'm quite positive this isn't the case. I never asserted that they "get off" on anything. You always make wild assumptions, HillTroll. I think you read into things that aren't there. I merely said there is a difference between them. I never said the motivations had to be different cognitively, just that there is a difference. It is like you're arguing from the viewpoint of a Schizophrenic, you know? Scientists do not base their ideas of what happens with one based on what the schizophrenic actually believes, but rather on their own world view. I do the same when dealing with Christians. Your condescending nature is rather boring, HillTroll.


----------



## Alberich

regressivetransphobe said:


> Why's that? Paganism's usually all about positivity and nature. Not like that creepy, repressed, death-worshipping Abrahamic stuff (Christianity included).


Blatantly false on all accounts. Paganism's more unsavory characteristics like like sacrificial ovens for infants, demands of physical, bloody warfare, and disregard for the sacred nature of sexual intercourse were totally discredited by 2000 years of Christian mores diffusing throughout western civilization; modern pagans, as a result, only practice the relatively agreeable and inane aspects of it.
Also, Abrahamic religions don't worship death in any sense (insofar practices common to all religions worship death); the greatest gift humans can be given is eternal life (which is the primary distinction drawn between the sacred and profane).


----------



## Cnote11

Alberich said:


> If we are brains in separate, unconnected vats, it eliminates any and all meaning from our actions; if you found out that your actions are all morally null, it would change how you acted. Once you know there is not a person on the other half of any action, that it is just a figment of your imagination, your interactions with them lose whatever significance they'd otherwise have.
> As far as what drove me to become a Born Again, one day I was struck by the immense majesty of God's works on Earth, be they natural, cathedrals, Holy Scripture, Divine Liturgy, etc. I was overcome with a sense of God's presence that no amount of reason could touch.


This is all lies. I believe all actions have no inherent morality, by the way. That doesn't stop me from constructing morality that reduces suffering of people with the intent of giving people greater and more fulfilled lives. I also believe life is meaningless. Again, this doesn't stop me from constructing a moral system, does it?

There would be no way to come to the realisation that this is all of our imagination, nor would it change the fact that within my imagination I still feel pain, along with everybody else in my imagination. It also does not change the fact that there are consequences for actions in my imagination. An imaginary figure can never become consciously aware that is in imaginary.


----------



## Guest

Cnote11 said:


> Thank you for the information, Dr. Mike. How did you find the environment and culture at BYU? I've seen plenty of videos of students and it always comes off as a bit insular and rather strange for an "outsider" I would say, like it has its own culture and common community that is quite different from most other places you would go. How would you say this perception from my limited knowledge of the BYU student body actually holds up to the reality of it?
> 
> I actually took a few online courses at BYU, for the hell of it. Little known fact. I also was split between majoring in Microbiology and Social Psychology. I chose the Psychology, but I really do have a great love for Microbiology.


I'm not the best to answer this, as I don't really have a point of reference for comparison. I did my Ph.D. work in Alabama, but graduate school is much different than undergraduate, and really didn't have much of a life outside of my lab, so I don't know what life is like outside of a church school. I did grow up outside of Utah, though, so I will say that there is a great deal of the more "Mormon" culture in Provo, UT, than any place else, since there are so many Utahns, who have grown up in a society where the church has a higher density of members than pretty much anyplace else. But we went to football and basketball games. I went to concerts (I would go to the Van's Warped Tour each year in Salt Lake City, as I was a huge fan of punk), and shows. There was not the drunken parties (I can't say they were completely unknown, but mostly unknown), and no co-ed apartments or dorms (although apartment complexes did have both men's and women's apartments). There is a very high rate of churchgoing activity. There is a lot of outdoor activity - lots of stuff to do in Utah, from that perspective, especially in winter. You also had some liberal-minded types there as well, although I won't lie and say it is anywhere near what you would find at another university. Oh, and you cannot find any sodas with caffeine on campus - you have to go off campus for that.

I enjoyed BYU. I believe my education was top notch, and I had fun while I was there. I did break the Mormon stereotype, though, and did not get married there. I didn't meet my wife until I moved to Alabama.


----------



## Chrythes

Alberich said:


> If we are brains in separate, unconnected vats, it eliminates any and all meaning from our actions; if you found out that your actions are all morally null, it would change how you acted. Once you know there is not a person on the other half of any action, that it is just a figment of your imagination, your interactions with them lose whatever significance they'd otherwise have.
> As far as what drove me to become a Born Again, one day I was struck by the immense majesty of God's works on Earth, be they natural, cathedrals, Holy Scripture, Divine Liturgy, etc. I was overcome with a sense of God's presence that no amount of reason could touch.


I think the first paragraph refers to what is usually called 'Being Mad'.
As for the second - It's really interesting how you can decide what are the boundaries of reason only according to yourself.


----------



## Alberich

Chrythes said:


> I still don't understand why yours is the true direction. What if I were to tell you that I was born again, but not into Christianity like yourself, but into Paganism? Why is my "reborn" has less weight than yours?
> Would inviting new people to my ritual and advocating my religion would be considered as harm to you? Because by doing so I would essentially lead them to the "wrong" way.


Because, if your way was true, it would be more successful.


----------



## Chrythes

Alberich said:


> Because, if your way was true, it would be more successful.




In what way?


----------



## Cnote11

What...? Elaborate on that please.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> <sigh> As usual, you miss my point, which was to differentiate _DrMike_'s responsibilities from those of God. _My_ assumption is that _DrMike_ does not 'get off' on people burning in Hell. None of the religious people I know confuse themselves with God. You seem to have constructed a sort of Golem, and given it the attributes of both God and the religious.


I have no desire to see anybody "burn in hell," although I will admit my human fallibility and tell you that I shed no tears when serial murderers and child molestors reap karmic retribution.

I don't try to predict who does and who doesn't merit the wrath of God's judgment. My church teaches that how we are judged depends to a large extent on how much we knew. Hence a person with an extensive knowledge of scripture and of the life and mission of Jesus Christ and chose not to follow Him would be in much greater danger of condemnation than someone who had never heard of Jesus in their life. And I cannot know how much of a witness a person has received when they reject Christianity, so I don't claim that everybody who says no to Christianity will be doomed. I am thankful that I am not called upon to pass such judgment. But I do know that it is my responsibility to warn others, as I have been warned. I hope that I do it effectively, but ultimately, whether they accept it or not is their choice.


----------



## Chrythes

Alberich said:


> Blatantly false on all accounts. Paganism's more unsavory characteristics like like sacrificial ovens for infants, demands of physical, bloody warfare, and disregard for the sacred nature of sexual intercourse were totally discredited by 2000 years of Christian mores diffusing throughout western civilization; modern pagans, as a result, only practice the relatively agreeable and inane aspects of it.
> Also, Abrahamic religions don't worship death in any sense (insofar practices common to all religions worship death); the greatest gift humans can be given is eternal life (which is the primary distinction drawn between the sacred and profane).


Oh come on, these days we don't burn witches anymore and don't go to crusades. Things change.


----------



## Alberich

Chrythes said:


> I think the first paragraph refers to what is usually called 'Being Mad'.


How so? If a person plays a video game, don't we know that they tend not to act the way they do in real life? If we were to realize that the same principles apply, i.e. that those we interact with aren't real, we'd act accordingly.


Chrythes said:


> As for the second - It's really interesting how you can decide what are the boundaries of reason only according to yourself.


The boundary's of reason are fairly well defined: claims about the natural world, physical reality, and human behavior require reason; interpretation of Scripture requires reason, as does its application; knowledge of the sacred does not.


----------



## Cnote11

No, Alberich, for the reasoning that video games aren't an experience where one feels pain and has lasting consequences.


----------



## Alberich

Chrythes said:


> Oh come on, these days we don't burn witches anymore and don't go to crusades. Things change.


The puritans were heretics and the Crusades were only used when military expeditions were both a useful and necessary way of preserving Christian brotherhood. States now deny the Pope's right of calling for crusades (secular leaders have taken that power for themselves). Not that doing so would be useful for the church's purposes, since Christians are no longer making perpetual war on their fellow Christians.


----------



## Alberich

Cnote11 said:


> No, Alberich, for the reasoning that video games aren't an experience where one feels pain and has lasting consequences.


So if you found out that you were a brain in a vat, and you were the only _ego_ present in your mental world, and therefor only your personal pleasure has any meaning, you wouldn't act any differently?


----------



## Guest

I, too, think the video game analogy is a poor one. When you are playing a video game, you know you are playing a game, and that there are no real world consequences directly linked to your actions in the game. Being free of consequences of your actions, yes, you do behave differently - but you know that it is only a game. I can shoot individuals in a game, where I know it has no real consequences. It does not follow, though, that if I turned off the game and returned to real life, even if I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't necessarily go pick up a gun and shoot someone. Regardless of the eternal consequences, unlike the game, shooting someone would have definite, tangible consequences - I would know that I had taken a life, and that a person was dead because of me. Regardless of where the impulse comes from, I believe most humans have an impulse to not kill or harm another human if they don't need to. Thus we don't have all atheists on murder sprees.


----------



## Alberich

Chrythes said:


> In what way?


Wouldn't your gods have given the way that gives them regular sacrifices more success if they did in fact exist?


----------



## Alberich

DrMike said:


> I, too, think the video game analogy is a poor one. When you are playing a video game, you know you are playing a game, and that there are no real world consequences directly linked to your actions in the game. Being free of consequences of your actions, yes, you do behave differently - but you know that it is only a game. I can shoot individuals in a game, where I know it has no real consequences. It does not follow, though, that if I turned off the game and returned to real life, even if I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't necessarily go pick up a gun and shoot someone. Regardless of the eternal consequences, unlike the game, shooting someone would have definite, tangible consequences - I would know that I had taken a life, and that a person was dead because of me. Regardless of where the impulse comes from, I believe most humans have an impulse to not kill or harm another human if they don't need to. Thus we don't have all atheists on murder sprees.


Remember, this is a thought experiment to see if questions like 'Am I a brain in a vat?' are worth considering. If you knew you were a brain in a vat, and no one else existed outside of the vat, would your behavior be different from if you knew the world was real?


----------



## Cnote11

Alberich said:


> So if you found out that you were a brain in a vat, and you were the only _ego_ present in your mental world, and therefor only your personal pleasure has any meaning, you wouldn't act any differently?


No, I wouldn't. In order for me to have a fulfilled life I would have to build a society. A society cannot be built around one person massaging their ego, unless they somehow capture a nation and crown themselves Kings. That wouldn't personally fulfill me anyway. Perhaps I derive personal pleasure from helping people. There are still dangers presented to me. I am well aware if I go around being completely selfish that others within my imagination will try to harm me, and I do hurt and bleed. If I were a brain in a vat, I would merely by the mental projection of said brain. In his imagination the real world rules still apply. As a projection I cannot change brain in the vat's direction. He is fully conscious that this is his imagination and would change it if he wishes to do so. Brain in a vat is currently imagining that I would indeed not change the way I acted if I found out I was his projection.


----------



## Chrythes

Alberich said:


> So if you found out that you were a brain in a vat, and you were the only _ego_ present in your mental world, and therefor only your personal pleasure has any meaning, you wouldn't act any differently?


So the urge to kill anyone is something we are born with, but don't do only because we are not sure if we live in the real world or in a jar? 
Besides, can't I just check if I'm living in my imagination or in the real world by creating something using my imagination and projecting it into the world I'm living in? It doesn't really work. I can't make a winged elephant appear in my room.


----------



## Cnote11

I think he's betting on the brain in a vat not even knowing it is a brain in a vat and that imaginations can somehow gain autonomy upon somehow discovering that they are an imagination.


----------



## Alberich

It would completely change your intentions, though. I assume in real life you do good things because they are good, but in the vat, you'd do them because you received pleasure from them. 
Even if you did decide to become a saint, you weren't really helping people, but rather your imaginary friends/enemies/nobody at all.

Ultimately the question is 'Do axiomatic concepts have meaning?' I would posit that they do, and are worth considering.


----------



## Chrythes

Alberich said:


> Wouldn't your gods have given the way that gives them regular sacrifices more success if they did in fact exist?


I am not really sure what you mean, but by planting a plant, or living in a way that doesn't harm Nature but rather flourish ir or revive it if it's in need , I feel how the Gods thank me for it, and I can certainly assure you that I feel their power and gratitude immensely.


----------



## Cnote11

Alberich said:


> It would completely change your intentions, though. I assume in real life you do good things because they are good, but in the vat, you'd do them because you received pleasure from them.
> Even if you did decide to become a saint, you weren't really helping people, but rather your imaginary friends/enemies/nobody at all.
> 
> Ultimately the question is 'Do axiomatic concepts have meaning?' I would posit that they do, and are worth considering.


If the brain in a vat is aware that he is projection a false reality, why does he choose for me to live this way currently instead of deriving nothing but pleasure?


----------



## Cnote11

Also, why is it that when I find out I am an imagination that I suddenly gain autonomy AND all sensations other than pleasure suddenly evaporate in thin air and consequences suddenly no longer exist?


----------



## Alberich

Chrythes said:


> I am not really sure what you mean, but by planting a plant, or living in a way that doesn't harm Nature but rather flourish ir or revive it if it's in need , I feel how the Gods thank me for it, and I can certainly assure you that I feel their power and gratitude immensely.


The Olympian gods like to receive sacrifices in their names. They have shown themselves to be willing and able to interfere with worldly events to ensure the success of those that give them their dues. Greek paganism has withered away and is only very rarely practiced with sincerity.


----------



## Alberich

Cnote11 said:


> If the brain in a vat is aware that he is projection a false reality, why does he choose for me to live this way currently instead of deriving nothing but pleasure?


The brain can't really decide what it feels; it can take actions that result in various feelings, but it doesn't have conscious control over its physical operation.


----------



## Cnote11

I prayed for the Nazis to be defeated during the war. I sacrificed goats to them everyday. They came through. The Germans were praying to the Christian God everyday in a large collective that they would succeed. Looks like my Gods won and yours did not.


----------



## Cnote11

Alberich said:


> The brain can't really decide what it feels; it can take actions that result in various feelings, but it doesn't have conscious control over its physical operation.


If it does not have conscious control then why would an figment of its imagination have control over the thing that is imagining it? Also, if the brain can't decide what it feels, why would it suddenly shift directions and make me lust for nothing but pleasure? Also, if it takes actions, isn't that deciding on taking actions? That would be a form of deciding, whether or not it is fully conscious or well thought out.


----------



## Alberich

Cnote11 said:


> I prayed for the Nazis to be defeated during the war. I sacrificed goats to them everyday. They came through. The Germans were praying to the Christian God everyday in a large collective that they would succeed. Looks like my Gods won and yours did not.


The Orthodox priests in Russia gave far more, as did the billions of Christians worldwide, since they gave a totally flawless sacrifice of Jesus Christ, worth quite a few goats


----------



## Cnote11

If you think so.


----------



## Alberich

Cnote11 said:


> If it does not have conscious control then why would an figment of its imagination have control over the thing that is imagining it? Also, if the brain can't decide what it feels, why would it suddenly shift directions and make me lust for nothing but pleasure? Also, if it takes actions, isn't that deciding on taking actions? That would be a form of deciding, whether or not it is fully conscious or well thought out.


You, insofar as you have an _ego_, consciousness, self awareness etc. are your brain. The brain has conscious control of the body it senses it is hooked up to. Senses are a result of chemical and electrical stimulation of various bits of grey matter. Your conscious mind doesn't have control over various automatic actions, like heartbeats or endorphin release.


----------



## Chrythes

Ok, I quit. 
I should stop getting involved in these pointless debates.


----------



## starthrower

Cnote11 said:


> I hope you know, Starthrower, that I'm not disparaging the majority of people who do charity, and that when I say take up a sword I mean that figuratively. I just believe that their efforts could be better used elsewhere. The way charity is now makes it so impoverished people are locked in a cycle. It never actually gets better, and the charity has its large limitations. The homeless shelters here in Detroit cannot meet demand and do not keep people off the streets the majority of the day. They are inadequate, and we need to start looking for more permanent solutions. Charity for immediate relief is fine, but in this country we seem to believe that this is enough of a gesture. It isn't, and charity is worthless without working on a long-term plan to put an end to the issue.


Everyone knows what the solution is, but it's obviously not a priority for the political leadership in America. We need to make sure every citizen is well educated, and that their health needs are provided for. Otherwise we might as well join the ranks of sub Saharan Africa. And I don't want to hear cries of commie socialist because we've already got welfare handouts for the big industries. The government wasn't established to provide a living for General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. It was established for the general welfare of its citizens. And in the areas where the government is failing, religious and other organizations can provide some relief.


----------



## Cnote11

That just isn't anatomically true, Alberich. I think I'm done discussing this topic. I have a lot of work to get done before tomorrow.


----------



## Cnote11

starthrower said:


> Everyone knows what the solution is, but it's obviously not a priority for the political leadership in America. We need to make sure every citizen is well educated, and that their health needs are provided for. Otherwise we might as well join the ranks of sub Saharan Africa. And I don't want to hear cries of commie socialist because we've already got welfare handouts for the big industries. The government wasn't established to provide a living for General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. It was established for the general welfare of its citizens. And in the areas where the government is failing, religious and other organizations can provide some relief.


The government is not necessarily established for the general welfare of its citizens. Yes, in areas where the government is failing, religious and other organizations can provide some relief. Like I stated, it is a cycle that they do not escape from. Until we begin to push, as a citizen body, for more rights and better living then we won't get them. People are far too complacent and most people would sympathize with the corporations than other people due to how they perceive their suffering anyhow.


----------



## Chrythes

starthrower said:


> Everyone knows what the solution is, but it's obviously not a priority for the political leadership in America. We need to make sure every citizen is well educated, and that their health needs are provided for. Otherwise we might as well join the ranks of sub Saharan Africa. And I don't want to hear cries of commie socialist because we've already got welfare handouts for the big industries. The government wasn't established to provide a living for General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. It was established for the general welfare of its citizens. And in the areas where the government is failing, religious and other organizations can provide some relief.


Do you think that governments can use (or using) the charity organizations to postpone solutions? 
And just out of curiosity - how many charity organizations that were established for a certain cause were actually seized to exist because of a solution to that certain problem?


----------



## starthrower

I don't believe our political leaders are interested in solving society's ills, or fixing the economy, or a myriad of other problems. They are mainly interested in staying in power. As far as charity organizations ceasing to exist due to their effectiveness in eradicating social ills, of course this hasn't happened. Governments around the world continue to create problems and suffering for their people. Which is why people need assistance and relief.


----------



## Cnote11

Well then, aren't we all just on the same page?


----------



## Petwhac

Alberich said:


> I'm a Born Again, *******. Also, it extends beyond simply believing it; it means knowing the immense significance of it immediately and deeply.
> 
> I bet your mother's proud she raised someone this smug and asinine.


My mother taught me it is better to be smug than to be a hypocrite.


----------



## Petwhac

Chrythes said:


> If you were a christian would you choose to be a Mormon?





Alberich said:


> The Olympian gods like to receive sacrifices in their names. They have shown themselves to be willing and able to interfere with worldly events to ensure the success of those that give them their dues. Greek paganism has withered away and is only very rarely practiced with sincerity.


 And I am confident that Greek paganism will soon enough be followed by Chritianity and Islam and Judaism and others.


----------



## Polednice

Wait a minute - Alberich called someone smug on page 7 and no one called out the hypocrisy?!


----------



## Ukko

Cnote11 said:


> I'm quite positive this isn't the case. I never asserted that they "get off" on anything. You always make wild assumptions, HillTroll. I think you read into things that aren't there. I merely said there is a difference between them. I never said the motivations had to be different cognitively, just that there is a difference. It is like you're arguing from the viewpoint of a Schizophrenic, you know? Scientists do not base their ideas of what happens with one based on what the schizophrenic actually believes, but rather on their own world view. I do the same when dealing with Christians. Your condescending nature is rather boring, HillTroll.


_My_ "condescending nature"? Oh well, never mind.


----------



## Cnote11

Sigh. Once again Hilly, you have missed the point.


----------



## samurai

Alberich said:


> His intentions had nothing to do with the fact that he committed acts of supreme evil; Hitler also sincerely believed that what he did was good, but is widely considered one of the greatest forces for evil in the 20th century (alongside Mao and Stalin). In fact, I believe that atheist activists have done more harm than Hitler ever could: violence can only destroy the body, but Hitchens killed men's souls. However, we should be sure to acknowledge his profane crimes in addition to his crimes against the sacred: he relentlessly called for war with the Muslim peoples of the Middle-East for the purpose of utterly destroying their culture and the existence of those who upheld it.


Whatever your "religion" is, kindly don't compare a man like Hitchens{ or anyone else, for that matter} to beasts like Hitler and Stalin. As one who lost relatives in his death camps, I do not appreciate the comparision, nor can I understand how anybody with even an ounce of intelligence in their head and an understanding of history would possibly be able to conjure up such a macabre comparison in the first place. What the hell planet are you from anyway? "Killing souls" as you so melodramatically put it, is better than innocent women and babies being burned in ovens, or doesn't your "religion" agree with that premise? And you dare to speak of Christ? Maybe you should check yourself, what?


----------



## Petwhac

Alberich is not a very good advert for Christianity. Yet again a religious zealot has shown themselves up to be mean spirited, petty and judgemental. Quite apart from being deluded. Nice.


----------



## starthrower

Who is this "they" caught in an endless cycle you are referring to? How about the millions of people who work their fingers to the bone every week and are denied a living wage and health benefits? Am I supposed to feel sorry for Wal-Mart because they pretend it's a hardship to provide affordable health insurance and a living wage to their employees? This is the biggest employer on the planet for chrissakes!

Governments are established to maintain order and build a civil society which contributes to the general welfare of its citizens. Giant corporations like Wal-Mart and others undermine these principles. They pour piles of money into lobbying efforts to pass legislation like the shoot first law in Florida. There would be more economic prosperity if the government dissolved these gigantic monopolies and opened up the market to more competition.


----------



## starthrower

samurai said:


> Whatever your "religion" is, kindly don't compare a man like Hitchens{ or anyone else, for that matter} to beasts like Hitler and Stalin. As one who lost relatives in his death camps, I do not appreciate the comparision, nor can I understand how anybody with even an ounce of intelligence in their head and an understanding of history would possibly be able to conjure up such a macabre comparison in the first place. What the hell planet are you from anyway? "Killing souls" as you so melodramatically put it, is better than innocent women and babies being burned in ovens, or doesn't your "religion" agree with that premise? And you dare to speak of Christ? Maybe you should check yourself, what?


Perhaps Alberich could lift his head out of the bible, do his own thinking, and refrain from spewing pie in the sky religious platitudes? Hitchens was a man of ideas. I am free to analyze his ideas and accept or reject his positions on various subjects. He never held a gun to anyone's head. And as far as I can tell, he didn't possess any supernatural powers over mens' souls.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Perhaps Alberich could lift his head out of the bible, do his own thinking, and refrain from spewing pie in the sky religious platitudes? Hitchens was a man of ideas. I am free to analyze his ideas and accept or reject his positions on various subjects. He never held a gun to anyone's head. And as far as I can tell, he didn't possess any supernatural powers over mens' souls.


He might have been a man of ideas, but, as I pointed out with his book, god is not Great, he was not always a man of facts. Quite the contrary, he was a man who would twist facts or use falsehoods to support his ideas. Quite shocking really, considering how utterly indefensible he believed religion to be, that he had such difficulty producing actual facts to support his argument that was supposedly anchored in facts and reason.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> Alberich is not a very good advert for Christianity. Yet again a religious zealot has shown themselves up to be mean spirited, petty and judgemental. Quite apart from being deluded. Nice.


I might also point out that you are not a particularly attractive advert for atheism, if it requires me to be snarky and disrespectful of the opinions of others.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Perhaps Alberich could lift his head out of the bible, *do his own thinking*, and refrain from spewing pie in the sky religious platitudes? Hitchens was a man of ideas. I am free to analyze his ideas and accept or reject his positions on various subjects. He never held a gun to anyone's head. And as far as I can tell, he didn't possess any supernatural powers over mens' souls.


That statement strikes me as odd, in that I doubt that a single one of us here is truly an original thinker. Indeed, I believe that there are very few truly original thinkers in the world at any given time, and that most of us tend to gravitate to ideas that strike our fancy, for whatever reason, and tend to parrot, more or less, the ideas of others. So how is it just to criticize one, simply because the ideology they have embraced is different than the one that you have? Or are we to believe that you, starthrower, espouse only completely original thoughts unique to you, and not derived from any other source? Given that I have heard much of your arguments before, I am going to go out on a limb and say that you are not the originator of those thoughts.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I might also point out that you are not a particularly attractive advert for atheism, if it requires me to be snarky and disrespectful of the opinions of others.


Is it really snarky and disrespectful to call someone like Alberich "mean spirited, petty and judgemental" when their every remark has been acidic, and when they openly wished for a man to have been shot in the back of the head for expressing _his_ opinions?


----------



## Guest

samurai said:


> Whatever your "religion" is, kindly don't compare a man like Hitchens{ or anyone else, for that matter} to beasts like Hitler and Stalin. As one who lost relatives in his death camps, I do not appreciate the comparision, nor can I understand how anybody with even an ounce of intelligence in their head and an understanding of history would possibly be able to conjure up such a macabre comparison in the first place. What the hell planet are you from anyway? "Killing souls" as you so melodramatically put it, is better than innocent women and babies being burned in ovens, or doesn't your "religion" agree with that premise? And you dare to speak of Christ? Maybe you should check yourself, what?


While Hitler and Stalin were blatantly evil, I don't buy that we can't draw parallels. I don't necessarily agree with the comparison of Hitchens to Hitler and Stalin, but the point that Alberich is trying to make is a valid one from a Christian perspective. Hitler and Stalin sought to kill the body, and this is truly a horrible thing - but killing the body does not jeopardize one's eternal standing with God. Certainly it does so for the one doing the killing. But when one tries to draw another away from their faith, then that impacts the soul. Why else do we so rightly celebrate the memory of individuals who gave everything, even their lives, rather than go against what they felt to be right? Because we understand that our integrity can very well be more valuable than our life - and that is not limited to religious individuals. Most of us can understand that there is some intangible quality in all of us that is more precious to defend than life.

Evil can take many forms, and can attack us in different ways. Am I saying that Hitchens was evil? As I mentioned earlier, that is luckily not my job. I do think he did some pretty bad things, but as to how knowledgeable he was that those things were bad, I cannot know. In contrast, I think that it is easily accepted that Hitler and Stalin were aware of the evil of their actions, and yet undertook them anyway.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Is it really snarky and disrespectful to call someone like Alberich "mean spirited, petty and judgemental" when their every remark has been acidic, and when they openly wished for a man to have been shot in the back of the head for expressing _his_ opinions?


If you will look back through the posts, you will notice that I was the first to criticize Alberich for his comments towards Hitchens. But regardless of what Alberich is or is not, I have found Petwhac to be the things I described him as. There is no rule that says they both cannot be acidid, mean spirited, petty and judgemental, is there? Were there to be no Alberich in this forum, that would not change Petwhac one way or another.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> [...]
> Evil can take many forms, and can attack us in different ways. Am I saying that Hitchens was evil? As I mentioned earlier, that is luckily not my job. I do think he did some pretty bad things, but as to how knowledgeable he was that those things were bad, I cannot know. In contrast, I think that it is easily accepted that Hitler and Stalin were aware of the evil of their actions, and yet undertook them anyway.


Looks to me like you are 'aslipping and asliding' around the edges of your opinion. You think Hitchens did some 'pretty bad' things, while he _undoubtedly_ thought he was doing pretty good things. It seems obvious that he denied God's existence along with His sovereignty, despite familiarity with the Gospels, which is enough to consign his soul to Hell right there. In _addition_ to that, he proselytized this anti-God stuff. By what mental process do you _not_ see him as evil?


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> If you will look back through the posts, you will notice that I was the first to criticize Alberich for his comments towards Hitchens. But regardless of what Alberich is or is not, I have found Petwhac to be the things I described him as. There is no rule that says they both cannot be acidid, mean spirited, petty and judgemental, is there? Were there to be no Alberich in this forum, that would not change Petwhac one way or another.


If you'd care to look back through the posts you'll find that Alberich was the first to make a snide personal comment about me being smug and asinine. He also brought my mother into it and questioned her parenting skills. 
The more I think about it the more angry I get. 
Anyway, I'm a forgiving person and I know he, and you, know not what you do.

Also, please find where I said I was advertising atheism.

Now, it is easy to bandy about words like evil and good. Hitler was evil? Stalin? What does evil mean? Do you have a definition that doesn't involve scripture?


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Looks to me like you are 'aslipping and asliding' around the edges of your opinion. You think Hitchens did some 'pretty bad' things, while he _undoubtedly_ thought he was doing pretty good things. It seems obvious that he denied God's existence along with His sovereignty, despite familiarity with the Gospels, which is enough to consign his soul to Hell right there. In _addition_ to that, he proselytized this anti-God stuff. By what mental process do you _not_ see him as evil?


Not necessarily. I can separate out the actions from the individual. Certainly the actions were evil, for what they did, but whether he knew they were evil is a different matter. Does everybody who has read the Gospels have a witness of their truthfulness? I don't know. Would it be truly evil of him were he to have a familiarity with the Gospels, but no witness of their truthfulness? I don't know. Thus it is not my place to say whether Hitchens himself was evil, and not just his actions. Only God, who can look upon the heart, can know.

Paul, prior to his conversion when he was known as Saul, was an active persecutor of Christians, and given his position, he no doubt had some knowledge of what it was that Christ and his apostles had been teaching - but he did not have a witness of their truthfulness until his miraculous encounter on the road.

I believe there are many people deceived into doing evil things because they do not know that what they are doing is evil. I don't judge such people as harshly (indeed, it is not my place to judge them at all). But I do believe that we all come into this world with at lease a minimal concept of good from evil. Most people feel a revulsion to taking the life of another. Most people feel the unjustness of taking something that does not belong to us. The more we come to understand how wrong those things are, the more revulsion we feel.

A study was conducted one time with converts to my church, trying to understand the factors that brought them to conversion. One interesting piece of information was that those individuals who did convert had, on average, 3-8 positive experiences with Mormons before converting - rarely was it after only 1. So did they fully know that what they heard was the truth after the first experience, and just resisted it for a time, or was it a cummulative exposure to the teachings that finally brought them to a witness of the truth? I tend to think it was the latter. But the take away message is that we never really know when a person has really crossed that threshold of knowledge, beyond which they have to willingly reject something.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> If you'd care to look back through the posts you'll find that Alberich was the first to make a snide personal comment about me being smug and asinine. He also brought my mother into it and questioned her parenting skills.
> The more I think about it the more angry I get.
> Anyway, I'm a forgiving person and I know he, and you, know not what you do.
> 
> Also, please find where I said I was advertising atheism.
> 
> Now, it is easy to bandy about words like evil and good. Hitler was evil? Stalin? What does evil mean? Do you have a definition that doesn't involve scripture?


I am separating out, here, your actions from Alberich's. Unless you would have me believe that your actions are interconnected. My comment was based on a broader experience with you on this forum than merely this thread alone. As you may remember, we have crossed paths before. I am not simply referring to your actions towards Alberich. Were it only in the context of your reactions to Alberich's comments that I have seen the behavior from you that I criticized, then yes, I would agree that it was mostly a reaction to him. But that is not the case. As to your advertising atheism, please tell me where Alberich was advertising Christianity? He was stating his beliefs in the context of the topic at hand - I hardly think that is tantamount to advertising. He states his position, has it challenged, then responds to the criticism. Guess what - that is what we all are doing. So my criticism of you as a poor advertisement of atheism is just as relevant as your criticism of Alberich as a poor advertisement of Christianity. Again - this isn't a tacit endorsement of what Alberich has said. I'm just saying that he isn't the only one here worthy of some criticism.

Yes, it is easy to bandy about words like evil and good, and I am not going to get into a semantics game here with you, because I think yours is one of the more fringe ideas around here. I would say that even most atheists have concepts of good and evil, and while there might be some minor specifics where we may disagree about drawing the line, most agree on the broad concepts. I don't have the sophistry necessary to get into these semantic relativistic discussions.


----------



## kv466

This is the kind of b***s*** that could get me yet _another_ warning.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> Does everybody who has read the Gospels have a witness of their truthfulness?


The concept of "have a witness of (the Gospels) truthfulness" has always confused me. I have asked people for explanations, but the responses have varied so much that I have always assumed the concept is not well defined. Would you mind explaining the meaning? Also is it something one has some control over or does it "just happen"?


----------



## Ukko

kv466 said:


> This is the kind of b***s*** that could get me yet _another_ warning.


Hey _kv_, if this stuff raises your blood pressure at all, ignore it. Neither the world nor the mind of anyone here will be changed by this thread. I post mostly because I like to tap_ DrMike_ on the shoulder once in a while; I don't get to breathing hard about it. Be cool, man.


----------



## kv466

That's why I stay away, señor.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> The concept of "have a witness of (the Gospels) truthfulness" has always confused me. I have asked people for explanations, but the responses have varied so much that I have always assumed the concept is not well defined. Would you mind explaining the meaning? Also is it something one has some control over or does it "just happen"?


It is a difficult concept to define, because it is often so different from person to person. At its most basic, I guess you could say that it is the moment where you have come to realize that the doctrines are true. I have heard multiple different descriptions - some say a feeling of warmth comes over them, some say they hear a still, small voice, others say it is just like a switch. For me, I have a feeling of peace and comfort come over me, and I "feel" that what I have read is true. In addition, I will test those promises that have blessings for this world, and have found them to be true. For some, the experience can come without any effort on the individual's part, but for most, it is an active process. Case in point - you are not likely to receive a witness that the Bible is true without taking the time to read it. You will likely not receive a witness that God answers prayers if you do not seek to engage Him in prayer. One doctrine of my church is that to gain a testimony/witness of the truth of a doctrine/commandment, one needs to do it. For most, there is no witness until after the trial of their faith. But even after all we can do, it is God that provides the witness, so in that sense we cannot control it, except in that God has promised us blessings when we keep His commandments.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hey _kv_, if this stuff raises your blood pressure at all, ignore it. Neither the world nor the mind of anyone here will be changed by this thread. I post mostly because I like to tap_ DrMike_ on the shoulder once in a while; I don't get to breathing hard about it. Be cool, man.


Ah, I learned a while ago that you are more bark than bite, and just like to stir things up a bit. Sometimes it falls in my favor, others not. Nothing to get my ire up, though.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> That statement strikes me as odd, in that I doubt that a single one of us here is truly an original thinker. Indeed, I believe that there are very few truly original thinkers in the world at any given time, and that most of us tend to gravitate to ideas that strike our fancy, for whatever reason, and tend to parrot, more or less, the ideas of others. So how is it just to criticize one, simply because the ideology they have embraced is different than the one that you have? Or are we to believe that you, starthrower, espouse only completely original thoughts unique to you, and not derived from any other source? Given that I have heard much of your arguments before, I am going to go out on a limb and say that you are not the originator of those thoughts.


Perhaps I should re-phrase my criticism of Alberich's statements by saying he might want to challenge Hitchens's arguments with his own counter arguments dealing in the facts as you mentioned, rather than injecting religious rhetoric and simply dismissing him as an agent of the devil in company with Hitler and Stalin.

I would be interested in reading God Is Not Great to come to my own conclusions. As far as gravitating to ideas that strike our fancy, I agree that we all need to be more vigilant in questioning ourselves in this concern, and keeping an ear open to opposing viewpoints.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> Ah, I learned a while ago that you are more bark than bite, and just like to stir things up a bit. Sometimes it falls in my favor, others not. Nothing to get my ire up, though.


Having a belief in God, but not in any established religion... kind of places me in the background in these debates. So I may 'reach out for any shoulder', hoping for clarification of a viewpoint.


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> Perhaps I should re-phrase my criticism of Alberich's statements by saying he might want to challenge Hitchens's arguments with his own counter arguments dealing in the facts as you mentioned, rather than injecting religious rhetoric and simply dismissing him as an agent of the devil in company with Hitler and Stalin.
> 
> I would be interested in reading God Is Not Great to come to my own conclusions. As far as gravitating to ideas that strike our fancy, I agree that we all need to be more vigilant in questioning ourselves in this concern, and keeping an ear open to opposing viewpoints.


I have read it. Mostly he expresses opinions, sometimes he backs them up. Sometimes his 'facts' can be tested, sometimes they can't be. Sometimes his 'facts' turn out to be bankable, sometimes they are in error. In my opinion the book is useful because not only is it easily readable, it presents _points of contention_, many of which I was unaware of, and many of which are researchable. It appears to be written for the already convinced atheist, to give them those points of contention, and in the manner of 'spinners' everywhere some of those points don't hold up well to research.

Still, as a non-atheist I enjoyed the read.


----------



## Polednice

I'll get back to reading the rest of the thread in a minute, but just regarding things on page 11 and 12, I think there is something of _immense_ importance to point out. The idea that we have souls separate to our bodies through which we can experience an eternal afterlife is a comforting but also potentially dangerous one. Why dangerous? Because as we've seen, at least two people in this thread have called physical life less important than the soul. I can understand this position, and acknowledge why people of certain faiths would think it. However, for the good of mankind, I urge you to have the humility to think that maybe, _just maybe_, you might be wrong, and that physical life is all there is, and that Hitler and Stalin committed a crime more heinous than even you seem to be able to imagine, as they robbed those millions of people of their only chance at existence. Believe what you want, that's fine by me, and prioritise your own soul over your own body, but please don't have such certainty in your beliefs that you can rationalise the expendability of others.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> I have read it. Mostly he expresses opinions, sometimes he backs them up. Sometimes his 'facts' can be tested, sometimes they can't be. Sometimes his 'facts' turn out to be bankable, sometimes they are in error. In my opinion the book is useful because not only is it easily readable, it presents _points of contention_, many of which I was unaware of, and many of which are researchable. It appears to be written for the already convinced atheist, to give them those points of contention, and in the manner of 'spinners' everywhere some of those points don't hold up well to research.
> 
> Still, as a non-atheist I enjoyed the read.


While I think there is some merit to what you say of the book, I think an atheist should be very wary of approaching this book as some kind of guide to those points of contention best suited for confronting religious people. For one, some of the points that he raises seem rather trivial - such as the injunction against eating pork that is held by practicing Jews and Muslims. First of all, with all the supposedly wrong things about religion, why a minor dietary commandment ranks high among his criticisms is unclear, and I doubt many atheists would see this as a critical issue. Second, his non-religious explanation as to why man might have created such a commandment is fairly ludicrous - he believes it is because pigs sound so much like humans when you kill them, that the early followers of Abraham forbade the consuming of pig products due to its similarity to humans, and thus implying a similitude to human sacrifice and cannibalism. Yeah - he argues that.

The other problem with Hitchens is that the book does not attack religions, it attacks religion. In other words, he attacks all religions collectively, and using one argument to refute them all. There is no consideration that there is variety among religions, and that while an attack might be relevant to one, it may not be relevant to all. For example, when he criticizes religions for resisting having their holy books translated into more languages, he might have a point with some. But he makes no distinction, and speaks in absolutes - saying all religions always do this - and just as you should never say never, you should also never say always. In my experience, there is very rarely anything that is 100% absolute, so the person who speaks in such terms is setting themselves up for failure. So an atheist that may look to Hitchen's book as a guide for criticizing religion will find that there are many indefensible things in there that might make them end up looking a fool, especially if they don't have Hitchen's gift for oration.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> While I think there is some merit to what you say of the book, I think an atheist should be very wary of approaching this book as some kind of guide to those points of contention best suited for confronting religious people. For one, some of the points that he raises seem rather trivial - such as the injunction against eating pork that is held by practicing Jews and Muslims. First of all, with all the supposedly wrong things about religion, why a minor dietary commandment ranks high among his criticisms is unclear, and I doubt many atheists would see this as a critical issue. Second, his non-religious explanation as to why man might have created such a commandment is fairly ludicrous - he believes it is because pigs sound so much like humans when you kill them, that the early followers of Abraham forbade the consuming of pig products due to its similarity to humans, and thus implying a similitude to human sacrifice and cannibalism. Yeah - he argues that.
> [...]


Looks like you sloughed off one of his conjectural points there; the squeal wasn't the only one. Man isn't referred to in some parts of the world as 'long pig' for no reason; it seems that our meat tastes a lot like pork.

If it is really necessary to advance another reason for the ban on eating pig besides 'God said so' - which seems adequate to me - one could heed the objection raised by plains Indians: that pigs enjoy mud way too much, when penned are apt to defecate in the wallow, and are therefor unclean.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Looks like you sloughed off one of his conjectural points there; the squeal wasn't the only one. Man isn't referred to in some parts of the world as 'long pig' for no reason; it seems that our meat tastes a lot like pork.
> 
> If it is really necessary to advance another reason for the ban on eating pig besides 'God said so' - which seems adequate to me - one could heed the objection raised by plains Indians: that pigs enjoy mud way too much, when penned are apt to defecate in the wallow, and are therefor unclean.


From a scientific perspective, there is also the danger of coming down with trichinosis when you consume undercooked pork. How much of an issue this was for other societies at the time that DID consume pork, I couldn't say. We may not always know why God gives certain commandments at certain times, but from what we can see, there are often some obvious benefits. When the plague was sweeping through Europe, part of its effect was a growing antipathy towards European Jews (not that it wasn't already high) as they did not seem to be affected as much - Europeans counted this as more proof of their pact with the devil, but we now can probably reasonably assume that much of the Mosaic law dealing with health and diet played an important role. For my own church, the injunction against harmful substances, tobacco, and alcohol have definite health applications. And yet in Biblical times, there was obviously no commandment against the consumption of alcohol. Why the change? I'm not sure - but one could speculate that at that time, clean water, especially in cities, was not as easy a thing to obtain as it is now for us. Furthermore, unfermented juice would have only a very finite shelf-life. So having a fermented drink that could hold for long periods prior to refrigeration would be desirable, and less detrimental than contracting any number of diseases from spoiled or contaminated water supplies.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> It is a difficult concept to define, because it is often so different from person to person. At its most basic, I guess you could say that it is the moment where you have come to realize that the doctrines are true. I have heard multiple different descriptions - some say a feeling of warmth comes over them, some say they hear a still, small voice, others say it is just like a switch. For me, I have a feeling of peace and comfort come over me, and I "feel" that what I have read is true. In addition, I will test those promises that have blessings for this world, and have found them to be true. For some, the experience can come without any effort on the individual's part, but for most, it is an active process. Case in point - you are not likely to receive a witness that the Bible is true without taking the time to read it. You will likely not receive a witness that God answers prayers if you do not seek to engage Him in prayer. One doctrine of my church is that to gain a testimony/witness of the truth of a doctrine/commandment, one needs to do it. For most, there is no witness until after the trial of their faith. But even after all we can do, it is God that provides the witness, so in that sense we cannot control it, except in that God has promised us blessings when we keep His commandments.


Thank you. Your explanation is similar to what I've heard from some others. I have often had experiences similar to those you describe - "feeling" something is true, a sense of comfort and serenity, even the very occasional voice. Of course these were not in reference to religious doctrines but rather to non-religious questions or problems I had. I wonder how I would ever know that I was gaining a witness to truth from God rather than from myself.

One interesting question arises from those who have essentially had the identical experience as you describe but in regards to realizing that their religious beliefs were wrong. They didn't seek to find problems with their beliefs, but at some point they simply "knew" that most or everything they had assumed true was probably not. Most of the people I know who lost faith experienced this loss as a teenager. I assume religious people do not believe that God "let those people go", but to me it has that feel.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I'll get back to reading the rest of the thread in a minute, but just regarding things on page 11 and 12, I think there is something of _immense_ importance to point out. The idea that we have souls separate to our bodies through which we can experience an eternal afterlife is a comforting but also potentially dangerous one. Why dangerous? Because as we've seen, at least two people in this thread have called physical life less important than the soul. I can understand this position, and acknowledge why people of certain faiths would think it. However, for the good of mankind, I urge you to have the humility to think that maybe, _just maybe_, you might be wrong, and that physical life is all there is, and that Hitler and Stalin committed a crime more heinous than even you seem to be able to imagine, as they robbed those millions of people of their only chance at existence. Believe what you want, that's fine by me, and prioritise your own soul over your own body, but please don't have such certainty in your beliefs that you can rationalise the expendability of others.


You misrepresent what I stated. That one action is evil does not preclude anything else from being evil. Yes, from an eternal perspective, the soul is the more important, as it continues on beyond this life. But our mortal existence is also sacred - hence the numerous commandments that God has given us that forbid our wasting this life or doing damage to our bodies, or doing the same to others. God wants neither the physical or the spiritual body to be harmed.

My point was this, though - that even without religion in the picture, many people recognize the nobility of those who suffered death rather than renounce what they believed. People - religious or otherwise - understand that while life is precious, there are some things that just might be worth risking their lives over. Coming back to Hitler - consider the thousands of lives that were lost in fighting him and stopping his reign of terror. They were fighting for something that they believed was more important than their own lives. Sure, I doubt a single one wouldn't have preferred to come back alive, but they still bravely marched forward. When I was in high school, there was a gunman who went to one of the neighboring schools and started shooting into classrooms. At one point, he aimed his gun at a young girl, but before he fired, a boy, one of her classmates, jumped in front of her. He died, she lived. He was rightly judged a hero. Now, there is no doubt that his life was precious - more so as this was clearly the kind of person that would have been an asset to society - but he recognized that there was maybe something more important than his own life.

From an eternal perspective, one who seeks to destroy the soul can do much greater damage. But that doesn't mean that we think that, somehow, Hitler and Stalin did not commit one of the most heinous crimes one can commit. I call nobody expendable. I think that each life is precious in the sight of God. I don't believe that there is forgiveness in this life for cold-blooded murder.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> One interesting question arises from those who have essentially had the identical experience as you describe but in regards to realizing that their religious beliefs were wrong. They didn't seek to find problems with their beliefs, but at some point they simply "knew" that most or everything they had assumed true was probably not. Most of the people I know who lost faith experienced this loss as a teenager. I assume religious people do not believe that God "let those people go", but to me it has that feel.


I don't know, is the best answer I can give you to your final question. Personal inspiration/revelation is just as the name implies - personal. I cannot comment on the experiences of anyone other than myself. I think that God does try to direct us in the way he thinks best for us, if we are willing to listen - but he won't force anyone to believe in him. Whether those people were not where they needed to be, so God directed them elsewhere, only they and God can know. The best that I can do is to teach people what I know, and try to help them recognize the influence of God in their own lives, help them to learn to feel and recognize God's Holy Spirit. The rest is up to them and to God.


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> As to your advertising atheism, please tell me where Alberich was advertising Christianity? He was stating his beliefs in the context of the topic at hand


He states his beliefs as if they are FACT. I don't state as fact that there is no God. Of course I don't.



DrMike said:


> Yes, it is easy to bandy about words like evil and good, and I am not going to get into a semantics game here with you, because I think yours is one of the more fringe ideas around here. I would say that even most atheists have concepts of good and evil, and while there might be some minor specifics where we may disagree about drawing the line, most agree on the broad concepts. I don't have the sophistry necessary to get into these semantic relativistic discussions.


Of course you aren't going to get into a semantic discussion, or any discussion of what constitutes good and evil. It's too hard to question the foundations of one's beliefs.
You know what you consider to be an act of evil and I know what I consider to be one. Just as you know what you consider to be truth and likewise me. However, what happens when we differ?

If you are the father of an Iraqi child who becomes collateral damage in a bombing raid, is there evil present? Who is the perpetrator of the evil. The bomber? The government that ordered the raid? The people who elected and condoned the government's action? If you are brought up to believe that such a government and it's electorate are evil and that you will be a holy martyr if you blow some of them up, who is the perpetrator of evil? If you are a concentration guard ordered to shoot an inmate and knowing that if you refuse your own child would become fatherless, is there evil present? Is cowardice evil? Is inaction evil? Are the Roman Catholic priests who molested children evil? Are their superiors who covered it up evil?
If you sit down to your supper and watch African children with distended bellies starve to death on TV and then turn it off to get back to feeding your face, are you evil?


----------



## Sid James

I read de Botton's first book to make it big - _The Consolations of Philosophy_ - & I think he's good as he makes philosophy accessible for those who don't know much about it. Another thing is that he makes it practical.

I agree with the premise of de Botton in that interview you posted, starthrower. I have equal distaste for militant atheism, as he calls it, as for extremist religious or political ideologies. They're all pretty useless to me & very myopic.

Bottom line is that actions speak louder than words. I know people of all sorts of belief - believers, non believers, and in between. I even think words like atheist are polarising terms, stereotypes.

Two Australians I think have done good work are Reverend Bill Crews (of Uniting Church, who has been working with homeless and victims of violence, drug abuse etc., for decades) and the late Dr. Fred Hollows (an eye doctor, who set up clinics to give poor people their sight back, both here and overseas - he almost went broke doing it). Rev. Crews is obviously a believer - but not a militant one, he's a practical one - and Dr. Hollows was non religious. But they have in common a kind of humanity and empathy. & to get down and dirty, cut the crapola and help people on the ground, when they need it.

These kind of people inspire me, regardless of their belief or lack of it, we all have universal human values. As for ideology, forget it, put it in the trash can where it belongs. De Botton is the same, he's writing books to help people improve their lives, ways of thinking, etc. That's it, basically.


----------



## Polednice

Actions speak louder than words... Let's consider our labelling here because atheists are invariably called "militant" when they throw around a few insults, or perhaps just speak bluntly without any insults at all. For a religious person to be called "militant", they have to do more than insult the opposition or legislate against minorities or discriminate in the workplace because they're so certain they're right about everything, they have to fly planes into buildings and shoot people; all in the name of religious certainty. I haven't ever read of an atheist killing people because they were so certain that god doesn't exist, or that people who think differently are rebels worthy of death. Beware of these equivocations, and call a Christian "militant" the next time they pretend to know the truth about the universe.


----------



## Sid James

Polednice said:


> ...I haven't ever read of an atheist killing people because they were so certain that god doesn't exist, or that people who think differently are rebels worthy of death. Beware of these equivocations, and call a Christian "militant" the next time they pretend to know the truth about the universe.


The Stalinists and the Nazis both persecuted religious people. Chairman Mao also demolished ancient Buddhist temples and had Buddhist monks and nuns hounded. Also, China's invasion of Tibet, the legitimization of that was largely anti-clerical. They basically believed what Marx wrote "religion is the opiate of the masses." Problem is, for these dictators, who killed millions, power was their opiate, everything else was secondary to that.

Poulenc (in an allegorical/symbolic way) compared the Nazis killing of resistance fighters to the execution of Carmelite nuns around time of French REvolution in _Dialogues of the Carmelites_. As I said, neither extreme ideology is good, they lead to death.

I could go on, studying history I just get the drift that when zealots of any kind dominate the discourse and sway millions, the ship of civilisation goes under. & in the 20th century, most of them - Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - where atheists. They did not believe in anything but their own corruption of power.


----------



## Polednice

Sid James said:


> The Stalinists and the Nazis both persecuted religious people. Chairman Mao also demolished ancient Buddhist temples and had Buddhist monks and nuns hounded. Also, China's invasion of Tibet, the legitimization of that was largely anti-clerical. They basically believed what Marx wrote "religion is the opiate of the masses." Problem is, for these dictators, who killed millions, power was their opiate, everything else was secondary to that.


The difference is that these people were incidentally atheist - anti-clerical does not equal pro-atheist. Their atrocities were not committed because of a doctrine that persuaded them they were right about the non-existence of God and all opponents had to be crushed. Their motives were about power and politics. 9/11 and hundreds of other similar atrocities were intrinsically religious - there is no atheist counterpart to those.


----------



## Sid James

My belief is that any ideology that results in the deaths of a large number of innocent people - whatever the ideology behind it - will most likely be a distortion, a wild offshoot, of the original ideology or doctrine.

This can apply equally to the Nazis - eg. some say theirs was a horrible distortion of Enlightenment thinking (progress of man through science gave them the idea to use transport systems, build gas chambers, etc. for mass murder). I doubt the philosophers behind the Enlightenment thought of this kind of thing when they argued for reason over superstition, etc.

Same can be said of distortions of religion, of any faith gone mad. Eg. with Christianity, the Inquisition and burning people at the stake. Nobody in their right mind would argue this to be true Christianity, or a model of it. Same with the Crusades, which the last pope (John Paul II) finally apologised for.

So I don't agree with wild offshoots of any kind. As I said, I don't care for words, I care about what they're used for, and ultimately, people's actions. Good can come from within us, it is not attached to religion or lack of it. Though personally speaking, religion gives me a kind of compass to navigate through this crazy world, but so do other things (based on common sense, whether religious or not).


----------



## Polednice

You can't equate "wild offshoot" with "bad by my moral standard". Fundamentalist, violent manifestations of the Abrahamic religions are not without scriptural support, so they are just alternative varieties, not wild offshoots - they have precisely the same doctrinal legitimacy as harmless Anglicanism. Atheism is not an ideology, and so it has had no real-world effects. Some damaging political constructs may have been atheistic, but they didn't kill because they thought a sacred atheist text wanted them to.


----------



## Couchie

Sid James said:


> My belief is that any ideology that results in the deaths of a large number of innocent people - whatever the ideology behind it - will most likely be a distortion, a wild offshoot, of the original ideology or doctrine.
> 
> This can apply equally to the Nazis - eg. some say theirs was a horrible distortion of Enlightenment thinking (progress of man through science gave them the idea to use transport systems, build gas chambers, etc. for mass murder). I doubt the philosophers behind the Enlightenment thought of this kind of thing when they argued for reason over superstition, etc.
> 
> Same can be said of distortions of religion, of any faith gone mad. Eg. with Christianity, the Inquisition and burning people at the stake. Nobody in their right mind would argue this to be true Christianity, or a model of it. Same with the Crusades, which the last pope (John Paul II) finally apologised for.
> 
> So I don't agree with wild offshoots of any kind. As I said, I don't care for words, I care about what they're used for, and ultimately, people's actions. Good can come from within us, it is not attached to religion or lack of it. Though personally speaking, religion gives me a kind of compass to navigate through this crazy world, but so do other things (based on common sense, whether religious or not).


The Inquisition and 9/11 *are* Christianity and Islam, not a distortion. As long as these religions have existed they have been open to extreme interpretation because their poorly written texts make those provisions. It could be said that the natural state of religion is a small sect of extremists and large mass of enablers.


----------



## Sid James

^^Extremists of any colour - religious, political, whatever - will distort anything they can get their hands on. Apparently, the basis of (atheist) Stalinism was Karl Marx's writings, eg. _Das Kapital._ But in that book, there is no mention of sending people on trains to gulags in Siberia to do hard labour and die. Get my drift? What guys like Stalin emphasized from Marx was the concept of _dictatorship of the proletariat_. & of course the famous line I already quoted, _religion is the opiate of the masses._

I expect better from you people. If we both listen to say your favorite composer, Wagner, you will have a different reaction or "take" than me. It will be totally different. You can read what you want into my analogy.

Anyway I have made as many points as I can, I am a moderate, I have no truck with you or anyone else here. This is it for me on this thread.


----------



## Polednice

Are you suggesting with your Marx example, then, that in the Bible there is no mention of committing the atrocities that Christians have done throughout the ages? You might want to read it again...


----------



## Couchie

Sid James said:


> ^^Extremists of any colour - religious, political, whatever - will distort anything they can get their hands on. Apparently, the basis of (atheist) Stalinism was Karl Marx's writings, eg. _Das Kapital._ But in that book, there is no mention of sending people on trains to gulags in Siberia to do hard labour and die. Get my drift? What guys like Stalin emphasized from Marx was the concept of _dictatorship of the proletariat_. & of course the famous line I already quoted, _religion is the opiate of the masses._
> 
> I expect better from you people. If we both listen to say your favorite composer, Wagner, you will have a different reaction or "take" than me. It will be totally different. You can read what you want into my analogy.
> 
> Anyway I have made as many points as I can, I am a moderate, I have no truck with you or anyone else here. This is it for me on this thread.


_Das Kapital_ is a dogmatic work which purports atheism as part of a political doctrine. Stalin's atrocities sprouted from his interpretation of the Marxist doctrine. Atheism itself has no doctrine to be interpreted extremely unless you are suggesting all atheists believe in _Das Kapital_.

I think your broader point is that it's not just religious works: people are capable of distorting secular works to evil purposes as well. I agree. But does that change the fact that the extinction of the religious dogma for extremist bending would not still be a big plus for humanity? Sure, people will can still distort secular works, but it's a lot harder to get people to kill themselves for a secular cause than it is telling them it's God's holy will and they will be rewarded with virgins in the afterlife.


----------



## Sid James

Couchie said:


> _Das Kapital_ is a dogmatic work which purports atheism as part of a political doctrine. Stalin's atrocities sprouted from his interpretation of the Marxist doctrine. Atheism itself has no doctrine to be interpreted extremely unless you are suggesting all atheists believe in _Das Kapital_.


No, what I'm saying is that a number of atheist dictators came out of Marxist ideology. Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot are the main ones. Hitler imo was more of a distortion of Enlightenment thinking, as I've talked to above. But in effect, what they all did was (at a conservative estimate) kill roughly 100 million people between them.

On the plus side, Marxism, or a more watered down version of it, did lead to changing political systems for the better. Eg. the first chancellor of united Germany, Bismarck, was a conservative. From Marx he got the idea of social responsibility, thus was the first to put in law old age pensions. The Socialists said he stole their thunder, but if he's doing it for good, no reasonable person can object.



> ...
> I think your broader point is that it's not just religious works: people are capable of distorting secular works to evil purposes as well. I agree...


Yes, it can go either way, good or evil. The origin imo is not the text, but the agenda, originally there, of the person distorting it. Stalin could refer to anything, but in the end, there is no justification under natural law or natural justice for what he and those like him did. It is inhumane for one thing, but there are other things.



> ...
> But does that change the fact that the extinction of the religious dogma for extremist bending would not still be a big plus for humanity? ...


Christ's concept of non violence and turning the other cheek (& also social justice) has inspired leaders close to our times. Eg. Ghandi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Oscar Romero of El Salvador, Dietrich Bonhoeffer who opposed the Nazis and died for it. I can cite others but these are the biggies. Christian ideas have done good and inspire to do good. This also answers what Polednice says about violence in the Bible. Most of it is in the Old TEstament. Christ came to reform the Old Testament. He was against the _eye for an eye_ approach of revenge and violence, etc.

Speaking to that, the Golden Rule has been common in all cultures, amongst all religions and philosophies. Christ said it, eg. _Do unto others as you would have them do unto you_. But it was around ages before him. If anyone follows this, and I believe it is natural for all humans, then the likes of Hitler and Stalin would maybe not have achieved what they did, which was a disaster for all humanity, religious or not, of whatever ethnicity (eg. Stalin was anti-Semitic and at the time of his death was planning a kind of _Second Holocaust_ - another thing he and Hitler had in common).

I said my last post would be final but this is the final one. I'm not arguing to convince people, just to put the moderate view.


----------



## Petwhac

Sid James said:


> The Stalinists and the Nazis both persecuted religious people. Chairman Mao also demolished ancient Buddhist temples and had Buddhist monks and nuns hounded. Also, China's invasion of Tibet, the legitimization of that was largely anti-clerical. They basically believed what Marx wrote "religion is the opiate of the masses." Problem is, for these dictators, who killed millions, power was their opiate, everything else was secondary to that.


An opiate calms and pacifies. Marx meant that religion works, intentionally or not, to keep the masses placated. It is a misunderstanding to say that power was the opiate for murderous dictators. Quite the opposite.
It is also wrong to think that because a dictator represses religious activity that he is an atheist.
Let's look at Iraq. Saddam was a murderous dictator, perhaps some might say evil. He and his regime brutally suppressed anyone, including clerics, who opposed him. Bush and co disposed of Saddam only murdering some innocent Iraqis in the process. We can all rejoice that Saddam got his desserts but what happened? The slaughter of Sunni and Shia muslims at each other's hands far outnumbers those killed in the 'war'. 
Don't think it's an Islamic thing either. Catholics v Protestants remember?

I don't know any 'militant' atheists. No atheist wants to stop people from worshipping a god if they so choose. But the self righteous 'militants' who oppose the legalisation of gay marriage, as if it's any of their business at all, or who picket outside abortion clinics while supporting 'our boys' as they burn and maim children (already born) on the other side of the world. They make me sick.

No atheist wants to keep women under tents with only a slit to peek through.

Have any of you Christian folk read the Koran? Any Hindu scriptures? Any Buddhist teachings? Are you frightened that maybe like some members here you'll get a warm fuzzy feeling and then believe that to be The Truth and not the particular religion you now hold so dear and jealously guard against the evil atheist hoards?


----------



## Polednice

Although I don't, if I were to accept your premise, Sid, that people distort ideologies no matter what, your beef would be with Marxism, not atheism as it is not an ideology. The broader problem, of course, is actually any stringent adherence to an ideology, and I'm afraid that's what all religion is - deliberately unquestioning adherence to ideas that cannot be proven. Some varieties are clearly more benign than others, but you can't single some out and call _those_ ones nasty; the underlying problem is the ideology part, and that puts all religions, even benign ones, at fault. What people really need is skepticism, not "turn the other cheek" and other assorted platitudes.


----------



## starthrower

Since the topic has drifted to the politics of mass murder, I'd like to discuss the church's utter cowardice here in America concerning the two illegal wars initiated by the Bush administration and continued under Obama. I don't know what is discussed in local churches across the country, but in watching these high profile TV ministers over the past decade I've never heard a word of criticism towards the violence of the state. Their silence reminds me of that bible verse that says don't build up treasures on earth, but treasures in heaven. Seems these wealthy ministers living the good life don't want to jeopordize their earthly treasures by being courageous and speaking out against the violence and murder being carried out by the state. There certainly aren't any Martin Luther King types around today.


----------



## Couchie

Sid James said:


> Yes, it can go either way, good or evil. The origin imo is not the text, but the agenda, originally there, of the person distorting it. Stalin could refer to anything, but in the end, there is no justification under natural law or natural justice for what he and those like him did. It is inhumane for one thing, but there are other things.


Both Christianity and Islam have a God-ordained agenda for their own proliferation and a lot of evil can and has come of that unto itself when people take up arms for God (such as the Israelites' massacres of pagans in the OT). In this case I would say the agenda originates with the text. I agree on the other hand that religious and secular works can both be misused by leaders to justify and aggressively consolidate their power.



Sid James said:


> Christ's concept of non violence and turning the other cheek (& also social justice) has inspired leaders close to our times. Eg. Ghandi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Oscar Romero of El Salvador, Dietrich Bonhoeffer who opposed the Nazis and died for it. I can cite others but these are the biggies. Christian ideas have done good and inspire to do good. This also answers what Polednice says about violence in the Bible. Most of it is in the Old TEstament. Christ came to reform the Old Testament. He was against the _eye for an eye_ approach of revenge and violence, etc.
> 
> Speaking to that, the Golden Rule has been common in all cultures, amongst all religions and philosophies. Christ said it, eg. _Do unto others as you would have them do unto you_. But it was around ages before him. If anyone follows this, and I believe it is natural for all humans, then the likes of Hitler and Stalin would maybe not have achieved what they did, which was a disaster for all humanity, religious or not, of whatever ethnicity (eg. Stalin was anti-Semitic and at the time of his death was planning a kind of _Second Holocaust_ - another thing he and Hitler had in common).
> 
> I said my last post would be final but this is the final one. I'm not arguing to convince people, just to put the moderate view.


My problem is:

1. Jesus was not a Christian
2. We don't need religion to be good
3. People should be inspired to do good for good's sake, not out of worrying about the afterlife
4. The existence of afterlife itself is dehumanizing
5. God's celestial dictatorship is an affront to freedom and democracy

At its best, religion is good but fundamentally unnecessary. At its worst, it is a plague. Let's get rid of it.


----------



## starthrower

We don't need to abolish religion, not here in the United States anyway. We just need to uphold the constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

Sometimes religion can be an alternative for allegiance under the tyranny of the state, which is why the atheistic despots wanted to stamp it out of existence.


----------



## Sid James

I return here to answer at least some points.



starthrower said:


> We don't need to abolish religion, not here in the United States anyway. We just need to uphold the constitution and the Bill Of Rights.
> 
> Sometimes religion can be an alternative for allegiance under the tyranny of the state, which is why the atheistic despots wanted to stamp it out of existence.


I can agree with this. It accords with my moderate view. People can call it watered down or whatever, but it's pragmatic, and is in line with others I know - whether religious or not - it's not a stereotype. I have been helped by people of all kinds, and in turn I've helped people back in the ways I can, in my community.

Eg. abolishing religion, Couchie - Pol Pot would heartily agree with you. His aim was to go back to _the year zero_, before religion, before money was invented, before there were any signs of an advanced society or economy. Back to barbarism. I'm not saying you're a genocidal maniac like him, what I'm saying is that this idea of _getting rid_ of certain people you don't like become the basis for genocide.

Re what starthrower says about clergy or priests and their views of the current wars, Rev. Bill Crews who I mentioned earlier is against the wars now. He has stated this clearly. He is a moderate Christian (yet some Christians of other ideology say he's not Christian - in other words, again, they're trying to put him into a box). There are different types of Christians, just as there are different types of people generally.

In Australian cities, hundreds of thousands of people protested against going to war with Iraq. Christians where among them, as were others of all creeds, etc. Our government did not listen, despite these being the biggest public protests since the Vietnam war.

As for Marxism and atheism, essentially that's what Stalin drew from Marx, making USSR an atheist state. In practice, in reality, but on paper, the constitution of that country guaranteed religious freedom. It's like _1984_. I can't tell the difference in practice of atheism taken to an extreme as that of Communism. But good came from Marx's writings, eg. concepts of social responsibility for government, I would say that secularism came from the extreme anti-clericalism of French revolution (eg. the massacre of the CArmelite nuns, etc.). It looks like a certain extreme comes from all ideology, before the next generations learn the lesson of fine tuning it and basically making it workable and human.

At the same time, what starthrower says in second sentence above is true. The churches did have significant role in ending Communism in East Europe, eg. look at the writings of Rev. Laszlo Tokes, the pastor in Romania who was pivotal in bringing down the Ceausescu regime. The churches were a focus for move towards ending dictatorship, but of course it also came from top down, Gorbachev's totally secular _Perestroika_ & _Glasnost_ reforms.


----------



## samurai

I am of the firm belief {in a secular sense} that if people would just accept that their "truth" does not have to be accepted by nor forced on others, then this would have been--and can still be-- a far better and more tolerant world. I think that many times in the past--not always--religion has been used as a justification or smoke-screen to justify beastly acts against people who did not "get with the program" being advanced at the time. Sid James' point is also well-taken, however. In the secular world--at least in America--the biggest scoundrels have wrapped themselves in the flag and "patriotism" while advocating extreme measures against minorities such as Native Americans. Not to make too fine a point of it, but it could well be argued that--in effect--Hitler made a secular ideology, namely National Socialism, into a national religion, as well as his worship by the"commoners" as a demi-god. I suppose the same could be said of that other murderous beast, Stalin, as well.
So we can't always draw such a bright line between where "religion" ends and secular crimes committed in its name begin.


----------



## Cnote11

I'm a little confused about the talk of religious persecution under Hitler. I didn't really read the last few pages carefully, but I think that the large role of the church in the spreading of Nazism and the theological movements that came up around it, as well as the prominent preachers who became Nazi philosophers, are being entirely overlooked. Germany was an extremely religious country. 97% of the country were Christians. It was in no way an atheist state or anything like that. In fact, Hitler claimed to take a hardline stance against atheism. A lot of the propaganda was entirely built upon religious fervor. Again, I hardly read anything on the last two pages so I might be misinterpreting the conversation, but from the random things that caught my eye I seem to be rather confused on the discussion around this.


----------



## samurai

And the Catholic Church as a whole certainly did nothing but remain largely silent in the face of the mass genocide being perpetrated against the Jewish citizens of Germany. As did our "benevolent" and all-seeing "God", I might add.


----------



## Sid James

The Vatican did sign a_ Concordat _(treaty) with Hitler and Mussolini to stay out of their politics. This is a controversial area, I would say that there was a huge element of bullying by these dictators to get what they want (eg. not be criticised by the churches). It was under Mussolini's rule that the Vatican City became a separate state, not fully part of Italy, under a separate form of government. It was a matter of keeping church and state totally separate, so that the state (eg. the Fascists) could do what they wanted without any criticism.

However, a number of religious leaders didn't agree with not doing anything, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was one, he paid for it with his life -

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

Another was the Polish Father Maximilian Kolbe (now a saint), who sheltered Jews and others (he died in a concentration camp, the fate of many Christians like him). -

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

Don't forget that many Christians like him were in the underground resistance against the Nazis. The former Pope John Paul II was in the Polish resistance during WW2 in his youth. Do you all remember that scene in the musical _The Sound of Music_, when the Von Trapp family is helped by the nuns in the convent they are hiding in to escape from the Nazis to Switzerland? This kind of thing did happen, but not always recorded as _official history_(unlike the _Concordat_).

I think the best thing is to read up on this, read up on what happened during the war, in Germany and beyond. For a time, Stalin resuscitated the Russian Orthodox Church as part of the war effort, raising morale on the home front. But this was superficial, he certainly did not relax his authoritarian rule.


----------



## Cnote11

By the way you put it though, Sid, it wasn't religious persecution, but rather persecution based on threat to their power by any subversive group; not an attack on them strictly because of their religion.


----------



## Sid James

^^I am not sure, I'm not an expert on church-state relations during Nazi era. I just told you the bare bones of what I know. You can look at the links I posted which might answer your question properly.

Basically, to generally reflect on de Botton's ideas, the common goal of the resistance in WW2 was to get rid of the Nazi oppressors. The resistance was made up of many types of people, Christians, members of many parties - incl. Communists, outlawed by the Nazis - and people who didn't care about any of this, they just wanted peace. They were focused on what they had in common, not the differences. There was also the heroic - but doomed - Jewish resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

This is my experience in life too & I think people generally agree to this here as well. So that's why I'm surprised what de Botton says is so controversial. It's just about humanity and being practical, imo. It's cutting the dogma and stereotypes & finding common usable things in religions and philosophies. It's not about ivory towers, it's real (eg. his books have sold well, they've been received well by readers).


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> We don't need to abolish religion, not here in the United States anyway. We just need to uphold the constitution and the Bill Of Rights.


Nice, idealistic, and impossible. You need a secular system to uphold the Bill of Rights, and secularism is fundamentally incompatible with some religions as it undermines the absolute authority of the deity.


----------



## Polednice

Sid James said:


> Eg. abolishing religion, Couchie - Pol Pot would heartily agree with you. His aim was to go back to _the year zero_, before religion, before money was invented, before there were any signs of an advanced society or economy. Back to barbarism. I'm not saying you're a genocidal maniac like him, what I'm saying is that this idea of _getting rid_ of certain people you don't like become the basis for genocide.


Nobody advocated getting rid of _people_, only pernicious ideas - you'd want to stamp out racism as a way of thought, wouldn't you? Well we'd do the same with religion, as it's even more damaging.



Sid James said:


> As for Marxism and atheism, essentially that's what Stalin drew from Marx, making USSR an atheist state. In practice, in reality, but on paper, the constitution of that country guaranteed religious freedom. It's like _1984_. I can't tell the difference in practice of atheism taken to an extreme as that of Communism.


Seriously, this is a very simple point, but you seem to refuse to accept it. Marxism and other ideologies are _not_ atheism taken to an extreme. Atheism is nothing to be taken anywhere. Atheism is an intellectual position on the existence of god. That's it. It offers no moral code, no ideology, no ethics, nothing - there is no meat on the bone, nothing to be built on. That's why you cannot claim that atheism is an ideology that can be abused equally; only actual ideologies that happened to be atheistic.


----------



## Polednice

Sid James said:


> This is my experience in life too & I think people generally agree to this here as well. So that's why I'm surprised what de Botton says is so controversial. It's just about humanity and being practical, imo. It's cutting the dogma and stereotypes & finding common usable things in religions and philosophies. It's not about ivory towers, it's real (eg. his books have sold well, they've been received well by readers).


The problem is that his ideas imply that these useable things - some of which are genuinely good - are unique to religion, which is simply not true and it gives religion credit it doesn't deserve. It's also a variant of the extremely patronising position, "Oh I can't believe in god, but I'm sure it's good for the masses." Many readers have received his book poorly.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> Have any of you Christian folk read the Koran? Any Hindu scriptures? Any Buddhist teachings? Are you frightened that maybe like some members here you'll get a warm fuzzy feeling and then believe that to be The Truth and not the particular religion you now hold so dear and jealously guard against the evil atheist hoards?


Yes, I have read the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita. I can't say that I have read any Buddhist teachings.

Tell me - have you read any of these, or the Bible? Or do you just "know" they are wrong?


----------



## Guest

What troubles me is that some people here are so ideologically blinded that they attribute violations of a religion's tenets as being part of the religion as well. Any honest study of Christian doctrine knows that it does not espouse violence against others. Quite to the contrary, Christ taught people to turn the other cheek, constantly forgive, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love one another. Only someone so blindly driven by a need to denounce all religion will argue that Christianity is inherently violent. There are some who have perpetrated violence in the name of Christianity, but in doing so they were at odds with their religious teachings.

As a parallel, I read this analogy online. We can all probably agree that the Hippocratic Oath is a good one that admonishes doctors to do no harm, among other things. And yet throughout history, many in the medical profession who take upon themselves the Hippocratic Oath have done things that clearly did harm. Do we denounce the Hippocratic Oath as driving these bad practices, or do we recognize that what was done wrong was done in contradiction of the tenets of the Hippocratic Oath?

While the regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were not necessarily based on a doctrine of atheism, atheism was certainly one of the core doctrines in their regimes. Religious persecution was common practice - it continues to be so in China. That is not to say that you wouldn't have had these regimes without an atheist aspect, but it certainly was a factor, and not an inconsequential one.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> What troubles me is that some people here are so ideologically blinded that they attribute violations of a religion's tenets as being part of the religion as well. Any honest study of Christian doctrine knows that it does not espouse violence against others. Quite to the contrary, Christ taught people to turn the other cheek, constantly forgive, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love one another. Only someone so blindly driven by a need to denounce all religion will argue that Christianity is inherently violent. There are some who have perpetrated violence in the name of Christianity, but in doing so they were at odds with their religious teachings.


No one has argued that Christianity is _inherently_ violent - the problem is that your "honest" interpretation of scripture is an interpretation. You can't prove that your interpretation is the right one, and violent interpretations are possible because - unlike the Hippocratic Oath - the Bible is filled with vengeance and genocide and hatred and discrimination. It's so disingenuous to say, "well all those nasty bits don't count" and then seek to put the Bible on a par with moral systems or intellectual positions that don't even have any nasty bits in the first place! Hell, if you could all just pick a religion that didn't leave any room whatsoever for violent, discriminatory interpretations, I'd be a happy bunny, but the Abrahamic religions don't offer that. They have a little bit of everything, good and bad, so that people can do whatever they like and then cite a verse to support it.


----------



## Cnote11

DrMike said:


> Yes, I have read the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita. I can't say that I have read any Buddhist teachings.
> 
> Tell me - have you read any of these, or the Bible? Or do you just "know" they are wrong?


The Gita is a beautiful read. I recommend it to everyone.


----------



## Crudblud

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Mike, but didn't God supposedly curse whole countries with plagues and famine because of the actions of their leaders? Did he not also order his followers to genocidal and infanticidal acts on several occasions?


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Nice, idealistic, and impossible. You need a secular system to uphold the Bill of Rights, and secularism is fundamentally incompatible with some religions as it undermines the absolute authority of the deity.


Your proposed 'secular system' inevitably bans free thought and speech. No thanks.


----------



## Chrythes

And DrMike, forgive me for the cliche question, but since you seem to be a rational guy I'll just ask - 
What is your position (or explanation) on innocent people that pray for mercy, for survival in war's time (or through any other difficulty), but end up in a mass grave? 
One of the things that bothers me about experiences such as realizing that there's a God because of X and Y, that they seem to be very personal and somewhat selfish. Have you ever thought why God answers your prayers, but not those who needs more help than you? Doesn't it make you doubt, even the slightest, about your God, about his nature?


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Nobody advocated getting rid of _people_, only pernicious ideas - you'd want to stamp out racism as a way of thought, wouldn't you? Well we'd do the same with religion, as it's even more damaging.


And this, my friends, is quite possibly the scariest statement that has thus far been expressed in this thread. Beware the individual who claims to want to stomp out an ideology for your own good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberalism, in its classical sense, understood that, with all its flaws, liberty, letting people think and do as they pleased so long as they didn't violate the liberties of others, was the best option for mankind. Totalitarianism, removing any and all dissent that is deemed dangerous, has never come to a good end, no matter how noble the intentions of its practitioners.

I find this comment even more objectionable than Alberich's comment about Hitchens meeting his end by a shot to the back of the head. You don't want an individual silenced, you want a whole population. Be careful of this road you are advocating - therein lies despotism. Controlling what people can and can't think is the ultimate form of control.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Temporarily closed, pending review...


----------

