View Full Version : Religulous
Syzygys
07-18-08, 02:56 PM
By Bill Maher, coming to the nearest theater to you in October:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IMlnmuKk_1o
http://www.firstshowing.net/img/religulous-poster.jpg
pjdude1219
07-18-08, 04:25 PM
can't wait
OMG. Is that a picture of Satan on that toast?
Syzygys
09-30-08, 11:03 PM
Maher is on the Stewart show promoting the movie...
He had a hilarious summary of Christianity..
wsionynw
10-02-08, 11:07 AM
That slice of toast proves Maher exists....er...or something.
Syzygys
10-03-08, 06:45 AM
"What if there was a religion, asks comedian Bill Maher, in which an all-powerful god from outer space decided to send his unborn son on a suicide mission to planet Earth? So this space-god impregnates a human female in some mystical, not-quite-physical fashion, and she gives birth to a baby who is both a human being and a divine incarnation, simultaneously the space god's spawn and the space god himself. (Oh, space god also has a third manifestation, one that's totally invisible.) So space-god junior is born on Earth destined to be killed, even though he's a space god and therefore immortal."
I'm Christian. I also saw a screening last night. It was funny, as he was mostly attacking the fanatical. Other than that, it was nothing that I haven't heard before that is quite easily rebutted.
Never liked the Borat movie, despise the filmmaker and all of his so called movies.
fadingCaptain
10-03-08, 04:27 PM
Making fun of the insane nonsense people believe is always good for a laugh. Must see.
Making fun of the insane nonsense people believe is always good for a laugh. Must see.
well its not funny to me, but embarrassing and disturbing.
fadingCaptain
10-03-08, 04:33 PM
different strokes? but what is disturbing?
Betrayer0fHope
10-03-08, 11:31 PM
At least this isn't Expelled. Although, I can guarantee that someone on this board is gonna say that Expelled is more factual than this. I'll be seeing this soon.
KennyJC
10-04-08, 01:33 AM
I'm Christian. I also saw a screening last night. It was funny, as he was mostly attacking the fanatical. Other than that, it was nothing that I haven't heard before that is quite easily rebutted.
You aren't a fanatic?
You believe in a flying zombie.
Syzygys
10-04-08, 07:05 AM
I haven't heard before that is quite easily rebutted.
Mind you, the rebutal comes from Maher's side, not from yours... Since you made the initial claim about your spacegod's son suicede mission....
Borat was pretty good. When i go to a movie i want to be entertained. All this reality shit is getting annoying and i have no interest in it. You cant write a screenplay, you cant come up with something original then sit in a corner and pull your dick.
Mind you, the rebutal comes from Maher's side, not from yours... Since you made the initial claim about your spacegod's son suicede mission....
No, Maher took the initiative to make a film attacking my faith, so the rebuttal would come from my side of the debate.
But I appreciate that Bill Maher was respectful to those in the film, which is more than I can say about the majority of the secular on these forums.
Syzygys
10-04-08, 12:35 PM
No, Maher took the initiative to make a film attacking my faith, so the rebuttal would come from my side of the debate.
I understand you don't understand logic, being a theist. (oh, the pun!) Anyway, your rebutal would be if you could prove your faith, what you can't...
If you think you have scientic evidence for your faith, don't hesitate to present it...
Also Maher didn't just attack YOUR faith but faith in general, since his objections stand against most religions.
No, Maher took the initiative to make a film attacking my faith, so the rebuttal would come from my side of the debate.
But I appreciate that Bill Maher was respectful to those in the film, which is more than I can say about the majority of the secular on these forums.
You can't rebuke anything presented by Maher. Or any other non-theist, for that matter.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-04-08, 02:58 PM
No, Maher took the initiative to make a film attacking my faith, so the rebuttal would come from my side of the debate.
But I appreciate that Bill Maher was respectful to those in the film, which is more than I can say about the majority of the secular on these forums.
The majority of the secular on these forums aren't respectful to makebelieve???
It will be interesting although a bit over produced and hyped up.
I understand you don't understand logic, being a theist. (oh, the pun!) Anyway, your rebutal would be if you could prove your faith, what you can't...
Prominent disbelievers in Christianity today - Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens - insist that sufficient reasons do not exist for the existence of God, and you are obviously in that camp. Dawkins, for example, says that the claim of God's existence is a scientific hypothesis that should be open to rational demonstration. He and his co-skeptics want a logical or empirical argument for God that is airtight and therefore convinces almost everyone. They, like you, and many on these forums, won't believe in God until they get it.
Is there anything wrong with that? I think so. These authors are evaluating Christian arguments by what some have called "strong rationalism". Its proponents laid down what was called the 'verification principle", namely, that no one should believe a proposition unless it can be proved rationally by logic or empirically by sense experience (which is what you are asking for, right?). What is meant by the word "proved"? Proof, in this view, is an argument so strong that no person whose logical faculties are operating properly would have any reason for disbelieving it. Atheists and agnostics ask for this kind of "proof" for God, but are not alone in holding to strong rationalism. You tend to believe that many Christians claim that their arguments for faith are so strong that all who reject them are simply closing their minds to the truth out of fear or stubbornness.
Despite all the books calling Christians to provide proofs for their beliefs, you won't see philosophers doing so, not even the most atheistic. The great majority think that strong rationalism is nearly impossible to defend. To begin with, it can't live up to it's own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof? You can't, and that reveals it to be, ultimately, a belief. Strong rationalism also assumes that it is impossible to achieve "the view from nowhere", a position of almost complete objectivity, but virtually all philosophers today agree that is impossible. We come to every individual evaluation will all sorts of experiences and background beliefs that strongly influence our thinking and the way our reason works. It is not fair, then, to demand argument that all rational people would have to bow to.
Basically, it comes down to this. In Is there a God? Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne argues powerfully that belief in God can be tested and justified (but not proven). The view that there is a God, he says, leads us to expect the things that we observe - that there is a universe at all, that scientific laws operate within it, that it contains human beings with consciousness and with indelible moral sense. The theory that there is no God, he argues, does not lead us to expect any of these things. Therefore, belief in God offers a better empirical fit, it explains and accounts for what we see better than the alternative account of things. No view of God can be proven, but that does not mean that we cannot sift and weigh the grounds for various religious beliefs that some or even one is the most reasonable.
But, I digress. According to you, I'm just a dumb Christian. :rolleyes:
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-04-08, 04:56 PM
Basically, it comes down to this. In Is there a God? Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne argues powerfully that belief in God can be tested and justified (but not proven). The view that there is a God, he says, leads us to expect the things that we observe - that there is a universe at all, that scientific laws operate within it, that it contains human beings with consciousness and with indelible moral sense. The theory that there is no God, he argues, does not lead us to expect any of these things. Therefore, belief in God offers a better empirical fit, it explains and accounts for what we see better than the alternative account of things. No view of God can be proven, but that does not mean that we cannot sift and weigh the grounds for various religious beliefs that some or even one is the most reasonable.
You know what gods would & wouldn't do & why? If there were a god, it would've created a universe? All you observe is what you'd (we'd?) expect a god to do?
Gods can't exist without creating a universe? If there's more than 1 god, there must be more than 1 universe? Can they create a universe without humans? Gods can't exist without humans?
Of course, all this assumes the universe & humans could not exist without being created by a god. It tries to avoid what created god.
If nothing existed except a god & it made something, it must have made things from itself. Therefore we are all god. There's no need for worship & maybe someday we'll join together & stop this foolishness.
There's nothing reasonable about accepting things without good evidence.
It basicly comes down to this, there's good reason to think gods were made up and/or based on something(s) primitives didn't understand & it's been passed down to us thru a glass darkly in muddy water. There's nothing to tell us otherwise. Any evidence can easily be attributed to other possibilities.
The major, if not all religions, involve cruelties & absurdities & horrible morals.
Syzygys
10-04-08, 09:23 PM
I apologize but:
1. I don't read long posts.
2. This thread is not about Christianity per see, but Maher's movie.
3. I generally don't engage in religious debate because it is meaningless...
4. I believe in the Hindu elephant god, his name escapes my mind now, but I am sure he doesn't mind...
Crunchy Cat
10-04-08, 09:42 PM
I saw the movie today. It rocked.
I apologize but:
1. I don't read long posts.
Of course you don't.
2. This thread is not about Christianity per see, but Maher's movie.
True. Apologies back.
3. I generally don't engage in religious debate because it is meaningless...
Agreed.
KennyJC
10-05-08, 08:05 PM
But I appreciate that Bill Maher was respectful to those in the film, which is more than I can say about the majority of the secular on these forums.
Bill Maher openly laughed at these people, to their faces.
That is no different to what I've done with you... except to your face... but I would.
Bill Maher openly laughed at these people, to their faces.
And what's wrong with that? Why does faith deserve respect?
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-05-08, 11:56 PM
It doesn't! In fact, it deserves ridicule.
It is insane that most people & most "leaders" in this "modern" age are faithfully religious.
Bill Maher openly laughed at these people, to their faces.
That is no different to what I've done with you... except to your face... but I would.
And what's wrong with that? Why does faith deserve respect?
It doesn't! In fact, it deserves ridicule.
It is insane that most people & most "leaders" in this "modern" age are faithfully religious.
I've said this over and over again, but I don't mind saying it again.
What you all fail to understand is that the only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes. If you don't believe in God, you need to try to understand why anybody does, or we're not going to be able to work in a pluralistic society.
When the new atheist books (Dawkins, Hitchens, and company) say that religion is bad, that's not a new thesis. What's new about those books is that they say that respect for religion is bad.
If you counsel one section of your population to belittle and disdain the beliefs of another group of people (which is exactly what you're doing) - who's beliefs give them great joy and meaning if life - and do nothing to understand the other group - that's a recipe for social disaster. I've actually ignored replies on these boards just for that reason alone.
I've said this over and over again, but I don't mind saying it again.
What you all fail to understand is that the only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes. If you don't believe in God, you need to try to understand why anybody does, or we're not going to be able to work in a pluralistic society.
When the new atheist books (Dawkins, Hitchens, and company) say that religion is bad, that's not a new thesis. What's new about those books is that they say that respect for religion is bad.
If you counsel one section of your population to belittle and disdain the beliefs of another group of people (which is exactly what you're doing) - who's beliefs give them great joy and meaning if life - and do nothing to understand the other group - that's a recipe for social disaster. I've actually ignored replies on these boards just for that reason alone.
Wah wah wah. Nonsense. The other way we can all get along is if the religious stop trying to rule our governments, decide what is morally right, and decide who can do what in society. The fight is not being brought to the religious; they are bringing it to us.
Bill Maher openly laughed at these people, to their faces.
That is no different to what I've done with you... except to your face... but I would.
To get back on topic of the film, you're right - over all, Maher does come across as a bully.
I would also question exactly what was left on the cutting room floor when this film was edited. There was a scene where a Christian scientist begins to give an answer. It sounded like an apologetic on the nature of documentary and testimonial evidence, a reasonable response to some of Maher's jibes about the Gospels. The man is cut off in favour for shots of Maher looking at the camera incredulously. Hardly fair IMO.
But then again, that would have deviated from Maher's purpose; to show everyone his opinion and his worldview... which is the exact same thing that he accuses the world religions of doing.
If you counsel one section of your population to belittle and disdain the beliefs of another group of people (which is exactly what you're doing) - who's beliefs give them great joy and meaning if life - and do nothing to understand the other group - that's a recipe for social disaster.
The "other" group is well understood. They hold medieval beliefs in the supernatural that provide them with false joy and meaning, hence it is the beliefs that cannot and should not be respected. The disaster has already occurred, centuries ago.
SkinWalker
10-06-08, 11:14 PM
Maher's a bit batshit in many beliefs and I don't think he really knows what an atheist is, much less have a good grip on philosophical reasons for theism or atheism. But he's funny as hell most of the time.
Crunchy Cat
10-06-08, 11:17 PM
I loved it when he got the senator to say "You don't need to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate".
amacsteeze
10-07-08, 01:18 AM
You know what gods would & wouldn't do & why? If there were a god, it would've created a universe? All you observe is what you'd (we'd?) expect a god to do?
Gods can't exist without creating a universe? If there's more than 1 god, there must be more than 1 universe? Can they create a universe without humans? Gods can't exist without humans?
Of course, all this assumes the universe & humans could not exist without being created by a god. It tries to avoid what created god.
If nothing existed except a god & it made something, it must have made things from itself. Therefore we are all god. There's no need for worship & maybe someday we'll join together & stop this foolishness.
There's nothing reasonable about accepting things without good evidence.
It basicly comes down to this, there's good reason to think gods were made up and/or based on something(s) primitives didn't understand & it's been passed down to us thru a glass darkly in muddy water. There's nothing to tell us otherwise. Any evidence can easily be attributed to other possibilities.
The major, if not all religions, involve cruelties & absurdities & horrible morals.
Couldnt agree more!!!
CheskiChips
10-07-08, 01:26 AM
Basing your career off of hating religion is no better than basing your career off of exploiting religion in my opinion. In either case you're bringing nothing to this world.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-07-08, 06:06 AM
Trying to influence people to think logicly is 1 of the 2 best things a person can bring to the world.
SkinWalker
10-07-08, 09:36 AM
Basing your career off of hating religion is no better than basing your career off of exploiting religion in my opinion. In either case you're bringing nothing to this world.
One is exploitive, the other is funny. Maher brings comedy to the world, albeit to a niche audience.
Yet another atheist whose sole basis of existence is to ridicule the beliefs of others. Educating the savages seems to be a dominant theme in western culture.
Repo Man
10-07-08, 09:47 AM
Bill Maher is not an atheist. Why not just call him a doody head, or something equally infantile, since that seems to be all you have to offer this thread?
SkinWalker
10-07-08, 09:48 AM
He doesn't consider himself an atheist but a pantheist/deist, though his is anti-religious. But this is hardly his apparent "sole basis for existence."
Maher is vehemently anti-Bush/anti-conservative as well as a proponent of pseudoscientific nonsense like complimentary and alternative medicine and PETA and such.
He's a nut, to be sure. But funny. Which is a bigger reason (in his mind anyway) for existence.
Whatever. Atheists come in all guises these days.
Syzygys
10-07-08, 10:15 AM
Atheists come in all guises these days.
FINALLY!!! That was my point long time ago with my thread "Atheists and stampcollectors" and finally you GOT it!!! Took quite a few months, but hey, who am I to judge you?
Congratulations for your enlightment....
pjdude1219
10-08-08, 04:09 PM
I saw the movie and I thought for the most part it is spot on.
I saw the movie. What a surprise, full of fabrications and sleight of hand editing to conform to Mahler's bias.
And this guy is supposed to be funny?
I saw the movie. What a surprise, full of fabrications and sleight of hand editing to conform to Mahler's bias.
And this guy is supposed to be funny?
:rolleyes:
Speaking of fabrications...
Yup full of fabrications. I found it most enlighteneing that his idea of Jewish extremism was the Orthodox Jews who refuse to recognise Israel [peacefully] rather than the violent Israeli occupation of Palestine because God gave them the land. And his tarring and feathering of Iran based on disseminating the false translation of his speech was another useful indicator of his bias.
There's a difference between bias and fabrication. As bias goes, you sure seem to have one of your own.
It was kind of interesting. Earlier i was giving an opinion on weather it should be a t.v special.
It was kind of interesting. Earlier i was giving an opinion on weather it should be a t.v special.
Weather it should be a TV special? I can't imagine you'd rain praise on that option. I sincerely believe a dark cloud would hang over it even if it were a TV special.
...Tornadoes...
Oh...you meant whether...:D
There's a difference between bias and fabrication. As bias goes, you sure seem to have one of your own.
Yeah, I am biased against those who present a false premise. For example, Mahler completely missed the fact that the majority of deaths in the last century have been by self proclaimed atheists.
Weather it should be a TV special? I can't imagine you'd rain praise on that option. I sincerely believe a dark cloud would hang over it even if it were a TV special.
...Tornadoes...
Oh...you meant whether...:D
:wallbang:
Yeah, I am biased against those who present a false premise. For example, Mahler completely missed the fact that the majority of deaths in the last century have been by self proclaimed atheists.
Again, :rolleyes:
Talk about misrepresenting the fact. No, forget that, talk about completely ignoring the facts.
How in the hell did you become a moderator here? Who would be careless enough to make such a decision?
Ignoring the facts? Anti-religious and areligious people have killed more people in this century than religious people. Thats a fact.
Ignoring the facts? Anti-religious and areligious people have killed more people in this century than religious people. Thats a fact.
No, it isn't a fact. It's a fabrication, once again, by you in order to advance your ignorant agenda.
No, it isn't a fact. It's a fabrication, once again, by you in order to advance your ignorant agenda.
Look it up.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH_C_MORTACRACIES.GIF
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
Zzzzzzzzz.....I've seen that little chart of yours debunked like 9 times on this forum. Hand to God.
Athiests debunking atheist murder is like creationists debunking evolution.
Athiests debunking atheist murder is like creationists debunking evolution.
Atheist murder? Now atheism is a religion? Oh, that's rich.
A murder by a atheist is as much a result of his beliefs [especially when targeting the religious] as murder by a theist is considered a result of his.
pjdude1219
10-13-08, 12:20 PM
I saw the movie. What a surprise, full of fabrications and sleight of hand editing to conform to Mahler's bias.
And this guy is supposed to be funny?
What editing he let people hang themselves.
Because he was not honest about what he was reporting on.
How did Bill Maher and Larry Charles get religious figures to agree to be interviewed on camera by the notoriously hostile-towards-religion Maher for their upcoming doc Religulous? According to an interview the comedian gave Patrick Goldstein, they didn’t:
It was simple: We never, ever, used my name. We never told anybody it was me who was going to do the interviews. We even had a fake title for the film. We called it ‘A Spiritual Journey.’ … The crew would set up and at the last second, when the cameras were already rolling, I would show up. So either they’d be seen on camera leaving the interview and lose face or they’d have to talk to me. It was like–’And now here’s … Bill!’ You could usually see the troubled looks on their faces.
Its like asking a Palestinian to talk about Israel and then inserting those comments as anti-semitism.
pjdude1219
10-13-08, 01:14 PM
Because he was not honest about what he was reporting on. No he was honest. Just because he needed to resort to trickery to get people to answer the tough questions he asks doesn't mean he wasn't honest about what he was reporting on.
Its like asking a Palestinian to talk about Israel and then inserting those comments as anti-semitism. No. Nothing at all like that.
No he was honest. Just because he needed to resort to trickery to get people to answer the tough questions he asks doesn't mean he wasn't honest about what he was reporting on.
No. Nothing at all like that.
If you mispresent yourself, you are dishonest. Simple as that. Or do you think it was honest when Ben Stein did it to Dawkins?
Betrayer0fHope
10-13-08, 04:37 PM
This is nowhere near the retardedness of Expelled.
Only because you "understand" the side that misrepresents itself. Wow, take a number.
A murder by a atheist is as much a result of his beliefs [especially when targeting the religious] as murder by a theist is considered a result of his.
That's a bizarre statement. If an atheist and a Christian both commit a hypothetical murder, shooting someone during a mugging, do you believe those murders reflect something about atheism and Christianity?
Only if the athiest believes he should kill a religious person to improve his society and goes around mugging theists for that purpose. Or starts an anti-religion club to mug people.
spidergoat
10-13-08, 05:22 PM
Nothing about atheism is anti-religion.
It is when the atheists are anti-religious.
Only if the athiest believes he should kill a religious person to improve his society and goes around mugging theists for that purpose. Or starts an anti-religion club to mug people.
And does it reflect anything about Christianity?
Betrayer0fHope
10-13-08, 05:29 PM
It is when the atheists are anti-religious.
So then make generalizations about those, not atheism.
spidergoat
10-13-08, 05:49 PM
It is when the atheists are anti-religious.
No it isn't. If an atheist chooses to be anti-religious, that has nothing to do with atheism, which merely states that there are no Gods.
If atheism did not state there were no Gods, would an atheist still be anti-religious?
spidergoat
10-13-08, 05:55 PM
That doesn't really make sense. Atheism is only concerned with Gods, not religious people.
Like Bill Mahr? Dawkins? People are always concerned with other people. Some people think mocking other people's belief is tolerance, while mocking their colour is intolerance. Others think its the other way around. So who is right?
Sam, I really think you should surrender your moderator status. With the ignorant blabber you poison these forums with, I think it's best that you not be in charge of anything.
I suppose by ignorant blabber you mean I should ignore the fact that Maher not only misrepresented himself to the people he interviewed but also contrived to edit their comments to present only what he wanted to depict, while generalising against all religions of which he had very little knowlegde.
spidergoat
10-13-08, 06:14 PM
You can't help your skin color, but you can legitimately be criticized for your opinions and beliefs which are of your own choosing.
That's a bizarre statement. If an atheist and a Christian both commit a hypothetical murder, shooting someone during a mugging, do you believe those murders reflect something about atheism and Christianity?
Only if the athiest believes he should kill a religious person to improve his society and goes around mugging theists for that purpose. Or starts an anti-religion club to mug people.
And does it reflect anything about Christianity?
S.A.M.: :poke:
S.A.M.: :poke:
Same applies, if the Christian selectively mugs all non-Christians or tries to forcibly convert them to fit his vision of a better society.
Betrayer0fHope
10-13-08, 06:27 PM
Demod SAM already/
Same applies, if the Christian selectively mugs all non-Christians or tries to forcibly convert them to fit his vision of a better society.
But why would that mean anything about Christianity?
It would not, it would say something about that persons beliefs about Christianity and also about the person himself.
Then we can also agree that the atheist mugger's anti-religous mugging/killing spree also doesn't say anything about atheism per se, yes?
Hmm that depends on the atheist I am addressing. What do you think of the movie? :D
Haven't seen it yet. :p
Your statement was just too easy to dissect and dismember to pass up.
Well you know my style by now, or should ;)
Syzygys
10-13-08, 06:41 PM
Because he was not honest about what he was reporting on.
I guess he just used the same trick as Ben Stein for Expelled... :)
pjdude1219
10-13-08, 06:48 PM
I suppose by ignorant blabber you mean I should ignore the fact that Maher not only misrepresented himself to the people he interviewed but also contrived to edit their comments to present only what he wanted to depict, while generalising against all religions of which he had very little knowlegde.
What editing of their comments? he should him and them talking. He didn't edit shit to make them look bad. Your just throwing a hissy fit because someone made the highly religious look like the foolish people they are. It should him and they people the question asked and their answers where is that editing to make them look bad.
S.A.M. the majority of deaths in the last century have been by self proclaimed atheists.
Actually they were totalitarian dictators to whom nothing but their own power mattered. Saying Stalin or Mao was an atheist is like saying Hitler was a Christian. God or no god was not their issue and it did not inform their decisions.
Can we start a petition to get SAM demoted? I say this only because she's disruptive, offers nothing but insults, and is immune to the Ignore List. I understand she posts 90 times a day, but that in no way qualifies someone to be a moderator.
Syzygys
10-14-08, 08:23 PM
I agree with Dog. Also we already explained that in history most people were killed by theists...
Since most people are theists, its a no brainer. However, all atheists in power have been democidal. Thats an R=1
SkinWalker
10-14-08, 11:53 PM
Demod SAM already/
S.A.M. the majority of deaths in the last century have been by self proclaimed atheists.
Actually they were totalitarian dictators to whom nothing but their own power mattered. Saying Stalin or Mao was an atheist is like saying Hitler was a Christian. God or no god was not their issue and it did not inform their decisions.
Can we start a petition to get SAM demoted? I say this only because she's disruptive, offers nothing but insults, and is immune to the Ignore List. I understand she posts 90 times a day, but that in no way qualifies someone to be a moderator.
I agree with Dog. Also we already explained that in history most people were killed by theists...
Since most people are theists, its a no brainer. However, all atheists in power have been democidal. Thats an R=1
This thread seems to have stopped being about Religulous and started being about S.A.M. This isn't acceptable if you want to continue to have a discussion. I temporarily closed this thread, but by the time you've read this far, it should be opened again. If its to remain open, please take a moment to read the rest of this post.
I would like to point out that while S.A.M. was right that the most brutal regimes in recent history were also atheistic ones, there is much to be said about the motivations of these regimes. While it's easy to find genocides, mass-killings, and murders that are conducted with express and explicit religious motivations, there are no examples of democides that were conducted expressly or explicitly in the name of "atheism."
Neither Stalin, nor Pol Pot have given any historical, sociological or anthropological evidence that their democides were conducted because of atheism. Indeed, this makes no philosophical sense to begin with.
Still, this topic is always the elephant in the room with atheists, who are easily offended when the religious bring it up. And well they should be. We should all be cognizant of the power of ideology as well as religion. Its all too easy for the skeptic and the reasoned who happen to be atheists to blame religion for global atrocities, but I think we ignore the fact that these atrocities were committed by people who were human first, and religious or atheist second. And, while I stand by my statement that it's far easier to find examples of the religious who kill for religious motivations that atheists who kill expressly for atheism, I think we must also be careful what we wish for.
In the absence of religion, why do we think ideology might not exist and that this ideology might not be fucked up? Don't get me wrong. I speak out against religion and vociferously at times. There's too much that the religious do in the name of their religions in order to attempt to impose their beliefs on others. But don't think for a minute that human nature is informed by religion and ideology. It isn't. In the absence of religion, ideology will emerge and human nature has shown us that it's rarely peaches and cream.
I temporarily closed this thread for a moment so I could type a response with effort to get this back on topic. I'm not opposed to splitting the thread at about this point if the discourse is to remain on the current digression, but I also think that this digression has a bit to do with Maher's point with Religulous, so I'd rather like it to remain intact. I'd also rather not like to delete the off-topic posts above, such as calling for S.A.M.'s "demotion."
Her demotion isn't going to happen and I'm glad she takes the time to post here because, believe it or not, she forces atheists to carefully think their arguments before they type if they want to have the appearance of seeming cogent. If you allow yourself to get into a flame-war with her, then you've lost. And, as an atheist, you've demonstrated nothing to those that aren't sure which side of the theist/atheist "war" they should be. And there are a lot of people that fit this bill.
Religulous was intended to be funny. But Maher, the kook that he is, has a point that I think was important: are these the people we allow to have the nuclear codes? Maher took cheap shots, tricked people out of their interviews, carefully edited their responses to be funny/nutty, etc. But he's forcing us to look carefully at who we give the power to in our nation (in this case the U.S., but shouldn't the same hold true for any nation where the people have any sort of influence or power?).
If we aren't careful and if we don't pay attention, we're going to not just let the kooky-theists get the nuclear codes, but the kooky-irreligous. An atheist-ideologue would be just as bad in my book.
So, yeah, S.A.M.'s continued arguing that "Stalin/Pol Pot were atheists and killed more ..." is annoying. But it's supposed to be. They may not have killed so many because of atheism, but they were atheists who had fucked up ideologies. That's an elephant in the room that cannot be ignored.
All mass murderers have on thing in common- They were human. Thread close on account of no intelligent lifeforms.
SkinWalker
They may not have killed so many because of atheism, but they were atheists who had fucked up ideologies.
I think you can no more make that case than you can indict vegetarianism because Hitler was a vegetarian. If there is no indication that Hitler was killing people because he was a xtian or a vegetarian, then you can't do more than complain that xtianity failed to have much influence on his morality or vegetarianism didn't seem to curb his lust for blood.
Further atheism has no stances or dogmas to promote. Is anyone really claiming they killed people because they failed to lack a belief in god?
However in a case like the inquisition, where the deaths are clearly being done to promote the faith there is a clear indictment against the faith so promoted.
You might as well complain that since they all wore shoes that shoeism is to blame.
Further atheism since it has no stances or dogmas to promote. Is anyone really claiming they killed people because they failed to lack a belief in god?
There are always ideologies to promote\impose on the masses...AKA victims, aka salt of the earth, aka poor slobs, aka not the elite.
John99
There are always ideologies
Sure. So many in fact there is no need to pretend atheism is one when it isn't.
Atheism is most certainly an ideology.
There are six schools of thought within Hinduism addressed as the Shat (Astik) Darshana (darshana meaning "viewpoint.") Within the Astika schools of Hindu philosophy, the Samkhya and the early Mimamsa school did not accept a God in their respective systems.
The atheistic viewpoint as present in the Samkhya and Mimamsa schools of Hindu philosophy takes the form of rejecting a creator-God. The Samkhya school believed in a dual existence of Prakriti ("nature") and Purusha ("spirit") and had no place for an Ishvara ("God") in its system. The early Mimamsakas believed in a adrishta ("unseen") that was the result of performing karmas ("works") and saw no need for an Ishvara in their system. Mimamsa, as a philosophy, deals exclusively with karma and thus is sometimes called Karma-Mimamsa.
Atheism is most certainly an ideology.
Ah, so now you're being lectured on atheism by Hindus...awesome. So they just get to reinvent it how they wish, and you swallow it whole? Sweet. You're a class act, Scam. I mean, Sam.
They don't get to reinvent it, they've been discussing it for 5000 years.
by the by, classically atheism has always been a claim:
Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism.
The reinvention is the "absence of belief" position which is ontologically unsupportable.
SkinWalker
10-15-08, 09:43 AM
I think you can no more make that case than you can indict vegetarianism because Hitler was a vegetarian.
[...]
Further atheism has no stances or dogmas to promote. Is anyone really claiming they killed people because they failed to lack a belief in god?
[...]
You might as well complain that since they all wore shoes that shoeism is to blame.
Since we aren't in disagreement here, either you didn't get what I was saying or I wasn' t clear enough, which is a distinct possibility. In the case of the latter, accept my apology and allow me to elucidate:
I'm not saying that atheism caused the desire to kill or motivated the atrocities committed by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or anyone else who committed such attrocities and happened to be arguably atheist (nor am I arguing that either of these people were or were not atheists).
What I'm saying is that in the absence of religion, human nature is to embrace ideology. And it was ideology that motivated the above historical figures to commit murder.
I would also disagree with S.A.M. that atheism is an ideology but disagree with others that might argue that atheism cannot be an ideology. Furthermore, I would argue that ideology isn't necessarily a bad thing any more than "government" is necessarily a bad thing.
While atheism isn't inherently ideologic, it can be. My daughter is an atheist. Not because she "rejects" a god or "affirms" the non-existence of one. She's an atheist because there is no belief that a god influences her life. She simply wasn't raised to be indoctrinated with such a belief. Nor was she raised to be indoctrinated with a "rejection" or "positive affirmation" in the non-existence. She was born without belief just like everyone else.
That's not to say that, as time goes on she won't embrace the doctrines and beliefs of one or more gods. Or that she won't actively seek to be "anti-religious" or "anti-theistic." Those would be ideologic pursuits.
My daughter is an atheist. Not because she "rejects" a god or "affirms" the non-existence of one.
If she does not reject a god nor affirms the non-existence of one, how is she an atheist? Is that how she defines herself?
What I'm saying is that in the absence of religion, human nature is to embrace ideology. And it was ideology that motivated the above historical figures to commit murder.
Thats a restricted viewpoint too, in my opinion. Does this mean that if Genghis Khan was first a pagan and then embraced Islam, he was first killing people on behalf of Shaministic beliefs and later due to Muslim beliefs? Or is it because he was who he was?
Sock Puppy
10-15-08, 10:11 AM
Since we aren't in disagreement here, either you didn't get what I was saying or I wasn' t clear enough, which is a distinct possibility. In the case of the latter, accept my apology and allow me to elucidate:
I'm not saying that atheism caused the desire to kill or motivated the atrocities committed by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or anyone else who committed such attrocities and happened to be arguably atheist (nor am I arguing that either of these people were or were not atheists).
What I'm saying is that in the absence of religion, human nature is to embrace ideology. And it was ideology that motivated the above historical figures to commit murder.
I would also disagree with S.A.M. that atheism is an ideology but disagree with others that might argue that atheism cannot be an ideology. Furthermore, I would argue that ideology isn't necessarily a bad thing any more than "government" is necessarily a bad thing.
While atheism isn't inherently ideologic, it can be. My daughter is an atheist. Not because she "rejects" a god or "affirms" the non-existence of one. She's an atheist because there is no belief that a god influences her life. She simply wasn't raised to be indoctrinated with such a belief. Nor was she raised to be indoctrinated with a "rejection" or "positive affirmation" in the non-existence. She was born without belief just like everyone else.
That's not to say that, as time goes on she won't embrace the doctrines and beliefs of one or more gods. Or that she won't actively seek to be "anti-religious" or "anti-theistic." Those would be ideologic pursuits.
Well put.
SkinWalker
10-15-08, 12:41 PM
If she does not reject a god nor affirms the non-existence of one, how is she an atheist? Is that how she defines herself?
She has no belief in gods. Any god. In the same way she has no belief in Enkidu, Marduk, Enlil, Gilgamesh, and many other human constructs that she's not been exposed to. Truly this isn't a point of debate.
She has no belief in gods. Any god. In the same way she has no belief in Enkidu, Marduk, Enlil, Gilgamesh, and many other human constructs that she's not been exposed to. Truly this isn't a point of debate.
How do you know that? If you replaced her with a child of her age who was say, a Muslim child, would you accept that the Muslim child was a theist?
Enterprise-D
10-15-08, 02:03 PM
SAM appears to have confused religious upbringing with hereditary traits.
It's an age old fallacy of the religious. I come across this often, where, upon revealing my lack of religious adherence, a person would follow up with the question "then what religion are your parents?" I was caught unawares the first time and answered "Catholic", to receive the retort (much to my consternation) "Then you're Catholic too!". I eventually changed my answer of course.
Ah, its me who's doing that, is it?
Enterprise-D
10-15-08, 04:21 PM
Yes...it's you. Religion is not genetic.
I agree. Which is the point of my question to Skin.
iceaura
10-15-08, 06:47 PM
The reinvention is the "absence of belief" position which is ontologically unsupportable. Yet I seem to have no trouble supporting it.
The problem you theists face here is that you refuse to allow a word for the reality of the situation - there are a lot of people who simply have no belief in a Deity. Many of them not only haven't rejected all Deity as a possibility, they haven't even rejected the nearest one - they simply can't get themselves to actually believe in it. Many have rejected the Deities they have met on grounds of judgment and pragmatic evaluation, while recognizing the possibility of error or some new proposal so far unimagined. Many have no real acquaintanceship with any Deities and might jump on the first one they meet, but haven't yet. There are children, etc. Buddhists etc. These people are not agnostic or otherwise undecided, the word "non-theist" is rejected by theists as well as everyone else, and the word "atheist" - especially as an adjective - fits like a glove.
Meanwhile, the atheistic people of the world have no ideology in common. Atheism itself is not an ideology, obviously - not even the simplest of statements are held dogmatically true by all atheists ("There is no God", for example).
So I share only a few ideological stances with Bill Maher, for example. We are both atheist, both civilian. Is "civilian" an ideology, in the world of the Islamic theists ?
SkinWalker
Since we aren't in disagreement here, either you didn't get what I was saying or I wasn' t clear enough, which is a distinct possibility. In the case of the latter, accept my apology and allow me to elucidate
Thanks for the clarification!
it was ideology that motivated the above historical figures to commit murder.
That is certainly clearer and I am sympathetic to your position, but I feel you are over estimating the sophistication of their motives. Given the purges that they each did of the more idealistic members of their own parties (such as the night of the long knives) I think it is clear that the ideologies were merely expedient means and no more.
because there is no belief that a god influences her life.
I can't quite be an atheist because I feel it is just more special pleading by the theists for their "gods." I'm not an aunicornist or an atoothfairyist. Their notion of god isn't important enough to merit special treatment.
Yet I seem to have no trouble supporting it.
The problem you theists face here is that you refuse to allow a word for the reality of the situation - there are a lot of people who simply have no belief in a Deity. Many of them not only haven't rejected all Deity as a possibility, they haven't even rejected the nearest one - they simply can't get themselves to actually believe in it. Many have rejected the Deities they have met on grounds of judgment and pragmatic evaluation, while recognizing the possibility of error or some new proposal so far unimagined. Many have no real acquaintanceship with any Deities and might jump on the first one they meet, but haven't yet. There are children, etc. Buddhists etc. These people are not agnostic or otherwise undecided, the word "non-theist" is rejected by theists as well as everyone else, and the word "atheist" - especially as an adjective - fits like a glove.
Meanwhile, the atheistic people of the world have no ideology in common. Atheism itself is not an ideology, obviously - not even the simplest of statements are held dogmatically true by all atheists ("There is no God", for example).
So I share only a few ideological stances with Bill Maher, for example. We are both atheist, both civilian. Is "civilian" an ideology, in the world of the Islamic theists ?
That is exactly what I've been trying to say all along. Theists want atheists to be painted into a corner neatly, but the truth is that you can't. Because they have faith, they can't imagine a person that doesn't; they just can't wrap their minds around it, so they'll paint atheism as a belief system, when in fact it most certainly isn't.
I think we all need to understand that the last person who should be trying to define atheism is a theist. It is an impossible task for them.
Meanwhile, the atheistic people of the world have no ideology in common. Atheism itself is not an ideology, obviously - not even the simplest of statements are held dogmatically true by all atheists ("There is no God", for example).
So I share only a few ideological stances with Bill Maher, for example. We are both atheist, both civilian. Is "civilian" an ideology, in the world of the Islamic theists ?
That can be said for theists as well. There are clusters of people with some similarity in ideology, but not only between pagans to Buddhists to Muslims to Christians, but also within Muslims, Christians, pagans, Buddhists, you'll find the same diversity that you'll find in atheists.
Or do you think your individual ideology is unique only to you?
Isn't individual ideology related only to an individual? If it isn't then it isn't individual ideology it is shared ideology which cannot then be unique.
You'd have to have lived without any human influence to have an "individual" ideology
A personal ideology is unique to an individual is it not?
I'm not sure there is such a notion as a personal ideology. I think we call that an opinion.
Syzygys
10-16-08, 10:40 AM
Kramer (in Seinfeld) celebrating Festivus is a personal ideology. :)
Kramer (in Seinfeld) celebrating Festivus is a personal ideology. :)
http://www.festivusbook.com/:rolleyes:
I saw the movie. I give it a C+.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-17-08, 12:19 AM
You'd have to have lived without any human influence to have an "individual" ideology
I've yet to be aware of anyone else's matching mine.
Enterprise-D
10-17-08, 09:48 AM
I agree. Which is the point of my question to Skin.
No, you appear to miss his point. His point is that atheism (the lack of belief in any gods) is a default state, which we are all born into. It is the teachings of our parents that determine religion.
When you challenge him by substituting a Muslim child, you appear to assert that the Muslim child believes in the tenets of Islam from birth. This is simply untrue.
No, you appear to miss his point. His point is that atheism (the lack of belief in any gods) is a default state, which we are all born into. It is the teachings of our parents that determine religion.
Thats nonsense. Show me a society without religion.
Thats nonsense. Show me a society without religion.
Sam, like most indoctrinated theists, believes she was born a Muslim, even though she couldn't wrap that concept around her tiny brain until years later.
Sam, the entire worlds population of children are without religion, simply because they are unable to understand the concepts of religion, even though their minds are being corrupted by it.
Sam, the entire worlds population of children are without religion, simply because they are unable to understand the concepts of religion, even though their minds are being corrupted by it.
Still waiting on a society in the "default" state
Still waiting on a society in the "default" state
Idiot, I just told you of one. Do you ever fucking read peoples posts? Why the fuck are you still a mod?
Idiot, I just told you of one. Do you ever fucking read peoples posts? Why the fuck are you still a mod?
You made a false claim.
the entire worlds population of children are without religion
Thats like saying all babies are unable to talk so they have no language. They are merely brainwashed into it by their parents. The default state is that people are born without language
The default state is that people are born without language
And born without religion. And, don't understand the concepts for years.
And born without religion. And, don't understand the concepts for years.
They don't understand many things for years, but just because they are not liberals does not make them conservative either. Its a false claim to say you are born with an opinion on something you have no concept of.
Enterprise-D
10-17-08, 11:23 AM
They don't understand many things for years, but just because they are not liberals does not make them conservative either. Its a false claim to say you are born with an opinion on something you have no concept of.
People are also born without a political affiliation. What SL is trying to tell you however, is that by definition (at least the one he subscribes to, which is the absence of a belief in any deity), a child is atheist until he chooses (or is indoctrinated) otherwise.
People are also born without a political affiliation.
How do you know? Claiming your child is an atheist when you are an atheist is bad enough. Claiming other people's children are atheist is just ridiculous. You simply do not know.
Enterprise-D
10-17-08, 11:32 AM
Thats nonsense. Show me a society without religion.
Appeal to tradition and appeal to belief. Merely because a vast horde of idiots believe that they are born with a religion (rather than having been taught by the compound effect of countless generations of theists) doesn't make it true.
Religion is taught, not hereditary. There is no force in the universe that makes this untrue.
Enterprise-D
10-17-08, 11:36 AM
How do you know? Claiming your child is an atheist when you are an atheist is bad enough. Claiming other people's children are atheist is just ridiculous. You simply do not know.
SAM sweetie...there are certain traits that all humans are born with. Similarly there are traits that we are all born without...including language, political affiliation, scientific knowledge and religion. You are fighting a losing battle.
SAM sweetie...there are certain traits that all humans are born with. Similarly there are traits that we are all born without...including language, political affiliation, scientific knowledge and religion. You are fighting a losing battle.
How do you know?
They don't understand many things for years, but just because they are not liberals does not make them conservative either. Its a false claim to say you are born with an opinion on something you have no concept of.
Then, you are making false claims. Children have no opinions of religion because they have no concept of religion. Do you get it now?
Then, you are making false claims. Children have no opinions of religion because they have no concept of religion. Do you get it now?
Yup I do. And atheism is an opinion. :)
Yup I do.
Good, then shut up.
Good, then shut up.
My lips are sealed ::poke:
Did the movie touch on the possibility of raising a few generations of children as they were born? I mean uncorrupted.
Bill Maher has a Jewish mother and a Catholic father.
Enterprise-D
10-17-08, 01:09 PM
How do you know?
Ever heard of the term "self-evident"?
Enterprise-D
10-17-08, 01:12 PM
Yup I do. And atheism is an opinion. :)
One definition of atheism can indeed be construed as an opinion. However, when it boils down to the basics, the absence of a belief in a god is also a (broad) definition of atheism.
Good old semantics rears its head again.
Enterprise-D
10-17-08, 01:13 PM
Yeah like faith. :D
Faith is not self evident. Try again.
Absence of belief needs a rock for a brain. Or a lack of concept formation skills.
(46,897 posts)(48.59 posts per day)
Someone has a lack of belief in setting their priorities.
Enterprise-D
10-17-08, 02:02 PM
Absence of belief needs a rock for a brain. Or a lack of concept formation skills.
Which one of these do you think that a baby possesses?
Which one of your own necessities of the 'absence of a belief' most equate to 'a lack of understanding of a (religious) concept'?
I think this is what one might call "check and mate".
iceaura
10-17-08, 02:51 PM
That can be said for theists as well. As a point of fact, it is easily possible that theists taken as a whole have no ideological stance in common. So?
Thats nonsense. Show me a society without religion. Theism, SAM - the topic was theism, Deity, etc. Not religion. I realize this is a problem for you, but the confusion is so easily avoidable in print - - - -
Absence of belief needs a rock for a brain. Or a lack of concept formation skills. Depends on the belief. There are some beliefs -and kinds of beliefs - whose presence, rather than absence, indicates a deficit or glitch in the concept formation skill area.
As a point of fact, it is easily possible that theists taken as a whole have no ideological stance in common. So?
Theism, SAM - the topic was theism, Deity, etc. Not religion. I realize this is a problem for you, but the confusion is so easily avoidable in print - - - -
Depends on the belief. There are some beliefs -and kinds of beliefs - whose presence, rather than absence, indicates a deficit or glitch in the concept formation skill area.
Like I said, redefining outliers as means. :p
SAM, does your brain just turn to mush when you discuss faith? You honestly believe children are born with religion? If that was the case, why are they born as different religions? What, is it in the water? How come a baby can be born to Catholic folks in my house, but Jewish folks next door?
You mean the parents pass on their religious beliefs to their children in utero? Are you seriously implying that?
No I believe people are naturally born atheist. Which is why since time immemorial, atheism has been the basis of human society.
spidergoat
10-17-08, 06:14 PM
What is so great about society?
No idea, but atheists always seem to think they can make a better one if only they get rid of the theists. :rolleyes:
No idea, but atheists always seem to think they can make a better one if only they get rid of the theists. :rolleyes:
That is a lie, and you have been told time and again it has nothing to do with good people who are enslaved by an ideology. It is the ideology that must be eradicated, not the people, foolish one.
Yeah right. Read any history, ever? It always starts by wanting to eradicate the ideology and ends with eradicating the idealogist. Atheists should know better, thats been the basis of their persecution. Saving them, its called.
No I believe people are naturally born atheist. Which is why since time immemorial, atheism has been the basis of human society.
OK, so you've met your sarcasm quota. Would you like to now actually answer my question? Or is this the trick you pull when you've been stumped?
That's what I thought, idiot.
And for the record, SAM, the people doing the most against theists are other theists. Moron. That's why your kind want to kill off the Jews. And why Christians want your kind burned alive in your caves. You theists can't coexist, so you kill each other.
And for the record, SAM, the people doing the most against theists are other theists. Moron. That's why your kind want to kill off the Jews. And why Christians want your kind burned alive in your caves. You theists can't coexist, so you kill each other.
Want me to pull out the mega mega democides of this century?:rolleyes:
Atheists can't even build a society that is viable let alone improve on one.
spidergoat
10-17-08, 06:35 PM
No idea, but atheists always seem to think they can make a better one if only they get rid of the theists. :rolleyes:
Not theists, just theism.
SAM, a moderator, is ducking my questions.
That's some class, SAM.
I hereby start the petition to de-mod her. I'll find the proper forum and begin it there.
Not theists, just theism.
Not homosexuals, just homosexuality. :rolleyes:
Not atheists, just atheism.
spidergoat
10-17-08, 06:42 PM
Yes, that's the spirit. I have no idea how anyone would do that, except for writing books. I'm not really all that concerned about it, theism will disappear eventually on it's own.
Yeah sure. Don't hold your breath though.
Yeah right. Read any history, ever?
Sam, it is painfully clear that I am far more well-read than you, made evident by your next idiocy and the many more that came before:
It always starts by wanting to eradicate the ideology and ends with eradicating the idealogist. Atheists should know better, thats been the basis of their persecution. Saving them, its called.
Sam, it is painfully clear that I am far more well-read than you, made evident by your next idiocy and the many more that came before:
So you agree with the Christian philosophy of hate homosexuality but love the homosexual?
Is it possible to do that?
You're just so stupid, Sam. Hilarious.
So you agree with the Christian philosophy of hate homosexuality but love the homosexual?
Is it possible to do that?
It's better than what you believe, which is hang the homosexual in the street.
You're just so stupid, Sam. Hilarious.
Is it possible? Can you have a desire to eliminate all athiesm and still claim to love atheists?
If someone told you atheism is a plague and should be wiped out from the earth, would you believe that person had your best interests at heart?
Is it possible? Can you have a desire to eliminate all athiesm and still claim to love atheists?
If someone told you atheism is a plague and should be wiped out from the earth, would you believe that person had your best interests at heart?
You're such a deluded idiot, Sam. You're indoctrinated into a medieval cult. You believe the moon was split in half. You believe angels talk to people. You believe that once we're dead, we suddenly "awaken." You believe in ancient myths and superstitions that enslave mankind and you have the gall to ask about "best interests."
Is it in your best interest to remain a deluded idiot, Sam? Can you honestly wake up each day, look at yourself in the mirror and state emphatically that you believe in such things?
You did not answer me, if you met someone who told you that atheism is a plague that needs to be wiped out from the earth, would this be a person you counted on as having your best interests at heart?
Why should he answer you? You duck questions all the time.
How difficult is it to agree to a philosophy you endorse?
There are many thiests who believe in saving homosexuals and atheists from themselves. Do you endorse this?
You did not answer me
HA! That's rich.
if you met someone who told you that atheism is a plague that needs to be wiped out from the earth, would this be a person you counted on as having your best interests at heart?
So, you're saying that we NEED to have myths and superstitions ruling our lives? Ignorance, submission, hatred, bigotry, violence and slavery MUST be mankinds destiny?
How utterly ridiculous.
So you agree then we do not NEED to have perverted sexual practices and kuffar polluting our society? Men loving men [Hey Ram!] and infidels corrupting society and lacking MORALS!!!!
How utterly butterly ridiculous. :p
So you agree then we do not NEED to have perverted sexual practices and kuffar polluting our society? Men loving men [Hey Ram!] and infidels corrupting society and lacking MORALS!!!!
And, there is the indoctrinated theist in a 'nut'shell. :roflmao:
Good, I am glad you looked in the mirror and recognised yourself. ;)
There are many thiests who believe in saving homosexuals and atheists from themselves. Do you endorse this?
Of course not. But I have logical reasons for not endorsing it. Such as the fact that there is nothing to save them from.
Good, I am glad you looked in the mirror and recognised yourself.
You get nuttier every day, Sam.
Careful! That's a moderator you're talking to! You might get banned!
Careful! That's a moderator you're talking to! You might get banned!
:eek:
Of course not. But I have logical reasons for not endorsing it. Such as the fact that there is nothing to save them from.
Because you know you are right, eh? Take a number, fella and get in line.
You get nuttier every day, Sam.
Nah, same ole same ole.
Because you know you are right, eh? Take a number, fella and get in line.
My opinion is based on evidence. Yours is based on a 2000-year-old book written halfway around the world by people that couldn't have imagined the world as it is today. I think mine is more correct.
My opinion is based on evidence. Yours is based on a 2000-year-old book written halfway around the world by people that couldn't have imagined the world as it is today. I think mine is more correct.
So yours is based on [a] book[s] you believe. Someone elses on a book they believe. :shrug:
So yours is based on [a] book[s] you believe. Someone elses on a book they believe.
Ah yes, the argument from ignorance, well done.
Two people bearing books offer to demonstrate their "beliefs" in such books.
The first demonstrates from a book on microbiology how viruses co-evolve with their hosts based on hard evidence.
The second demonstrates from a book of scriptures their gods based on ...
Gee Sam, it looks like you need to take it from here.
You make the mistake of thinking athiest=scientiific. Irrationality is thinking you can wipe out theism and hug theists.
You make the mistake of thinking athiest=scientiific. Irrationality is thinking you can wipe out theism and hug theists.
You simply make mistakes, all the time.
I would agree that ridding the world of superstition and myth as a reality will be no easy feat. It will happen, nonetheless, Sam. Your medieval cult rituals will be laughed at by future generations. It's too bad we won't both be here to see it. :)
You simply make mistakes, all the time.
I would agree that ridding the world of superstition and myth as a reality will be no easy feat. It will happen, nonetheless, Sam. Your medieval cult rituals will be laughed at by future generations. It's too bad we won't both be here to see it. :)
Atheism is incompatible with society, if the medieval cult rituals have disappeared, it would probably mean that mankind is extinct.
I saw the movie. What a surprise, full of fabrications and sleight of hand editing to conform to Mahler's bias.
And this guy is supposed to be funny?
Did you pay to see the movie? If you did, then you're no better than the atheists who made it.
Kadark
Of course I saw it. What a surprise, he projected Irans holocaust conference and the Orthodox Jews non-acceptance of the establishment of the zionist state as evidence of "irrationality"
Apparently not accepting something based on dogma and refusing to recognise a colonial occupation of native peoples constitute irrational behaviour :rolleyes:
You didn't answer my question.
:rolleyes:
Kadark
If I saw it, I paid to see it. You pirate movies?
So, you paid to see a movie whose ideas you believe are dangerous and irrational. Guess what those funds are used for, Sam? Making more movies like it.
Kadark
So being ignorant about it would be better? I don't think so. If I did not see it, I could not argue against it. Anyway it was very obvious that his knowledge of Islam is nil. And his viewpoints are all those of typical western atheists who support zionism.
Not watching the film is the only solution. If people don't watch his movies, he doesn't make any money. Therefore, the movies stop. You're putting your money into the hands of people who hate your religion, and support your enemies.
Kadark
You must live on an island.
No, I simply refuse to give my hard-earned money to atheists who mock my religion, and support nations (Israel) which oppress my people.
You see things differently.
Whatever.
Kadark
Atheism is incompatible with society, if the medieval cult rituals have disappeared, it would probably mean that mankind is extinct.
Ah, so, we remove myth and superstition from our lives and we die?
:roflmao:
Yup, since progress requires faith. Where doubt will sit and wither, faith can move mountains.
Yup, since progress requires faith. ...faith can move mountains.
Excellent sermon from the pulpit, Sam. Well done.
Please note that science does not move mountains, but it does help provide you with everything just this side of living in a cave.
I do, I also note that a medieval atheist would have looked at stars and seen nothing, while a thiest would see hidden mysteries of the universe.
I do, I also note that a medieval atheist would have looked at stars and seen nothing, while a thiest would see hidden mysteries of the universe.
Were you paid to say that or are you just stupid?
You're the one who moans about evidence. Thats the evidence. An athiest would probably curse the darkness, wonder where he would sleep and how to get his next meal, why would he be interested in irrational things like star gazing? Thats the kind of thing people with no work i.e. monks and friars did. Or sadhus, or Islamic scholars.
You're the one who moans about evidence. Thats the evidence. An athiest would probably curse the darkness, wonder where he would sleep and how to get his next meal, why would he be interested in irrational things like star gazing? Thats the kind of thing people with no work i.e. monks and friars did. Or sadhus, or Islamic scholars. And they got other delusional people [like kings and churches and other people who venerated them] to fund their enterprise. How would an atheist generate any of the above? On what basis? His good looks?
You're the one who moans about evidence. Thats the evidence.An athiest would probably curse the darkness, wonder where he would sleep and how to get his next meal, why would he be interested in irrational things like star gazing? Thats the kind of thing people with no work i.e. monks and friars did. Or sadhus, or Islamic scholars. And they got other delusional people [like kings and churches and other people who venerated them] to fund their enterprise. How would an atheist generate any of the above? On what basis? His good looks?
http://www.smileyhut.com/laughing/rofl.gif (http://www.smileyhut.com)
This thread seems to have stopped being about Religulous and started being about S.A.M. This isn't acceptable if you want to continue to have a discussion. I temporarily closed this thread, but by the time you've read this far, it should be opened again. If its to remain open, please take a moment to read the rest of this post.
I would like to point out that while S.A.M. was right that the most brutal regimes in recent history were also atheistic ones, there is much to be said about the motivations of these regimes. While it's easy to find genocides, mass-killings, and murders that are conducted with express and explicit religious motivations, there are no examples of democides that were conducted expressly or explicitly in the name of "atheism."
Neither Stalin, nor Pol Pot have given any historical, sociological or anthropological evidence that their democides were conducted because of atheism. Indeed, this makes no philosophical sense to begin with.
Still, this topic is always the elephant in the room with atheists, who are easily offended when the religious bring it up. And well they should be. We should all be cognizant of the power of ideology as well as religion. Its all too easy for the skeptic and the reasoned who happen to be atheists to blame religion for global atrocities, but I think we ignore the fact that these atrocities were committed by people who were human first, and religious or atheist second. And, while I stand by my statement that it's far easier to find examples of the religious who kill for religious motivations that atheists who kill expressly for atheism, I think we must also be careful what we wish for.
In the absence of religion, why do we think ideology might not exist and that this ideology might not be fucked up? Don't get me wrong. I speak out against religion and vociferously at times. There's too much that the religious do in the name of their religions in order to attempt to impose their beliefs on others. But don't think for a minute that human nature is informed by religion and ideology. It isn't. In the absence of religion, ideology will emerge and human nature has shown us that it's rarely peaches and cream.
I temporarily closed this thread for a moment so I could type a response with effort to get this back on topic. I'm not opposed to splitting the thread at about this point if the discourse is to remain on the current digression, but I also think that this digression has a bit to do with Maher's point with Religulous, so I'd rather like it to remain intact. I'd also rather not like to delete the off-topic posts above, such as calling for S.A.M.'s "demotion."
Her demotion isn't going to happen and I'm glad she takes the time to post here because, believe it or not, she forces atheists to carefully think their arguments before they type if they want to have the appearance of seeming cogent. If you allow yourself to get into a flame-war with her, then you've lost. And, as an atheist, you've demonstrated nothing to those that aren't sure which side of the theist/atheist "war" they should be. And there are a lot of people that fit this bill.
Religulous was intended to be funny. But Maher, the kook that he is, has a point that I think was important: are these the people we allow to have the nuclear codes? Maher took cheap shots, tricked people out of their interviews, carefully edited their responses to be funny/nutty, etc. But he's forcing us to look carefully at who we give the power to in our nation (in this case the U.S., but shouldn't the same hold true for any nation where the people have any sort of influence or power?).
If we aren't careful and if we don't pay attention, we're going to not just let the kooky-theists get the nuclear codes, but the kooky-irreligous. An atheist-ideologue would be just as bad in my book.
So, yeah, S.A.M.'s continued arguing that "Stalin/Pol Pot were atheists and killed more ..." is annoying. But it's supposed to be. They may not have killed so many because of atheism, but they were atheists who had fucked up ideologies. That's an elephant in the room that cannot be ignored.
Thank you Skin
I appreciate your clarifying my stand. :p
Enterprise-D
10-20-08, 11:33 AM
Yup, since progress requires faith. Where doubt will sit and wither, faith can move mountains.
I disagree; progress requires ambition.
Or, perhaps I should quantify your statement; progress requires faith in oneself or one's team (folks involved in the particular effort you might be alluding to when you say progress). Progress does not require any faith in any deity.
You can say that, but I don't see any society that has been established by atheists. Why do you suppose that is?
Enterprise-D
10-20-08, 11:48 AM
This is an irrelevant argument because this is an appeal to tradition.
Merely because theists have established the majority of societies and (booming voice) "it has been so forevermore"...does not make it the ideal or even correct stance. I don't care about the reason why past atheists did not establish a separatist colony; merely that theists as they have developed now (and in the recent past) do not deserve the power that the currently wield and continue to muster unchallenged.
Merely because theists have established the majority of societies
Not majority. All. Can you name one society established without religion?
Not majority. All. Can you name one society established without religion?
The United States of America, and every Western nation that does not endorse a religion. Is there religion present within the society? Yes. But the nation was not founded on religion, nor was it created because of religion. You can count the "God" references all you like, this nation was not established based on or because of religion.
If you are looking for an entirely atheistic society, of course there isn't one, much in the same way that there isn't an entirely theistic society.
The American society was not built by the founders [most of whom were mass murdering fanatics anyway] but by the religious people who made it up. All social structures are defined/governed by religion and the most theistic societies have the longest survival rate. In fact, historically, the farther a society moves from religious values, the quicker it disintegrates
Enterprise-D
10-20-08, 12:16 PM
Not majority. All. Can you name one society established without religion?
I don't have to. You are appealing to tradition. Merely because (you claim) all societies were established with religion does not mean this is the best way, the only way, or that we have to accept it at all for future development.
I don't have to. You are appealing to tradition. Merely because (you claim) all societies were established with religion does not mean this is the best way, the only way, or that we have to accept it at all for future development.
No I'm appealing to common sense
Trend-> more religious society survives and spreads, less religious society stops reproducing and disintegrates
The American society was not built by the founders [most of whom were mass murdering fanatics anyway] but by the religious people who made it up. All social structures are defined/governed by religion and the most theistic societies have the longest survival rate. In fact, historically, the farther a society moves from religious values, the quicker it disintegrates
I disagree. They may have brought their religion with them, but I don't think their society was built on religion itself.
Also, can you cite some examples of societies that moved away from their religious values that disintegrated quicker than those that haven't? I'd really like to hear this, because it has no basis in fact.
Enterprise-D
10-20-08, 12:35 PM
No I'm appealing to common sense
Trend-> more religious society survives and spreads, less religious society stops reproducing and disintegrates
This does not make it less of a fallacy. An appeal to tradition fallacy is committed when your statement depends on age incorrectly. A method of subjective governance or societal origin definitely cannot be granted merit merely because it is uncontested, or even that it has granted longevity. As you say, there's no atheist society to compare with, therefore you cannot claim superiority simply because there's no reference point!
Indeed you are incorrect that a religious society survives and spreads; more so is that it conquers and infects (much like a virus), until a more powerful one destroys the first. Many or most religious societies of the past have warred each other to oblivion.
SnakeLord
10-20-08, 12:41 PM
the most theistic societies have the longest survival rate
Sorry, can I ask for some details and clarification for this statement? Thanks in advance.
I disagree. They may have brought their religion with them, but I don't think their society was built on religion itself.
"Our Founding Fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state; they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America. The combination of keeping Judeo-Christian religious morality in the state, as opposed to the church it's self; and, additionally, setting up our laws based on reason and common sense has contributed to the American Character, and to what is known as "American Exceptionalism."
Our Founding Fathers were religious in a new way, the Judeo-Christian way, and they were the liberals of their day by deducing that our political and human rights come from a power higher than human government; but they were conservative to Biblical morality. There was and still is a connection between God and Liberty; He is the author of it."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
Funny, considering that most of our founding fathers weren't religious.
Funny, considering that most of our founding fathers weren't religious.
But, it is relevant when you actually do your homework rather than making false assumptions. :D
Funny, considering that most of our founding fathers weren't religious.
No which is why they massacred the natives to replace them with a "perfect society". This is typical of areligious figures who see anyone who is different as a threat to their social system.
What does atheism offer but the opportunity to sit around bitching about theists? Religion offers social order and regulation, guidelines for an ethical and legal structure as well as community and social interactions. American society is based on Judeo-Christian values not atheist principles. Because there is no such animal.
spidergoat
10-20-08, 01:25 PM
We offer non-religious approaches to society where we decide what's best for the people, not what's best for an imaginary sky-king.
We offer non-religious approaches to society where we decide what's best for the people, not what's best for an imaginary sky-king.
You do? Like what? War on Terror? Structural Adjustment policy? Refraining from signing conventions on human rights? Supplying 50% of the worlds arms? Funding dictators and undermining nationalism? Supporting occupying regimes? Demanding goods and services for paper and using military aggression against those who disagree?
Its amazing to me that a country of people that [claim to ] worship [mostly] Jesus uses socialism as a bad word. Was there anyone more socialist than Jesus?
spidergoat
10-20-08, 01:51 PM
Socialism can be secular too. Note that all the problems you mention are just more America-bashing. What about every other successful secular nation? Secularism doesn't mean we are immune from making bad decisions.
I happen to believe it's best when we leave religion out of the process of governance. This tradition has been successful for hundreds of years.
This tradition has been successful for hundreds of years.
It has been successful only because of the creation and maintenance of the Third world [as a market for goods and a cheap source of raw materials and labour]. As the Third World improves its economic status using the same tactics, it will start collapsing on itself, because its essentially a house of cards.
spidergoat
10-20-08, 02:06 PM
I think you have secularism confused with capitalism.
Nope, I haven't, remember Islam was the religion of traders, even those who were not traders [Mongols, Turks] became traders.
spidergoat
10-20-08, 02:44 PM
Trading is the same thing, but I still don't see what it has to do with religion.
SnakeLord
10-20-08, 07:03 PM
I'll take that as a "no", Sam?
Trading is the same thing, but I still don't see what it has to do with religion.
You're the one who spoke of ''non-religious" approaches. But all the approaches in society are through religion, what is a non-religious approach?
I'll take that as a "no", Sam?
You can take it with wine and cheese if you like. Look up any society that abandons its religious values.
spidergoat
10-20-08, 07:12 PM
A non-religious approach to trade? Trade almost certainly depends on multi-culturalism, the silk road was one such example.
iceaura
10-21-08, 04:25 AM
No which is why they massacred the natives to replace them with a "perfect society". This is typical of areligious figures who see anyone who is different as a threat to their social system. Once again, it is time to point out that the evils you disparage in the US are closely connected with the religious factions in the US, that colonialism and its various evils were strongly religious in justification and execution, that the religion involved was theistic, and that the less theistic factions of the US have been less involved in these horrors, on average.
Most of the NA Reds that vanished died of disease and tribal war without ever meeting a White, btw. But many were killed by whites and there were several significant massacres as well as battles.
The NA Reds were not massacred to replace them with any kind of areligious society. They were more often massacred because they were heathen, therefore inferior, and a threat to white theists and their "civilization".
The early encounters between NA whites and reds involved many areligious whites, who often married and socialized and lived among the reds without abnormal strife.
The history of the US is full of religious groups seeing anyone different as either a threat or an inferior suitable for servitude. The religions of the US send missionaries, and the missionaries from US religions are often well armed. The Wounded Knee massacre, for example, was in two parts - the first was commanded by a West Point graduate (therefore a theist, then, as US military academies were and are strongly theistic) the second, more of an actual battle, happened the next day at the site of the Drexel Mission (theistic evangelical establishment) which the Lakota involved had burned down - recognizing it as an enemy establishment.
But all of that of course begs the question: say religion is necessary for decent human life - why is nonsense necessary for religion ?
You can say that, but I don't see any society that has been established by atheists. Why do you suppose that is? The US was established by areligious people - they'd not fit anyone's definition of "theist" today. By established I mean the most significant of the people who made it up and gave it its structure. Many of the Red societies of NA, as well as the Yellow societies of China et al, are atheistic in the record - hard to say how they were "established", prehistory. You appear to be singularly and conveniently blind - or muddling religion and theism, for the umpteenth time.
iceaura
The US was established by areligious people
That's not exactly true. There was a disprapotionate number of people in key positions who were not exactly main strean religious, some examples - atheist (Geo. Washington), Deist (Th. Jefferson, Ben Franklin) or Unitarian (John Adams). There were also Quakers and a Huguenot.
But by and far the majority were Church of England (Episcopalian), Presbyterian and Congregationalist.
A non-religious approach to trade? Trade almost certainly depends on multi-culturalism, the silk road was one such example.
And? The most successful multicultural societies [India and the Ottoman Empire] have been religious.
SkinWalker
10-21-08, 09:48 AM
You do? Like what? War on Terror? Structural Adjustment policy? Refraining from signing conventions on human rights? Supplying 50% of the worlds arms? Funding dictators and undermining nationalism? Supporting occupying regimes? Demanding goods and services for paper and using military aggression against those who disagree?
Its amazing to me that a country of people that [claim to ] worship [mostly] Jesus uses socialism as a bad word. Was there anyone more socialist than Jesus?
More often than not, these are people influenced by religious dogma and doctrine and not secular concerns. Indeed, most secular humanists, progressives and liberals in the U.S. oppose such policy. This isn't to say that the secularists necessarily have a better position; nor am I excluding the fact that there are secular conservatives (very few, however).
But the vast majority of those that approve things like "war on terror" will invoke discussions of "god's will" in the same breath.
I'm not against people having religious belief. But they shouldn't have this sort of domination in our government and national policy.
Enterprise-D
10-21-08, 10:12 AM
You do? Like what? War on Terror? Structural Adjustment policy? Refraining from signing conventions on human rights? Supplying 50% of the worlds arms? Funding dictators and undermining nationalism? Supporting occupying regimes? Demanding goods and services for paper and using military aggression against those who disagree?
Its amazing to me that a country of people that [claim to ] worship [mostly] Jesus uses socialism as a bad word. Was there anyone more socialist than Jesus?
Pardon...I may have misinterpreted this, but isn't the War on Terror championed by G.W. Bush, a self proclaimed christian running a self proclaimed christian state? As was structural adjustment policies? Aren't all of those socially unproductive efforts you list mainly championed by the world's largest religious community?
I.e. How was that list showing anything negative about a non-religious society?
Enterprise-D
10-21-08, 10:16 AM
And? The most successful multicultural societies [India and the Ottoman Empire] have been religious.
1. How do you associate successful multicultural relations to the respective societies' theism?
2. What exactly do you deem as successful? The Caste system? Islam leaders regarding citizenry of other beliefs as second class and worthy of less benefit? The refusal to acknowledge women as intellectual equals?
More often than not, these are people influenced by religious dogma and doctrine and not secular concerns. Indeed, most secular humanists, progressives and liberals in the U.S. oppose such policy. This isn't to say that the secularists necessarily have a better position; nor am I excluding the fact that there are secular conservatives (very few, however).
But the vast majority of those that approve things like "war on terror" will invoke discussions of "god's will" in the same breath.
I'm not against people having religious belief. But they shouldn't have this sort of domination in our government and national policy.
They? You mean atheists would be less self serving and promote self determination in the countries under current US foreign policy?
But, it is relevant when you actually do your homework rather than making false assumptions. :D
Considering that I knew all of that already, I don't see your point. You can use all the language you like, but it doesn't mean this nation was founded on religion. We don't sanction nor sponsor a state religion, so we weren't founded on it. And neither was our society.
I can tell that you're going to try to follow me around and take your best shots, but considering that your shots are most often completely off the mark, and sometimes not even regarding the same subject, so maybe you shouldn't even bother.
So, is Obama a Muslim or a Jew or an atheist? :rolleyes:
spidergoat
10-21-08, 12:19 PM
Your criticism of secularism as the source of unfair trade practices is ridiculous. Religion does not ensure fairness, indeed it often codifies unfairness. Secularism has led to societies that sometimes do unfair things, but not as a result of lacking religion!
So, is Obama a Muslim or a Jew or an atheist? :rolleyes:
Keep rolling your eyes. All you do is make people not want to post on these forums with your degrading, holier-than-thou posts.
Your criticism of secularism as the source of unfair trade practices is ridiculous. Religion does not ensure fairness, indeed it often codifies unfairness. Secularism has led to societies that sometimes do unfair things, but not as a result of lacking religion!
Atheism is for the individual while religion is for the individual, the family, the community and the society. You cannot expect atheism to provide anything but self serving individuals who want it that way
Atheism is for the individual while religion is for the individual, the family, the community and the society. You cannot expect atheism to provide anything but self serving individuals who want it that way
That's the most ignorant thing I've read here today. You assume religion benefits the individual, family, community, and society, and assume that an atheist cannot be a family-oriented, community-oriented, moral person.
[/i][flames/insults deleted][/i]
spidergoat
10-21-08, 12:48 PM
Atheism is for the individual while religion is for the individual, the family, the community and the society. You cannot expect atheism to provide anything but self serving individuals who want it that way
Yes, you are being ignorant. You assume that the secular aspects of religion cannot be easily replaced by anything. It's not replaced by atheism, of course, because atheism is only a philosophical premise. I suggested secular humanism, but then you attacked atheism again. What's wrong with secular humanism? It's like religion without the supernatural aspects.
Yes, you are being ignorant. You assume that the secular aspects of religion cannot be easily replaced by anything. It's not replaced by atheism, of course, because atheism is only a philosophical premise. I suggested secular humanism, but then you attacked atheism again. What's wrong with secular humanism? It's like religion without the supernatural aspects.
Nothing wrong with "secular" "humanism" except that most atheists frequently assume freedom of religion is equivalent to freedom from religion.
spidergoat
10-21-08, 01:20 PM
There are some aspects of religion that do not belong in a secular government, but that's besides the point. Philosophies of governance like secular humanism can certainly replace Theocracy.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.