The Root of all Evil : The God Delusion

POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Thursday, December 17, 2015 06:12
VIEWED: 49488
PAGE 12 of 32

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 25, 2007 9:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I was under the impression it was anti-theist, which isn't entirely the same thing?

I guess that depends on how you look at it, but as far as I’m concerned it is the same thing. I don’t know how many people in Stalinist Russia didn’t believe in the existence of any god or just hated everyone who did, but what I do know is that it was the particular way that belief was applied that was the problem, not the belief itself. Was it the same kind of atheism that a normal healthy fair-minded person espouses? Probably not. But then if we are going to draw a distinction between atheism and anti-theism with regards to Stalinism, then we should make the same provision for the theistic side, which we don’t do. We label both the religion espoused by the bin Laden’s of the world the same way we label the religion espoused by normal healthy fair-minded people, but they are not the same thing. Instead of trying to insulate atheism or some brand of theism because we sympathize with it, we should either just admit that any philosophy, including atheism, can and has been used by someone as an excuse to kill in the process of grabbing or consolidating power, or perhaps a better way of looking at it, is to realize that regardless of what beliefs are espoused, these kinds of things are always political in nature, not religious (either atheistically religious or theistically religious).

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So it must be Atheist because he killed theists? You may have a point, but I thought the reason he went after the churches was for much the same reason Henry the 8th did.

Marxism and Leninism espoused the belief that atheism was the supreme belief and the Soviet government, except when it had other more pressing issues (like the Nazi Blitz rolling over the Ukraine), consistently advocated the targeting of non-atheist entities and the suppression and elimination of theistic beliefs. Now that they didn’t manage to accomplish all of that or that sometimes other things were more important, doesn’t mean that’s not what they were trying to do. Henry the 8th’s reasons for doing what he did were far less ideological, I think. And Stalin’s particular views were probably a lot more like Hitler’s in that all he really wanted was ultimate power; the ideology was just a means to that end.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

LEADB

Friday, May 25, 2007 10:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
How many Muslims have you heard say that Islam is a religion of peace?

Plenty.
I've also heard plenty of folks say that Christianity is a religion of peace. And several others have remarked that so is their religion. And many atheists and agnostics claim to be people of peace.

I'm not clear on your point; are you trying to definitely state that Islam is -not- a religion of peace? If so, are you will to grant that neither is Chrisitanity?

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
[BAtheists overstate the effect of religion on violence, I'll buy that, but at the theists overstate the effect of atheism on violence and understate the effects of religion on violence. How many Muslims have you heard say that Islam is a religion of peace?

Now we're getting somewhere! I see your side ("theists overstate the effect of atheism on violence") and I think you're seeing some of mine ("atheists overstate the effect of religion on violence").

IMO the potential for abuse and violence from religion is much higher then for atheism. Many of the things that atheists (and theists of other religions) blame theists for (Inquisition, Crusades, jihads etc.) are not entirely the fault of theism, however some of the fault lies with theism if not for starting them but for allowing them to happen as religion can convince people to adopt positions that are entirely irrational.

However the potential for abuse exists in atheism when it is dogmatic, the same as any other dogma. The difference is that atheism is usually much less dogmatic then theism, it's harder to justify something based on a lack of belief then based off of a belief, particularly when the belief has usually been firmly entrenched since childhood while the unbelief usually stems from later examination of a topic.

Quote:
Incidentally, I think bin Ladin makes a good case study. How many of us really think that his primary motivation is religious?

A slightly better question would be was it his ORIGINAL primary motivation, the answer to that is known to be no, his original problem was with the U.S. putting soldiers in Saudi Arabia and then exacerbated by not taking them away after Desert Storm was over. As for his motivations now I can't say, I'm pretty sure that his secondary motivation was religious and that may have taken the place of his primary motivation (though I dont think that's the case).

Quote:
If we do, do we think that he really understands his own faith?

Sure, some Muslims will tell you that Islam is a religion of peace, the same as most Christians, however both the Koran and the Bible are full of justifications for murder, oppression, war, hate, and intolerance, it's all a matter of which parts you put the emphasis on, Bin laden would use the parts of the Koran glorifying war to justify it and he would be right.

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 10:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
How many Muslims have you heard say that Islam is a religion of peace?

Plenty.
I've also heard plenty of folks say that Christianity is a religion of peace. And several others have remarked that so is their religion. And many atheists and agnostics claim to be people of peace.

I'm not clear on your point; are you trying to definitely state that Islam is -not- a religion of peace? If so, are you will to grant that neither is Chrisitanity?

You're asking the wrong person, I'm an atheist. My point was that some Muslims say that there's is a religion of peace while others are perfectly happy to use Islam as justification for murder and rightfully so given some of the passages I've seen from the Koran. Christianity is much the same with some parts espousing peace love and understanding while others demand the death of certain groups of people. Like I said i my last post, it's all a matter of where you put the emphasis.

EDIT: And that I suppose is one of my major problems, religion can easily be used to justify murder, with atheism it isn't so easy since there's no holy book decrying non-believers

TELCOD

Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:39 AM

I think I read/heard that 10% of Americans believe Elvis is still alive. I have found no shortage of delusion nor stupidity on this planet. Been lied to all my life. What makes you think, people have been telling you the truth. How dependent is that? Give up your personal power, cause you don't want to deal.

Talk to god, "You are great, I am nothing, now can I have a hotdog?"

Who's the picked on christian up there. Suck it up, martyr. As far as I am concerned, all religion is poison for the weak and feeble. But you can share the planet with me. Seems like that is more generousity than most religious pikers show us non believers.

LEADB

Saturday, May 26, 2007 3:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
You're asking the wrong person, I'm an atheist. My point was that some Muslims say that there's is a religion of peace while others are perfectly happy to use Islam as justification for murder and rightfully so given some of the passages I've seen from the Koran. Christianity is much the same with some parts espousing peace love and understanding while others demand the death of certain groups of people. Like I said i my last post, it's all a matter of where you put the emphasis.

Had I been clear that was your initial intent, I would not have commented. Thanks for clarifying.

Quote:

EDIT: And that I suppose is one of my major problems, religion can easily be used to justify murder, with atheism it isn't so easy since there's no holy book decrying non-believers

Or it can be easily used to justify peaceful co-existance; which gets back to my original post... The violence is about the pursuit of power.

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, May 26, 2007 4:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Had I been clear that was your initial intent, I would not have commented. Thanks for clarifying.

Apologies for not being clear.

Quote:
Or it can be easily used to justify peaceful co-existance

So can Secular Humanism, even pure science can give us a reason to be nice to each other*, religion isn't necessary to get people to play nice.

Quote:
which gets back to my original post... The violence is about the pursuit of power.

Sometimes certainly, I'll even agree with most times, but sometimes violence is just about anger and hate (I suppose you can turn that around and call it power but it's not the most accurate description IMO) and religion gives one more thing that people feel VERY strongly about to be angry and hateful over and can be used to promote anger and hate in other areas (persecution of homosexuals and "witches" for instance).

*Humans are not physically exceptional in any particular way thus our success as a species is not due to physical prowess, the only things we have going for us over other animals are intelligence and teamwork, thus from an evolutionary standpoint it makes sense for us to leverage intelligence and teamwork to ensure the survival of our species since that's what brought us success before. This would mean that it is in our best interests to strive for intelligence and work together and treat each other fairly since fair treatment reinforces teamwork.

KHYRON

Saturday, May 26, 2007 10:22 AM

What I don't get is why the discussion focusses on religion being the root of all evil, when it's clear that if there were a God, he'd be the root of all evil, since he created everything in the first place.

Which leads to the question: why do people insist on worshipping the root of all evil?

Just a thought.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, May 26, 2007 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Josef Stalin had millions of people killed because they were not perceived to believe or support Stalin’s brand of atheist communism. How is that any different then bin Laden having people killed for not supporting his brand of Islam? If we are going to use this kind of language then we should endeavor to apply it fairly. Stalin had millions killed in an effort to export his brand of atheist communism. If bin Laden murdered in the name of theism, then Stalin murdered in the name of atheism.
Yes and in an Atheist family the parents would let their children stay out all night having sex and taking drugs.

If Stalin's purges were Atheist, then Iraq is a Christian Crusade, after all George Bush is a Christain, and God did tell him to do it.

Actually, all though I don't think Iraq is a Christian Crusade, such a position would be much stronger than saying Stalin was killing for Atheism.

You trying to portray Stalin's purges as an Atheistic version of the obviously theistic terrorism of Al Qaeda is little more than word play, it's intellectually dishonest, frankly.

Religion is square centre in Bin Landen's thinking, belief in the non-existence of god wasn't even a side issue to the purges. The fact that you construct a sentence in such away as to shoe horn Atheism in, then throw away the communism aspect in order to put Atheism front, and centre changes that, not at all.

Gotta side with Cit here man. That's some extrodinary word play. You're almost convincing that any battle, whether religiously motivated, or motivated by the absolute non-existance and disbelief of religion are all religious battles. No wonder you Dawkinites are doing such a bang up job destroying religion in the West. We need to get a bunch of you in Iraq and the rest of the middle east pronto so we can get them to put down the Queran and pick up the remote and popcorn and their cell phones and text their choices in for the next winner of Afganian Idol......

I know I'll sleep better at night knowing that they'd be less likely to suicide bomb the mall tomorrow just because their pick didn't win Idol than because their God told them to.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CITIZEN

Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I guess that depends on how you look at it, but as far as I’m concerned it is the same thing. I don’t know how many people in Stalinist Russia didn’t believe in the existence of any god or just hated everyone who did, but what I do know is that it was the particular way that belief was applied that was the problem, not the belief itself.

I don't accept that Atheism is a type of Theism. "Stalin was Atheist" is not an equivalent statement to "Al Qaeda is a religion based organisation". If Stalin was a Christian would that mean the purges were Christian? I don't think so, I don't see how the beliefs of the head man automatically make his actions based entirely on those beliefs.

Believe it or not, but my basis for saying something is motivated by religion is not based on solely on the beliefs of the people running the show. If someone says "Lets kill people because God says so" I'd say that was religiously motivated, but saying "Let's go kill people" does not therefore mean that it is Atheist, simply because there is no Theistic element. If, however, the statement was "Let's kill people because there is no God" the situation would be different.

Quote:
But then if we are going to draw a distinction between atheism and anti-theism with regards to Stalinism, then we should make the same provision for the theistic side, which we don’t do.

I already make a distinction between Theism and anti-Atheism. But that's not the distinction you are asking for, I don't think the distinction you are asking for is equivalent. You seem to be saying that Fundamentalism is to Theism, what Anti-Theism is to Atheism, and I don't see that at all.

Quote:
We label both the religion espoused by the bin Laden’s of the world the same way we label the religion espoused by normal healthy fair-minded people, but they are not the same thing.

I don't think we do Finn, at least most people don't. Though I have, at times, been one of the few people on this site who doesn't want to say "all Muslims are Terrorists". But necessarily a given fundamentalism is a subset of a given Theism, but I don't accept that Anti-Theism is a subset of Atheism.

Quote:
Henry the 8th’s reasons for doing what he did were far less ideological, I think. And Stalin’s particular views were probably a lot more like Hitler’s in that all he really wanted was ultimate power; the ideology was just a means to that end.

I thought that's what Henry VIII wanted? He got rid of the old Catholicism and replaced it with a brand of Christianity that had him at the Head, under God.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE