Religion is society's biggest threat: author

[Kilgor]

September 28, 2005
LONDON: Religious belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, ****** promiscuity and suicide, according to research published yesterday.

The study says belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society, but may actually contribute to social problems.

It counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

The research compares the social performance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution.

Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.









Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, ****** promiscuity and abortion.

The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its "spiritual capital". But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

Published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, it says: "Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so."

Study author and social scientist Gregory Paul used data from the International Social Survey Program, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions. He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

Mr Paul finds that the US is the world's only prosperous democracy where murder rates are still high, and that the least devout nations are the least dysfunctional.

He says the rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US are up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffers from "uniquely high" adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates.

"The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America," Mr Paul says.

The disparity is even greater when the US is compared with France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries, which have been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, ******ly transmitted diseases and abortion.

Mr Paul says the evidence accumulated by several different studies suggests religion may contribute to social ills.

He suggests most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God proved scientifically. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there were a marked decline in religious belief.

"The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator," he says.

"The widely held fear that a godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted."

The Times

[Herrmannek]

Author is an idiot... HE shown no proof that religion is any reason for crimes in USA ad he also try to persuade us that USA is more dangerous than Unikgted Kingdom... I like peope forgeting about scale, or taking things out of context, with makes comparing UK to US like comparing apples and oranges... I bet in the same way he did I can prove that obesity is a crime factor.. :cantbeli:

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy

Hmm... I've always been thinking that religion is AGAINST such actions...
There are some things in religion that may be considered bad or obsolete, but in this case the author's claims are a pure BS.


I bet in the same way he did I can prove that obesity is a crime factor..

I could prove that browsing MP.net may cause an increase in teen pregnancy :lol:

[Jani.R]

Author is an idiot... HE shown no proof that religion is any reason for crimes in USA ad he also try to persuade us that USA is more dangerous than Unikgted Kingdom... I like peope forgeting about scale, or taking things out of context, with makes comparing UK to US like comparing apples and oranges... I bet in the same way he did I can prove that obesity is a crime factor.. :cantbeli:


You never heard atheists bombing abort clinics or killing doctors who make abortions.

[nognig]

You never heard atheists bombing abort clinics or killing doctors who make abortions.

Nevermind that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler are the biggest mass murders of the 20th century, all promoted atheism.

Hitler was big into Darwinism. If there is no God, there is no right and wrong. Darwin teaches the survival of the fittest. If Germany was stronger than the Jews, why fight nature?

NN

[Herrmannek]

Author is an idiot... HE shown no proof that religion is any reason for crimes in USA ad he also try to persuade us that USA is more dangerous than Unikgted Kingdom... I like peope forgeting about scale, or taking things out of context, with makes comparing UK to US like comparing apples and oranges... I bet in the same way he did I can prove that obesity is a crime factor.. :cantbeli:


You never heard atheists bombing abort clinics or killing doctors who make abortions.

And that proves? Nothing... guy arbitrary took 2 countries that fits his theory and made a false evidence out of them... Anyone who realy believes this article is stupid punk :)

[Freibier]

Opium for the masses

[Herrmannek]

Opium for the masses
Same with **** magazines , foregin food, games, movies, books, cars, sports, iternet and virtualy anything that doesn't hurt and makes you want try another time... Its so sensless argument freib you should be ashamed using it...

[Olybrius]

You never heard atheists bombing abort clinics or killing doctors who make abortions.

Nevermind that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler are the biggest mass murders of the 20th century, all promoted atheism.

Hitler was big into Darwinism. If there is no God, there is no right and wrong. Darwin teaches the survival of the fittest. If Germany was stronger than the Jews, why fight nature?

NN


"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."


Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)


My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.


Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

more here:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

but it's not the subject ;)

[Freibier]

Hitler said in a speech to his nazi cronies that the NSDAP will be everything (left, right, christian, atheist, etc.) as long as it suits the cause ...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The author's conclusions are wrong because his supporting data is wrong. He considered the US a religious nation. We are not. There is a huge difference between saying you believe in God (or Gods/goddesses/multi-armed creationist hydras or whatever) and following the tenets of a religion.

For example, John Wayne Gacy claimed to be a Christian. But did he behave as one? Holy crap, I mean does this idiot think that murderers, drug addicts, prostitutes, thieves etc. spend Sunday in church?

If the author really wanted to take a look at crime/violence etc. in two "nations" and compare them - he should have used somewhere like Russia as an example of the atheist side, and the Amish in the US. There is simply no comparison.

Obviously I don't want to live like the Amish...but if the author is going to try to feed us such a line of obvious bull, he at least has to anchor his data in something meaningful.

[Telnyashka]

I agree with the author. Religion in our world has caused nothing but pain.

Hopefully its only a matter of years before people wake up and realize religion is just for power, and there is no spirituality in this world. Wake up people...

[DOOMSDAYDEXTER]

Just Power? Ever thought that the system of law and the morality it's based upon might have something to do with religion? Of course that set of beliefs binds the fabric of a society together setting a structure of norms and goals with which a culture develops through the passage of time. If you reject religion as merely the institution of a power structure after SOCIOLOGY 101 you blind yourself to understanding anything of human history.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I agree with the author. Religion in our world has caused nothing but pain.

Hopefully its only a matter of years before people wake up and realize religion is just for power, and there is no spirituality in this world. Wake up people...

Yes, churches are full of the faithful, each lusting for power. "Oh lord, please grant me super powers, so that I might smite my enemies, who have been naughty in my sight..."

[sickofpretenders]

I agree with the author. Religion in our world has caused nothing but pain.

Hopefully its only a matter of years before people wake up and realize religion is just for power, and there is no spirituality in this world. Wake up people...

Nothing but pain? What about all the people who go about their lives, believing in god, being good people and harming no one? They cause no pain using religion, nor a caused any by beleiving in it?

What about buddhist monks in asia? People who live away from others devoting thier lives to enhancing thier own spirituality, who take no money. How are they causing pain?

You are either criminally stupid or just constanty trying to push everyones buttons with your worthless, off the map left wing crap.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

The author's conclusions are wrong because his supporting data is wrong. He considered the US a religious nation. We are not. There is a huge difference between saying you believe in God (or Gods/goddesses/multi-armed creationist hydras or whatever) and following the tenets of a religion.

For example, John Wayne Gacy claimed to be a Christian. But did he behave as one? Holy crap, I mean does this idiot think that murderers, drug addicts, prostitutes, thieves etc. spend Sunday in church?

If the author really wanted to take a look at crime/violence etc. in two "nations" and compare them - he should have used somewhere like Russia as an example of the atheist side, and the Amish in the US. There is simply no comparison.

Obviously I don't want to live like the Amish...but if the author is going to try to feed us such a line of obvious bull, he at least has to anchor his data in something meaningful.


Stalin didnt organize genocides he did though try to proclaim his doctrine on other nations by force, people in GULAG were enemies of the state and not just some random people pickied up off the street and put to slave labor. Americans on the other hand have killed thousounds if not millions of people that are not even of their own nationality. Vietnam is the best example where Americans didnt want a country to have a certain type of government therefore they had to use force against it. this is a good example of Stalin's brutality except stalin did it 30 years before. now if you want to compare amish here too then accept the fact that youd be still living in 18th century.

real issue is that religion was created for general masses, by general masses i mean population with 100 intelligence quotient, becuase general population lacks intelligence to understand morality and immorality and religion helped them understand that. but then religion was used as a power source and enslaved the population's mind thus setting evolution far from what it should be by now. russians have a great understanding of morality without even being over religious; going to church every sunday, praying before meals etc. all becuase communism has influenced minds of russians profoundly.
west is very far from russians in understanding of morality and essentialy general understanding of life, but comparing west to russia one might say that west is far ahead then russians, that is becuase world is structured around western ideologies and majority ussualy dominates, just like people who denounced certain religious rules during middle ages and were called Heretics but eventualy society realizes their mistakes and accepts new changes in their lives and evolution continues. in my opinion its taking way too long and current religion is a major hinder of human evolution, im not saying religion should be banned but teachings, understanding and use of religion has to undergo a major change.

[sickofpretenders]

Stalin didnt organize genocides he did though try to proclaim his doctrine on other nations by force, people in GULAG were enemies of the state and not just some random people pickied up off the street and put to slave labor.

Actually he killed millions just digging a channel, which is used little today Those people were picked at random. Entire towns were killed for the actions or suspected actions of one. A person cold denounce a neighbour as a traitor and they could be sent to the gulag with no trial. You dont consider that 'at random?'. It is widely known that Stalin was the orchestator of more deaths than any other single man in the history of earth, and you try to make him to be an innocent witness to the deaths?

Any comparison of russia under stalin to America today can only be done so by a deranged moron who has no experience of either.

[khukuri]

this is bs

Many people are religious, many people makes it reasonable to have an instution(church mosque etc), an instution is an organisation. A big organisation is power. Power is politics. Thats why religioun has been infected with politics. Theres nothing problematic with the faith itself in many religiouns.

Its the same thing with scientist today. Nomatter what they say people believe them for 100%. Or economists, whatever they say is law. And instead of having priests talking latin in churchs who no one understood we have polititans talking jibberish in tv. And instead of waging for religioun we wage war for democracy or whatever. Whats the big difference?

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

Stalin didnt organize genocides he did though try to proclaim his doctrine on other nations by force, people in GULAG were enemies of the state and not just some random people pickied up off the street and put to slave labor.

Actually he killed millions just digging a channel, which is used little today Those people were picked at random. Entire towns were killed for the actions or suspected actions of one. A person cold denounce a neighbour as a traitor and they could be sent to the gulag with no trial. You dont consider that 'at random?'. It is widely known that Stalin was the orchestator of more deaths than any other single man in the history of earth, and you try to make him to be an innocent witness to the deaths?

Any comparison of russia under stalin to America today can only be done so by a deranged moron who has no experience of either.

no experience of either what? instead countering argument about something you dont know much besides reading from spy books try to defend american involment in almost every major conflict in the world since end of ww2. vietnam is the perfect example of disregard of any human rights, try starting defending this first.

[sickofpretenders]

Stalins human rights record is well documented. You would do well to read about it some time. Perhaps you could about it before mouthing off and comparing him to any American leader.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

Stalins human rights record is well documented. You would do well to read about it some time. Perhaps you could about it before mouthing off and comparing him to any American leader.

my dear freind. show me these documents originaly written in russian by russian officials. i dont deny that Stalin's rule was rough but random sensless deaths is not what he did as your western propaganda has told you. its pointless arguing about this since youve been taught this from your childhood so i wont comment here anymore. deranged moron.

[b.scheller]

The long history of oppression, under Stalinism.

Let's not even get into, the dissapearances during the night, that occured randomly and quite regularly upto the start of the second world war, and even after the war was over. Let's focus on the Kulaks, the enemy of the state, that Stalin had blamed for the failure of collectivization.


NKVD Order no. 00447
undersigned by Nikolai Yezhov.

To execute this order, NKVD troikas were created on the levels of republic, krai, and oblast. Investigation was to be performed by operative groups "in a speedy and simplified way", the results were to be delivered to troikas for trials.

The chairman of a troika was the chief of the corresponding territorial subdivision of NKVD (People's Commissar of a republican NKVD, etc.). Usually a troika included the prosecutor of the republic/krai/oblast in question; if not, he was allowed to be present at the session of a troika. The third person was usually the Communist Party secretary of the corresponding regional level. The staff of these troikas were personally specified in the Order # 00447.

Protocols of a troika session were passed to the corresponding operative group for executions of sentences. Times and places of executions of death sentences were ordered to be held in secret.

The same order instructed to classify kulaks and other anti-Soviet elements into two categories: the First category of repressed was subject to death by shooting, the Second category was subject to labor camps. The order set upper quotas per territory and category. For example Byelorussian SSR was estimated to have 2,000 (1st cat.) + 10,000 (2nd cat.) = 12,000 anti-Soviet elements. It was specifically stressed that quotas were estimates and could not be exceeded without personal approval of Yezhov. But in practice this approval was easy to obtain, and eventually these initial quotas were exceeded by orders of magnitude. For example, in September 1937, the Dagestan obkom requested the increase of the First Category from 600 to 1,200; the request was granted the next day.

After this Order, the terms First/Second Category became standard abbreviations in NKVD documentation for "the highest measure of punishment" and "placing into corrective labor camps", respectively.

The implementation was swift. Already by August 15, 1937, 101,000 was arrested and 14,000 convicted.

Your telling me, Holodomor, or more popularly known as the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-34, where five to seven million Ukrainians died alone, died rightfully so? Please, if you know anything about actual Soviet history, you would know, that Stalin's plan to create collectives, failed. Thus, he ordered the NKVD to starve the Ukrainian bread basket. He then, told everyone, that it was the Kulaks, who were to blame.

If you ever, would like to read a book, although it's a novelization, much based on truth. Read "One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich" it's by a Russian dissident, named Solzhenitsyn, although I highly doubt you've ever heard of him. Ivan Denisovich, or Shukov, is sentenced for a crime he did not committ, with no shred of proof the NKVD shipped him off to the Gulag. You can even pick up, another famous Solzhenitsyn book, called the "Gualg Archipelago" for which he was exiled from the U.S.S.R, more than likely due to his international acclaim, he was spared by the KGB.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The author's conclusions are wrong because his supporting data is wrong. He considered the US a religious nation. We are not. There is a huge difference between saying you believe in God (or Gods/goddesses/multi-armed creationist hydras or whatever) and following the tenets of a religion.

For example, John Wayne Gacy claimed to be a Christian. But did he behave as one? Holy crap, I mean does this idiot think that murderers, drug addicts, prostitutes, thieves etc. spend Sunday in church?

If the author really wanted to take a look at crime/violence etc. in two "nations" and compare them - he should have used somewhere like Russia as an example of the atheist side, and the Amish in the US. There is simply no comparison.

Obviously I don't want to live like the Amish...but if the author is going to try to feed us such a line of obvious bull, he at least has to anchor his data in something meaningful.


Stalin didnt organize genocides he did though try to proclaim his doctrine on other nations by force, people in GULAG were enemies of the state and not just some random people pickied up off the street and put to slave labor. Americans on the other hand have killed thousounds if not millions of people that are not even of their own nationality. Vietnam is the best example where Americans didnt want a country to have a certain type of government therefore they had to use force against it. this is a good example of Stalin's brutality except stalin did it 30 years before. now if you want to compare amish here too then accept the fact that youd be still living in 18th century.

real issue is that religion was created for general masses, by general masses i mean population with 100 intelligence quotient, becuase general population lacks intelligence to understand morality and immorality and religion helped them understand that. but then religion was used as a power source and enslaved the population's mind thus setting evolution far from what it should be by now. russians have a great understanding of morality without even being over religious; going to church every sunday, praying before meals etc. all becuase communism has influenced minds of russians profoundly.
west is very far from russians in understanding of morality and essentialy general understanding of life, but comparing west to russia one might say that west is far ahead then russians, that is becuase world is structured around western ideologies and majority ussualy dominates, just like people who denounced certain religious rules during middle ages and were called Heretics but eventualy society realizes their mistakes and accepts new changes in their lives and evolution continues. in my opinion its taking way too long and current religion is a major hinder of human evolution, im not saying religion should be banned but teachings, understanding and use of religion has to undergo a major change.

I have virtually no idea what you are talking about . I am comparing Russia NOW, not under Stalin, to the Amish NOW not in the 1800's. The fact that the Amish choose to live what we consider a "technologically impaired" existence (to quote Weird Al) - is completely beside the point.

The article is comparing crime rates-murder, rape, assault etc. not rates of iPod ownership. I simply picked Russia because for a large nation they are not religious (their past leadership having made it illegal). I could have used China as my example, except that China still has an authoritarian government that imposes draconian punishment for crime, so it's not a good example of a truly free society.

So let's forget about the cheerleading for Stalin - it has nothing to do with present day Russia, or the fact that it's crime rates are hundreds of times that of the Amish (you know, the backward religious people)

[Herrmannek]

The article is comparing crime rates-murder, rape, assault etc. not rates of iPod ownership. I simply picked Russia because for a large nation they are not religious (their past leadership having made it illegal). I could have used China as my example, except that China still has an authoritarian government that imposes draconian punishment for crime, so it's not a good example of a truly free society.
You can't :) Author explcitly narrowed your choice only to "healthy"* societies... IMHO that article is BS and trying to disaprove it can only mislead someone to thinking that it holds some ****...


*whatever that means :)

[vryhpyammoadded]

LOL, his gripe has more to do with the erosion of the American family’s cultural control over the children than religion.

I don’t see religion as being good or bad. I see it as a tool of “man” to provide moral guidance to those who need it. Some people just don’t have the tools or the time to make critical moral judgments so they have, with religion, some simple codified logical modes of behavior, collected over millennia, that they can simply fall back on for quick reference. Eventually many gain the wisdom to truly understand these codes, somewhat stick to there fundamental meaning and, spread/teach them by example simply by existing/interacting with others.
Most of what I see as “bad” religion are the ignoramuses who ****er over the letter of the law or those selfish who abuse it that suck us all into bloody war.



Vietnam is the best example where Americans didnt want a country to have a certain type of government therefore they had to use force against it.

Actually you should have said “specific type of government” The US would not have gotten involved in Vietnam if say a free Market, multi party, capitalist Republic was deposing a corrupt government. Instead it was a One party Communist tyranny attempting to enforce an unconditional surrender to its rule that set the US into action.

Communists say “any” means available to overthrow the system are valid as long as a communist government is the result. Stalin and a long list of nasty, selfish, power hungry and untrustworthy people used this to high jack the revolutionary passions of the downtrodden masses. Communist philosophy only made them appear credible and proved a great excuse to go about suppressing hundreds of millions more in the greatest scam ever to swap one tyrannical or unfair leadership for another. The US cannot allow this.

People following selfish revolutionaries, especially those who preach communism, typically never have a real choice in government from the beginning; therefore, whatever government the communists impose upon them is invalid to the US. The US was justified in defending the Vietnamese people and many others from a one party tyranny set on a war of unconditional surrender to communist rule. War between the US and its antithesis is inevitable and continuous.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The article is comparing crime rates-murder, rape, assault etc. not rates of iPod ownership. I simply picked Russia because for a large nation they are not religious (their past leadership having made it illegal). I could have used China as my example, except that China still has an authoritarian government that imposes draconian punishment for crime, so it's not a good example of a truly free society.
You can't :) Author explcitly narrowed your choice only to "healthy"* societies... IMHO that article is BS and trying to disaprove it can only mislead someone to thinking that it holds some ****...


*whatever that means :)

That's a good point. It's as if the author is purposefully excluding the very societies that a lack of religious foundation have doomed to crime. Like saying "let's do a study of how effective this handgun is, and we'll evaluate how much damage it does to these people we shoot, except for those 3 guys over there who have already died from their wounds"

[Lokos]

It's as if the author is purposefully excluding the very societies that a lack of religious foundation have doomed to crime.

?

Russia is more than 60% praciticing Orthodox Christian.

It seems to me that a lot of people are ignoring the advances the Enlightenment gave the Western world, at least. You know, concepts like the Rule of Law, and the separation of powers doctrine. To societies operating under the aforementioned, religion is utterly superfluous. It then simply becomes an added on system of social ordering and control - which is outstripped and outmoded in this by law and civic education (that begins very early in a person's formative experience).

All IMHO, of course.

Lokos

[oldsoak]

Society is religions greatest threat.

[LibertyUnites]

i agree with the author. religion not only physically poses a threat to society but also a hidden one. there is no bigger obstacle to human progress in fields such as science than religion. stem cells, hell, even the fact that the earth rotates around the sun and not vice versa all had to contend with religious dissaporoval. speaking as someone who would love to see many of today's ailments be cured the world over, i can not believe there are people against using stem cell research to save lives. and thats just my pet peeve... then you have what everyone else has mentioned, the actual threat of relgious lunatics (hmm, does anyone remember Iraq or if you arent that current, the Crusades?) I bet religion alone has been the cause of more deaths than your 'Creator' would ever have been able to handle without writing us off as a complete failure.

so because i agree with the author am I a compelte idiot too? wow, you're right, religion DOES teach tolerance towards others such as me and the author.

[Lokos]

Oh, by the way, I don't actually agree with this article at all.

Lokos

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

i agree with the author. religion not only physically poses a threat to society but also a hidden one.

I am really terrified by this great threat...
Different religions (aka 'threats to society') have been a part of people's lifes since the first civilisations (3000 bc), so why we aren't all dead yet?
Moreover, I think taht religion was one of the important factors stimulating the progress of the human civilisation (I'm talking about religion in general, including the beliefs of ancient Greeks, Egyptians or Babylonians, not only the medieval Catholicism, so don't flame me posting some stuff about how terrible the Holy Inquisition was).

[Abolith]

I agree with the author. Religion in our world has caused nothing but pain.

Hopefully its only a matter of years before people wake up and realize religion is just for power, and there is no spirituality in this world. Wake up people...

wow you really like showing that your a moron. If I walk down the university ave I will see druggies, thugs, gangbangers ect trying to screw each other over for ten bucks and to make themselves feel better or to gain a little bit of respect so they can be a bit higher up on the food chain...and when I walk into church on sunday I see alot of people who are good solid upstand individuals. People who help each other out in bad times and watch each others kids, people you can trust because they arn't trying to control or dominate you. They are people who see and treat you on an equal level, it's simply not about "power" as you would have us think it is. Your comments about religion only show your complete lack of understanding about it and about the people that belive in it.

[Mailman]

I agree with the author. Religion in our world has caused nothing but pain.

Hopefully its only a matter of years before people wake up and realize religion is just for power, and there is no spirituality in this world. Wake up people...

I think the author is on to something as well...look at the worlds repressed peoples and whats the common denominator...religion!

Islam is a perfect example of what this chap is talking about.

Mailman

[Lazy Lob]

Society is religions greatest threat.

n1

[roland]

Religion can make some good but must be kept in close check.
It's inherently dangerous because:
- it can't be proven right or wrong,
- one of believer's first duty is to save his friend's sould so convert him.
The mix of the two is explosive.
And religion can make some people completly crazy.
So better prevent religion to spread out of the strictly private area or church/temple/synagogue/Mosque ...
In the States, I'm affraid the Mayflower religious tradition is getting too much power against the rational Republican tradition.
Carefull, it's science and rationality that made you rich and powerfull (I could say the same thing for Israel)

[b.scheller]

one of believer's first duty is to save his friend's sould so convert him.


qu'est que c'est?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

It's as if the author is purposefully excluding the very societies that a lack of religious foundation have doomed to crime.

?

Russia is more than 60% praciticing Orthodox Christian.

It seems to me that a lot of people are ignoring the advances the Enlightenment gave the Western world, at least. You know, concepts like the Rule of Law, and the separation of powers doctrine. To societies operating under the aforementioned, religion is utterly superfluous. It then simply becomes an added on system of social ordering and control - which is outstripped and outmoded in this by law and civic education (that begins very early in a person's formative experience).

All IMHO, of course.

Lokos

That's good stuff. It does seem as if some people are still looking at Christianity as if it was 1350.

And is Russia really 60% practicing Christian? I read that religion in general was on the rebound, but 6 out of 10 people going to church every Sunday is a lot, even for the dreaded US Bible belt....

[mudbunny]

You never heard atheists bombing abort clinics or killing doctors who make abortions.

Besides 2 or 3 cases you hardly see these type of incidents on CNN every day so stop generalizing.

[Kilgor]

Islam is a perfect example of what this chap is talking about.

Mailman

Iran has the worlds highest Per capita consumption of opium based products, and aparently prostitution is everywhere.

[hughdotoh]

Mother Teresa was a religious woman, a Catholic at that, and she went down and dirty devoting her whole life to caring for society's rejects. She carried no guns and simply preached the creed that the poor are people too.

The author, I humbly reckon, most likely never helped a leper in his whole life, never cleaned up a sick old man, and most likely would never want children of his own, let alone adopting one.

I am seriously ashamed of myself that I can never do what Mother Teresa did in her lifetime out of her religious fervor. She is a woman who put religion to good use not for herself but for others. And all of it has been nothing but pure kindness.

Anyone who bashes religion being bad for personal or social enlightenment, try spending time and resources to help the poorest of the poor instead of pissing and moaning about how Jimmy Swaggart blows.

[Avary]

Robert Gilet is a self-proclaimed atheist.

And a convicted pedophile.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

The author's conclusions are wrong because his supporting data is wrong. He considered the US a religious nation. We are not. There is a huge difference between saying you believe in God (or Gods/goddesses/multi-armed creationist hydras or whatever) and following the tenets of a religion.

For example, John Wayne Gacy claimed to be a Christian. But did he behave as one? Holy crap, I mean does this idiot think that murderers, drug addicts, prostitutes, thieves etc. spend Sunday in church?

If the author really wanted to take a look at crime/violence etc. in two "nations" and compare them - he should have used somewhere like Russia as an example of the atheist side, and the Amish in the US. There is simply no comparison.

Obviously I don't want to live like the Amish...but if the author is going to try to feed us such a line of obvious bull, he at least has to anchor his data in something meaningful.


Stalin didnt organize genocides he did though try to proclaim his doctrine on other nations by force, people in GULAG were enemies of the state and not just some random people pickied up off the street and put to slave labor. Americans on the other hand have killed thousounds if not millions of people that are not even of their own nationality. Vietnam is the best example where Americans didnt want a country to have a certain type of government therefore they had to use force against it. this is a good example of Stalin's brutality except stalin did it 30 years before. now if you want to compare amish here too then accept the fact that youd be still living in 18th century.

real issue is that religion was created for general masses, by general masses i mean population with 100 intelligence quotient, becuase general population lacks intelligence to understand morality and immorality and religion helped them understand that. but then religion was used as a power source and enslaved the population's mind thus setting evolution far from what it should be by now. russians have a great understanding of morality without even being over religious; going to church every sunday, praying before meals etc. all becuase communism has influenced minds of russians profoundly.
west is very far from russians in understanding of morality and essentialy general understanding of life, but comparing west to russia one might say that west is far ahead then russians, that is becuase world is structured around western ideologies and majority ussualy dominates, just like people who denounced certain religious rules during middle ages and were called Heretics but eventualy society realizes their mistakes and accepts new changes in their lives and evolution continues. in my opinion its taking way too long and current religion is a major hinder of human evolution, im not saying religion should be banned but teachings, understanding and use of religion has to undergo a major change.

I have virtually no idea what you are talking about . I am comparing Russia NOW, not under Stalin, to the Amish NOW not in the 1800's. The fact that the Amish choose to live what we consider a "technologically impaired" existence (to quote Weird Al) - is completely beside the point.

The article is comparing crime rates-murder, rape, assault etc. not rates of iPod ownership. I simply picked Russia because for a large nation they are not religious (their past leadership having made it illegal). I could have used China as my example, except that China still has an authoritarian government that imposes draconian punishment for crime, so it's not a good example of a truly free society.

So let's forget about the cheerleading for Stalin - it has nothing to do with present day Russia, or the fact that it's crime rates are hundreds of times that of the Amish (you know, the backward religious people)\

"In God We Trust" - hope you know where this is from.
why should the author compare amish to present day Russia? amish have nothing to do with average US population. why not compare soviet union to america of same time period?

none of the current crime in Russia is related to religion while there are tons of reports of religious lunatics in US mass suiciding, having hostile confrontations with law enforcement officers, killing 14 members of their own family and of course, not to forget, proposing to kill heads of other nations while creating Axis of Evil.

you "virtualy" missed the point of my reply. I proposed my view of religious influence on Western societies , including US, and Russian society and how each one of them understands morality, which includes crime of course. If you want to just use crime as an example, do research on crime in soviet union from 50's to 70's and you'll see that it was virtualy non-existant.
i simply reinforced the point of the article while replying to your post but you seem to get confused if reply doesnt relate 100% to your post.

[Russ.Dill]

The author's conclusions are wrong because his supporting data is wrong. He considered the US a religious nation. We are not. There is a huge difference between saying you believe in God (or Gods/goddesses/multi-armed creationist hydras or whatever) and following the tenets of a religion.

For example, John Wayne Gacy claimed to be a Christian. But did he behave as one? Holy crap, I mean does this idiot think that murderers, drug addicts, prostitutes, thieves etc. spend Sunday in church?

Wow, thats convienient, any christians that engage in non-christian behavior aren't christians so they shouldn't be counted. Well gee, I think that makes the number of christians in the world equal to zero, don't you? How about you cast the first stone?

Anyway, an athiest cannot use a diety to justify their own behavior or own failings to themselves, a christian happily does so, not only that, but the forgiveness of their fellow man is not what truly matters, its the forgiveness of an unseen entity.

Run over someone's grandma caus you were out driving drunk? Don't worry, satan temps us all, and after all, jesus died on the cross and god will forgive you, don't worry. Perhaps the phrase "in the name of god" rings a bell too.

[Avary]

Atheism is a religion.

[sickofpretenders]

Believing in nothing is a religios belief? I dont think so. Singling out one atheiest pedaeofile is hardly grounds for an argument either. While I think religion has good and bad points and think the article is wrong bringing up one child molester is just asking for people to mention the number of catholic priests that have raped choir boys.

[Ballistic]

I agree with the author. Religion in our world has caused nothing but pain.

Hopefully its only a matter of years before people wake up and realize religion is just for power, and there is no spirituality in this world. Wake up people...

:roll:

It is not the religion that has caused the pain, it is the people who have allowed themselves to become blinded and consumed by their hatred of what it seen as wrong in their eyes and their interpration of their religious beliefs that has caused the pain.

Just like saying a gun is responsible for the death of a person. The gun is not responsible, it's the person pulling the trigger that is responsible.

You could say that if there were no guns (religions) there would be no killings (extremism). But that still doesnt hold up, people will find other ways to kill or be blinded.

Religion, no matter what kind, has been a source of strength for so many people, for so long, not strength to fight, but strength to get through the day, because they know something better awaits them. This is ofcourse debatable by those who do not believe, but you have the right to not believe just as much as they have to believe.

I'm Christian, I believe in God, but I dont believe for a second that this festering pile of ****e has any validity whatsoever. The only threat are those that take their beliefs to far and that is a very small minorty of people.

[Asheren]

Yes but almost all bloodiest war was caused at last partialy by religion. War on terror, israel, former Yugoslavia, Philipines etc. Someone said that half of the wars in the world can be ended by inventing atheism bomb.

[pathfinder82]

we need to have separate islands in the sun. One for the religious folks and one for the people who believe in evolution etc.

You tell me which island will be more fun to live on!!

[sickofpretenders]

What about the people that believe in god and evolution? Or believe in something but not any specific organised religion?

[Taekwondo]

Atheism is a religion.

How so? Religion includes (excluding buddhism) a believe in the supernatural, I don't see atheists worshipping anything.

[Herrmannek]

Atheism is a religion.

How so? Religion includes (excluding buddhism) a believe in the supernatural, I don't see atheists worshipping anything.
You see atheism is a religion in the same way zero is a number :).

[sickofpretenders]

I would like to thank avary and pathfinder for their stunningly helpfull and intelligent contributions to this thread. :cantbeli:

[DOOMSDAYDEXTER]

Can we get over this common misconception that religion is the major cause of wars. Wars are created by groups of people competing over resources or the control of resources be that land, fuel, food or water.

The calls to jehovah, allah,future generations of ubermenchen & yes even buddah are in many ways inconsequential to that fact, but will give us some clues about will to fight, how they will go about waging that war and maybe even it's success.

However it's success should not be assured in our imagination by flimsy understanding of what we mean by ideological/ cultural/ technological superiority as I'm sure we all understand by now from a little reading of the wars fought in the last century.

[California Joe]

I don't know what is more bizarre. The lack of critical thinking and absurd generalizations in this thread or the fact that some imbecile is actually defending a murderous psychopath like Stalin. Unbelievable.

[DE_Six]

Yes but almost all bloodiest war was caused at last partialy by religion. War on terror, israel, former Yugoslavia, Philipines etc. Someone said that half of the wars in the world can be ended by inventing atheism bomb.

Good thing you said "almost". WW1 and WW2 had next to nothing to do with religion and were by far the bloodiest conflicts in the history of man.

I see the potential for ill use in religion, but this article was bs.

[micronazi]

It is human nature to fight. Using religion is just an easy way to motivate hostilities. if religion were not an issue leaders and influencial people would find another means to motivate others to fight one another.

Regards,
micronazi

[OldRecon]

Well it's a fact (as far as me is concerned at least) that adoption of christianity didn't do neither the Romans nor the Vikings much good :lol:.
That said, if someone asks me if I believe in god I'll have to confess I would answer "yes" to that question. If for nothing else, than as long as there is no totaly unqualified conclusive evidence for either the existence or non-existence of God, one cannot put the fact that God may exist out of the question.
But then where I end up after this life I don't care an iota about, prefering to concentrate my efforts on this life instead, thus I wouldn't call myself either christian, muslim, hindu or whatever.
As for religion as a source of conflict, I'm afraid the world is too small now and will grow even smaller for people "believing in Santa" even when Santa's advice flies directly in the face of common sense (even though perhaps "Santa's" advice made sense back then when the 10 tablets were made).
Besides the capability of destruction attained by man have now reached such a level we should be very carefull with regards to "rocking the boat" for grand ambitions.
Unfortunately the influence of fundamentalist "Santa-believers", wether moslem, christian, hindu or whatever appears to be on the rise these days :(.

[Lokos]

And is Russia really 60% practicing Christian?

I should have specified what I meant by 'practicing'. Uhh, basically, I really just meant people who actually consider themselves to be Orthodox Christians, and who strive to follow the moral and ethical imperatives the Church deems vital. The number of Russians going to church every Sunday... It's probably not nearly as high as the Church would like. Same as in Serbia, where any given person in the street will unequivocally state that he/she would die for his/her faith, but who cannot seem to find the local place of worship on any given Sunday.

:lol:

Also, when I stated before that religion is utterly superfluous, I should have qualified that statement. It is superfluous to the ordering of society. It is not superfluous generally, where it provides one of the only shared communal experiences still open generally. We live in a world more and more marked by isolation and removal of the Self from Society At Large (in the microcosmic sense). Although I am an avowed atheist, I feel that, for this reason alone, religion can be quite useful.

Regards,
Lokos

[Drako]

we need to have separate islands in the sun. One for the religious folks and one for the people who believe in evolution etc.

You tell me which island will be more fun to live on!!

****, I'm really getting annoyed by that attitude. I'm religious and I have no problem with evolution. Stop to consider religious people as retarded medieval rednecks. I think USA is the only country where people reject evolution because here you may ask any priest about it and he'll agree with you about the evolution. I was always taught that one doesn't cross out another.

And don't say that religion caused wars. It's people who cause them not religions. Christianity condemns wars and killing in overall so how it could cause any? You can kill a man with a pillow but still you can't consider it as a weapon. Same goes about religions.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

I don't know what is more bizarre. The lack of critical thinking and absurd generalizations in this thread or the fact that some imbecile is actually defending a murderous psychopath like Stalin. Unbelievable.

oh did i set off "unfavorable member" alert in the private mod forum? I wasnt defending stalin.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

The author's conclusions are wrong because his supporting data is wrong. He considered the US a religious nation. We are not. There is a huge difference between saying you believe in God (or Gods/goddesses/multi-armed creationist hydras or whatever) and following the tenets of a religion.

For example, John Wayne Gacy claimed to be a Christian. But did he behave as one? Holy crap, I mean does this idiot think that murderers, drug addicts, prostitutes, thieves etc. spend Sunday in church?

Wow, thats convienient, any christians that engage in non-christian behavior aren't christians so they shouldn't be counted. Well gee, I think that makes the number of christians in the world equal to zero, don't you? How about you cast the first stone?

Anyway, an athiest cannot use a diety to justify their own behavior or own failings to themselves, a christian happily does so, not only that, but the forgiveness of their fellow man is not what truly matters, its the forgiveness of an unseen entity.

Run over someone's grandma caus you were out driving drunk? Don't worry, satan temps us all, and after all, jesus died on the cross and god will forgive you, don't worry. Perhaps the phrase "in the name of god" rings a bell too.

good points Russ, opened up my overview on religion even more.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

we need to have separate islands in the sun. One for the religious folks and one for the people who believe in evolution etc.

You tell me which island will be more fun to live on!!

****, I'm really getting annoyed by that attitude. I'm religious and I have no problem with evolution. Stop to consider religious people as retarded medieval rednecks. I think USA is the only country where people reject evolution because here you may ask any priest about it and he'll agree with you about the evolution. I was always taught that one doesn't cross out another.

And don't say that religion caused wars. It's people who cause them not religions. Christianity condemns wars and killing in overall so how it could cause any? You can kill a man with a pillow but still you can't consider it as a weapon. Same goes about religions.

Dont forget crusades, and same type of mentality can still be observed today.

[sickofpretenders]

youre an idiot. Go back to worshipping that pillar of all things good, your hero stalin

[ogukuo72]

youre an idiot. Go back to worshipping that pillar of all things good, your hero stalin

Good point. There are many kinds of "religion". Communism, if you look at it, has many characteristics of a religion (a messiah, a set of doctrines, a clergy that interprets and abjudicates on the "truth").

This can be readily observed in Europe. Many Europeans have given up their traditional religions, and turning to new ones. The pagan worship of the environment, otherwise known as "Environmentalism" is one. The other is "New Age" spirituality.

Man needs religion. If they do not believe in God, they must believe in a god. If they reject religion, they will nonetheless create new idols to bow before, and force others to submit in the name of these idols.

We might worry about Islamic terrorists at the moment, but when you think about it, the secular communists and the anti-Catholic Nazis killed far more people everywhere they touch (Cambodia, Ukraine, Russia, China, etc.) than the Crusades, the religious wars in Europe, etc.

[micronazi]

Religion can not be scape goated as the ultimate evil in the world. An atheist is no more ****e to fight for what they believe in than a christian or any other religious person. When someone is religious they have an ideal in which they believe and have faith in. No matter what it is, if someone contradicts it they will fight that person or people. Now, historically, we know that most conflicts used religion as a motivator for the ignorant masses. No, i did not say that religion is for the ignorant. Political figures will incite the emotions of the "mob" in order to meet their goals. The 'Church' was no different during the crusades. Religion is a very powerful tool and easily exploited for the benefit of another person or entity or institution. One day if and when the majority is completely secular you will see worldly values ans ideals being exploited for the same thing.

Regards,
micronazi

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I was going to respond point by point to a lot of the doofus remarks that are made here, but they all seemed to stem from a the same place - a fundamental misunderstanding of reformed Western religion.

If your teacher tells you the sky is blue every day for 20 years, and you are asked what color the sky is, and you reply that it is yellow, is the teacher to blame?

Similarly, I find it quite odd to blame a religion (any religion) for behavior that is specifically prohibits. If your priest or rabbi or mullah tells you not to steal, and you steal, does it make sense to blame them?

Religion, apart from a belief in a deity, is a set of rules you are supposed to live by. Failure to live by them will result in damnation. Even for Christians this is true. The oft misquoted passage "let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone"....ends with "now go forth and sin no more" The passage is not about unequivocal forgiveness of all behavior - it is about the fact that we are all sinners (even those who cast the woman on the ground) and that we will all ultimately be judged by our behavior. So the pop-culture meaning of that passage is actually 180° out of phase with what it actually means.

Let me just say that I am not a Christian, but I do understand their philosophy. Just saying you are a Christian does not make you one, any more than saying you are a banker makes you one, or saying you are a murderer makes you a murderer. Unless you follow the rules, you don't get the title.

And if you follow the rules of most religions - you will never go to jail. Not all, but most. Most Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sects follow a set of rules that are close enough to established Western law that there is no conflict. The same cannot be said for atheism. An atheist creates their own morality, since they have no external guidebook. There is no right and wrong apart from what they decide is right and wrong. Every last person in jail is there because they decided that they would follow their own personal morality instead of following an external guidebook.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

Good point. There are many kinds of "religion". Communism, if you look at it, has many characteristics of a religion (a messiah, a set of doctrines, a clergy that interprets and abjudicates on the "truth").

Intersting analysis. But give me and example wehre Russian leaders described themselves as messiahs. A set of doctrines is set in any form of constitution: "bill of rights". Any president is a cleagy and adjudicator of truth.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Good point. There are many kinds of "religion". Communism, if you look at it, has many characteristics of a religion (a messiah, a set of doctrines, a clergy that interprets and abjudicates on the "truth").

Intersting analysis. But give me and example wehre Russian leaders described themselves as messiahs. A set of doctrines is set in any form of constitution: "bill of rights". Any president is a cleagy and adjudicator of truth.

Religion does not require a messiah.

[PeterRJG]

Religion does not require a messiah.

This is true, but the three of the largest ones do.

[Lazy Lob]

Most Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sects follow a set of rules that are close enough to established Western law that there is no conflict. The same cannot be said for atheism. An atheist creates their own morality, since they have no external guidebook. There is no right and wrong apart from what they decide is right and wrong. Every last person in jail is there because they decided that they would follow their own personal morality instead of following an external guidebook.

I profoundly disagree. I am an atheist and have many external guides. Suffering and pain are some the main ones. I do not like them so I will not do it unto others and not because I don’t want “others do them unto me”. Not having been conned by a religion does not mean the inability to distinguish from a universal right and wrong, quite the opposite. All of life’s experiences are external and they mould your character. An atheist is simply some one who does not believe in a deity and not some psychopath with ADD.

I am sick and tired of hearing how “believers” have some sort of moral superiority. Your argument can also explain why “believers” stray. And they STRAY big time and that adds hypocrisy to their list of “sins”. Western law does sometimes come into conflict with these religions and their interpreters. But they rather not take the law on and simmer down to some compromise until they can get their own way.

There is a basic and universal right and wrong and the majority of us have this embedded in our genes and need them for living in a complex society. Having a deity or religion with get-out clauses just makes matters worse.

I’d have more trust in a decent atheist than some hick that needs written and approved guidance to direct his/her life as that is an indication that he/she may not have a spine.

[Lokos]

Communism, if you look at it, has many characteristics of a religion (a messiah, a set of doctrines, a clergy that interprets and abjudicates on the "truth").

Limited representative government is a religion, too, by that definition of the term.


If they reject religion, they will nonetheless create new idols to bow before, and force others to submit in the name of these idols.

I disagree. I am an atheist with no new idols to bow before. I do not believe that I am superior to the general population, and it is therefore not that difficult to further believe that others could lead lives without idolatry.

Lokos

[b.scheller]

Religion does not require a messiah.

This is true, but the three of the largest ones do.

There's a messiah in Islam?

[walford]

The author's conclusions are wrong because his supporting data is wrong. He considered the US a religious nation. We are not. There is a huge difference between saying you believe in God (or Gods/goddesses/multi-armed creationist hydras or whatever) and following the tenets of a religion...Indeed, the types of religions out there vary too much to attribute any toxic social phenomena to all forms of faith. In fact, it is exclusivism (http://utopia-unmasked.us/extext.html) which is dangerous. This is the conviction that one belief or ideological system is the Only True Way. Those who disagree are by definition threats who must be wiped out for the Greater Good.

Such intolerant myopia can be theological [such as in Wahabbi Islam] or secular [such as in Marxism/Leninism].

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

The author's conclusions are wrong because his supporting data is wrong. He considered the US a religious nation. We are not. There is a huge difference between saying you believe in God (or Gods/goddesses/multi-armed creationist hydras or whatever) and following the tenets of a religion...Indeed, the types of religions out there vary too much to attribute any toxic social phenomena to all forms of faith. In fact, it is exclusivism (http://utopia-unmasked.us/extext.html) which is dangerous. This is the conviction that one belief or ideological system is the Only True Way. Those who disagree are by definition threats who must be wiped out for the Greater Good.

Such intolerant myopia can be theological [such as in Wahabbi Islam] or secular [such as in Marxism/Leninism].

Vietnamese didnt want to be democratic but communist instead; does US practice exclusivism then?
By the way, you didnt construct your paragraph properly, it suggests that if you dont agree with definition of exclusivism you should be wiped out for the Greater Good.

[b.scheller]

The author's conclusions are wrong because his supporting data is wrong. He considered the US a religious nation. We are not. There is a huge difference between saying you believe in God (or Gods/goddesses/multi-armed creationist hydras or whatever) and following the tenets of a religion...Indeed, the types of religions out there vary too much to attribute any toxic social phenomena to all forms of faith. In fact, it is exclusivism (http://utopia-unmasked.us/extext.html) which is dangerous. This is the conviction that one belief or ideological system is the Only True Way. Those who disagree are by definition threats who must be wiped out for the Greater Good.

Such intolerant myopia can be theological [such as in Wahabbi Islam] or secular [such as in Marxism/Leninism].

Vietnamese didnt want to be democratic but communist instead; does US practice exclusivism then?
By the way, you didnt construct your last paragraph properly, it suggests that if you dont agree with definition of exclusivism you should be wiped out for the Greater Good.

I don't remember, reading about any elections occuring in Vietnam, to vote in the communist party to rule over the people. How can you say, that every single Vietnamese man, woman and child, wanted communist despotism?

[walford]

Vietnamese didnt want to be democratic but communist instead; does US practice exclusivism then?I don't remember, reading about any elections occuring in Vietnam, to vote in the communist party to rule over the people. How can you say, that every single Vietnamese man, woman and child, wanted communist despotism?How was this general desire among the Vietnamese people established? All we do know is that many died and suffered considerably trying to escape after the fall of Saigon in '75 rather than live under the Hanoi government. That is the only popular expression toward Vietnamese communism of which I'm aware.

The very fact that a one-party state must make public opposition to leaders/policies illegal, allow only government-controlled press and must hold itself in power by force gives lie to any assertion that such a regime is 'wanted' by the public.


Indeed, the types of religions out there vary too much to attribute any toxic social phenomena to all forms of faith. In fact, it is exclusivism (http://utopia-unmasked.us/extext.html) which is dangerous. This is the conviction that one belief or ideological system is the Only True Way. Those who disagree are by definition threats who must be wiped out for the Greater Good.

Such intolerant myopia can be theological [such as in Wahabbi Islam] or secular [such as in Marxism/Leninism].By the way, you didnt construct your last paragraph properly, it suggests that if you dont agree with definition of exclusivism you should be wiped out for the Greater Good.Your interpretation is incorrect. I will rephrase it: By their very disagreement with a given exclusivist ideology, dissidents/infidels define themselves as threats...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Most Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sects follow a set of rules that are close enough to established Western law that there is no conflict. The same cannot be said for atheism. An atheist creates their own morality, since they have no external guidebook. There is no right and wrong apart from what they decide is right and wrong. Every last person in jail is there because they decided that they would follow their own personal morality instead of following an external guidebook.

I profoundly disagree. I am an atheist and have many external guides. Suffering and pain are some the main ones. I do not like them so I will not do it unto others and not because I don’t want “others do them unto me”. Not having been conned by a religion does not mean the inability to distinguish from a universal right and wrong, quite the opposite. All of life’s experiences are external and they mould your character. An atheist is simply some one who does not believe in a deity and not some psychopath with ADD.

Can you please define this "universal right and wrong"? If not you, then who gets to define it? You may not like suffering and pain, but Jeffrey Dahmer liked it a lot. To him it was just fine. Why is your version more valid than his? Who are we to tell him what is right and wrong? Remember - no external guides, he gets to decide, right? Otherwise you are no better than the weak minded fools who've been conned by religion.

And remember that you, with your "genetic" sense of right and wrong did not pop onto a virgin society that allowed you to create your morality from scratch. You arrived at the tail end of 2000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition and morality, into a society who's laws, customs, and definitions of "right and wrong" are directly derived from that history. If there is anything to your theory of a "genetic" sense of right and wrong, then you must look at the last few millennia to see how it got there.

I would guess that if you lived in the Brazilian rain forest with some remote tribe that still ate their enemies (the ones they didn't enslave), you would have to look long and hard to find any semblance of your Westernized sense of right and wrong.



There is a basic and universal right and wrong and the majority of us have this embedded in our genes and need them for living in a complex society. Having a deity or religion with get-out clauses just makes matters worse.

Jails are full of people without those embedded genes. And those are just the ones that we managed to catch and convict. Now, if your argument is to hold water, it is wrong to put them in jail in the first place, because we are forcing them to live by our rules, no?



I’d have more trust in a decent atheist than some hick that needs written and approved guidance to direct his/her life as that is an indication that he/she may not have a spine.

What is a "decent" atheist? One who lives by their own set of rules, such as Joe Ball or John Wayne Gacy, or one who conforms to greater Judeo-Christian society and stays out of trouble? For you to define them as "decent" would mean that you are comparing them to an external standard of decency, and you have already said that you're sick and tired of that kind of thing.

See what I'm getting at?

The concept of rules, of law, of conformity have nothing to do with religion. Even if all religion disappeared tomorrow, in order to have a society that would last more than a week, rules must be established. The next question is of course, what are the rules to be based on? Who's rule book do we use as a guide - the one from Jesus, or the one from Joe Ball? And no matter which one we pick, there will be folks sitting around grousing about how everybody following the rules is a weak minded conformist. :|

[walford]

An atheist is simply some one who does not believe in a deity and not some psychopath with ADD.No, an atheist is someone who is CERTAIN that there is no Deity. That is just as dogmatic as your garden-variety fundie because it involves a finite being making absolutist judgements about the Infinite. At least an Agnostic concedes the possibility that there are truths that transcend one's capacity to understand/control.


...Not having been conned by a religion does not mean the inability to distinguish from a universal right and wrong, quite the opposite. All of life’s experiences are external and they mould your character...Can you please define this "universal right and wrong"? If not you, then who gets to define it? You may not like suffering and pain, but Jeffrey Dahmer liked it a lot.

And remember that you, with your "genetic" sense of right and wrong did not pop onto a virgin society that allowed you to create your morality from scratch. You arrived at the tail end of 2000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition and morality, into a society who's laws, customs, and definitions of "right and wrong" are directly derived from that history.Our moral code, be it secular or theological, is not a matter of our respective 'feelings,' genetics or environmental molding. It is a matter of the most fundamental of Natures laws, that of cause and effect. From the link (http://utopia-unmasked.us/extext.html) in my previous post:
There is only one reality and only one set of rules. It is up to each one of us to discover the nature of reality and what these rules are. If we fail to act according to the rules, the laws of nature will automatically be set in motion to correct us. No one is exempt. The laws of nature cannot be cajoled, pleaded with, threatened nor cheated. This is how the Almighty communicates with us all, believer and non-believer alike.

I’d have more trust in a decent atheist than some hick that needs written and approved guidance to direct his/her life as that is an indication that he/she may not have a spine....what are the rules to be based on? Who's rule book do we use as a guide - the one from Jesus, or the one from Joe Ball? And no matter which one we pick, there will be folks sitting around grousing about how everybody following the rules is a weak minded conformist. :|There are more choices available than from a psychopathic serial killer and a religion that claims to be the sole path to the Divine. The fact is, valid and effective religions developed outside the Middle East, long before the God of Abraham was worshipped. There were indeed universal principles, but they were not generated by man. From the same essay:...Our capacity to understand the nature of existence is still quite limited, so we shouldn’t be so quick to deride our early ancestors’ efforts at apprehending the infinite. If they had not developed a workable framework with which to engage their environment, we wouldn’t be here.

Our forebears thus developed religions as a way to comprise and elucidate the order of things in such a way that even a small child could understand.

For this to be done, a set of consistent and universal rules would need to be devised. These should be based upon the objective [externally-generated]. ‘Don’t look at the Sun for too long, the God will take your sight.’ ‘Put the juice from this plant on your cut, the Green Spirit will heal it faster.’ Through trial and error, people would observe and experiment with the things around them to find out what and what not to eat; where it is safe to sleep; plants that can heal or kill, etc. If the sanction of Deity is invoked to support these findings, the religion can be seen as consistent and beneficial.

If, on the other hand, the rules are instead subjective [internally-generated], they will be based upon the arbitrary whim of a cult-leader. Instead of listening to the voices of nature, the cult will be obeying the voices in their leader’s head [mass psychosis]. Such a tribe wouldn’t last long. In those days, people didn’t have the luxury of high technology and government programs to protect them from the consequences of their poor choices...Whether we are secular or theological, we must be humble enough to accept that we do not make the rules here.

If we arrogantly decide that we are Divinely Chosen and thus the voices in our heads can guide us to impose our theology by the sword we are committing blasphemy.

If we arrogantly decide that we are so Clever that we can devise an ideal system that can overcome the Laws of Nature and are thus free to impose our Perfect System by the sword we are committing a secular from of blasphemy.

In either case -- as history has repeatedly shown -- the more purely we enact our man-made folly, the more catastrophic the result. There is no exception to this axiom. None.

[Tielir999]

All i got to say is that article is a load of BS

[Lazy Lob]

@2Sheds
Being able to distinguish right from wrong is the cornerstone of morality. Who do you think laid down the Judeo-Christian principles of morality? Man did and it wasn’t dictated to him by some man with a white beard sitting on a cloud in one day. Using Dahmer as an example to describe atheists is not only insulting but also is scraping the bottom of the barrel. I could throw back at you many more names of religious adherents who have committed worse crimes and that are presently committing them in the name of their lord and master. Jails are full of these guys. Where is their sense of morality? After all they subscribe to a religion. You see the majority of people in jail aren’t there because one set of rules works and the other doesn’t. They are there, mostly, because they did something bad and no set of rules, whether religious or not could have prevented that. Even so I would not be at all surprised that convicts of religious denominations outnumber convict atheists.

I am not saying atheists do not commit crimes, they do. What I am saying that if religious adherents commit crimes, and some of the worst in history then what is the use of an archaic rule book that has to inform you of what is right and wrong?

You are also asserting that “my” (it is not mine alone, it is encoded in our genes and culture) sense of right and wrong somehow appeared because of Judeo-Christian morality. How did societies coexist before then? How were the Phoenicians, Greeks or Romans (to name but a few) able to create stable societies? They may have had what some people consider proto-religions but they had no real guides from these deities on how to live their day to day lives. And they certainly weren’t all Dahmers. Socrates was an atheist for example. Any human that creates or lives in a complex society knows that there must be a set of rules so that society can flourish and for that human not to be kicked out. It’s called survival. You can sugar coat it any way you like but it boils down to the same thing. You don’t have to go back millennia as you say. The Romans existed “about the time” when Christianity was born. Yes, yes I know the Romans disappeared but it wasn’t because of lacking religion……. But millennia have distilled and accentuated this morality in humans. This process is in a way Darwinian but man-made at the same time. If a person committed a crime he would be expelled from the settlement. The settlement had a greater chance of survival as a group. Therefore the survivors were the people who were more likely to accept these rules. So by genetics and culture this has been passed down to the cultures we have today. Some times we write it down for philosophical debate other times we arrogantly say “that it’s the word of god” and that it must be followed without question. But christianity has only been around 2005 years depending on one’s take on it. It is by christianity’s “weakness” that a more secular, pragmatic and even atheist society has emerged.

There is no point comparing the first human settlements with what we have now but to argue that our conscious sense of morality comes from Judeo-Christian religion is absurd and at best a Catch 22. It has purpose for those who need to believe in something written and approved. But humans as well as some other animals (to a lesser degree) have a sense of what is right and wrong and that has been heightened by group survival skills.

Judeo-Christian religion is just another set of man made laws that are now obsolete. They had a similar purpose as the ones that you say “have nothing to do with religion”. How many on MP.NET can quote the 10 commandments without googling them? In fact how many in the west can do that? Yet they are the basic rules of morality but in written form for hicks who probably can’t even remember them. From my stand point you have to be a prat to believe that god gave Moses the tablets.


Definition of atheist. Theos means god in ancient Greek. If you are theistic you are a believer in some type of god. The “a” is privative so atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any type of god or deity. That is all, no more no less. We as atheists don’t have all the answers, far from it. We believe that the monotheistic religions are best bordering on arrogance as they generally do tend to believe that they have the answers. For you to extrapolate from saying that we believe that we set our own moral values to even comparing us to Dahmer makes you sound as if you are the type of firm or even fundamentalist religious adherent as I have just described.



@Walford

“You say potato, I say potatoe”?

I say: An atheist is simply some one who does not believe in a deity.

You reply: No, an atheist is someone who is CERTAIN that there is no Deity.

Now that’s being pedantic. Most atheists are as NOT as arrogant to believe we have all the answers. In fact we are atheists because we firmly believe we DON’T. But on the other hand we won’t submit to blind faith.



Phew! Now time for a stiff single malt. ;)

[walford]

I say: An atheist is simply some one who does not believe in a deity. You reply: No, an atheist is someone who is CERTAIN that there is no Deity. Now that’s being pedantic.Really (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=pedantic)?

Most atheists are as NOT as arrogant to believe we have all the answers. In fact we are atheists because we firmly believe we DON’T. But on the other hand we won’t submit to blind faith.If you concede the possibility that you do not have all of the answers, then you must also concede that there may be Deity. If that is the case, you are not an atheist, but an agnostic.

But if you firmly hold that all of those who have faith in Deity are by definition blind in their convictions, you are a finite being arrogantly making absolutist judgements, not only of the faithful, but also of the Infinite. That is a secular form of fundamentalist dogmatism, pure and simple.

[Lazy Lob]

I say: An atheist is simply some one who does not believe in a deity. You reply: No, an atheist is someone who is CERTAIN that there is no Deity. Now that’s being pedantic.Really (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=pedantic)?

Yes, pedantic and very. But no harm done.


If you concede the possibility that you do not have all of the answers, then you must also concede that there may be Deity. If that is the case, you are not an atheist, but an agnostic.

Not at all. First of all I do not just concede to the possibility, it is a fact. It's not only me, NO one has all the answers. How the hell do you go from that to conclude that I must have to concede that there is a deity? You have "left out a lot of lines of calculation there mate with no decimal points". Chalk and cheese. Unless you are not impartial and viewing the subject from a devout "believers" pont of view. Are you religious?


But if you firmly hold that all of those who have faith in Deity are by definition blind in their convictions, you are a finite being arrogantly making absolutist judgements, not only of the faithful, but also of the Infinite. That is a secular form of fundamentalist dogmatism, pure and simple.

Yes of the faithful but not of the infinite (why the capital I?). That definition to which you refer is theirs not mine so the arrongance is theirs, that is the essence of religious faith. If it wasn't it wouldn't be faith. How do you manage to link blind convictions to "the infinite"? What's this infinite malarkey you're referring to?

Secular fundametalism is atheism. What the hell is "a secular form of fundamentalist dogmatism", sounds like an open ended description of nothing. U taking the piss? It cannot be a dogma as atheism is not an organisation. But anyway according to the faithful we are not finite so therefore I cannot be arrogant if I follow your argument.

[walford]

I say: An atheist is simply some one who does not believe in a deity. You reply: No, an atheist is someone who is CERTAIN that there is no Deity. Now that’s being pedantic.Really (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=pedantic)?Yes, pedantic and very. But no harm done.Going by the term's definition, your assertion that my description of the exact meaning of atheism as being "marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects" is gratuitous -- as well as insultingly unwarranted. Wanting of any substantiation, I flatly reject your empty characterization.


If you concede the possibility that you do not have all of the answers, then you must also concede that there may be Deity. If that is the case, you are not an atheist, but an agnostic. Not at all. First of all I do not just concede to the possibility, it is a fact. It's not only me, NO one has all the answers. How the hell do you go from that to conclude that I must have to concede that there is a deity?There is a huge difference between 'is' and 'may be,' which is why I chose my words carefully. The point that I'm making is that if you concede that you do not have absolute knowledge of that which cannot be PROVEN, then you must also concede that you cannot definitively assert that it is by default DISPROVEN.

That is simple logic.

If you do not definitively hold that there is or is not Deity, you are by definition an agnostic. If, on the otherhand, you hold the unprovability of the existence of Deity as definitive proof non-existence, you are indeed an athiest who must commit a logical fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/negfroma.html) in order to hold such a position.

You have "left out a lot of lines of calculation there mate with no decimal points". Chalk and cheese. Unless you are not impartial and viewing the subject from a devout "believers" pont of view. Are you religious?1. Your characterizations of my position are colorful, but are no substitute for a coherent counter-argument.
2. Define 'religious.' I don't use that word myself, because it is too vague and subjective.


But if you firmly hold that all of those who have faith in Deity are by definition blind in their convictions, you are a finite being arrogantly making absolutist judgements, not only of the faithful, but also of the Infinite. That is a secular form of fundamentalist dogmatism, pure and simple.Yes of the faithful but not of the infinite (why the capital I?). That definition to which you refer is theirs not mine so the arrongance is theirs, that is the essence of religious faith. If it wasn't it wouldn't be faith. You are also being arrogant if you use your 'non-knowledge' of Deity as definitive proof of non-existence and thusly assert that those who have faith in something that you do not apprehend to eligible to be defined as blind BECAUSE of their conviction.

How do you manage to link blind convictions to "the infinite"? What's this infinite malarkey you're referring to?The Infinite capitalized refers to all of the possibilities that Deity can encompass. From the link (http://utopia-unmasked.us/extext.html) cited earlier:There may be a singular agent of creation. The universe may be a contiguous whole, which in its entirety, is an identity of which we are a part. This is what some may refer to as the Almighty or the One (http://utopia-unmasked.us/theonetext.html). Either way, there is no way that any finite particle the likes of one of us could logically be capable of comprehending the totality of such an entity. It is entirely possible that the One may appear to us in a form(s) that a particular group [at a particular period of time and place in history] would be able to understand and accept as Divine.
Secular fundametalism is atheism. It cannot be a dogma as atheism is not an organisation.Lack of a formal organization does not define dogmatism. What defines it is exclusivism, which is what defines all Utopian ideology (http://utopia-unmasked.us/utopiatext.html). Karl Marx was as dogmatic in his self-made secular system long before there were any organizations dedicated to his ideology.

But anyway according to the faithful we are not finite so therefore I cannot be arrogant if I follow your argument.To which 'faith' are you referring? Those who worship the God of Abraham hold that life is Eternal. They do not extrapolate this to mean that we are each one of us Infinite.

That is in fact the essence of subjectivism (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Subjectivism.html), the ideology that holds that we each carry our own self-made Universe around with us and that our limited ability to grasp it is proof that the Universe itself is limited.

Sound familiar?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Walford & LazyLob - very interesting stuff. I think you're both kind of travelling down the same path in your disagreements with me.

I just want to clear a couple of things up. First - in my comments I use Jesus a lot as an example - but by no means am I asserting that Christianity is the only valid religion. I'm just using the J word as shorthand for any Westernized, reformed religion. For the record, I'd consider myself an agnostic.

Secondly -this concept that man will develop a beneficial morality in order to survive and flourish is interesting. It's obviously true - but I don't think that's the point here. It is not the development of this system itself that I'm arguing with, but the power and authority to enforce it that I'm arguing.

On a societal level, leaders wishing to gain power will naturally try to institute rules (of whatever source) to make their society successful. But this concept also holds true for the individual. Thievery and violence prove to work very well for the little guy. So then the leader's morality and the individual's morality collide. The leader will seek to punish the individual. But what authority does he have? "Because I say so?".

After all, the individual did not choose to be born, did not choose to be trapped in a nation with arbitrary morals and ethics contrary to his own. How can the state wield the authority over the individual if the State recognizes that it's rules are just as baseless as the criminal's?

If we as a society, state that there is no God - besides that being a flagrant violation of the rule against a state sanctioned religion (atheism) - then the individual becomes the sum total of their existence. And since each person is then entitled to define their own morality, free of the bounds of external forces, the state would have a very hard time putting people in jail. If you steal a wallet - the state will say it's wrong, the individual will say it is not wrong because it was good for me, and I am all that counts. The state says theft is bad for society. The individual says who cares, society doesn't count, I do. The individual could argue that if benefit to society is the only thing that counts, why are there national borders, why import tariffs, why do we fight wars - why is this piece of land we live on more important that that one - for the state's logic to hold up, they would have to extend their morality to international relations which would functionally end the nation as a unique entity.

>edit<
So what I'm trying to say is....religion is probably a necessary evil :lol: . A religious or agnostic society is probably required for the sake of stability. I do not see how a fully god-less atheist society could hold together.

[Telnyashka]

ugh...Another Religion topic...

[walford]

What is critical for a peaceful, just and prosperous society is a commitment to develop moral standards that are objective/universal/externally generated. If you will, Deity can be regarded as a personification of that concept, but a secular version (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Objectivity.html) can also be based upon this concept.

The alternative would be a subjective/particular/internally generated moral-ethical system. This is the essence of the 'what is right for you might not be right for me' mindset. Then what is critical is not dealing with reality, but other peoples' thoughts. Rather than citing evidence or offering proof, force must be used instead to attack threatening dissident/heretical ideas. This has been put into practice in theocratic and religious forms since the dawn of civilization.

The result has been w/o exception oppression, war and poverty.

[PeterRJG]

ugh...Another Religion topic...

You've just noticed that after 6 pages?

woot

[Tielir999]

ugh...Another Religion topic...

You've just noticed that after 6 pages?

woot

No he posted on the first page check it out lol dk y he said that because he already posted before about the topic

[PeterRJG]

No he posted on the first page check it out lol dk y he said that because he already posted before about the topic

Which makes his comment even less logical. Pray tell me, what does "dk y" mean in English?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

What is critical for a peaceful, just and prosperous society is a commitment to develop moral standards that are objective/universal/externally generated. If you will, Deity can be regarded as a personification of that concept, but a secular version (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Objectivity.html) can also be based upon this concept.


From your link-


To be objective, reality must be an explicit standard to be compared to

I agree with that, and it's where I see the "kinder, gentler" objective reality breaking down. For example, for the system to work, the State would have to establish what reality is. How are they going to do that, in a legislative session? And consider that's exactly what happened under Hitler, where he had his reality, and he was the state. So the resulting morality was a bit skewed.

For the lefties out there, consider what would happen if when the Republicans were in power (as they are now) - they establish reality. And they establish that social assistance programs stifle the human spirit, so all are abolished. Public assistance is now immoral. As is taxing the rich, so the poor and middle class pay all the taxes. Disproportionately taxing the rich is now immoral. These are only practical applications of social policy that deal with reality, not external religious influence. Maybe we should have a special court like the Supreme Court, appointed for life etc. - the Reality Court which defines our reality :lol:

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

which ignorant being deleted my post to walford?

[Telnyashka]

lol check out the top of this thread

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/9652/athiest3kl.jpg

man athiests are hot rofl

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

I say: An atheist is simply some one who does not believe in a deity. You reply: No, an atheist is someone who is CERTAIN that there is no Deity. Now that’s being pedantic.Really (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=pedantic)?

Most atheists are as NOT as arrogant to believe we have all the answers. In fact we are atheists because we firmly believe we DON’T. But on the other hand we won’t submit to blind faith.If you concede the possibility that you do not have all of the answers, then you must also concede that there may be Deity. If that is the case, you are not an atheist, but an agnostic.

But if you firmly hold that all of those who have faith in Deity are by definition blind in their convictions, you are a finite being arrogantly making absolutist judgements, not only of the faithful, but also of the Infinite. That is a secular form of fundamentalist dogmatism, pure and simple.

you are being just as absolutistic by preaching that there is god without being able to prove it.

[Belrick]

You never heard atheists bombing abort clinics or killing doctors who make abortions.

Nevermind that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler are the biggest mass murders of the 20th century, all promoted atheism.

Hitler was big into Darwinism. If there is no God, there is no right and wrong. Darwin teaches the survival of the fittest. If Germany was stronger than the Jews, why fight nature?

NN

Hitler was a choir boy catholic. The motto of the SS was God is with us.
Pol Pot and Stalin were athiests but perhaps they killed because they were phychopaths not because they denied the exsitance of a invisible being floating in the clouds that you can only see once youre dead?

[Belrick]

I agree with the author. Religion in our world has caused nothing but pain.

Hopefully its only a matter of years before people wake up and realize religion is just for power, and there is no spirituality in this world. Wake up people...

Yes, churches are full of the faithful, each lusting for power. "Oh lord, please grant me super powers, so that I might smite my enemies, who have been naughty in my sight..."


No lol. There churchs are full of the faithful mindless sheep giving there tythes to those lusting power using religion as there tool to gain it.

[walford]

What is critical for a peaceful, just and prosperous society is a commitment to develop moral standards that are objective/universal/externally generated. If you will, Deity can be regarded as a personification of that concept, but a secular version (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Objectivity.html) can also be based upon this concept.
...For example, for the system to work, the State would have to establish what reality is. How are they going to do that, in a legislative session?We really do not disagree on this point. The State has no business establishing what reality is.

That would be a secular form of establishing religion, which is the essence of Utopianism. No, the government's only legitimate function is to protect human rights through the police, courts and military -- with consent of the governed. And no, that does not mean that we get to vote upon what reality is and have this epistemology imposed on the minority.

States and individuals must allow for the fact that we cannot determine reality, but -- being externally generated -- discover it. Then the Laws of Nature will automatically let us know how close our practically applied conclusions have been to objective reality.

And consider that's exactly what happened under Hitler, where he had his reality, and he was the state. So the resulting morality was a bit skewed.Hitler most certainly did not have 'his' reality. He chose to create a false one [i.e. subjective, internally generated] in which he was somehow gifted with the ability to know what was best for his people and the region. The more purely an irrational metaphysical system is put into practice, the quicker -- and more catastrophic -- are the results. The Laws of Nature, via the Law of Cause-and-Effect spares no one.

...Maybe we should have a special court like the Supreme Court, appointed for life etc. - the Reality Court which defines our reality :lol:Nothing of Man can define reality. We can only humbly seek to know reality for what it is or perish in our folly.

you are being just as absolutistic by preaching that there is god without being able to prove it.You will find me preaching nothing of the kind, not in any of my posts nor in the links to my articles. In an earlier post, I stated my position on the matter thusly: ...if you concede that you do not have absolute knowledge of that which cannot be PROVEN, then you must also concede that you cannot definitively assert that it is by default DISPROVEN.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

from your post:


There is only one reality and only one set of rules. It is up to each one of us to discover the nature of reality and what these rules are. If we fail to act according to the rules, the laws of nature will automatically be set in motion to correct us. No one is exempt. The laws of nature cannot be cajoled, pleaded with, threatened nor cheated. This is how the Almighty communicates with us all, believer and non-believer alike.

one reality, almighty communicating with us. - This says that there is god and he created universe with certain rules that everyone must follow.
also on the side note, i dont see the point of human existance then if everyone has to follow a predifined path while trying to make sure that they are following the path correctly.

[Tielir999]

No he posted on the first page check it out lol dk y he said that because he already posted before about the topic

Which makes his comment even less logical. Pray tell me, what does "dk y" mean in English?

sorry i was in a hurry dk y means Dont Know Why

[Lazy Lob]

The Infinite capitalized refers to all of the possibilities that Deity can encompass.

I thought so. You are a follower of a god. Only religious types use a capital I for infinite. Your ("believers" in general) arguments always become donnish and pedagogic citing with near irrelevant links. You always predispose the fact that a deity MUST exist and end up with your time honoured request that if we are sure that a deity does not exist then we must prove it. Oh dear. So wrong and on so many levels...and life is so short and finite.

I refer to Mr. Amerikosskit_xyu:-

you are being just as absolutistic by preaching that there is god without being able to prove it.


That is in fact the essence of subjectivism (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Subjectivism.html), the ideology that holds that we each carry our own self-made Universe around with us and that our limited ability to grasp it is proof that the Universe itself is limited.

Sound familiar?
Yes, sounds like you. ;)

[Belrick]

Religious people claim many things.

They look into a fire and the understanding of the event is beyond them so they see the workings of a powerful being creating light and heat and call it a fire god.

The rest of us use our intellect to work out how fire occurs.

One day all of humanity will grow up but that day is not here yet.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

But if you firmly hold that all of those who have faith in Deity are by definition blind in their convictions, you are a finite being arrogantly making absolutist judgements, not only of the faithful, but also of the Infinite. That is a secular form of fundamentalist dogmatism, pure and simple.

Do you refer to unbelivers as finite or to all humans?

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

refering to philosophical theories or analysis doesnt make anything credible since all philosiphical works contradict each other purposely or not.

about your link to definition of subjectivism. if you believe reality is what you percieve it to be then why would you just sit on your ass and wait for things to happen- as that descrption states? If i belive that reality is what i see it to be i would act to make that reality work for me, unless that definition means somehow you would use your mind to make things happen.

[walford]

from your post:
There is only one reality and only one set of rules. It is up to each one of us to discover the nature of reality and what these rules are. If we fail to act according to the rules, the laws of nature will automatically be set in motion to correct us. No one is exempt. The laws of nature cannot be cajoled, pleaded with, threatened nor cheated. This is how the Almighty communicates with us all, believer and non-believer alike.one reality, almighty communicating with us. - This says that there is god and he created universe with certain rules that everyone must follow. also on the side note, i dont see the point of human existance then if everyone has to follow a predifined path while trying to make sure that they are following the path correctly.These distorted assumptions about my monotheism and holding to some sort of predetermination are completely false. Here is a passage from the same essay (http://utopia-unmasked.us/extext.html) explaining how every tribe on the planet independently devised religion in order to successfully see to it that their genes would survive into the future. it gives an indication of the amount of flexibility possible on the form of Deity(s), but notes that we are constrained in the basic principles:It must be demonstrated that there is order in the universe and that justice ultimately prevails. These rules must be understood as being universal, rather than being applicable to some, depending upon social status. It must also be seen that every particle of existence is connected to a greater whole and, consequently, an isolated action in one place and time can potentially have lasting effect on everything else. Further, for a system to enhance the survival of the tribe into posterity, it must be made clear that a person has a stake in the condition of the world after he/she is gone.

The most basic and logical way to make such a system intelligible for even the simplest of cultures is to personify the agent responsible for fashioning all that exists and setting the rules, which govern all. Such an agent [or a consortium of agents] would indeed be conceived of as all-powerful – a god. Those who practice the major religions rooted in the Middle East say we are created in God’s image; a small minority asserts that we created our gods in our own image. Another very old belief is that we are each one of us a part of the mind and body of the Divine and, as such, share responsibility for, and contribute to, a Divine plan. The fact is, as finite beings, we can only theorize about the nature and form of the infinite. How it is you can conclude monotheism and predetermination from that says more about your own biases than it does about my actual position.


The Infinite capitalized refers to all of the possibilities that Deity can encompass.I thought so. You are a follower of a god. Only religious types use a capital I for infinite. Your ("believers" in general) arguments always become donnish and pedagogic citing with near irrelevant links. You always predispose the fact that a deity MUST exist and end up with your time honoured request that if we are sure that a deity does not exist then we must prove it. Oh dear. So wrong and on so many levels...and life is so short and finite.What I'm saying is that atheism is subjectively dogmatic in its absolutist assertion that there most definitely is NO deity because the lack of provability is proof in itself of non-existence.

Further, you have cited nothing that I have written that supports your patronizing characterizations. You simply throw around a few adjectives and give us no reason why we should join you in your condescending assessments. Doing such to an opposing argument is a shallow substitute for actual analysis. How could you make such assumptions of dogmatism on my part from this already posted passage?
There may be a singular agent of creation. The universe may be a contiguous whole, which in its entirety, is an identity of which we are a part. This is what some may refer to as the Almighty or the One. Either way, there is no way that any finite particle the likes of one of us could logically be capable of comprehending the totality of such an entity. It is entirely possible that the One may appear to us in a form(s) that a particular group [at a particular period of time and place in history] would be able to understand and accept as Divine. In other words, it is unlikely that ten thousand years ago in a central African jungle the Almighty appeared to the people there as is depicted in a Gothic stained glass panel.

Finite beings quarreling over the nature and form of the infinite is absurd at best. At worst, it serves evil. Even within certain religions disagreements over practices between sects can degenerate into an orgy of malevolence

That is in fact the essence of subjectivism (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Subjectivism.html), the ideology that holds that we each carry our own self-made Universe around with us and that our limited ability to grasp it is proof that the Universe itself is limited.

Sound familiar?
Yes, sounds like you. ;)I was referring to the part that you edited out and did not address: If you do not definitively hold that there is or is not Deity, you are by definition an agnostic. If, on the otherhand, you hold the unprovability of the existence of Deity as definitive proof non-existence, you are indeed an athiest who must commit a logical fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/negfroma.html) in order to hold such a position.
refering to philosophical theories or analysis doesnt make anything credible since all philosiphical works contradict each other purposely or not.Right. Given that some theories of physical science contradict each other, we can dismiss all physical science. Good luck dealing with reality with such a mindset.

about your link to definition of subjectivism. if you believe reality is what you percieve it to be then why would you just sit on your ass and wait for things to happen- as that descrption states? If i belive that reality is what i see it to be i would act to make that reality work for me, unless that definition means somehow you would use your mind to make things happen.The bolded part indeed describes a subjectivist epistemology -- i.e. that reality is affected by the perciever. Thus if you cannot see green, the color green does not exist in your self-made reality. From a moral standpoint, if you think that throwing Jews into ovens is a good thing, it is.

An objectivist one would hold that our senses are a useful tool to percieve reality, but have no effect whatsoever upon reality itself. Reality is universal, thus it is up to us to do our damnedest to make sure that our perception conforms to what is actually real.

===============================================
As has been repeatedly shown, both of you are resorting to fallacies, distorting the opposing point of view and attacking the person rather than the argument -- and offering no substantiation for your own assertions. Such is the MO of someone whose position is hopelessly weak.

[Lazy Lob]

As has been repeatedly shown, both of you are resorting to fallacies, distorting the opposing point of view and attacking the person rather than the argument -- and offering no substantiation for your own assertions. Such is the MO of someone whose position is hopelessly weak.

That in itself is an attack on the person and not the argument. The martyr's defence. The last line even sounds a bit like Brentmeister. But your argument is a fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantiam.

We basically agree, but from very different stand points. Look mate there is no passage I can quote that will convince you that god does not exist. You know that. As for being patronising look no further than your own arguments, you’ve also chucked around a few adjectives of your own. “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”, sound familiar?

This is the unbridgeable gap between an atheist and a believer. You say god exists with absolutely no proof of it. I say he doesn’t because of that very lack of proof. You say prove it. Another catch 22. On that basis anyone can assert anything they want and the more outlandish the better……as long as no one can disprove him. Even you must see how wrong that is…. I bet that you even have an answer to the stone paradox. One cannot even argue against Aquinas’ or Descartes’ visions of omnipotence as subjective logic breaks down.

I cannot give you a logical explanation for something that is logically impossible yet you believe to be true. That is faith. But I can ask that when people peddle it to do it in a less arrogant manner without looking down their noses at people who won’t be taken in.

BTW as far as I’m concerned the logical fallacy argument breaks down if you bring the dimension of time into the equation but not for you. Did god exist before he was “invented”?

I know that all possibilities are open, including the one that god does not exist. I would rather take that one and "commit" a logical fallacy. Taking that further, one can argue the same on god's existence.

# One can prove with certainty that an entity does not exist if (a) the concept of that entity is incoherent, or (b) the existence of that entity is logically incompatible with obviously present states of affairs.

# One can be rationally justified in claiming that an entity does not exist without being certain that it does not exist. This justification comes from (a) the improbability that that entity exists given various states of affairs, and/or (b) the principle of parsimony coupled with a lack of evidence for the existence of that entity.

One final point, just to compliment you on a well planned argument. Very well done Sir.

@2Sheds. There is one aspect of humans that is not dictated br religion and that is empathy. Empathy is even more valuable to a "community" than religious morality.

[ogukuo72]

It is disheartening to see how liberals have turned against religions. In the 1950's and 1960's, for example, religious organisations were at the fore-front of the civil-rights struggles. Religious organisations continue to play significant roles in helping the weak and the poor around the world.

The break between the liberal and the religious organisations seemed to have happened in the 1970's, when liberals became more radicalised, and began to reject "traditional values" and seek to extend the victories that they won in the civil rights arena to other areas, including homo****** rights and abortion rights. The 1970's was also the decade of the *** revolution, where such traditional institutions as marriage began to be attacked and replaced by liberals, who increasingly seek to portray a hedonistic lifestyle as a rights issue, instead of a lifestyle issue.

This was also the genesis of the struggle between the liberal wing and the conservative wings of many religious organisations, where the liberal wing is usually based in western countries, while the conservative wing is based in other areas. More and more, the liberals in the west seek to impose their views on the rest, leading to serious conflicts within the organisations.

This is egged on by the so called securalists, usually people of the extreme left, trained in the Marxist line of thinking, who rejects religion. Equipped with their well-practiced arguments in nilhlism, they seeked to defame religious organisations which were serious rivals to the hearts and minds of the people. Their attacks on the conservatives and traditionists in religious organisations were foolishly aided by the liberal wing of the organisations in the mistakened belief that they were allies. What happened in the end was the fracture of the organisations.

The true enemy is the nilhlists and the anarchists, who seek to destroy the institutions and values that have helped humanity survive over the centuries. The al-Qaeda terrorists are not religious men in the traditional sense, but nilhilists and anarchists who despised the traditional order, who want to proclaim their own order, and who do not mind killing and sacrificing themselves to achieve it.

It is the radicals of all stripes that we should fear.

[hughdotoh]

It is disheartening to see how liberals have turned against religions. In the 1950's and 1960's, for example, religious organisations were at the fore-front of the civil-rights struggles. Religious organisations continue to play significant roles in helping the weak and the poor around the world.

The break between the liberal and the religious organisations seemed to have happened in the 1970's, when liberals became more radicalised, and began to reject "traditional values" and seek to extend the victories that they won in the civil rights arena to other areas, including homo****** rights and abortion rights. The 1970's was also the decade of the *** revolution, where such traditional institutions as marriage began to be attacked and replaced by liberals, who increasingly seek to portray a hedonistic lifestyle as a rights issue, instead of a lifestyle issue.

This was also the genesis of the struggle between the liberal wing and the conservative wings of many religious organisations, where the liberal wing is usually based in western countries, while the conservative wing is based in other areas. More and more, the liberals in the west seek to impose their views on the rest, leading to serious conflicts within the organisations.

This is egged on by the so called securalists, usually people of the extreme left, trained in the Marxist line of thinking, who rejects religion. Equipped with their well-practiced arguments in nilhlism, they seeked to defame religious organisations which were serious rivals to the hearts and minds of the people. Their attacks on the conservatives and traditionists in religious organisations were foolishly aided by the liberal wing of the organisations in the mistakened belief that they were allies. What happened in the end was the fracture of the organisations.

The true enemy is the nilhlists and the anarchists, who seek to destroy the institutions and values that have helped humanity survive over the centuries. The al-Qaeda terrorists are not religious men in the traditional sense, but nilhilists and anarchists who despised the traditional order, who want to proclaim their own order, and who do not mind killing and sacrificing themselves to achieve it.

It is the radicals of all stripes that we should fear.

People also seem to forget that the Catholics Church also contributes to science.

Gregor Mendel, father of genetic science, was a Catholic monk.

Padre Faura was a meteorologist in the Far East who devised a system of predicting and tracking typhoons.

Jesuit missionaries were pretty much also naturalists wherever they went, keeping detailed records of flora and fauna of their respective missions.

Yet they found religious fulfillment in their works, far different from the bible-bangers who claim that all science is a betrayal of God.

All it needs is a little sobriety to know that belief in a divine being and secular, objective science can co-exist.

[jd123]

Uneducated people believe they know everything. Educated people know they know little.

A little ant climbs out from his little hole and sees the sky, it is blue with sunshine, then returns home tells everyone he saw the world, it's blue; another ant climbs out from his little hole and see the sky, it is blue with grey clouds, then returns home tells everyone the world is not blue, but blue with grey spot; another ant climbs out from his little hole and sees a human standing there blocking his view, he returns home, and tells everyone the world is not blue or blue with grey spot, but it's an ugly hairy thing with only 4 legs.....

:|

[b.scheller]

Uneducated people believe they know everything. Educated people know they know little.

I took great offense, in this stereotype. Your generalization here, is unprovable, besides your ambigious term "uneducated people" has no meaning behind it.

What is an uneducated person, who are they? What kind of education must they receive to be "educated", must they participate in politick, economics? Do they have to finish university or even highschool? Do they have to of certain i.q to be considered educated? Or must they have a good paying job, to be educated.

Your generalizing people, as if it could just be defined into one sub-category. You have neither the right, nor the knowledge, and besides you did not define what you meant, when you stated "uneducated people".

So you should watch, before you start stereotyping "people", and be prepared to define the term and argue and defend what your stating, or else their is no point of getting involved.

-b.scheller

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

As ive followed Walford's arguement about religion with another russian guy that was banned, and as i see it now: Walfrod creates an alternate reality with his analytical view of god or existance and uses them as referense and facts and then claims that he provided facts while other party didnt.

I asked Walford if he believed in existance of god and he again posted some 2 page referense of his other text instead of giving a simple reply. Infact i could translate most of Walfrod's text with half the words used into very simple english that everyone will be able to understand, in my opinion not alot of people would even want to read what Walfrod writes due to expression of his thought in writen form.

If you were so morally correct and really knew what you were talking about you wouldnt be so dodgy in your arguements. As a matter of fact, as a prove I can tell that you dont hold any high social position as you would like to hold and spend most of your time on the net writing this bs.
I respect your need and want for knowledge but your not using them the way they should be used.

[rocket13]

It is disheartening to see how liberals have turned against religions. In the 1950's and 1960's, for example, religious organisations were at the fore-front of the civil-rights struggles. Religious organisations continue to play significant roles in helping the weak and the poor around the world.

The break between the liberal and the religious organisations seemed to have happened in the 1970's, when liberals became more radicalised, and began to reject "traditional values" and seek to extend the victories that they won in the civil rights arena to other areas, including homo****** rights and abortion rights. The 1970's was also the decade of the *** revolution, where such traditional institutions as marriage began to be attacked and replaced by liberals, who increasingly seek to portray a hedonistic lifestyle as a rights issue, instead of a lifestyle issue.

This was also the genesis of the struggle between the liberal wing and the conservative wings of many religious organisations, where the liberal wing is usually based in western countries, while the conservative wing is based in other areas. More and more, the liberals in the west seek to impose their views on the rest, leading to serious conflicts within the organisations.

This is egged on by the so called securalists, usually people of the extreme left, trained in the Marxist line of thinking, who rejects religion. Equipped with their well-practiced arguments in nilhlism, they seeked to defame religious organisations which were serious rivals to the hearts and minds of the people. Their attacks on the conservatives and traditionists in religious organisations were foolishly aided by the liberal wing of the organisations in the mistakened belief that they were allies. What happened in the end was the fracture of the organisations.

The true enemy is the nilhlists and the anarchists, who seek to destroy the institutions and values that have helped humanity survive over the centuries. The al-Qaeda terrorists are not religious men in the traditional sense, but nilhilists and anarchists who despised the traditional order, who want to proclaim their own order, and who do not mind killing and sacrificing themselves to achieve it.

It is the radicals of all stripes that we should fear.

People also seem to forget that the Catholics Church also contributes to science.

Gregor Mendel, father of genetic science, was a Catholic monk.

Padre Faura was a meteorologist in the Far East who devised a system of predicting and tracking typhoons.

Jesuit missionaries were pretty much also naturalists wherever they went, keeping detailed records of flora and fauna of their respective missions.

Yet they found religious fulfillment in their works, far different from the bible-bangers who claim that all science is a betrayal of God.

All it needs is a little sobriety to know that belief in a divine being and secular, objective science can co-exist.

But also didn't the church suppress alot of science / scientist. Wasn't Galileo shun and excommunicated for his ideas (some of which was already known before church took to power and suppressed it). I have a view about astronomy it explained why the church got into the sciences. I'll have to pull it up again to see what they said, but it wasn't to help mankind for sure.

Now their big taboo is cloning and stem cell research. They want us to stop from exploring those areas. Hell I remember one church official making a statment that its ok to learn about the big bang but not to know what before it because thats god's realm.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

and by the way, You ARE the argument when everything written is from your OWN opinion.

[jd123]

Uneducated people believe they know everything. Educated people know they know little.

I took great offense, in this stereotype. Your generalization here, is unprovable, besides your ambigious term "uneducated people" has no meaning behind it.

What is an uneducated person, who are they? What kind of education must they receive to be "educated", must they participate in politick, economics? Do they have to finish university or even highschool? Do they have to of certain i.q to be considered educated? Or must they have a good paying job, to be educated.

Your generalizing people, as if it could just be defined into one sub-category. You have neither the right, nor the knowledge, and besides you did not define what you meant, when you stated "uneducated people".

So you should watch, before you start stereotyping "people", and be prepared to define the term and argue and defend what your stating, or else their is no point of getting involved.

-b.scheller

People who believe they know everything are uneducated, people who know they know nothing are educated; People who like to argue are uneducated, people who like to listen are educated; People who like to question are educated, people who like to answer are uneducated.

Generalization is not a concept, it's an act. When you question someone stereotyping on the internet, then you are just plainly slow. I do not argue or defend my stating. I'm just a stupid man who likes to question the wise folks on the internet. My life is too simple to win a debate.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I agree with the author. Religion in our world has caused nothing but pain.

Hopefully its only a matter of years before people wake up and realize religion is just for power, and there is no spirituality in this world. Wake up people...

Yes, churches are full of the faithful, each lusting for power. "Oh lord, please grant me super powers, so that I might smite my enemies, who have been naughty in my sight..."

No lol. There churchs are full of the faithful mindless sheep giving there tythes to those lusting power using religion as there tool to gain it.

Ah, yeah. If possible, could you speak in more general terms?



Hitler was a choir boy catholic. The motto of the SS was God is with us.


So all I have to do is say God is with me to be a good Catholic?

Ahem....God is with me.


Whew, that was easy. In your face rest of the world's religions! I'm gonna go rob a bank and you can blame the Pope.

[walford]

Edit: clarification

The author and others claim that something can be proven to be non-existent by the mere fact of its unprovability. Citing unexplored "various states of affairs" or "lack of evidence" is insufficient for such certitude.

Furthermore, we are to accept that all forms of religion/faith/spirituality are by definition blind and exist for a variety of sinister reasons. Dogmatic or inclusive in practice, pantheism, monotheism, deism, polytheism, etc. are to be derided wholesale as the province of fools and their exploiters.

Even to allow for the possibility of Deity [as in agnosticism] is apparently beyond consideration.

History has proven otherwise. The fact is, every tribe has independently developed some form of religion. I have explored this subject at length and have come to the conclusion that we would not be here if not for our forebears seeking and embracing an objective source of morality as a means of survival. That they personified this concept as Deity [or did indeed experience a Divine presence] is not as important as looking for truth outward rather than inward. What then can we make of this? From the same essay (http://utopia-unmasked.us/extext.html):It may be uncomfortable for us to accept, but we are not meant to know or understand a great many things. We live our lives in uncertainty about whether there is [or are] a supreme being, what such a being would be like, what is right and wrong and what happens to us when we die. It is a statement of our character how we conduct ourselves given that uncertainty...

...Given that we cannot be sure of the form and nature of Divinity, we must not forget what our earliest ancestors discovered long ago: Life is a blessing which must be cherished and nurtured. Right and wrong are objectively real. Survival dictates that every effort must be made to discover which is which.Asking me what I believe, thus is asanine and is beside the point.

I have made the case instead that people claiming to have sanction to rule absolutely because of being either Divinely Chosen or secularly Gifted is the cause of the greatest evils in human history.
============================================

BTW, those of you who are whining at how I deal with personal attacks masquerading as reasoned arguments will have to get over it. People on this board who know me already are aware that I would prefer to keep the discussion fact/logic-based, but reserve the right to fling the **** right back at ya in spades, babe.

Don't start none, won't be none.

[b.scheller]

The motto of the SS was God is with us.


Your actually wrong, Gott Mit Uns (God is with us) was a Prussian motto, used first by the German Imperial Army at the time of World War I, it was revived by Hitler, for the use by the Wehrmacht during the Second World War.

"Meine Ehre Heist Treue" (Loyalty is my honour), was the actual SS motto, it was also an oath, that each SS-man and Officer alike swore. Gott mit uns, was never used by neither the SS nor the Waffen-SS. Loyalty is my honour, was a homage to the 'mysticism' of ancient Aryan Teutons, who bestowed loyalty above all other virtues. Hitler, believed himself to be very mystical, and believed that tapping into the old virtues of the teutonic knights, could somehow help out the master race, in their attempt at Germanization and Liebestraum.

Hope this cleared up, the common misconception.
-b.scheller

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

Edit: clarification

The author and others claim that something can be proven to be non-existent by the mere fact of its unprovability.

The author claims no such thing. be kind enough to show some reference if you dont agree with me.

[Lazy Lob]

Walford your self proclaimed “reasoned” argument boils down to two basics.

1) As throughout history many societies have had deities then they must exist.

2) You’ve googled a “brain tickler” to try to prove your own firmly held beliefs. Very much like using Escher’s waterfall to back an idea. Great fun but it doesn’t go anywhere. There are plenty of web sites showing you how to reason your point of view with the aid of these constructs.

One example of many to be found:

"Take the fraction 16/64. Now, canceling a six on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 16/64 = 1/4."
"Wait a second! You can't just cancel the six!"
"Oh, so you're telling us 16/64 is not equal to 1/4, are you?"


But your own argument is a fallacy in itself, which I told you in my previous post, “argumentum ad ignorantiam”. Yet you accuse my stance of being a fallacy. Great parlor trick but that’s all it is. Not only that but if you factor in time to your logic fallacy it breaks it apart. These fallacies are a dime a dozen. A real hoot.

So we end up discussing these brain ticklers……or not!

You can con yourself into believing whatever you want. But you most definitely have not made a case, far from it. And I would add, and I may be wrong here but you also seem to be quoting yourself to prove your points.

Quote: “I have made the case instead that people claiming………” is another of these fallacies. This is not proper discourse of ideas. I know you will probably now say “argumentum ad hominem”.

Just by stating that you are right and everyone else is wrong is a fact is not proof however much you like to believe that you “prefer to keep the discussion fact/logic-based”.

Here are a few names of the constructs:

• Accent
• Ad hoc
• Affirmation of the consequent
• Amphiboly
• Anecdotal evidence
• Argumentum ad antiquitatem
• Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force
• Argumentum ad crumenam
• Argumentum ad hominem
• Argumentum ad ignorantiam
• Argumentum ad lazarum
• Argumentum ad logicam
• Argumentum ad misericordiam
• Argumentum ad nauseam
• Argumentum ad novitatem
• Argumentum ad numerum
• Argumentum ad populum
• Argumentum ad verecundiam
• Audiatur et altera pars
• Bifurcation
• Circulus in demonstrando
• Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition
• Fallacies of composition
• Converse accident / Hasty generalization
• Converting a conditional
• *** hoc ergo propter hoc
• Denial of the antecedent
• The fallacy of accident / Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter
• Fallacy of division
• Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms
• The extended analogy
• Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion
• The Natural Law fallacy / Appeal to Nature
• The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy
• Non causa pro causa
• Non sequitur
• Petitio principii / Begging the question
• Plurium interrogationum / Many questions
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc
• Red herring
• Reification / Hypostatization
• Shifting the burden of proof
• The slippery slope argument
• Straw man
• Tu quoque
• Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle / "A is based on B" fallacies / "...is a type of..." fallacies

[2Sheds_Jackson]

...if I may jump in for a second


Walford your self proclaimed “reasoned” argument boils down to two basics.

1) As throughout history many societies have had deities then they must exist.

Please tell me that you don't really think this is what Walford has said.

If you missed this very elemental piece of the argument right off the bat, one wonders how (or why) you would even bother continuing with a second point.

[Lazy Lob]

...if I may jump in for a second


Walford your self proclaimed “reasoned” argument boils down to two basics.

1) As throughout history many societies have had deities then they must exist.

Please tell me that you don't really think this is what Walford has said.

If you missed this very elemental piece of the argument right off the bat, one wonders how (or why) you would even bother continuing with a second point.

You are quite right. I know Walford is trying to express some points logically but he has used his “logical fallacy” argument to try and prove that atheism is a contradiction. I have stated clearly I am an atheist. I have noticed that when he expresses some of his arguments he gives the impression that he follows a faith.

He has tried to deconstruct my lack of faith by inferring that there is a deity or at least the possibility of one. I’ve just followed that, simplification at its worse I know.

Why I continue? To tell you the truth I don't know but even I'm getting bored now.

How? Well, read the rest of the post.

But it's been great fun and very interesting all the same.

[walford]

...your self proclaimed “reasoned” argument boils down to two basics. 1) As throughout history many societies have had deities then they must existI actually said that EVERY tribe developed some form of RELIGION, thus we should consider the implications of that vis-a-vis their survival. I have also pointed out that our limitations preclude making any declarative statements as to what must or must not exist. Compare that to your distorted, condescending characterization.

2) You’ve googled a “brain tickler” to try to prove your own firmly held beliefs. Very much like using Escher’s waterfall to back an idea . Great fun but it doesn’t go anywhere. There are plenty of web sites showing you how to reason your point of view with the aid of these constructs.You have constructed a caricature of my position (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html) and attacked that rather than quoting [or even paraphrasing] me and analyzing what I have actually said. The rest of your post is a logically (http://www.cjr.org/tools/lc/tautology.asp) circular diversion (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html) that fails to address the basic point that lack of evidence that something exists is not axiomatic proof that it does not exist.

All a lack of sufficient info means is that we cannot be sure and should thus act according to our own knowledge and experience -- tempered by the inescapable Law of Cause-and-Effect.

[Lokos]

thus we should consider the implications of that vis-a-vis their survival.

Which are?

Lokos

[Ballistic]

Religious people claim many things.

They look into a fire and the understanding of the event is beyond them so they see the workings of a powerful being creating light and heat and call it a fire god.

The rest of us use our intellect to work out how fire occurs.

One day all of humanity will grow up but that day is not here yet.

Don't be so stupid.

[Belrick]

Nah not stupid, im a optomist and really believe humanity will cast off childish believes and mature as a race.

[walford]

Nah not stupid, im a optomist and really believe humanity will cast off childish believes and mature as a race.That is nearly a direct quote from Karl Marx. And before others jump in to chide me for the Guilt by Association fallacy, there is a deeper reason other than to say, 'that is what X would say.'

There is no time in the forseable future when our knowledge will even approach the vastness of all Existence.

We can operate from what we must humbly admit to be mere hypotheses that we formulate/revise to fill in the gaps in our capacity to know and understand. The rest we must leave to the realm of the Unknown that requires further effort to learn. With or without religion, we would have to concede that we are infinitesimal particles that do not make the rules and must conduct ourselves accordingly.

Or we can decide that we are so Clever that we can craft our own Reality [and thus our own rules] that supercedes anything we find in Nature. With or without religion we can then decide that we are either Chosen [or Gifted] to mold a Holy Society [or Utopia] in either our image or what the voices in our heads tell us are the Will of the Almighty.

Thus I would caution anyone to consider the fact that others have thought that we have 'matured as a race' enough to decide that we are the Supreme Beings. The results have always been catastrophic. Always.