Conservapedia: E=mc2 Is A Liberal Conspiracy

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Neither of those things say that religious believers are stupid and bigoted.

Strongly insinuated though.

In regards to religion or atheism being responsible for "x" amount of deaths, I think we have to look at the problem from a different angle. That of politics and its relationship to religion.

The gods are the foundation of any political society. That is, there is always some higher power that directs a particular society's moral and political outlook. I'd go so far as to say that even though liberal societies are almost always atheistic in origin, we essentially substitute different things in place of traditional gods; things like an almost unshakable belief in progress, reason without virtue, and technology.

The Nazis and other totalitarian movements are a lot different and much more complicated than anything we have seen in human history. I'd posit from my limited knowledge on the subject that these regimes represent political religions of a sort, certainly atheist ones in the sense that they do remove gods, but they replace the gods with men and ideology. Each of these regimes had a personality cult around the leader, elevating him to divine status as well as political doctrine, mainly with a millennarian emphasis.

The standard ethical argument of scientific atheism vs. superstitious religion doesn't work out, in my opinion.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Read something about the history of the Soviet Union and Maoist China, then get back to me, mkay?

"it is interesting to find that people of faith now seek defensively to say that they are no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists"
— Christopher Hitchens

BTW, Hitchens is gravely ill with cancer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_676681.html

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

"it is interesting to find that people of faith now seek defensively to say that they are no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists"
— Christopher Hitchens

I just found this out and it's rather interesting, but the most vehement opponents of Hitchens (ie. those now wishing for his slow and painful death) aren't religious types, but his old comrades on the Left who see his success in the last few years, his support for the Iraq War etc... to be a sellout.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You don't think that the Communists were not trying to spread a political system with atheism as one of its central tenants?

Atheism isn't necessarily part of communism anymore than theism is necessarily a part of capitalism.

Atheism isn't a cause that they were trying to spread, it isn't an ideology. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god.

Communism killed lots of people for lots of reasons, anyone who stood in their way of the ideal worker's paradise (or stood in the way of their gaining or retaining power).

Saying communists killed in the name of atheism is like saying people were killed during the Inquisition in the name of theism, since the Inquisition killed people who believed in god. Which of course isn't right, vastly oversimplifying things.

A belief system that justifies or sanctions violence or killing to further its cause is responsible for its actions.. but atheism isn't by itself a belief system anymore than theism or deism by themselves are belief systems.

If extremists kill in the name of their religion, it's not theism that's driving them, it's their belief system, which incorporates theism, but theism isn't the cause of terrorism.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by troutman

"it is interesting to find that people of faith now seek defensively to say that they are no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists"
— Christopher Hitchens

BTW, Hitchens is gravely ill with cancer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_676681.html

That's terrible. I like Hitchens despite his Iraqi war views. Quit smoking a little too late I guess.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Hey look! A Democrat!

[burn_this_city]

I feel bad for Hitchens. I wonder if he'll stick to his guns to the bitter end. I'm sure he will but I've heard the saying "Theres no such thing as an athiest at a palliative care facility".

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I feel bad for Hitchens. I wonder if he'll stick to his guns to the bitter end. I'm sure he will but I've heard the saying "Theres no such thing as an athiest at a palliative care facility".

From the article,

Hitchens, an outspoken atheist, said he will never become religious despite his looming mortality. If any such conversion is ever attributed to him, he said, it would be either a lie propagated by the religious community or an effect of the cancer and treatment that made him no longer himself.

"The entity making such a remark might be a raving, terrified person whose cancer has spread to the brain. I can't guarantee that such an entity wouldn't make such a ridiculous remark, but no one recognizable as myself would ever make such a remark," he said.

So no.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Strongly insinuated though.

Not insinuated at all, both statements are clear about what they are saying.

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

There's nothing about religion in this at all, and since a very significant portion of (majority even?) religious people believe evolution, it can't be directed there.

It's directed at people who reject evolution for various reasons.. lack of understanding (ignorant), lack of ability to understand or unwilling to understand (stupid), or lack the ability to understand anything (insane). I would throw wicked in there for those that intentionally reject it because it's advantageous for them to reject it (politicians, etc).

Originally Posted by peter12

In regards to religion or atheism being responsible for "x" amount of deaths, I think we have to look at the problem from a different angle. That of politics and its relationship to religion.

Agree. I don't think theism or atheism by itself can be responsible for any deaths, because they aren't belief systems or philosophies.

Originally Posted by peter12

The gods are the foundation of any political society. That is, there is always some higher power that directs a particular society's moral and political outlook. I'd go so far as to say that even though liberal societies are almost always atheistic in origin, we essentially substitute different things in place of traditional gods; things like an almost unshakable belief in progress, reason without virtue, and technology.

I might agree with the concept but you make it difficult with your choices of replacements at the end. Why not reason with virtue? Why not philosophy? Just because our society is focused on some things does not mean that every society lacking a belief in god must be that way.

Originally Posted by peter12

The Nazis and other totalitarian movements are a lot different and much more complicated than anything we have seen in human history. I'd posit from my limited knowledge on the subject that these regimes represent political religions of a sort, certainly atheist ones in the sense that they do remove gods, but they replace the gods with men and ideology. Each of these regimes had a personality cult around the leader, elevating him to divine status as well as political doctrine, mainly with a millennarian emphasis.

The leader, or the ideology, or the country itself (Mother Russia), or whatever's convenient to use to gain and retain power (either intentionally or not). Hitler was whatever was convenient for him towards his goals.

Originally Posted by peter12

The standard ethical argument of scientific atheism vs. superstitious religion doesn't work out, in my opinion.

I don't think so either. Atheism being a lack of something makes it rather difficult to be a motivating factor, whereas theism is a positive belief and the potential to be a motivation exists at least, but as I said earlier theism is just the belief that there is a god, in and of itself there's no cause or philosophy there. I think there might be an argument about monotheism promoting an exclusivist mentality and more prone to violence than atheism or polytheism, but that's just a hunch.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

From the article,



So no.

I read that. But he still hasnt gotten sick enough to start questioning his beliefs. Not that I care either way, I just think theres a part of people thats hardwired to believe they might live on forever. The thought of simply ceasing to exist is difficult for someone dying to accept.

[peter12]

I might agree with the concept but you make it difficult with your choices of replacements at the end. Why not reason with virtue? Why not philosophy? Just because our society is focused on some things does not mean that every society lacking a belief in god must be that way.

Okay, here I was passing off a philosopher's ideas as my own, which is cool because he's dead and can't sue me.

Basically, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two men were instrumental in developing the idea of a secular and constitutional democracy, separate the idea of god from the city or state and replace it with the shared rationality of all to exit the state of nature and set up civil government.

This is only possible, at least according to Locke, because of the impossibility of an Ultimate Sovereign, ie. God.

[photon]

Oh and the other quote was "He also said in his book the belief in God is similar to believing in an imaginary teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars. Basically that the probability of either being true were roughly the same."

This is a statement about evidence.. belief in something in the absence of evidence.

Most religious people actually agree with this sentiment, at least with respect to all other gods than their own.

Nothing about stupidity or bigotry here either.

[peter12]

I don't think so either. Atheism being a lack of something makes it rather difficult to be a motivating factor, whereas theism is a positive belief and the potential to be a motivation exists at least, but as I said earlier theism is just the belief that there is a god, in and of itself there's no cause or philosophy there. I think there might be an argument about monotheism promoting an exclusivist mentality and more prone to violence than atheism or polytheism, but that's just a hunch.

I've read some of the current popular arguments that claim that monotheists are on the whole more violent than atheists or polytheists. This one in particular,

http://www.amazon.ca/God-Against-God...1567697&sr=8-1

However, I'm convinced the whole thing is entirely more complicated. Some of the most insightful philosophy related to us as human beings involves the idea of a single Good or God, I'm thinking of St. Augustine and Plato, especially.

I've never read City of God, but I have read quite a bit of Plato, especially multiple readings of the Republic and I can safely say that I still have no idea what I am talking about except that most of the current popular arguments "out there" in the culture lack in a lot of substance and historical awareness of the philosophical problems surrounding the issue of monotheism and its relation to human life.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by photon

Oh and the other quote was "He also said in his book the belief in God is similar to believing in an imaginary teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars. Basically that the probability of either being true were roughly the same."

This is a statement about evidence.. belief in something in the absence of evidence.

Most religious people actually agree with this sentiment, at least with respect to all other gods than their own.

Nothing about stupidity or bigotry here either.

I'll have to dig out my copy tonight and re-read that part. Its been a couple years but the way I thought it was framed was both are equally ridiculous ideas.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Okay, here I was passing off a philosopher's ideas as my own, which is cool because he's dead and can't sue me.

Basically, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two men were instrumental in developing the idea of a secular and constitutional democracy, separate the idea of god from the city or state and replace it with the shared rationality of all to exit the state of nature and set up civil government.

This is only possible, at least according to Locke, because of the impossibility of an Ultimate Sovereign, ie. God.

So basically without something to tie a society together (be it god(s), a monarch (which is just a god substitute), a virtue, the idea of government itself, etc) then that society would suffer or even become non-functional, is that the idea?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

So basically without something to tie a society together (be it god(s), a monarch (which is just a god substitute), a virtue, the idea of government itself, etc) then that society would suffer or even become non-functional, is that the idea?

It's possible, I don't think that's what Locke especially thought. I think he believed that people could reorganize around a civil government concerned with protecting the common good, enforcing individual rights, and creating a secure framework of property rights and everyone would be okay.

It's interesting to read say Edmund Burke's revisions to the theory in Reflections on the Revolution and Jean-Jacque Rousseau's complete opposition to it around the time of the French Revolution.

If you are asking for my personal bias, then yes, without respect for virtues which delineate from sort of Good, then we become dysfunctional or nihilistic. In fact, I personally believe we are already past this stage and have entered into pure chaos.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I've read some of the current popular arguments that claim that monotheists are on the whole more violent than atheists or polytheists. This one in particular,

http://www.amazon.ca/God-Against-God...1567697&sr=8-1

However, I'm convinced the whole thing is entirely more complicated. Some of the most insightful philosophy related to us as human beings involves the idea of a single Good or God, I'm thinking of St. Augustine and Plato, especially.

Well on the surface it makes sense that people who do care about what other people believe (monotheists, I'm right you are wrong) will always do more about it than people who don't care what you think (you like Athena, I like Apollo, lets have a beer).

But since the answer to most things in life is "it's complicated"...

Originally Posted by peter12

I've never read City of God, but I have read quite a bit of Plato, especially multiple readings of the Republic and I can safely say that I still have no idea what I am talking about except that most of the current popular arguments "out there" in the culture lack in a lot of substance and historical awareness of the philosophical problems surrounding the issue of monotheism and its relation to human life.

I think that's fair to say about pretty much anything that's "out there". People are at the level they are at, popular arguments are popular because the real stuff would be inaccessible to the laity.

Media reporting on science drives me crazy because they get almost everything wrong and when they do get it right it's either for the wrong reason, or they miss a nuance. I don't doubt one bit that the same happens for history or philosophy or politics or anything else.

But what can you do, until we can learn stuff Matrix style by downloading or whatever, no one has the time to really understand the nuances of everything.

[photon]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I'll have to dig out my copy tonight and re-read that part. Its been a couple years but the way I thought it was framed was both are equally ridiculous ideas.

I'm pretty sure it was framed in the context of burden of proof, because that's how Bertrand Russell originally wrote it:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of
the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

So it's about burden of proof.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

If you are asking for my personal bias, then yes, without respect for virtues which delineate from sort of Good, then we become dysfunctional or nihilistic. In fact, I personally believe we are already past this stage and have entered into pure chaos.

I'd agree with the first part (I just think that that good is emergent from society itself), and the second part, well maybe, society is certainly crazy, but there's not much I can do about it except spectate and contribute the occasional lolcat

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Well on the surface it makes sense that people who do care about what other people believe (monotheists, I'm right you are wrong) will always do more about it than people who don't care what you think (you like Athena, I like Apollo, lets have a beer).

But since the answer to most things in life is "it's complicated"...



I think that's fair to say about pretty much anything that's "out there". People are at the level they are at, popular arguments are popular because the real stuff would be inaccessible to the laity.

Media reporting on science drives me crazy because they get almost everything wrong and when they do get it right it's either for the wrong reason, or they miss a nuance. I don't doubt one bit that the same happens for history or philosophy or politics or anything else.

But what can you do, until we can learn stuff Matrix style by downloading or whatever, no one has the time to really understand the nuances of everything.

Even though the more technical aspects of philosophy are inaccessible to the laity, it's pretty clear to me that the education format and the overall culture make these questions a lot harder to approach for the average person. Quite simply, people think they have better things to do.