"Religulous".....comments? (ducks and covers)

quote:

Originally posted by Consciousmess:
...my logic is based on extensive reading around this debate...

From one point of view for the most part, by the looks of things.

What was it that Socrates said, "whoever teaches himself has a fool for a teacher"?

Playing book title ping-pong is incredibly tedious. We can all quote titles of books at each other.

I could go on about:

Anthony Flew, 'There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind'

David Berlinski, 'The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions'

Alister McGrath, 'The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine'

Michael Behe, 'The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism'

Ward & Brownless, 'Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe'

To be honest, when the science vs religion thing is brought up yet again, it just makes me yawn. Total red herring.

And one thing that does never cease to amaze me is how intelligent people can have such a childish view of how people of faith experience God and that they must have a two-year-old's intellect. How patronising is that?

JWM,

I believe your name is John, but I apologise if I am mistaken. You are correct, there could be a verbal game of ping-pong played in recommending authors, but I must add a point here.

Because religion and faith have been so dominant in society for most of civilization's time, the number of books on that side of the 'court' probably out-number the secular side by a great magnitude. Having said this, I must add that I HAVE read books such as these including:

Michael Corey "The God hypothesis: discovering design in our 'just right' goldilocks universe"

Andrew Wilson, "Deluded by Dawkins"

Alister McGrath "The Dawkins Delusion"

(which I own)

Now, I will get hold of some of the books you cite as I am not someone who just reads the atheist side.

You label this debate as a 'red herring', which you have every right to, but I'm sorry it is only in these recent years that the secular side has had a chance to air its views. I don't need to even begin listing what has happened in history because of organised religion.

By not questioning as many believers of faith do, human knowledge does not progress and I tell you what, ALL DEBATES I have watched both live and on YouTube have the religious side repeating the same stuff they were repeating years ago. Science is the dynamic one and without questioning continuously, we would still be in caves.

Granted, religion and faith have brought with them great charity and support, but I will pose the question that Hitchen himself posed: "Name a case where someone did a good thing NOT because of their religion. There are abundant examples here. Now, name a harmful and disasterous thing that someone has done because of their faith".

I need to say no more.

Jon

I regret that I have little time for the personally-odious man Hitchins, who ought to get a civil tongue in his head if he wants to be taken seriously.

His question is, typically, lower 6th form, thinking he has asked the most erudite and significant thing ever (a bit like David Starkey used to in R4's 'The Moral Maze'). You can feel him purring to himself with self-indulgent pride.

Hitchins' question seems to be based on the infantile false premise that religions and/or people of faith (however you wish to categorise them) view those outside faith incapable of doing good.

The Church in fact speaks very clearly an positively about good things done by anyone, of faith or not.

The question also seems based on the equally-infantile false premise that people of faith are only capable of doing good. Being fallible human beings, clearly this is not true.

Hitchins' question may sound terribly clever (and aren't journalists trained to do that) but is totally empty. There is no argument here.

Rather than Mr Hitchins' L6th 'clever' debating club, I am more interested in life. I am more interested in your autistic children. It seems to me that frequently those outside faith, with very clear - self-defined - boundaries of the acceptable, see them only as their outward selves, sub-perfect human beings, whereas those with faith more frequently see them as being uniquely precious to God, created by him in his own image and likeness, and therefore should be uniquely precious to us. It is notable that the most odious regimes of all time have been atheistic, Stalinism and Nazism.

Thank you for wanting to address me by my Christian name, which is in fact,
James.

Good wishes.

I don't think there is any benefit in adding up the total sum of human misery caused by either religion or Stalinism. Neither are really relevant to arguments concerning the existence of god.

quote:

Originally posted by Consciousmess:
Nigel,

Many thanks for your tip, but my logic is based on extensive reading around this debate.

Jon

Oh, dear. Have you no views of your own?

quote:

Rather than Mr Hitchins' L6th 'clever' debating club, I am more interested in life. I am more interested in your autistic children. It seems to me that frequently those outside faith, with very clear - self-defined - boundaries of the acceptable, see them only as their outward selves, sub-perfect human beings, whereas those with faith more frequently see them as being uniquely precious to God, created by him in his own image and likeness, and therefore should be uniquely precious to us.

Hi James

I think this is an excellent point that gets right to the heart of the matter. Earlier in the thread I claimed that the essence of religion is a concern with absolute value. This is an example of what I meant - as you say, from the religious perspective, each individual is precious and irreplaceable. I'd add that seeing each person in this light is the key to unlocking compassion. Of course, decisions in the real world (e.g. about the allocation of scarce medical resources) have to be made from a relative perspective, according to which one life saved is pretty much as good as any other. But religion insists that this is not the end of the story - and that we don't forget it.

The interesting question for me is whether those two little words "to God" are necessary or helpful. My fear is that the word "God" has so much metaphysical baggage, and is so susceptible to being misinterpreted, that it is no longer useful in these debates. In any case, I believe that the idea of absolute value is really what's at stake. Correctly understood, it ought to be as repugnant to Dawkins and his followers as the idea of God - but it's an idea I feel much more comfortable in defending.

Regards
Nigel

How I wish I was more proficient in replying to several posts at once!

Just from reading the last few written, I will simply type my response and I hope all individuals involved will take their relevance from this.

I will firstly speak in support of Hitchens. This man is a genius in his standard of articulation and so I find it extremely amusing when he uses lay-English in his jokes. Put simply, I will bet my entire Naim system (which is so dear to me) that none of you could beat him in a debate. His use of rhetorical questions, which you regard as simple, exist I believe to really struck a chord in ALL.

I now wish to mention all the debates that I have watched on YouTube. If you go spending as long as I do watching these (and don't call me sad - it is a thorough interest of mine), you will notice that the ratings given of the videos are so often HIGH when the points given are made by the secular community (compared to the theist side). The secular community includes Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris. My conclusion from this is:

Most people who watch these videos are already sceptics and those who question faith. Isn't that logical? Moreover, the notion of atheists teaming together has been likened to 'herding cats' as they are all independent in mind. This is unlike shared beliefs by organised religions.

The next point I want to make relates to the text book I cited above: Victor Stenger God: the failed hypothesis. I wish I had it with me now as I have lent it to a friend, but in the first portion of the book he shows how you apply the scientific method and quite comprehensively goes through all the purported evidence given by faith-heads wanting to show that science gave their claims empirical authority. What Stenger brilliantly highlights is that if someone could follow true scientific procedures with probablility levels as unlikely as what is taken in classical physics experiments (something like 0.0001), there would we an abundance of funding and fame for that scientist as they would have unearthed a new RELIABLE (i.e. authentic, repeatable and consistent) discovery in science.

THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED and that certainly includes the power of prayer. If you doubt my own personal words here, I refer you to Stenger's book.

Regards,

Jon

quote:

By not questioning as many believers of faith do, human knowledge does not progress and I tell you what, ALL DEBATES I have watched both live and on YouTube have the religious side repeating the same stuff they were repeating years ago.

Jon, how else could it be??? Most religions' perception of their God hasn't changed. In fact, it would be very odd if it did change. The catholic church's reinterpretations of the bible are dangerous enough.

Hi Frank,

With respect, that is the point I was making!

Whether something feels good, whether it brings health benefits, whether it is consoling, whether it gives an individual self-importance, a personal meaning to life...

...is irrelevant as to whether it is correct.

I must say this but I believe a vast majority of atheists/agnostics are genuinely decent people who do not need ancient scripture to tell then what is the right thing to do.

In general, morality greatly stems from the tit-for-tat phenomenon. I know I've now opened the discussion up into a wider arena as 'altruism' could be questioned, but this specific issue frequently causes debates.

YouTube covers a good variety I think!

Regards,

Jon

I thought he said "Turn the other cheek" ...

[I thought he said "turn the other cheek"]

Since when have film-makers ever let facts get in the way of a good story?

Cheers

Don

Since when have religious types ever come to terms with their hypocrisy Don?

If the news report I linked to is not factual please enlighten us.

quote:

If the news report..........

Sincere apologies. The picture reminded me somewhat of "The life of Brian". I didn't realise it was an actual record of a news event this week!!

BTW I don't usually bother to follow up links to other sites. If people can't be bothered to express their own views or summarise important issues, then I can't usually be bothered to look them up myself....

So who was about to be stoned?

Cheers

Don

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit Don.
It can also be the funniest, though obviously not in your case.

If you can't be bothered to click your mouse that is your prerogative,
unless the buttons are too big (or small).

I find the claim that the Nazis were atheist a little strange. I had been under the impression that they regarded themselves as Christian. Even the Wehrmacht belt buckles carried the sogan "Gott mit uns"
Ken

Let's knock this one on the head.

Of the nine million killed by Hitler and the Nazi regime, approximately 3 million were Christians.

In the face of persecution, dissenting Christians went underground and formed the Confessing Church, which was persecuted as a subversive group by the Nazi government. Many of its leaders were arrested and sent to concentration camps (of whom the best known is the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer), and left the underground mostly leaderless. Church members continued to engage in various forms of resistance, including hiding Jews during the Holocaust and various attempts, largely unsuccessful, to prod the Christian community to speak out on the part of the Jews.

The Catholic Church was particularly suppressed in Poland. Churches were systematically closed, and most priests were either killed, imprisoned, or deported . The Germans also closed seminaries and convents persecuting monks and nuns throughout Poland (the best known being the theologians St Maximilian Kolbe and St Teresa Benedicta).

In Pomerania, all but 20 of the 650 priests were shot or sent to concentration camps.

80% of the Catholic clergy and five of the bishops of Warthegau were sent to concentration camps in 1939; in the cities of Wrocław (Breslau) and Chełmno approximately half of their Catholic priests were killed.

Protestants in Poland did not fare well either. In the Cieszyn region of Silesia every single Protestant pastor was arrested and deported to the death camps.]

Not only in Poland were Christians persecuted by the Nazis. In the Dachau concentration camp alone 2,600 Catholic priests from 24 different countries were killed.

Also, beyond mainstream Christianity, the Jehovah's Witnesses were direct targets of the Holocaust, for their refusal to swear allegiance to the Nazi government. Many Jehovah's Witnesses were given the chance to deny their faith and swear allegiance to the state, but few agreed. Over 12,000 Witnesses were sent to the concentration camps, and estimated 2,500-5,000 died in the Holocaust.

James

It baffles me why there is a continuous debate about God here - actually it isn't, because the subject is fascinating - but I don't see any point in holding up books as some sort of authority. I could easily write a book on it, without knowing anything, and someone will refer to it and say "in this book is written the religious beliefs of Ewan Aye" You see what I did there...you & I...oh, never mind.

I planted some potatoes earlier in the year and my little boy came and helped me. I dug the trenches and he planted the potatoes, and this Saturday morning I got up really early and started digging them up. Next thing I know, there he is, in his pyjamas with his wellies on and his blue plastic bucket and spade from the beach, and he's down on his knees beside me gathering the potatoes and putting them in his bucket. It's just me and him down the garden, laughing, prodding worms, and doing stuff like this together.

Personally I don't much care if there is a collective God, or what others believe, because for me I'm not particularly bothered about the mechanics or the arguments when I have what I have, and that love and sense of belonging is within me and part of me. If that's being close to God, then that's something I can accept and hold dear, and that hour for me was just that. I have lots of moments like that, just times when I find an inner spiritual peace.

I can't help but think that you talk at cross purposes. You try to illustrate why you don't believe what the other person thinks, but you have no handle on what it is that the other person believes, because it is such a personal, emotional experience, it isn't possible to make a proper assessment.

Rather than saying "I don't believe in God", it would be much better to say "I haven't found God". To comment on others experiences just isn't relevant at all, let alone refer to books by other equally clueless people. I'm not even sure we all mean the same thing when we refer to God - a being, a feeling, an inner peace, a knowledge - it isn't the same for everyone.

There isn't any need to fight for your beliefs, because they are personal and don't matter to anyone else. You wouldn't say to someone "You don't love your wife. I know your wife and I don't love her, so you can't either". It isn't so very different.

Ewan, other people's beliefs don't bother me. It is when those beliefs are used to justify the actions that will ultimately destroy the natural world (and by consequence the human race - although I admit that bothers me less) that I feel it is important to challenge the protection these nut-jobs enjoy. That protection is founded on a notion of unwarranted and unearned "respect" for religious beliefs and particularly the right enjoyed by religious people to force those beliefs onto their children. If this form of child abuse disappeared overnight, organised religions would die out in a generation and (in my opinion) we would all be better off.

That's not to say people wouldn't continue to have moments of inner peace and "spirituality", just as they do now. It's just that they wouldn't claim the authority of a higher power to do what ever the f$%k they want.

So, you would support the eradication of those that hold a particular belief for the benefit of the natural world and human race, then.
Hhhhmmm..... I don't even have to say anything here, do I?

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
It is when those beliefs are used to justify the actions that will ultimately destroy the natural world...

What?

Primarily by overpopulation. There is a direct correlation between fertility rates and faith. Indeed, religions "require" large families to ensure the growth and continued existence of the religion itself. Religions have no basis, so can't survive, other than by growing from within by way of pre-creation/brainwashing and to a lesser extent, marketing by way of missionaries etc.

The notion that there is an afterlife can be used to comfort those who would otherwise be appalled the destruction of the natural world. The fundies believe in judgement day or whatever - it lets then dodge responsibility in this life. Look at Palin's attitude to natural resources. She believes that they are simply there for us to shoot, drill and generally exploit. And she has 5 kids FFS!. If those 5 have another 5 each etc etc. Oh wait, that's right, they've already started - Q. "What do you call a Hockey Mom who believes in abstinence-only sex education? A. Grandma". Anecdotal, for sure - but the fundies do have more babies - and believe that god is blessing this planet-f%$!ng behaviour.

I work for a natural resources company and very aware of the strictly finite nature of our resources. There is no credible global environmental management policy that does not include population control and ultimate reversal of the exponential trend. If we don't do it, the world will do it to us. Our recycling/hybrid/wind-framing/carbon-offsetting feel-good actions are window dressing at best. At worst, they con us into believing we are doing something worthwhile (and possibly adequate). You really want to reduce your environmental impact? Have fewer spawn.

quote:

Originally posted by Ewan Aye:
So, you would support the eradication of those that hold a particular belief for the benefit of the natural world and human race, then.
Hhhhmmm..... I don't even have to say anything here, do I?

It don't want to eradicate anybody. I want to eradicate unfounded faiths that drive destructive actions. That doesn't mean eradicate the faithful - it just means don't brainwash anyone else. The faithful and faiths will die out of their own accord.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
You really want to reduce your environmental impact? Have fewer spawn.

Hallelujah!

Every single manmade Earth problem occurring now or in the future is going to be exacerbated by a bigger population.

And to further agree with Winkyincanada, it's a known fact that some faiths, for example Muslims want 4, 5, 6 or more offspring. The mathematics aren't hard to calculate.

Take a town like Rochdale, Lancashire for example. In the late 60's there was a tiny proportion of Pakistanis. Inside 40 years they have now become the highest percentage population in the town.

So, as far as I am concerned, their belief in their faith is all that matters to them, and to hell with the consequences of the planet's resources. Faith must come first.

Right now I almost see it as a selfish act to bring a child into the world, a controversial view I know. But as a childless couple, my wife and I are pretty smug about our effect on our environment.


Best regards, Ian

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:
What?

You haven't heard about the Catholics then James?

I love it here. You know, you lot really are the funniest people and I'm just laughing.

quote:

Winkyincanada: It don't want to eradicate anybody. The faithful and faiths will die out of their own accord.

quote:

ianmacd: And to further agree with Winkyincanada,....... as a childless couple, my wife and I are pretty smug about our effect on our environment.

Oh, the irony!
I bloody love it here. You really are all so funny My sides are hurting.