200+ Nigerian schoolgirls kindapped - culprits selling them £7 each

[DTA]

There is literally nothing good that religion can be used for which can't be achieved in another way (preferably one that doesn't require checking one's brain at the door).

As for being 'fair', I have no interest in that whatsoever. Especially not as most people's expectation of fair is me giving things to them.

Interesting, so you claim that the benefits of religion can be achieved through other means, and yet conversely you
dismiss the notion of fairness out of hand.

There folks is one of the faces of atheism, and why I have a problem with it.

 

[scaramanga]

Interesting, so you claim that the benefits of religion can be achieved through other means, and yet conversely you
dismiss the notion of fairness out of hand.

There folks is one of the faces of atheism, and why I have a problem with it.

There's nothing converse about it.

Should you choose to see fairness as a virtue (personally I think fairness is a far worse thing to give a person than opportunity) then it can be achieved perfectly well without religion.

In fact, religion is one of the worst possible ways to try and achieve fairness, as shown by pretty much the whole of recorded history.

 

[LutonSpurs]

We are now talking about systems and constitutions. About what would create an ideal society. The issue is that the concept of an ideal society is not an absolute. It is completely relative. As humans we all have different standards about what is good and bad. There is no way for us to achieve utopia from a societal perspective because we are all so different. What we can achieve is consensus in society. Neither religion or secularism has done either so far.

So what's the solution?

 

[DTA]

There's nothing converse about it.

Should you choose to see fairness as a virtue (personally I think fairness is a far worse thing to give a person than opportunity) then it can be achieved perfectly well without religion.

In fact, religion is one of the worst possible ways to try and achieve fairness, as shown by pretty much the whole of recorded history.

Equality of opportunity is a big part of fairness. As for the historic perspective of religion hindering fairness, we have covered that religion can be used as a tool to do wrong as can and have so many other ideologies.

The point is you say that the good that religion can do can be replaced, yet you then go on to dismiss the notion of fairness, ergo removing something that in an ideological world where scripture is not changed and manipulated, religion can and does to at least to an extent (even in today's far from ideological world) contribute to.

 

[scaramanga]

You and other atheist use the distortion of religion for personal gain by evil groups, as an excuse to spread a theory that has no more provable facts than any religious doctrine.

You think that the sentence directly above is a ridiculous statement? Well then have a look again at the image of the earth as a speck in the beam of the sun... And that's not even taking into account the passing of time within which we have lived on this earth for an absolutely minuscule, insignificant amount of time, yet you think that we have the answers through science of creation and absolutely everything??? Dude we can't even cure the common cold, so don't make me laugh.

atheism is no more provable than ancient astronaut theory, ie aliens helped us build the pyramids. Yet a sense of arrogance surrounds it like it is based on some irrefutable science... News flash.... It's not.

I think you're falling into the very common trap of "my understanding ends here, therefore religion".

Again, you're trying to use some kind of equivalence between religion and science - there is no such equivalence. If you want to draw some kind of equivalence between Christianity and Islam, go ahead. But to compare either to atheism is like saying my house is a little like yours is a little like ennui - there just are no comparitors.

You seem to be leaning towards the "it's so unlikely that there isn't a higher power because....." argument, so before you get there just consider the following:

Think about how ridiculously unlikely it is that our entire universe just happened to be. How perfectly everything has fallen into place in order for us to be here now. If gravity were slightly more or less powerful, we're not here. If carbon were a slightly heavier element, we're not here. If the few specks of just the right cosmic dust didn't coalesce a little outside the ones that were forming our Sun at the exact time and distance they did, we're not here.

The improbability of all these events just happening out of chaos and the random nature of everything is mind-boggling.

Now think how improbable it is that there's something that's powerful enough to create all of that.

Very little of what science tells us is entirely provable. I believe the most likely explanation is correct until something more likely comes along. As you can see from our little logic test above, that will never be some beardy **** who's so needy for our love and approval he invents famine, genocide and gang *struggle cuddle* to achieve it.

 

[DTA]

We are now talking about systems and constitutions. About what would create an ideal society. The issue is that the concept of an ideal society is not an absolute. It is completely relative. As humans we all have different standards about what is good and bad. There is no way for us to achieve utopia from a societal perspective because we are all so different. What we can achieve is consensus in society. Neither religion or secularism has done either so far.

So what's the solution?

Secularism as the non promoting of one faith over another and the disassociating of religion from government (although you can argue that it hasn't been achieved) is a good thing, what Scara and other atheists promote is not secularism it's a kind theocracy but replacing a deity with a non deity, as in all should believe in this new 'religion' of atheism

 

[LutonSpurs]

Secularism as the non promoting of one faith over another and the disassociating of religion from government (although you can argue that it hasn't been achieved) is a good thing, what Scara and other atheists promote is not secularism it's a kind theocracy but replacing a deity with a non deity, as in all should believe in this new 'religion' of atheism

That is the gist of what I am getting from them. A religious order without A deity and without worship. But obviously I don't know that they believe this unequivocally. It is just what I am reading in to it.

 

[DTA]

I think you're falling into the very common trap of "my understanding ends here, therefore religion".

Again, you're trying to use some kind of equivalence between religion and science - there is no such equivalence. If you want to draw some kind of equivalence between Christianity and Islam, go ahead. But to compare either to atheism is like saying my house is a little like yours is a little like ennui - there just are no comparitors.

You seem to be leaning towards the "it's so unlikely that there isn't a higher power because....." argument, so before you get there just consider the following:

Think about how ridiculously unlikely it is that our entire universe just happened to be. How perfectly everything has fallen into place in order for us to be here now. If gravity were slightly more or less powerful, we're not here. If carbon were a slightly heavier element, we're not here. If the few specks of just the right cosmic dust didn't coalesce a little outside the ones that were forming our Sun at the exact time and distance they did, we're not here.

The improbability of all these events just happening out of chaos and the random nature of everything is mind-boggling.

Now think how improbable it is that there's something that's powerful enough to create all of that.

Very little of what science tells us is entirely provable. I believe the most likely explanation is correct until something more likely comes along. As you can see from our little logic test above, that will never be some beardy **** who's so needy for our love and approval he invents famine, genocide and gang *struggle cuddle* to achieve it.

We agree that our existence is indeed miraculous, but you are willing to put all those things that come together to create the perfect storm down to chance, which whether you accept it or not is a leap of faith, and this is somehow more logical than the theory that there is a higher being beyond our (rediculously limited understanding) that may have had a hand in this.

As for *struggle cuddle* pillaging etc a deity didn't create or cause them, but we did and do through our pursuit of money and power, this is a historical truth which predates organised religion as we know it.

And I won't compare Islam Christianity Judaism, Buddhism Sikhism or shamanism I don't believe in putting a hierarchy on what peoples believe as that is divisive and not what true faith is about.

 

[DTA]

That is the gist of what I am getting from them. A religious order without A deity and without worship. But obviously I don't know that they believe this unequivocally. It is just what I am reading in to it.

It seems that way.

 

[Craig_J]

Money and power my friends.

Those on this 'great' athesism crusade miss the point completely. Yes religion can be a tool to be used to control the masses in the endless pursuit of money and power but so can and is nationalism, Or other ideologies like the spreading of democracy.

Its not the tool that's the propem its the person or people using the tool and the reasons why they are using it.

Money and power.

The way I see it nationalism and religion are the two biggest causes of war, murder, genocide and general hatred over the course of humanity. It was an inevitable development which sadly had to take place as humans will always have firm interest in the purpose of life, and unfortunately point out certain 'messiahs' or 'prophets' as the one that teaches the single true meaning of life...

I'd class myself as a buddhist taoist and the magnificent thing about spirtualism is you look inside yourself and come to honest conclusions about what you think is right. Basing everything on the gospel of someone who lived thousands of years ago means meanings become lost and things never progress.

Unfortunately every main monotheistic religion I can think of seems to have been founded with women as a second class species and till this day they suffer. I really hope one day we evolve past this bull****!

 

[DTA]

The way I see it nationalism and religion are the two biggest causes of war, murder, genocide and general hatred over the course of humanity. It was an inevitable development which sadly had to take place as humans will always have firm interest in the purpose of life, and unfortunately point out certain 'messiahs' or 'prophets' as the one that teaches the single true meaning of life...

I'd class myself as a buddhist taoist and the magnificent thing about spirtualism is you look inside yourself and come to honest conclusions about what you think is right. Basing everything on the gospel of someone who lived thousands of years ago means meanings become lost and things never progress.

Unfortunately every main monotheistic religion I can think of seems to have been founded with women as a second class species and till this day they suffer. I really hope one day we evolve past this bull****!

No I think that these are the tools used, no the causes.

I'm no expert but as far as I know all three monotheistic religions when they were founded gave rights to women that they didn't have in that time or cultures. Patriarchal societies lead to and still implement the oppression of women religion is just a tool to do this whether through in my opinion the re-writing or manipulation of scripts. This of course needs to change as does many so called religious practices.

Searching your soul for what you believe is right is something I whole heardtedly believe in, and think it is the basis of many faiths.

 

[braineclipse]

The truth is you have varying degrees of an illusion of democracy, not democracy itself. is it better than the feudal system, of course, although some more knowledgable than I may argue that we are heading to a neo feudal system.

But the spreading of democracy through bombs is hilarious oxymoron, but one very much practiced by the west outwardly, yet the truth lies in the fact that is once again to do with money power and neo colonist aspirations.

As for getting rid of religion and thus depriving those with ill intentions of a tool. Well tools are not evil, a hammer can bludgeon someone to death or be used to create shelter, as is the case with religion. If someone with ill intentions has not got access to a hammer then he will use and axe. If religion did not exist then another ideology would take its place and be distorted, nationalism for example.

You and other atheist use the distortion of religion for personal gain by evil groups, as an excuse to spread a theory that has no more provable facts than any religious doctrine.

You think that the sentence directly above is a ridiculous statement? Well then have a look again at the image of the earth as a speck in the beam of the sun... And that's not even taking into account the passing of time within which we have lived on this earth for an absolutely minuscule, insignificant amount of time, yet you think that we have the answers through science of creation and absolutely everything??? Dude we can't even cure the common cold, so don't make me laugh.

atheism is no more provable than ancient astronaut theory, ie aliens helped us build the pyramids. Yet a sense of arrogance surrounds it like it is based on some irrefutable science... News flash.... It's not.

Ignoring the democracy bits, not really on topic and I think we largely agree that democracy is a good thing.

You're arguing by analogy, calling religion a tool and then arguing as if it's literally a tool. I have already pointed out why I think religion is more than just a tool and I can't see that I've been countered on that.

How often do you talk to scientists about science? Next time you have a chance ask them what they're currently researching, chances are that will be something that's now currently known or well enough understood. Science thrives on unanswered questions, hardly anyone hires scientists to research that which is already known. The very nature of science is that the answer to whatever question is or was "I don't know". That's how science progresses. Sam Harris said in a debate with Depak Chopra: "At a scientific meeting, you're about as likely to find arrogance as you are to find nudity".

By contrast the arrogance that is displayed by those that not only claim that there's a GHod, but that he's on their side and that they know how he feels about human behavior. Now that's arrogance.

Atheism is the rejection of GHod claims. The burden of proof is on those making the claim, religious thinkers have tried to find a way to switch the burden of proof for a long time, I wish you the best outdoing them on that. A rejection like this can't be proven. My rejection is based on the (lack of) evidence. You similarly have no proof for your rejection of the 99.9% of religions you don't believe in, but you don't take that as a reason for believing in them. By your standard that makes you just about as arrogant as me, although I prefer my description of what's arrogant and what isn't.

Interesting, so you claim that the benefits of religion can be achieved through other means, and yet conversely you
dismiss the notion of fairness out of hand.

There folks is one of the faces of atheism, and why I have a problem with it.

Atheism is the rejection of GHod claims. Scara is no more one of the faces of atheism than any other atheist is.

You're an atheist about thousands of gods that people believe and believed in. We just go one GHod further (assuming you're a monotheist). The evidence for the GHod of your religion is no better or worse than the claims of the other world religions or smaller religions for that matter.

Equality of opportunity is a big part of fairness. As for the historic perspective of religion hindering fairness, we have covered that religion can be used as a tool to do wrong as can and have so many other ideologies.

The point is you say that the good that religion can do can be replaced, yet you then go on to dismiss the notion of fairness, ergo removing something that in an ideological world where scripture is not changed and manipulated, religion can and does to at least to an extent (even in today's far from ideological world) contribute to.

The unchanged scripture is almost always much worse than modern religion. I'm glad religion has been dragged into the modern world and that most of the teachings of the ancient scriptures have been left by the wayside. Although I think modern society would be much further along if religion was holding us back.

Secularism as the non promoting of one faith over another and the disassociating of religion from government (although you can argue that it hasn't been achieved) is a good thing, what Scara and other atheists promote is not secularism it's a kind theocracy but replacing a deity with a non deity, as in all should believe in this new 'religion' of atheism

Theocracy? Theocracy? Are you serious? Even this word you'll use in relation to atheists. Where do you get this stuff from? Seriously, who are the thinkers or prophets or priests you get this kind of stuff from? Please point me towards the thinker that claims that modern atheists are for something that can be described as a theocracy.

I'm confident that a massive majority of atheists are for freedom of religion and secularism. Some atheists argue against religion in the hope of convincing people that atheism is a better path, in the hope of intellectually change the way people think. For me, if it takes force, faith or government to change the way someone thinks I wouldn't want them on our side anyway.

The theocracy statement would be a massive insult to most if not all free thinkers. I see Scara hasn't answered yet, but I would be shocked if he isn't a supporter of freedom of religion and rationality in laws and regulation. I honestly think you owe him an apology for you ugly insinuation and comparison. Either that or show some kind of argument where you get from his statements to something that could be described as a theocracy.

 

[braineclipse]

We are now talking about systems and constitutions. About what would create an ideal society. The issue is that the concept of an ideal society is not an absolute. It is completely relative. As humans we all have different standards about what is good and bad. There is no way for us to achieve utopia from a societal perspective because we are all so different. What we can achieve is consensus in society. Neither religion or secularism has done either so far.

So what's the solution?

An ideal society would not be absolute, but at the same time it's not completely relative.

I reject moral relativism and I'm guessing if pressed you would to. Religious people will claim that without GHod we have no morality, but religious morality is demonstrably relative.

There is no way to achieve utopia and we shouldn't try to. But what we can do is have a serious conversation about right and wrong, good and evil, human happiness, human suffering, human progress. And we can find that there are some solutions that are better than others.

Sam Harris did a really good TED talk on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

A secular basis for society seems clearly better than religious counterexamples to me. We have a long way to go to develop the societies we want, and perhaps we'll never get to an agreed upon ideal. But progress can be made, if we make smart, rational decisions.

That is the gist of what I am getting from them. A religious order without A deity and without worship. But obviously I don't know that they believe this unequivocally. It is just what I am reading in to it.

I applaud your agnosticism and admission that you don't quite know what we think

I'm guessing you're not a Hindu? Is not believing in Hinduism a religious order without a deity and without worship for you? I'm guessing not. Assuming that you're a religious monotheist yourself there are thousands of gods you reject, I reject the same number +1. Is that the limit for where disbelief itself becomes a religious order? Seems like a very strange way to look at things.

I find the idea of a religious order without a deity and worship itself a bit strange. Add to this the absence of scripture, the absence of orthodoxy, the absence of a priesthood. What's your definition of religious order that allows for the inclusion of such a group?

Again I reflect on how far we've come in this debate on a larger scale. It used to be that an atheist in "the west" was thought of not much higher than an apostate currently is in many Islamic countries. Now the religious are seemingly flocking to "well, you're believing in a religion too". There's something there I just can't quite put words to. It's almost as if the word "religious" is now being used negatively even by the religious. Not quite an insult, but not far away. I don't think you would have to go that far back though before calling atheists religious would be seen as an insult, not to the atheists - but to the religious.

Now the false (imo) equivalency is a go to argument.

 

[LutonSpurs]

An ideal society would not be absolute, but at the same time it's not completely relative.

I reject moral relativism and I'm guessing if pressed you would to. Religious people will claim that without GHod we have no morality, but religious morality is demonstrably relative.

There is no way to achieve utopia and we shouldn't try to. But what we can do is have a serious conversation about right and wrong, good and evil, human happiness, human suffering, human progress. And we can find that there are some solutions that are better than others.

Sam Harris did a really good TED talk on this:


A secular basis for society seems clearly better than religious counterexamples to me. We have a long way to go to develop the societies we want, and perhaps we'll never get to an agreed upon ideal. But progress can be made, if we make smart, rational decisions.



I applaud your agnosticism and admission that you don't quite know what we think

I'm guessing you're not a Hindu? Is not believing in Hinduism a religious order without a deity and without worship for you? I'm guessing not. Assuming that you're a religious monotheist yourself there are thousands of gods you reject, I reject the same number +1. Is that the limit for where disbelief itself becomes a religious order? Seems like a very strange way to look at things.

I find the idea of a religious order without a deity and worship itself a bit strange. Add to this the absence of scripture, the absence of orthodoxy, the absence of a priesthood. What's your definition of religious order that allows for the inclusion of such a group?

Again I reflect on how far we've come in this debate on a larger scale. It used to be that an atheist in "the west" was thought of not much higher than an apostate currently is in many Islamic countries. Now the religious are seemingly flocking to "well, you're believing in a religion too". There's something there I just can't quite put words to. It's almost as if the word "religious" is now being used negatively even by the religious. Not quite an insult, but not far away. I don't think you would have to go that far back though before calling atheists religious would be seen as an insult, not to the atheists - but to the religious.

Now the false (imo) equivalency is a go to argument.

Need to reply properly later but to answer your question, I am a Muslim.

 

[braineclipse]

The way I see it nationalism and religion are the two biggest causes of war, murder, genocide and general hatred over the course of humanity. It was an inevitable development which sadly had to take place as humans will always have firm interest in the purpose of life, and unfortunately point out certain 'messiahs' or 'prophets' as the one that teaches the single true meaning of life...

I'd class myself as a buddhist taoist and the magnificent thing about spirtualism is you look inside yourself and come to honest conclusions about what you think is right. Basing everything on the gospel of someone who lived thousands of years ago means meanings become lost and things never progress.

Unfortunately every main monotheistic religion I can think of seems to have been founded with women as a second class species and till this day they suffer. I really hope one day we evolve past this bull****!

I have less of a problem with Buddhism than the monotheistic religion, at least it seems less harmful to me.

I don't think Buddhism is in a special category when it comes to views on women though. At least the way it's practiced most places in the world where societies or countries can be classified as Buddhist. Just one of several issues with Buddhism for me.

Not well enough read/educated to know what exactly it is to be a Buddhist Taoist though? Would you mind expanding a bit on the views and ideas as you see them? I know some Buddhists classify themselves as atheists, would you? What's your beliefs on the supernatural?

What would you do if there's a conflict between science/evidence and ideas with a more "supernatural source"* if you do think that is possible?

*Not trying to put words in your mouth here, I honestly just don't quite know what your beliefs are, I hope you get kind of what I'm going for.

 

[braineclipse]

Need to reply properly later but to answer your question, I am a Muslim.

Hah! You already told me in the "bacon thread" didn't you? I'm quite forgetful at times, my bad

No need to rush an answer, enjoying the conversation by the way.

 

[LutonSpurs]

Hah! You already told me in the "bacon thread" didn't you? I'm quite forgetful at times, my bad

No need to rush an answer, enjoying the conversation by the way.

So am I. We have to give credit to scara for creating this society. I am just waiting for him to declare himself deity over us all.

 

[scaramanga]

Secularism as the non promoting of one faith over another and the disassociating of religion from government (although you can argue that it hasn't been achieved) is a good thing, what Scara and other atheists promote is not secularism it's a kind theocracy but replacing a deity with a non deity, as in all should believe in this new 'religion' of atheism

I think I might just get BE to put a signature in his posts quoting me saying "This". Although I don't believe you owe me any kind of apology, you don't get to be as forthright with your views as me unless you have a thick skin.

I believe 100% in the freedom of thought. I don't want to control people's thoughts and I don't want to make them conform to my way of thinking - all I want is to show them what's out there, teach them how to apply logic and allow that to follow its logical conclusion.

I also understand that faith in itself is a virtue for some (many) religious people. And that it's pretty impossible to change that method of thought because they see value in the very process of believing without challenging. I have no objection to it unless it infects someone with power over people - I changed my GP because I found out he was religious. Whilst it might not bother many, I can't trust important decisions in the hands of someone who got such an major one so clearly wrong.

 

[scaramanga]

We agree that our existence is indeed miraculous, but you are willing to put all those things that come together to create the perfect storm down to chance, which whether you accept it or not is a leap of faith, and this is somehow more logical than the theory that there is a higher being beyond our (rediculously limited understanding) that may have had a hand in this.

Yet no matter how unlikely our existence is, the likelihood of there being something so much more powerful that it can create the uni(/multi)verse is so much more unlikely. You can continue that pretty much forever too.

As for *struggle cuddle* pillaging etc a deity didn't create or cause them, but we did and do through our pursuit of money and power, this is a historical truth which predates organised religion as we know it.

If The Flying Spaghetti Monster created us then it created what we do too. I would have thought it would be a fairly simple task for an omnipotent being just to put some kind of kill switch in our brains. After all, if it can create something as complex as an atom a "Don't *struggle cuddle*" instruction set in our minds could almost be done as an afterthought.

And I won't compare Islam Christianity Judaism, Buddhism Sikhism or shamanism I don't believe in putting a hierarchy on what peoples believe as that is divisive and not what true faith is about.

Why not? They're all as silly as each other.

My point was maybe a little abstract (intentionally so) in comparing houses to a state of mind. So lets remove the equivalence by using a better analogy:

A Mondeo (Christianity) is a bit like a Honda Accord (Buddhism), is a bit like an Insignia (Islam). None of these are anything like a vacuum (Atheism).

 

[scaramanga]

I'd class myself as a buddhist taoist and the magnificent thing about spirtualism is you look inside yourself and come to honest conclusions about what you think is right. Basing everything on the gospel of someone who lived thousands of years ago means meanings become lost and things never progress.

Sorry to crop your post, I don't like doing that in general but this was the only bit I really wanted to address.

Do you feel that religion is required in order for you to look inside yourself (I assume figuratively) and come to honest conclusions? I do that quite regularly and I haven't had to submit my independent thought over to a higher power.