Science is not stuck in dogmatic principles and ideas that can't change over time or is threatened by challenges to its core systems. That's because science works with actual evidence based on a hypothesis and if that hypothesis ends up being false, it is thrown out. That's why there is no Theory of Leprechauns and other non falsifiable 'things', because there is no evidence for them and no amount of faith or wishing for it is going to make that stuff be as real as something that is real.

Science is the most reliable and robust tool that we have and I think its proven itself over and over again that there has yet to be and more than likely ever will be, any competition to science and the scientific method. Faith is not science, faith doesn't prove anything and neither does wishing or believing, no matter how strong or popular that faith, belief or wishing is and I'm not strictly talking about religion here.

If anything, politics is more 'faith' based (ubiquitous faith), than any other thing you can categorize it as being. People very rarely look at it from a rational point of view (in my opinion) and think that, regardless of party affiliation, is what this person is trying to accomplish, make sense? Instead it is, "Hey, he or she is on my team, rational or not, I'm supporting them".

Again, that's to you, but not to many adherents (regardless of their brand affiliation).

There's nothing I'm more certain of than my own religion, there's no level of proof that exceeds what a believer knows in their heart.

(Where's Skydog when I need him? Maybe he could articulate this better/differently, plus it would have the advantage of getting more attention for the message than the messenger)

Except when something matters. If you get sick, you aren't sitting in your room and praying to a God to cure you. You're going to go see one of those intellectuals. You're going to take medicine made by those intellectuals.

People are free to bash science all they want. I just find it funny how those people are not willing to back those words up with actions.

Sadly, there are. Too many stories of parents letting their kids die because their faith does not allow them to take their kids to the doctors for treatment.

I mentioned this earlier. If this were really the case, there'd be a fuckload more Christian Scientists.

That's a conveniently unproveable, untestable line.

I've never been able to square your passionate beliefs in Christ and the casual slaughter of those who don't like.

We're talking an extreme minority there. And to be honest, I respect their beliefs far more than others. Yes I think it's crazy, but at least they aren't just paying lip service to religion. They truly believe that there is a God and that he can do the things they've been told he can accomplish. They live their lives that way. They aren't abandoning those beliefs the minute reality hits.

Of course it's different if we're talking kids. But if an adult believes his cancer will be cured by praying, more power to him. The guy actually practices what he preaches.

Have you read the Bible? :)

That's why I said Christ. My biggest challenge as a Christian is trying to come to terms with Christ's radical passivism.

But how can you say that with that much certainty. If you believe there can be a higher power, then if that higher power is God, why couldn't he have led people to create these "stories"?

And the Gospels in particular. They read more like a liberal manifesto than what modern American conservative "christians" have turned the religion into today. There's a huge disconnect there.

How did Christians become pro-life, anti-gay, associated with strict adherence to rules, etc? The original christians were huge liberal troublemakers.

If there is a "God" who led people to create these stories, and who, by extension, created man in his own image then why didn't he provide tangible evidence of his existence?

If we're made in his image then he's skeptical about things too - he would have known we needed actual physical evidence.

ZING!!

It's nice to hear a little outside-the-box thinking.

I get irrationally annoyed when adults think they've discovered something incredible, "wait a minute - there couldn't scientifically have been a Noah's Ark! I figured everything out!". That's an insightful thought for an 8-year-old, but I don't think it's conclusive enough to put a definitive stamp of understanding on the essence of the universe, including the role that religion plays.

I can see that. I don't take the same position on it as you do, but, I totally understand those people not being hypocrites.

Sorry there but it is that simple. Again call it 8-year old logic (which it is) but organized religion is absolute bullshit. The essence of nature has nothing to do with Jesus and Mohammad and Thor and David Koresh. Nothing. I don't think I have ever made it sound like I made an amazing discovery just astounded how many people have not made the simple discovery. Any attempt to twist the discussion to anything but the complete absense of logic or rational thought of any organized religion is just avoiding the question at hand.

EDIT: And the reason I keep bringing up Noah's Ark is because a majority of Americans believe it literally. Maybe you and most 8 year olds can see through it but unfortunately their elders cannot.

Maybe he didn't create man in his own image. Maybe he didn't really create man at all. Maybe man created him, and through as-of-yet-undiscovered principles of physics, this explosion of spirtuality actually created something real on that level that we can tap into with meditation and prayer. Maybe god doesn't have the power to show himself or chooses not to. Can humanity, as we know it, even exist with ANY 100% certain principle about the origin and meaning of life? What would the world be like if there was a serious, no-doubt-about it God who judged us and did shit as we go? We wouldn't be human anymore. We'd be more like holy slaves or something.

My point, we don't really know shit, despite your simple and obvious conclusions about man-made ideas.

I don't believe that "panerd" has figured out the "essence of nature", sorry. Einstein asked the same questions, I'm a little skeptical that you've figured them out.

Whatever. Organized religion is for the simple-minded. I don't get the impression this is what you are getting at and I have no idea about the mysteries of the universe. But if you need to get together with your tribe and be told stories so that you don't fear death than have at it. Just don't get all bent out of shape when someone born in a different country than you does the same simple-mided thing in a mosque.

You're absolutely claiming to have ideas about the mysteries of the universe. Billions of people, many very brilliant, many scientists, have to some degree, tried to understand the universe through, in part or in whole, these different religious practices, the shared experiences these people have, what itch they're trying to scratch, etc. If you write off 100% of that, you're absolutely proclaiming your own, very specific, very unproveable "truth". No different than a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. I think THAT'S simple-minded. Religion in the human experience goes way beyond stories and whether they're "true" or not. That's the 8-year-old mentality.

Sorry but again I will say one last time I am talking about organized religion. The spaghetti monster and pink unicorns tend to come across as an asshole response but are perfect examples of why organized religion offers no answers to any of the universes questions that you talk about. To most believers I am sure some of my other posts also make me sound like an asshole but that's not my intention at all I just don't feel like I have to respect them and not question what they claim to have answers for. I don't have any ideas about the mysteries of the universe. However, I am 99.99999% certain that Jesus, Thor, Elohim, Xenu, Mohammad are not God. Chrisitians agree with 80% of that last statement, Muslims agree with 80%. When someone says they literally believe in Noah's Ark they are saying they believe Jesus is God and lose any credibility for any deeper conversation you wish to have.

Of course it goes beyond stories. The shared experience is that we all fear death. Always have...always will. It's an animalistic fear. The difference is that we've evolved coping mechanisms that other animals don't have (so far as we know).

Molson is love, Panerd is not...

If billions of humans worshiped the spaghetti monster for centuries, developed a culture and way of life around it, I believe (unproveable, of course), then it does then become something more than just a hypothetical religion we make up in an argument, even if it didn't "exist" before man came up with it. It does become it's own truth. It does matter in a way that nudges human psychology, evolution, and possibly even physics. It does touch the essence of the universe, though certainly not in a perfect way.

And that's just one idea. There's plenty of other ways organized religion can matter, can be "real" to the human experience without needing to literally belief that Noah's Ark happened under the rules of regular reality we follow. And that doesn't make Noah's Ark "untrue". That gets back to the discussion of truth a few pages ago. When someone answers one of those polls that they "believe" Noah's Ark happened, I believe a lot of them are giving their answer in this way. It IS their "truth", for their purposes, and that kind of "truth" may matter a little more, and be a little more legitimate than it first appears. Faith is a really complicated concept that I certainly can't get my mind totally around. But it's something more than "believing something is true."

So "arrogant atheism" does (irrationally) rub me the wrong way, especially when it seems to be based 100% on the first, elementary, obvious question.

I'd quibble with your use of the word "truth" here, but I think other than that, it's an excellent point.

As a sociological phenomenon, religion certainly matters.

I disagree agree completely with your premise that billions of people believing in the spaghetti monster somehow changes it from being anything but a made up story. I agree that a deeper discussion can be had about life, the universe, where I was in 1973, where I will be in 2173. But organized religion offers answers for none of this.

This. I didn't have the same weirded out reaction as some on this forum towards JIMG's original statement, though Jon and I don't agree all that much on stuff, because he's quite right when discussing things from the point of view of the believer. The believer's faith is quite true and certain, and comes from a powerful experience, while some scientific principles may be murky (heck, most intelligent people have some issues with quantum physics).

I definitely do not believe that the principles and beliefs of a particular religion need to be introduced into the school system (no freaking way should creationism be taught in science class), but the way to do it is NOT to demean someone's strongly held belief, but to acknowledge that it is certain to that individual but the school ciriculuum is for all individuals and thus should include that which is scientifically provable rather than a revealed truth that everyone has not experienced.

That was a mismash, but what I'm getting at is that you can get farther by respecting peoples' faith and the truth they feel in that faith than you can by putting it odds with science (and you can even blend faith and science as people like Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project, have done).

Fear of death, fear of the uncertain. Fear our lives are lived in vain...these are fears that churches use to prey upon people and take their $$$. It's a great business idea, really:

There's an entity you can't see, hear, or detect in any way. Listen, though. Through my teachings and guidance, using me as a vessel to connect to this specter, you can live forever. You'll be reunited with all your loved ones, and all your dead pets in a magical paradise for all eternity. Donations are strongly encouraged.

Yes, I could/should have put all references to "truth" in quotes there. Because I have no clue what that "truth" is, I just believe it adds up to something more than the sum of parts. At least, a sociological phenomenon, at the most, an actual interaction with physics and biology.

I disagree to a point. Organized religion as a sociological phenomenon offers a fascinating snapshot of what humans feel like or would like the answers to these questions to be. It can tell us a lot about the inner workings of our collective psyche, or our individual psyches. Precisely because they're made-up stories, or mythologized stories of an actual human being.

Organized religion offers no TRUTHS regarding any of those questions, that I would agree with. It does offer answers.

Fair enough, and I probably should have articulated the point more like you did earlier with my whole example of creationism.

I don't go to church, and I don't believe I'm going to be reunited with any loved ones, so my religious and spirtual beliefs/questions/thoughts must have some other, (possibly sinsister), motives behind them....

Just because science may not have every answer, that doesn't mean a god or some higher being or thing did it. That's the 'god of the gaps' argument.

Even Einstein has mentioned god before, however, he made it quite clear his personal position on the matter: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

This has been my position since 8th grade when I embraced atheism. As far as the church as a fabulous business model I mean. Think of all the thousands of priests/monks/etc. that it kept alive and accumulating wealth/power from the Dark Age through the Middle Ages, all the way through to today.

Einstein said a lot of good stuff about religion.

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness"

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind"

And though Einstein certainly wasn't a practicing member of any religion during his adult life, I seriously doubt he ever called everyone else's religious practices "bullshit". Because his religious and spirtual expression wasn't superior to anyone else's.

Not bullshit, but he did call it a "childish superstition". He also said:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

He did call it child-like though if I remember correctly. :) As far as calling someones religion bullshit, eh, (I know, not surprising) I think it just depends on the situation and sometimes can be a bit harsh to say. I don't have to respect anyone's religion or give two cents worth of care to it. I will however respect that person's right to believe in it, no matter how much I disagree with it.

Contrary to what people may think, I strongly believe in a persons right to their religion and would defend that right to the end.

The existence and rationale behind gravity? The fact that the earth orbits the sun? The concept that if you consume more energy than you expend, you gain weight? The basic workings of the internal combustion engine?

Does the believer believe in these any less than they believe in God (or whatever construct in which they believe)?


Maybe the above is a silly example, but I think maybe it can serve to illustrate the disconnect here. Let me propose that the "believer", when faced with macro concepts (Why are we here? What's the purpose of life? How should I treat my fellow man? What's right and wrong?), will naturally and happily embrace the tenets of their belief for the answers. Even as a non-believer I think that's great. I'm happy to concede that for many of these types of macro questions a reliance on a belief system is just as valid as empirical evidence (should it even exist). And certainly more valid in the eyes of the "believer."

Then, conversely, I'm sure we can find that the "believer", when faced with "micro" concepts (such as the examples in the beginning of the post) is likewise happy to lean on scientific explanation instead of "belief", mainly (I would assume) because it's pretty cut-and-dry.

So the problem lies in the middle. Perhaps the problem "believers" have, especially "strong believers" is that they're used to cut-and-dry explanations for both macro and micro concepts, so anything that's not as cut-and-dry engenders distrust. The problem with this, is that there's a fair bit of science that exists on a bit of a sliding scale where proof is concerned. There are unproven theories (special relativity, I think). There are drugs which only show adverse events after 1 million patients and can't be anticipated in a lab. Etc....

I'm reminded of the time my brother-in-law, who is a brilliant nuclear physicist, explained time dilation to me. The explanation was sufficiently complex that I'm not even going to try and relate it here, but suffice it to say that there were certain things about his explanation that I found hard to believe, but I just chose to assume was true.


If you are a "believer", and especially a "strong believer", these kind of examples of a lack of complete surety seem to taint the whole concept of science (all but the most obvious examples of scientific conclusions, of course). This, I propose, is how we get people not believing in the efficacy of vaccinations, or the theory of evolution, or a great many other things. It's not a lack of understanding that's the problem (though a lack of understanding may certainly be present), it's a lack of comfort with the gray-area explanation.

(As an aside, this is why you don't see these kind of problems with "believer" intellectuals - especially the scientists, because they have comfort in the process / explanation.)


Aside from the economic rationales (our future competitiveness in the global market), this is probably (to my mind) the biggest reason for good math & science education. We need everyone, including "believers" to understand enough of these concepts to feel enough comfort to operate in the world. I'm not suggesting one needs to fully believe in, say, the full theory of evolution, but at least understand where it lies on the scale of proof and what parts of it are incontrovertible and what parts are not.

Then, as a last explanation, I think this is the greatest concern we "unbelievers" have concerning this attack on intellectualism and its related attack on basic education. It's not necessarily about teaching people stuff like creationism, it's choosing to take away the grounding and tools people will need as they grow up to be able to understand these concepts and decide for themselves.

Aren't most organizations for the simple minded? Representative government is for the intellectually lazy. Marriage is an irrational institution. But isn't that the point? By subscribing to organizations that more or less go along with yours you can get on with your life and pursue more enjoyable things (fof).

I'm sure you do lots of philosophically irrational things in order to bring meaning into your life. but somehow being irrational religiously speaking is a crime against science whereas other emotional things people do to find meaning is not?

if all typical humans find some meaning in irrational/emotional things how can it be said that only rational/scientific things are true?

i understand your rational complaint against (organized) religions. where i have a problem is you only dismissing those authentic experiences as simple minded and not every other emotional/irrational experience as well

Good post flere.

Ya, I forgot about child-like, though that doesn't quite have the vitriol against religion that is so popular here (and everywhere these days). And child-like is fair, many people have that kind of relationship with their religion, I just think those views are just a part of that which creates a huge spirtual/religious conglomerate that makes up something bigger and something relevant. And I don't know why so many people feel the need to lash out against it. It feels to me like any other irrational hatred (like towards gays, minorities, etc.) based on insecurity or a small penis or whatever. It's like everybody has a need to feel a superiority to something, and liberals who don't have that feeling of superiority (or at least won't express it) towards gays, minorities, women ect can still get off by feeling superior to anyone who practices some kind of religion. It's a more PC way to express the hate that humans need to express.

I would say, if anything, it's libertarianism that is for the simple-minded. No reason to think whatsoever. No to spending. No to regulation. No to anything. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. The Libertarian Party is clearly the best party for the simple-minded to join.

You don't have to think much about government, yes, but there is a life beyond government (some believe).

Yes, it definitely does not have the vitriolic tone as you may hear today. From my side of the fence, that vitriol is there due to a number of factors. Part of it is, we are simply sick and tired of religion moaning and groaning that they are being discriminated against or trying to legislate their beliefs or have it instituted into public schools. Some atheists and non believers have a deep seated hatred for religion due to experiences in the past and you will hear the vitriol for sure from them. It's kind of hard to explain actually, but, I can see where someone that holds religion to a higher degree of respect or reverence, that they can be shocked or surprised that anyone would say anything bad about it.

I'm a fan of: no one has the right to not be offended. I don't have to respect any religion. I don't have to care about any religion. I only have to respect the person as a human being. Nothing says that I have to be nice either. There's nothing wrong with being nice and I think it goes a long way to be nice, but, it's not a requirement. Unfortunately, those big religious conglomerates try to push it on others that don't want it. That's when you will see a lot of backlash. In the past, you couldn't do that, you'd be burned at the stake or ran out of town if you spoke out against it. Believe me, there's no insecurity, jealousy, irrationality or penis envy to it :D.

It's hard to explain what it is to be honest, because the only common core to atheism is, we don't believe any gods or god and that's it. We don't have a leader, we don't have a rule book and we don't all agree with each other. The best suggestion to get a better idea of how we perceive religion in general would be to look at the skeptics.com forums and actually Richard Dawkins' forums (which are closed to comments now), but, you do have to filter out some of the bagging on religion to get to the informative stuff. You'll be able to tell right away what actually has some substance as opposed someone just being pissed.

Discussions like this is why I'd love it if the was a Religion/Non Religion thread, but, I fear it would lead to too many boxings and bannings.

Really? Religion has it so tough these days? Last I checked if you told the world you were an Atheist, you had no chance at major political office in this country. My calendar shows we have national holidays on multiple religuous landmarks. Our businesses rely on the 2-month stretch leading up to Christmas for much of their profits. "Finding God" seems to be a phrase that people use quite frequently when they have turned their life around.

My family is not religuous at all, yet if I brought home a nice Christian girl, I think they'd be ecstatic. Hate to say it, but I doubt the nice Christian girl's parents would be as enthusiastic about bringing home an Atheist. I don't see a lot of Atheists protesting outside Churches, but I do see a lot of Christian groups protesting outside strip clubs, casinos, and abortion clinics. Protesting what books our kids read, what television I'm allowed to watch, and what I can do with a lover in my own bedroom.

I do see a lot of hate toward religion, but it's hate from other religions. There were an awful lot of Christian groups protesting that Mosque in NYC, and that wasn't an Atheist getting on TV threatening to burn holy books. The many conflicts in the Middle East aren't being fought over science. Our own President decided to take us into war because a God told him to.

Not to say that there aren't troublemakers who are Atheists. But when I turn on the news, I don't hear much about people blowing up stuff in the name of Atheism. I don't see wars being started over disagreements in scientific theory. So I'm sorry, the little Fox News "Christians under attack" meme is pathetic and has no basis in reality.

I'll make cracks at some of the things I find funny about religion, but I don't hate it. I could care less as long as they don't fuck with my life. I don't care if that's a Christian, Muslim, Scientologist, or whatever. In fact, the one I like the most is probably the one I think is the goofiest. Scientologists do their own thing whether that's right or wrong, but they don't try and screw with my life.

very interesting post. very well thought out. *nodding*

man...i think i've sparked a good vein of discussion here. zoinks.

who's lashing out against religion??

oh no...woe are the poor persecuted Christians in this country

Dunno but if you've been following the popes visit to England he's definitely bashing aetheists right royally .. not to mention comparing the country to a third world country and other impressive heart warming comments ;)

Its probably best if I don't give my thoughts on his speech - this being a family forum and all ... so I'll leave it to the Daily Mash to give my viewpoint for me:

The Daily Mash - QUEEN TO HAVE LUNCH WITH INSANE CRIMINAL

PS - For people who were unaware of this here's one of the 'real' news items from the BBC website:
BBC News - Row after Pope's remarks on atheism and Nazis

nope - i hadn't heard that. interesting!

just imagine how great it would be if it were 1998, you could have "out-bibled" everyone :)

lol. well...1999.

Y'know, some of my most irreconcilable differences with Catholicism rest with aspects of the Papacy, but darned if I don't think I like Benedict more than any Pope in my lifetime. He's got a pair, and is largely unapologetic for having the courage of his convictions. I don't know that me sitting down to discuss religion with him is a real good idea, but I wouldn't mind having a beer with him.

And if you're in to fucking children he can find a place where you'll never be held accountable.

Heck of a guy.

Not to mention his incredibly selective memory regarding the Nazi's being aetheists ... would have come as quite a shock to Hitler ..

Awesome video of Christine O'Donnell and Eddie Izzard on Politically Incorrect. Has everything. My fav "we took the bible and prayer out of schools, now we have weekly shootings."

You misread Jon's post (slightly).

"There's nothing I'm more certain of than my own religion, there's no level of proof that exceeds what a believer knows in their heart."

He says there is nothing that can exceed a believer's faith. Certain things can equal it, but nothing can surpass it. Faith in a Deity is just as high as anything else a believer can be certain in. So, to a believer, the reality of God is as real and certain as gravity.


Pining this simply on religious believers is problematic because this is quite common among all people. The masses, regardless of religious belief, don't do well with nuance. It's not because believers are all into cut-and-dry explanations, but because people are, in general, especially when the nuance will force them to give something up.

I THOUGHT she looked familiar!

Very much so.

I can only imagine that it rather sucks to have to interpret me, but FWIW, you're a pretty fair job of it & I appreciate it. You've gotten more than one of the points I was trying to make, although I have to admit I've been surprised by how difficult it seemed to be to do so, I really thought what I was saying (and the p.o.v. it was explaining) was pretty clear

For what it's worth, I did get that, but was mainly re-stating it as a stepping stone to the rest of my argument.


Again, I completely agree, but the point of my post wasn't to talk about the affect of nuance on the population in general, but for "believers" in specific and the knock-on ramifications I see from this.

The mass population will react to nuance and the gray areas of science in a myriad of ways. The "believers", will tend to react in pretty much the same way, and increasingly the way they're choosing to react is to simply question scientific principles and, by extension, scientists and intellectuals. Essentially it ends up being a pretty small step from not understanding the nuance found in complex science (or complex concepts for that matter), to just distrusting scientists (and, for that matter, intellectuals) on principle.

About those Hitler quotes...remember, this is Hitler we're talking about. He was a master at telling one group of people exactly what it wanted to hear, and then another group the exact opposite, because that was what the other group wanted to hear. That was especially the case in 1933-1938, when the Nazis had just seized power and were trying to consolidate it, and the risk of conservative or socialist/communist counter-revolution, or of successful foreign intervention, seemed real.

Telling clergy that he hated atheism doesn't mean that Hitler hated atheism--it means that, at that particular moment, it was to his political advantage to do so.

(Also worth remembering: although today we link terrorism and religion, historically, most terrorist organizations have been nationalist in orientation--and the real pioneers of modern terrorism were the late-19th-century Russian anarchists, all of them militant atheists).

Fwiw, I agree with your take on the pope's speech, and I agree that it is silly for believers in the USA to claim that they are persecuted or marginalized, when no candidate for political office could ever dare to admit to atheism, or even agnosticism, and hope to be elected.

Just trying to find the middle ground here ;)

I'm not saying anything about national persecution, I'm just talking about individuals in this thread (I think throwing out phrases like "fucking stupid" counts as lashing out, just one example) and the common sentiment expressed elsewhere, and I was just trying to articulate what that insecurity/bigotry might be based on.

And I always get annoyed by the high-and-mighty "figured it all out" atheist who thinks they're geniuses by referencing "science" and look down on anyone who doesn't follow that short, obvious, limited line of thinking.

Well it appears I didn't have to as flere understood it... but I don't mind interpreting you ;). Having been an atheist, I know that it can be incredibly hard to understand the mindset of a believer (and not just a nominal believer).

I don't think with him anyone truly knows where he stood on anything (beyond the fact that he had a ruthless lust for power and a totally heartless/evil approach to getting it).

However I do think the quotes justify at least questioning the Popes commentary that the Nazi's were aetheists.

Thats true enough, if you look at the French revolution you can see similar leanings in some of its members.

I'm not trying to argue a 'this way is best' with religion/aetheism/whatever* at all - just trying to indicate my disgust at the Popes speech and its obvious rabble rousing with what I consider as little regard to honesty.

*I'm generally fairly open on the fact that I don't know best - my wife is a devout Christian but I don't share her faith, my belief is simply that I don't know for sure ... I do the best I can and hope that if there is a God, he judges me fairly, after all he designed me to be overly logical and cynical so I deem it a bit harsh if he then punishes me for that ;)

You tend to give this line of thinking lip service but your prior posts give an entirely different tone.

And even this, to me, considering the source, just sounds like a Republican talking about blacks or gays. It's the same kind of prejudice, disdain, grouping - if these people have to exist with their "lifestyle", just keep it out of sight and out of your face. (I forget who it was a few page ago that insisted people of religion were the biggest problem in this country - you can just replace religion there with "minorities", "immigrants", "gays", and the conversation is the same, just a different flavor of bigotry.

I think that's a tad bit unfair. The believers who tend to make the news are the ones who may react that way, but there are plenty who don't... they just aren't interesting enough to be covered by the media.

It turns out Koran-burning preacher that scared the world had 30 members in his congregation. That's like the number of people in a really active game of werewolf.

Which again, is a problem with the fucking media in this country.

Haha. Speaking of which - I need to check the WW forum.

It's funny, but although I've always been basically and atheist or at most an agnostic, I don't feel I've ever had a lot of trouble understanding the mindset of a believer, even a true believer. In fact, I find it easier to understand the mindset of a true believer than, say, one whose belief is not quite as strong but still there.

Additionally, I don't think they're any less of a person than I, or operating in some sort of fantasyland, or otherwise. Some are clearly misguided, such as those who come to conclusions clearly contradictory to their espoused beliefs, or those who ignore basic aspects of reality, but that's true of people of all stripes, including atheists.

It saddens me, though, that I'm often not afforded the same level of respect by these believers. And it's not as if I'm a militant atheist or something. I often get the impression that I'm being condescended to, that they think I'm some sort of "poor lost sheep" or whatnot. Well, I'm not a poor lost sheep anymore than you're (the general, hypothetical "you") a brainwashed simpleton, so let's knock it off, shall we?

I think that's how we get a lot of this:

"We should do X because that's what God wants."

"Well, I don't believe in God."

"Then any rationale you might have is immediately suspect."

"My rationale? Mine's based on rational thought, as opposed to a belief in something that doesn't exist!"

"You're going to burn in hell!"

"You're a moron!"

Etc....

Increasingly often I think both sides simply go for each others' throats instead of trying to find common ground off of which to build, and we're all the poorer for it.

I agree it's a small (though increasing) number. But as you point out, it's not the balance of believers who make the news and thus control the direction of this dialogue with everyone else. And there are also several examples in key positions of power, which makes it all the worse.

Well, once again, it depends on the believers. In my experience the vast majority of believers aren't going to discount your opinion simply because you don't believe in God... or think "that's what God wants" is a suitable reason for public policy.

I think that's true, I think you just have to come at it with something more than a mocking attitude and incredulousness. If you think you're Bill Mahr and try to tear them down, don't be shocked if they don't always react in the best way. Expressing doubts (but with respect) gets you a lot further. Many religions make some accordance with the concept of doubt within their own followers.

And I don't see a lot of "what god wants" arguments being thrown around mainstream political debates. Experiences in religion might help to shape someone's values, but an atheist's experiences in their own "faith" will shape theirs. All of our ideas come from something.

In my experience, the best theological back and forth discussions I've ever had have been with Mormons. They seem so open to hearing and processing your points and making cogent arguments back.

As the only non-mormon male in my office I'd have to agree with this. They respect my love of booze and caffeine and I respect how really good at life they all seem to be (in their careers, families - they all just seem so happy and put together). And if they ran for office - the horrors, they would be mormons in government. They wouldn't leave their religion at home, any more than I would leave any of who I am at home.

Hitler was catholic, not atheist. He was also very consistent in mentioning god and invoking gods name, from Mein Kampf, his speechs and up until he was dead.

As far as the russian anarchists are concerned, it's possible some of them might have been atheists, however, it is irrelevant due to the fact that their cause was not in the name of atheism or for atheism. It would be great if you could provide a source for that info. I've never heard of any russian revolutionary or anarchist movement being atheistic in nature and or its motivation.

Anarchism & communism is not atheism.

Wasn't he into a kind of pagan Christiantiy, where he was all obsessed with relics and their secret powers? Or have I watched too many history channel specials of questionable accuracy?

No one really knows what Hitler's private beliefs were.
In public Hitler followed what he thought was politically expedient.

Not necessarily Hitler, but the SS certainly was. It was part of their whole like...building a mystique and an aura around the organization.

If Hitler was an atheist kindly explain the Indiana Jones films.

All this Hitler talk makes me nostalgic for the historical drafts

Awww...historical drafts!!

He did think that his plans were from some divine providence from what I can remember off the top of my head, that's probably not the exact quote, but, it's along those lines. But it also had to do with the Aryans rising up and taking what was 'rightfully theirs'. I guess some of the stuff that he did could be considered paganish, but, christianity adopted a few things from paganism anyway, so, it's hard to say really. He definitely was not a every sunday church attendee though.



True, to a point. I think Mein Kampf was a pretty good look into the mind of Hitler:

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." Mein Kampf, pp. 46

"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief." Mein Kampf, pp.152

"Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another... while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve." Mein Kampf, pp.309

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941

"I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker." Adolf Hitler, Speech, 15 March 1936, Munich, Germany

And in 1933, he outlawed atheist and free thought groups in Germany.

Regardless though if he was catholic or atheist, the dude was pure evil and I've never associated his actions with his religion. He was in it for himself, first and foremost and his religion was probably secondary (at most) to his motives.

Remember, that's why they opened up the Ark on that island, it was so they could get the Jewish ritual out of the way so they could open it before bringing it to Hitler. :D

I think JiMGA is probably creaming at the thought that the Obama thread has turned into a thread about Hitler...

Interesting.

"The best thing, is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting to it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science." - Hitler, October 1941

"Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure," and "Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilization by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society."

Christianity was a drug, a kind of sickness: "let's be the only people who are immunized against this disease."

Hitler emphasized again and again his belief that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on modern science. Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition. - from Richard J. Evans' "The Third Reich at War"

He kinda seemed to embrace a civic religion. A faith to unite the country.

I would venture to say that Hitler was as much a Catholic as a modern day politician is what his constituents want him to be.

It's also interesting to note that while Hitler was huge into Lebensraum for his people and that was part of the reason they invaded Russia, the overwhelming reason for the war was, as others have noted, his belief that others (basically Jews, gypsies, the mentally deficient, Negroes, etc.) were below them on the evolutionary chain and that Germany/Aryans deserved to rule the world. Nazism itself was big on eugenics, survival of the fittest (and, in fact, a lot of American science embraced eugenics at the beginning of the century) and Darwinistic theory. That's one of the reasons he never surrendered - he thought it was the German's own fault they lost the war and their weakness will result in them "getting what's coming" to them.

I just find it ironic that these thoughts are never given the label of "war starter", like religion is. We can say a great many wars are fought on religious lines (and, of course, I can name many examples where religion had nothing to do with a war), but it's interesting to note that an ideology built on early 20th century science caused a war that decimated approximately 60 million people.

I don't recall any particular link between anarchist & religion, but at least the Marxist-Leninist version of communism was pretty clear on the subject.

In Religion, Lenin wrote Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.

And in the popular Bolshevik propaganda book from the Russian Civil War, ABC of Communism, we find "Communism is incompatible with religious faith"

Oh that crazy Hitler saying contradictory stuff again. It is not a secret that he contradicted himself often. One thing he never said though, was that he was atheist.

From wikipedia:

Speech to the Stuttgart February 15, 1933: "Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany's entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years."

To the extent he believed in a divinity, Hitler did not believe in a "remote, rationalist divinity" but in an "active deity," which he frequently referred to as "Creator" or "Providence". In Hitler's belief God created a world in which different races fought each other for survival as depicted by Arthur de Gobineau.

Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had "expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity."

Hitler's private statements about Christianity were often conflicting. Hitler's intimates, such as Joseph Goebbels, Albert Speer, and Martin Bormann suggest that Hitler generally had negative opinions of religion, although the historical validity of some remarks has been questioned, particularly the English translation of Hitler's Table Talk. Historian Ian Kershaw remarked upon the questionable nature of Table Talk as a source, stating "the `table talk’ monologues of the last months (the so called `bunkergespräche’) of which no German text has ever been brought to light must be treated with due caution." Historian Richard Carrier goes further, contending that certain portions of Table Talk — especially those regarding Hitler's hostility of Christianity — are poor mistranslations. Carrier states that Hitler was criticizing Catholicism in particular, while remaining entirely religious. Albert Speer confirmed the authenticity of Henry Picker's German transcripts, which was published in 1951 as Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier. Carrier states, "It is clear that Picker and Jochmann have the correct text and Trevor-Roper's is entirely untrustworthy."

So which Hitler do you choose? The religious, god invoking Hitler or the Hitler that never even hinted that he was even remotely atheist?

Because that's not why the war was started. This sounds eerily like something a creationist/IDer would say.


Wikipedia:
Anarchism in Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - No where does it state that it had anything to do with atheism and not all were associated with religion.


Yes, Lenin was atheist. However, I'm struggling to find that any of his motivations were due to his atheism. I would say, if you wanted to pick someone who DID actively promote atheism, that would be Stalin.


Yes, communism is incompatible with religious faith, no doubt about it, due to communism relying on the fact that any competition to the state is a threat.

Marx was an athiest.

But then again, as I would take so many pains to point out, Marx wasn't a communist. And Communism/Stalinism wasn't Marxism.

I choose the skilled politician Hitler, who knew that his constituency was 95% Catholic/Protestant, and could use religion as a reason for the masses to accept the impending war with "godless" Bolshevism.

Ok, help me out here - why did it start? Nationalism, expansionism, racism, etc. Much of it was born out of the Nazi ideology which was born out of a racist, survival of the fittest message.

I agree with that and having the luck to be at the right place at the right time to promote himself as the person that would bring Germany back to power and glory.

Umm ... that's pretty much what I said, that I didn't recall any particular link between anarchists & atheism.

We get it JK. You're a rebel, a renegade, you fear nothing, you love to stir the pot, you're the all-american badass, but next time how about you climb down off your fucking anti-religion high horse & read what I wrote, m'kay?

Nationalism is not Darwinism, expansionism is not Darwinism, racism is not Darwinism, Darwinism is not atheism and the only thing close to the 'survival of the fittest' in Nazi Germany, was purging the German land of non Aryan blood to promote the master race. I guess if you read into that, you could say, that looks a lot like Darwinism, but, that's just not true.

There are things that Darwin wrote about that have proven to be false. A lot of what he wrote about (regarding 'On the Origins of Species' and the theory of natural selection) was correct. However, none of it promoted any kind of framework or guidelines for a society, even though people have tried to use it in such a way. I think if you want attribute anything to what the Nazis did concerning eugenics, it would be more that they were following Mendelian genetics.

Darwin said in the Decent of Man: "'aiding the weak to survive and have families could lose the benefits of natural selection', but cautioned that withholding such aid would endanger the instinct of sympathy, 'the noblest part of our nature', and factors such as education could be more important." Sympathy, not being a word I would associate with Hitler and the Nazis.

Why did the war start? Because Germany was lead by a crazy lunatic that wanted to dominate the world with an Aryan race. Not because of atheism, darwinism, catholicism or any ism. It wasn't a religious war and it wasn't an atheist war.

Reading what I wrote, I meant to say: "But, no where does it..."

The great thing about being on my 'fucking anti-religion high horse' is, that I can read quite clearly what people write. It's a great view actually. Context Jon, context. The argument being: was Hitler a catholic or atheist and that some of the russian revolutions were atheist in motivation. Reading back through the posts, I see no 'anti-religious' quotes other than ones attributed to Hitler.

Funny, you don't seem to have a problem with the other two items of yours that I responded to. It's cool though, I do selective reading sometimes too.

There could be an interesting turn of events in the Alaska Senatorial race, as it sounds like Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who was defeated in the primary by Tea Party/Palin candidate Joe Miller, is going to run as a write-in candidate.

If she decides to run and stays in the race, it could be enough to swing the election in favor of the Democratic nominee. If I am not mistaken, there is no love lost between the Murkowski family and Palin.

?

Wait until his "Democrats are full of shit" mailer.