• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Atheism

feen5 said:
Your also failing to take into account that if the Americans did not build it someone else would have. There is evidence that the germans had the technical know how to build the bomb and that Heisenberg helped to delay the Germans long saying it could not be built before 45.

So i don't think its as straight forward as saying Oppenheimer knew what he was making but didn't care. How often do you think the A bomb would have been used in anger if the Germans built it first? Or do you think Uncle Joe would have stopped at Berlin if they had the Bomb before the Americans. Thats the problem with ideas and theory once they are out someone, somewhere is going to try and make it happen.

Veering back to the atheism/religionist angle, if it is true as you say that "someone else would have done it" (and it probably is), where does that leave the 'violence stems from religion' argument that kicked off this part of the discussion?

Are these 'someone elses' always and necessarily religious?
 
Are these 'someone elses' always and necessarily religious?

No of course their not, its pretty much like everything else in life. There are those that will carry out acts in the name of religion but really for their own gain, others who will be doing it purely for their own gain and others who truely believe that what they are doing is done in the name of their God.
 
Now I've read through all the arguments on this thread, may I draw an in-between conclusion?
It seems that some atheists/ non believers can be extremely violent.
It also seems that some religious people can be extremely violent.
It seems that some humans can learn to suppress their violence when using religion [be it out of the fear of god only] but it seems to work for some.
Some people however even if religious seem to misread holy books and see it as a reason for violence.
The same for atheists. Some might learn to suppress their violence by going to anger-management classes [and learn as to the why] and some who are brought up to believe that it is ok to be violent.


However by being able to misread holy books there is a danger that being too religious [i.e fanatic] can lead to unnecessary violence that would not have erupted if it had not been for the holy books [any holy book apart from Zen Buddhism lecture].
Also however, you could argue that books, films and video can lead to unnecessary violence if the person unstable [fanatically into those] enough are exposed to them.

So my half-way conclusion at this point is that it matters not if you are either a believer or a non-believer. It will ALWAYS, for the rest of history be down to the individual, regardless of any discussions.

:snore:
 
One thing that always bothered me about the 'God told me to do it' fanatic is that they always forget about the God giving Humans free will. As far as i know (not being hugely religious but growing up a roman catholic in Rep of Ireland), its this free will that seperates us form the rest of creation and its also this free will that results in the acts (for good or evil) that man inflicts on his fellow man. Its also why God does not step into help or hinder, he cannot without removing free will. Why do the nut jobs never mention anything about their own free will when they talk about killing in the name of God or Allah or Jehovah or whatever. Its always someone else's fault or idea. I think its easier to blame your faith or use your faith to justify actions that you may never carry out if there was no such thing as religion.
 
feen5 said:
One thing that always bothered me about the 'God told me to do it' fanatic is that they always forget about the God giving Humans free will. As far as i know (not being hugely religious but growing up a roman catholic in Rep of Ireland), its this free will that seperates us form the rest of creation and its also this free will that results in the acts (for good or evil) that man inflicts on his fellow man. Its also why God does not step into help or hinder, he cannot without removing free will. Why do the nut jobs never mention anything about their own free will when they talk about killing in the name of God or Allah or Jehovah or whatever. Its always someone else's fault or idea. I think its easier to blame your faith or use your faith to justify actions that you may never carry out if there was no such thing as religion.

This concept of Free Will does not exist in all religions and arguably, it cannot logically exist in Christianity. There have been ongoing theological debates on it for centuries. Still in the popular conception it is implicit in Christianity as you say.

Islam, oth, does not have such a concept and imo, this is far more logical (theologically speaking as it avoids many pitfalls of Xianity) and in keeping with modern philosophical thought.

For example, in Islam, the idea is that in essence, only God exists. That is to say there can be no 'equal and opposite force' such as Satan in Christianity. So it follows that everything that happens is the will of God.

If this is the case then there is no free will.

Actually, if Islamists followed this view they would not behave as they do because opposing Israel say (for example) would be opposing the Will of God. Original Islam was/is far nearer to a Zen acceptance than the present Wahabi/Islamist interpretations which are essentially 18th century reactions to the rise of the West.
 
segovius said:
Actually, if Islamists followed this view they would not behave as they do because opposing Israel say (for example) would be opposing the Will of God.

But surely nothing can be "opposing the Will of God" if everything is the Will of God?
 
Dr_Baltar said:
segovius said:
Actually, if Islamists followed this view they would not behave as they do because opposing Israel say (for example) would be opposing the Will of God.

But surely nothing can be "opposing the Will of God" if everything is the Will of God?

Exactly. It's a paradox but is one built into the heart of Islam which represents - imho - a kind of Zen Koan writ large which needs to be resolved through the religion itself.

For example, to be a Muslim all one needs to do is to state the shahada which is a statement of belief...if one subscribes to this there are no other real 'must dos' (hence bin Laden on one hand and Rumi on the other).

The shahada states this paradox again in it's conception "There is no God.....except God".

In Arabic this is more striking as a denial and then an affirmation. "Allah" is not a proper name (Arabic Christians use it also) but can also mean "reality" or "existence" or some such concept.
 
segovius said:
The shahada states this paradox again in it's conception "There is no God.....except God".

Is it not "There is no god except God"? The use of the lower case makes a big difference as to whether it appears paradoxical or not. At least, it does to me :)
 
Given the discussion above I reckon this on topic here.

Churchill’s Crimes From Indian Holocaust To Palestinian Genocide

By Gideon Polya

23 January, 2009
Mwcnews.net

In WW2 Churchill deliberately starved 6-7 million Indians to death, continued to foster Muslim-Hindu antipathy that led to the horrors of Indian Partition and persuaded his War Cabinet on racist Partition of Palestine. Yet the holocaust-complicit Anglo media, academic and politician Establishment is still in denial.

http://www.countercurrents.org/polya230109.htm
 
Exactly. It's a paradox but is one built into the heart of Islam which represents - imho - a kind of Zen Koan writ large which needs to be resolved through the religion itself.

Or maybe the paradox itself proves just how nonsensical a religion like Islam is (along with similar ones - which I have discussed in other forums - concerning christianity). Dressing it up as a Zen Koan in order to make a profundity out of the paradox is a funny tactic, however, and for two reasons:

1. The presumption that a Zen koan is genuinely profound, and not merely an insoluble abstract that seems profound - albeit in a sixth-form 'just-discovered-mind-altering-drugs' kind of way. Personally, I liked Hunter S Thomson's riposte to the question of 'what is the sound of one hand clapping?'

He slapped the unctous buddhist he was conversing with in the nuts.

2. That it almost seems as if you're trying to make Islam more 'profound by association', as if Zen buddhism itself possessed some ideal that only other religions can aspire to. But Zen buddhism ain't all that, and certainly isn't as peaceful and contemplative as many have tried to make out:

The Japanese Zen establishment—including the Sōtō sect, the major branches of Rinzai, and several renowned teachers— has been criticized for its involvement in Japanese militarism and nationalism during World War II and the preceding period. A notable work on this subject was Zen at War (1998) by Brian Victoria, an American-born Sōtō priest. At the same time, however, one must be aware that this involvement was by no means limited to the Zen school: all orthodox Japanese schools of Buddhism supported the militarist state. What may be most striking, though, as Victoria has argued, is that many Zen masters known for their post-war internationalism and promotion of "world peace" were open nationalists in the inter-war years.[30] And some of them, like Haku'un Yasutani, the founder of the Sanbo Kyodan School, even voiced their anti-semitic and nationalistic opinions after World War II.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_Buddhism#Koan_practice
 
barfing_pumpkin said:
Or maybe the paradox itself proves just how nonsensical a religion like Islam is (along with similar ones - which I have discussed in other forums - concerning christianity). Dressing it up as a Zen Koan in order to make a profundity out of the paradox is a funny tactic, however, and for two reasons:

'Nonsensical' is almost koan-like too. What it really boils down to is merely "this does not make sense to me'.

Of course there are always those who cannot conceive of how something which is true for them is not true for everyone else also but that is a fish of a different colour as they say.


1. The presumption that a Zen koan is genuinely profound, and not merely an insoluble abstract that seems profound - albeit in a sixth-form 'just-discovered-mind-altering-drugs' kind of way.
Of course it is an insoluble abstract. Surely that's the point?

Personally, I liked Hunter S Thomson's riposte to the question of 'what is the sound of one hand clapping?'

He slapped the unctous buddhist he was conversing with in the nuts.

I like that too. It's pure Zen.

2. That it almost seems as if you're trying to make Islam more 'profound by association', as if Zen buddhism itself possessed some ideal that only other religions can aspire to. But Zen buddhism ain't all that, and certainly isn't as peaceful and contemplative as many have tried to make out:

Just making a parallel.

This idea that peacefulness is something to be aspired to (and a benchmark against which ideologies must be measured against to see if they are found wanting) seems a recurring motif of those who are anti-religion. It is curious.

And wrong of course.

It is purely Christian in conception but that does not stop people applying it wholesale to all religions. Doesn't seem like a very scientific or rational method of appraising something to me.

But then that's just my opinion and may not be applicable to others.
 
Sorry to swerve off slightly, and apologies for my continuing absence, but has Heathen Earth been back to respond to anyone? I rather wanted to get his take on what some of us had to say, as opposed to his take on what he had to say...

Oh well. Play on.
 
'Nonsensical' is almost koan-like too. What it really boils down to is merely "this does not make sense to me'.

Of course there are always those who cannot conceive of how something which is true for them is not true for everyone else also but that is a fish of a different colour as they say.

LOL. Frankly, Segovius, very little of what you say makes sense to me. As I shall illuminate:

1. The presumption that a Zen koan is genuinely profound, and not merely an insoluble abstract that seems profound - albeit in a sixth-form 'just-discovered-mind-altering-drugs' kind of way.

Of course it is an insoluble abstract. Surely that's the point?

Nope. The point was about the supposed profundity of the sayings. Some people are impressed by them; but some people are impressed by modern art and menus that refer to custard as creme anglais too. And yes, that was indeed a subtle and rather pretentious hint.



This idea that peacefulness is something to be aspired to (and a benchmark against which ideologies must be measured against to see if they are found wanting) seems a recurring motif of those who are anti-religion. It is curious.

And wrong of course.

It is purely Christian in conception but that does not stop people applying it wholesale to all religions. Doesn't seem like a very scientific or rational method of appraising something to me.

Purely Christian? Oh do fuck off! What is the Buddhist Nirvana but a state of absolute peace? What is any concept of heaven, be it Christian, Islamic or whatever, but a state of eternal peace (albeit paraphrased as eternal bliss, everlasting repose or somesuch). Most religions have, in some way or another, the concept of peace lying close to their hearts. Show me, please, an extant religion that aggrandises the concept of war and strife for its own sake (and not for the end of establishing a peaceful state upon the earth, as one finds with certain strands of islamic fundamentalism).

Doesn't seem like a very scientific or rational method of appraising something to me

This, from someone who, earlier on these boards, 'proved' to his own apparent satisfaction that Dawkins doesn't exist ... but continued going on about him anyway.

Yeah, I know that was a low blow, and you were merely utilising a piece of rhetorical sophistry. But it wasn't very scientific or rational, was it?

Very Zen-like, though, I'll grant you that.
 
barfing_pumpkin said:
Some people are impressed by them; but some people are impressed by modern art
Interesting. As someone who made a living out of what might loosely be described as 'modern art' (or at least its dissemination and consumption) I'm often surprised to see it as a symbol of intellectual legerdemain, especially as so much came from archly atheistic sensibilities.

Indeed, I think you can track predisposition to religion, art, atheism, etc, quite successfully through the trades and training of individuals. There's a notion that anything other than the manifest is suspect which is quite a recent idea.
 
Sadly, soon there will be no Cod. Look at the price of a Smoked Cod in a chipper.
 
ramonmercado said:
Sadly, soon there will be no Cod. Look at the price of a Smoked Cod in a chipper.

Sad news.

I heard also that there is no BOD either which is great news for me as it can only help Wales' quest for rugby domination when we play the Irish....
 
barfing_pumpkin wrote:
Some people are impressed by them; but some people are impressed by modern art

Interesting. As someone who made a living out of what might loosely be described as 'modern art' (or at least its dissemination and consumption) I'm often surprised to see it as a symbol of intellectual legerdemain, especially as so much came from archly atheistic sensibilities.

Indeed, I think you can track predisposition to religion, art, atheism, etc, quite successfully through the trades and training of individuals. There's a notion that anything other than the manifest is suspect which is quite a recent idea

Actually... no, you're right Colpepper. In my eagerness to disagree with Segovius (I dunno, he just brings it out in me) I sorta, uh, compromised myself, and 'twas as painful and embarrassing as it sounds. In truth, I like plenty of modern art - Antony Gormley in particular - but people like Tracy Emin and whoeveritwas who lined up all them bricks on the floor leave me cold, and it was them sorts (or more to the point, those that profess to admire the work of them sorts) that I was having a dig at.

However, the creme Anglais thing really gets my back up. It's fucking CUSTARD, people! CUSTARD! Egg pudding is an acceptable alternative, creme Anglais is not. In fact, this whole creme Anglais thing is good for only one thing: that it provides indisputable proof that whosoever refers to custard as such is a twat.

Really, I do feel that strongly about it.
 
From the Bonkers wing of Atheism, this:

Atheists call for 'debaptism'
By Robert Pigott
Religious Affairs correspondent

John Hunt was baptised in the parish church of St Jude with St Aidan in Thornton Heath in south-east London. But 50 years later he stands outside and regards its brick facade without much affection.

Mr Hunt was sent to Sunday school at St Jude's and later to confirmation classes, but he decided early on that he had no place in what he felt was a hypocritical organisation.

He recalls that his mother had to get lunch ready early for him to attend the classes.

"One Sunday I came back home and said 'Mum, you needn't get lunch early next Sunday because I'm not going to the class any more'. And she decided not to argue."

Now Mr Hunt has become the pioneer in a rejuvenated campaign for a way of cancelling baptisms given to children too young to decide for themselves whether they wanted this formal initiation into Christianity.

However, baptism is proving a difficult thing to undo.

The local Anglican diocese, Southwark, refused to amend the baptismal roll as Mr Hunt had wanted, on the grounds that it was a historical record.

"You can't remove from the record something that actually happened," said the Bishop of Croydon, the Right Reverend Nick Baines.

"Whether we agree whether it should have happened or not is a different matter.

"But it's a bit like trying to expunge Trotsky from the photos. Mr Hunt was baptised and that's a matter of public record."


Instead the diocese suggested that the best way for Mr Hunt to renounce his baptism was to advertise it in the London Gazette, a journal of record with an ancestry going back to the 17th Century.

Bishop Baines is willing to see such notices inserted into the baptismal roll to indicate decisions such as Mr Hunt's, but the Church of England's national headquarters made clear that such a concession was not official policy.

A letter from the the Archbishops' Council said that the Church of England did not regard baptism as a sign of membership, so any amendment to the record would be unnecessary.

The Roman Catholic Church does view a person's baptism as incorporating them into the Church - and membership is later important to the Church if, for example, the same person wants to get married in a Catholic church.

It is willing to place an amendment in the record.

The National Secular Society would like the Church of England to devise a formal procedure for cancelling baptisms, with a change in the baptismal roll as part of it.

In the face of resistance from the Church, the society has come up with a document of its own.

The "Certificate of Debaptism" has a deliberately home-made look, with its mock-official decoration and quasi-official language.

Sitting on a bench in the grounds of St Jude's Church, John Hunt intoned the opening lines.

"I, John Jeffrey Hunt, having been subjected to the rite of Christian baptism in infancy... hereby publicly revoke any implications of that rite. I reject all its creeds and other such superstitions in particular the perfidious belief that any baby needs to be cleansed of original sin."

The society's president, Terry Sanderson, says the certificate is not designed to be taken too seriously, and he suggests displaying it in the loo. 8)

However, he says, it has now been downloaded more that 60,000 times, and has taken on a life of its own.

"The debaptism certificate started out as a kind of satirical comment on the idea that you could be enrolled in a church before you could talk, but it seems to have taken off from there.

"People are beginning to take it seriously.

"It was a comment originally, a rebuke to the Church if you like, but now it's become something else entirely."

Among those taking it seriously is a man whose son was baptised into the Roman Catholic Church by his former partner against his wishes.

"He now has custody of his son and wants to debaptise him", says Mr Sanderson.

The Church wonders aloud why, if atheists and secularists believe baptism is so meaningless, they are letting it upset them. [Quite!]

Mr Hunt supplies his own answer.

"Evangelical noises are getting louder and louder.

"The recent change in European legislation has led to religious beliefs not being challenged at all, and there's no limit at all on what anybody can claim as a valid religious belief.

"I think it's important that more people speak out and say they don't subscribe to the historic beliefs of the Church."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7941817.stm
 
See if you don't believe in god then why would you care whether or not you have been baptised?

Baptism has always been a rather silly and pointless exercise in my book. Mostly promoted by money grabbers after a quick buck made off superstitious nonsense. Pretty much like the whole religion really.
 
river_styx said:
See if you don't believe in god then why would you care whether or not you have been baptised?

Baptism has always been a rather silly and pointless exercise in my book. Mostly promoted by money grabbers after a quick buck made off superstitious nonsense. Pretty much like the whole religion really.

The atheist fundies vs Religious fundies ongoing bar-room brawl reminds me of a joke:

1st lunatic fundie: "God spoke to me"

2nd lunatic fundie: "Completely wrong! I did no such thing!!!!"
 
If you feel, like Rimmer from Red Dwarf, that you had the 'wrong' parents, perhaps you could get your Birth Certificate revoked! :D
 
segovius said:
river_styx said:
See if you don't believe in god then why would you care whether or not you have been baptised?

Baptism has always been a rather silly and pointless exercise in my book. Mostly promoted by money grabbers after a quick buck made off superstitious nonsense. Pretty much like the whole religion really.

The atheist fundies vs Religious fundies ongoing bar-room brawl reminds me of a joke:

1st lunatic fundie: "God spoke to me"

2nd lunatic fundie: "Completely wrong! I did no such thing!!!!"

I still like the courtroom scene which I think was in Family Guy.

Lawyer hands young boy in the witness stand a doll and says "Now Tommy, can you show us where the angel touched you?"
 
rynner2 said:
If you feel, like Rimmer from Red Dwarf, that you had the 'wrong' parents, perhaps you could get your Birth Certificate revoked! :D

Hehe....I voluntarily renounced all my documentation a while back.

It seems that due to the economic downturn only two categories are now allowed: fundie at x end of spectrum and fundie at y end of spectrum.

I didn't fit into either so I am now an official non-person with a roving mandate to oscillate between the two annoying those who identify with either...

:)
 
segovius said:
ramonmercado said:
Sadly, soon there will be no Cod. Look at the price of a Smoked Cod in a chipper.

Sad news.

I heard also that there is no BOD either which is great news for me as it can only help Wales' quest for rugby domination when we play the Irish....

Ah, but there is a BOD and he smites down his enemies!
 
Back
Top