Books and you

[barmar]

We can't just let everyone believe what they want, because other people are affected.  For instance, some have been trying to convince schools to teach Intelligent Design as if it's a valid alternative to natural selection, while others succeeded in getting a bunch of believers to fly jets into skyscrapers.  As long as religious leaders are encroaching on everyone else's rights, we have to fight against them.  And one way (possibly the only way) is to try to convert people away from religion.

The fact that there are eco-terrorists doesn't mean we should attempt to dissuade all environmentalists from working for the causes they believe in.

That's because there's obvious benefits to environmentalism, and the eco-terrorists are a small fringe group. On the other hand, evangelizing is part of the mainstream of religion. Religious leaders have enormous power in the world, and many political leaders take advice from their religion.

[TimG]

That's because there's obvious benefits to environmentalism, and the eco-terrorists are a small fringe group. On the other hand, evangelizing is part of the mainstream of religion. Religious leaders have enormous power in the world, and many political leaders take advice from their religion.

One could argue that there are obvious benefits to religion, too.

[Al_U_Card]

ROFLMAO

[kfay]

"Trinity" - Leon Uris

 

Conor Larkin is my alltime hero.

[cjames]

"Moment of Freedom" + "Powderhouse" + "the Silence" all by Jens Bjørnebo should be compulsory reading for everyone in the West.

[mycroft]

I would say that if you want to understand where I'm coming from, you should realize that I read "How to Lie with Statistics", Huff, and "1066 and All That", Sellar and Yeatman, every year.

 

As far as my theories on Society go, books don't really help. You have to know my past, and no, if you can't figure it out from my posts, I'm Not Going There. Let's just say that were I born South of 49 instead of the other way around, I would be dead by now, for at least three reasons. I *appreciate* the things about the Rest of the Developed World that have given me the opportunity to be who I am, finally, and sort of hope that someone else will be able to take advantage of them as well.

 

I would suggest, on the side topic, that fundamentalism isn't the issue. Extremism, or fanaticism, is. Which is why rabidly evangelical *anything*, including rabidly evangelical atheism, scares me. Do note, however, that it is the extremist and the fanatic who progress the world the most as well. It's like dynamite, or a chainsaw, or a bulldozer - the biggest tools affect the world the most, it is what it is aimed at that determines whether that affect is progress or regress.

 

Oh, and you can call my beliefs and opinions anything you like. You can call me (in certain circumstances) irrational - I've tried being The Ultimate Rational Being, and it tried to kill me. If you call me stupid, however, well, I'm rational enough to know how to judge the maker of that judgment.

 

Michael.

[finally17]

I've tried being The Ultimate Rational Being, and it tried to kill me.

This is awesome.

[helene_t]

I would suggest, on the side topic, that fundamentalism isn't the issue. Extremism, or fanaticism, is. Which is why rabidly evangelical *anything*, including rabidly evangelical atheism, scares me.

Yes, I think the word "fundamentalism" is abused a lot.

 

But I don't think there is such a thing as rabidly evangelical atheism. OK, Dawkins has made his mind up and he is evangelical, but he doesn't advocate children being taught that they will burn in hell if they do pray to God, nor does he advocate blowing up embassies of countries in which newspapers are allowed to praise prophets.

 

There are militant environmentalists, militant pro-choice activists, militant marxists and militant anti-semitists. And obviously there are atheists in all of those groups. But I don't think I have ever heard of atheism as such being promoted in unacceptable ways. At least it doesn't happen very often. How often do atheists burn churches? How many atheists argue that religion should be banned?

[Codo]

. At least it doesn't happen very often. How often do atheists burn churches? How many atheists argue that religion should be banned?

During the communist times they closed many churches in Eastern Europe.

During the Nazi times they closed many churches in Germany.

Ask tibetian monks about chinese practice with their churches.

 

And these are the only states I know, who claimed to have an atheist governement.

 

I bet that the same will happen elsewhere if atheism is the most popular form of living or if it is the wish of the governement that their citizens should be atheists.

 

And even in this forums I read quite often that religion should be banned, that it cause more evil then good.

 

So as often as I agree with you, sorry, we disagree here.

 

Atheists are as much normal people as believers are.

They do the same good and bad, commit the same crimes and wars, whatever.

[helene_t]

During the communist times they closed many churches in Eastern Europe.

During the Nazi times they closed many churches in Germany.

Ask tibetian monks about chinese practice with their churches.

Point taken. Good examples. Maybe the ban on public display of religion (such as women wearing headscarves) in France and Turkey are borderline examples.

 

I haven't noticed anyone arguing that religion should be banned here, though. Several have said some very negative things about religion, but that is ok IMHO. I don't mind people saying that atheists are misguided either, as long as they don't say that we are criminals (which nobody says here either as far as I have noticed).

 

There was a thread at some other forum I belong to in which someone stated that religion should be banned, but that is quite rare and did not get any support.

[hrothgar]

. At least it doesn't happen very often. How often do atheists burn churches? How many atheists argue that religion should be banned?

During the communist times they closed many churches in Eastern Europe.

During the Nazi times they closed many churches in Germany.

Ask tibetian monks about chinese practice with their churches.

 

And these are the only states I know, who claimed to have an atheist governement.

 

I bet that the same will happen elsewhere if atheism is the most popular form of living or if it is the wish of the governement that their citizens should be atheists.

 

And even in this forums I read quite often that religion should be banned, that it cause more evil then good.

 

So as often as I agree with you, sorry, we disagree here.

 

Atheists are as much normal people as believers are.

They do the same good and bad, commit the same crimes and wars, whatever.

Comment 1: Turkey is an overtly secular republic (It seems to be mellowing though)

 

Comment 2: I would hardly call the National Socialist party atheistic. Hitler used precisely the same "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" language as Bismark. The National Socialists reached a very happy accomodation with the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church wasn't actively in bed with the German Fascists the way they were in Franco's Spain, but don't pretend for a minute that there was any kind of antagonistic relationship here.

 

The Nazi's weren't against religion. They were against anything that detracted from their own ability to manipulate the masses. On those occasions where churchs or individual clergymen played ball the Nazis were more than happy to use religion to bolster their own authority. If / when individual clergymen resisted, the Nazi's dealth with them extremely harshly.

[Codo]

I bet that the same will happen elsewhere if atheism is the most popular form of living or if it is the wish of the governement that their citizens should be atheists.

 

Comment 1: Turkey is an overtly secular republic (It seems to be mellowing though)

Turkey has some very very religious people in their governement. They just try to separate state and church as good as possible. This is very different from being atheists.

 

Comment 2:  I would hardly call the National Socialist party atheistic. 

The Nazi's weren't against religion.  They were against anything that detracted from their own ability to manipulate the masses.  On those occasions where churchs or individual clergymen played ball the Nazis were more than happy to use religion to bolster their own authority.  If / when individual clergymen resisted, the Nazi's dealth with them extremely harshly.

 

Like many political parties, The Nazis tried to coopaerate with anybody as long as they are useful. So they did not suppress the christian churches as hard as they did with others. That is true. They abused the churches for their purposes.

But they are still atheists in their words, in what they did and how they thought. If they had had the time, they had closed the christian church too- and if it had just been for the reason you mentioned- there should be nobody able to detract the masses.

 

The churches did surely not play the role in the resitance that they should have played. This is a very black chapter of our history. This is true. But that does not make Hitler to a christian/ religious man at all.

 

The Nazis tried to convince people that the church is not necessary. They started programms to get the kids away from the pathfinders to the "Hitler Jugend". They tried to install a new "youth consecration" outside of the church and did some more. This is quite a lot in just 12 years during a world war.

In the parliament there had be not one member who still belonged to a big church.

20 years ago, about 80% of all members of the parliament in the "Weimarer Republic" had been christians.

The christian churches had a strong place in the german society. So it was not possible for the Nazis to erase them in such a short time. However, they often tried.

 

Please search under Wikipedia Nazi/Religion for further details.

The german side for this is: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchen_und_R...onalsozialismus

[mikeh]

That's because there's obvious benefits to environmentalism, and the eco-terrorists are a small fringe group.  On the other hand, evangelizing is part of the mainstream of religion.  Religious leaders have enormous power in the world, and many political leaders take advice from their religion.

One could argue that there are obvious benefits to religion, too.

One could argue that the world is flat. One could be indoctrinated into believing the world to be flat. It wouldn't render the world flat.

 

I am interested (well, not THAT interested) in knowing what 'benefits' could be said to flow from a belief in a religion.

 

I am NOT saying that a believer doesn't perceive a benefit, but I am suggesting that I find it (so far) impossible to come up with a 'benefit' that is unique to religious belief... a benefit that pertains because of religious belief and that would be unavailable to a non-believer.

 

Of course, I don't count the ability to abandon or never invoke rational thinking as a benefit B)

 

As for stale arguments such as the charitable works of religious organizations, all I can say is 'hogwash'. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest, and arguably successful altruistic venture in the history of the world, and it is the creature of two secular individuals... I don't know if the Gates are religious, but they sure don't preach god.

[Al_U_Card]

OBVIOUS benefits....hmmmn let's see;

 

No further need to figure out what to do, (morally, ethically, practically) as someone will always be there to tell you what is required.

 

No need to worry about the consequences of your actions, as once you accept Christ and repent then all is forgiven.

 

Become part of a group that will support you no matter what, as long as you toe the line.....until you get caught.

[barmar]

I would suggest, on the side topic, that fundamentalism isn't the issue. Extremism, or fanaticism, is. Which is why rabidly evangelical *anything*, including rabidly evangelical atheism, scares me. Do note, however, that it is the extremist and the fanatic who progress the world the most as well. It's like dynamite, or a chainsaw, or a bulldozer - the biggest tools affect the world the most, it is what it is aimed at that determines whether that affect is progress or regress.

Do you consider people like the Pope and Jerry Fallwell, and the people who follow them, to be extremists? They represent mainstream religions, and hold significant influence over public policy in many countries. Even one whose Constitution expressly dictates separation of church and state.

 

It's not extremists who are trying to outlaw gay marriage (and consider homosexuality to be evil), curtail stem cell and cloning research, and teach creationism or intelligent design. In the Middle East, it's not extremists who are perpetuating the conflicts between Israel and Palestine or between the Muslim sects in Iraq. In Northern Ireland, the conflict between Catholics and Protestants involves ordinary folks and the government they elected.

 

Isn't it ridiculous that in this modern age, people are being persecuted and killed over whose version of ancient fairy tales should be followed? I don't see how you can blame someone for being overly preachy when trying to convert people away from this.

[finally17]

I am interested (well, not THAT interested) in knowing what 'benefits' could be said to flow from a belief in a religion.

 

Being a follower of the dominant regional religion, I'll agree with you that you're not going to understand with the mindset you seem to have, because belief in Christ does not convey health or wealth or create a little vortex around you where your friends and family are rescued from their problems. It doesn't make it easier to get up and go serve soup at the shelter, or write that check to the Red Cross. Or to put on a smile when your boss is being an asshole. It doesn't make you a good person. In short, it ain't advertising the things you're looking to find.

 

As for stale arguments such as the charitable works of religious organizations, all I can say is 'hogwash'. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest, and arguably successful altruistic venture in the history of the world, and it is the creature of two secular individuals... I don't know if the Gates are religious, but they sure don't preach god.

 

Apparently Mr. Gates is a BBO shareholder, something which had slipped my mind, if not my attention completely (a point recently made obvious in another thread). So it's vaguely possible that the following is a dangerous statement, but no matter, I'll happily walk away forever if I have to. It would just prove my point:

 

I'm so so sick of people talking about how much of a philanthropist Bill Gates is. The man made billions by heading a company whose business practices were unethical and illegal (for propriety's sake I'll make no conjectures about current state, consult anti-trust suits for the historical claim). Not only that, but the main product marketed is a bloated pile of crap, twice as big as it should be and not half as efficient. It's easy to give away boatloads of ill-gotten gains, especially when you retain boatloads. It doesn't make you good. It doesn't mean what you've done is good. It might DO GOOD, but it doesn't make you so.

 

Furthermore, I don't have #s on the size of his foundation compared to that of the Catholic Church's charitable ventures, but unless you've seen both sets of #s, I would not be so quick to say which is "more successful" (no matter how you're evaluating the question of success). As a point of information, I am not Catholic, and I have serious issues with the Catholic Church, but worldwide they do an awful lot of charity work.

[TimG]

That's because there's obvious benefits to environmentalism, and the eco-terrorists are a small fringe group.  On the other hand, evangelizing is part of the mainstream of religion.  Religious leaders have enormous power in the world, and many political leaders take advice from their religion.

One could argue that there are obvious benefits to religion, too.

One could argue that the world is flat. One could be indoctrinated into believing the world to be flat. It wouldn't render the world flat.

Maybe I should have said "one could reasonably argue" or some such. But, I think you knew what was meant.

 

I am interested (well, not THAT interested) in knowing what 'benefits' could be said to flow from a belief in a religion.

 

I am NOT saying that a believer doesn't perceive a benefit, but I am suggesting that I find it (so far) impossible to come up with a 'benefit' that is unique to religious belief... a benefit that pertains because of religious belief and that would be unavailable to a non-believer.

 

I don't think that in order for religion to be beneficial that the benefits have to be unique to religion.

[fred]

I am interested (well, not THAT interested) in knowing what 'benefits' could be said to flow from a belief in a religion.

 

Being a follower of the dominant regional religion, I'll agree with you that you're not going to understand with the mindset you seem to have, because belief in Christ does not convey health or wealth or create a little vortex around you where your friends and family are rescued from their problems. It doesn't make it easier to get up and go serve soup at the shelter, or write that check to the Red Cross. Or to put on a smile when your boss is being an asshole. It doesn't make you a good person. In short, it ain't advertising the things you're looking to find.

 

As for stale arguments such as the charitable works of religious organizations, all I can say is 'hogwash'. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest, and arguably successful altruistic venture in the history of the world, and it is the creature of two secular individuals... I don't know if the Gates are religious, but they sure don't preach god.

 

Apparently Mr. Gates is a BBO shareholder, something which had slipped my mind, if not my attention completely (a point recently made obvious in another thread). So it's vaguely possible that the following is a dangerous statement, but no matter, I'll happily walk away forever if I have to. It would just prove my point:

 

I'm so so sick of people talking about how much of a philanthropist Bill Gates is. The man made billions by heading a company whose business practices were unethical and illegal (for propriety's sake I'll make no conjectures about current state, consult anti-trust suits for the historical claim). Not only that, but the main product marketed is a bloated pile of crap, twice as big as it should be and not half as efficient. It's easy to give away boatloads of ill-gotten gains, especially when you retain boatloads. It doesn't make you good. It doesn't mean what you've done is good. It might DO GOOD, but it doesn't make you so.

 

Furthermore, I don't have #s on the size of his foundation compared to that of the Catholic Church's charitable ventures, but unless you've seen both sets of #s, I would not be so quick to say which is "more successful" (no matter how you're evaluating the question of success). As a point of information, I am not Catholic, and I have serious issues with the Catholic Church, but worldwide they do an awful lot of charity work.

Let me see if I have this right...

 

You are willing to forgive the Catholic Church for the centuries of torture, murder, extortion, brainwashing, financing various genocides, and for running the biggest and most successful pedophilia ring in history because "worldwide they do an awful lot of charity work" even though you still have some "serious issues" with them.

 

That's wonderful but not surprising as I have heard it said that it is considered very Christian to forgive.

 

But your opinion (which you present as fact) of Bill and Microsoft is that they have done so much evil that Bill should not be forgiven even though he also does "an awful lot of charity work". Let's also leave the tremendous good Bill has done for bridge out of the equation - something that you, as a bridge player, should appreciate even if it pales in importance compared to things like financing genocide and eliminating malaria.

 

Your issues with Bill and Microsoft must be far beyond "serious" as they have caused you to spew irrational vomit from your keyboard. Maybe you are a former Netscape shareholder or employee?

 

But really I don't have a problem with you or anyone else making Forums posts that are complete nonsense. The reason I am posting a reply is because I think the manners and taste you exhibit in your post are really poor.

 

You are a guest here and Bill is one of your hosts.

 

Besides that, Bill is a member of BBO and we do not like it when *any* of our members are personally attacked via Forums posts.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[cherdano]

You are willing to forgive the Catholic Church for the centuries of torture, murder, extortion, brainwashing, financing various genocides, and for running the biggest and most successful pedophilia ring in history

What are you referring to by "financing various genocides"?

 

Fred, usually I am all for criticizing the Catholic church, but I think the words "running the biggest and most successful pedophilia ring in history" are a bit over the top.

[finally17]

Let me see if I have this right...

 

You don't. Not even close.

 

My post wasn't remotely complete nonsense. Go ahead and defend your friend, that's perfectly laudable. And I'm sure you have good reason to do so. But take care you don't do many of the things of which you accuse me.

 

1) I brought up the Catholic Church as rebuttal to the idea of "largest," that's it. I then said I am not Catholic so that it was clear (If I was believed) that I have nothing to gain from defense of the Catholic Church. You name good issues, for the most part.

 

2) I didn't say that Mr. Gates shouldn't be forgiven. But people bring him up as though the money he donates and the time he spends is so impressive. That's a very small-minded view, which doesn't consider what he has to give. I said "It's easy to give away boatloads of ill-gotten gains, especially when you retain boatloads." Maybe you object to the word "ill-gotten" but surely you don't object to the rest of the concept? It doesn't make him better than anyone else. Perhaps I should have also included "it doesn't make him worse than anyone else." I was refuting the praise, so that wasn't germane. I suppose it was a mistake to leave it out anyway.

 

3) I present as fact issues of illegality, which is based upon lawsuits by the DOJ and several states, which were won. You know this I am sure, and yet you call my statement opinions. Perhaps you were referring to my claim of "unethical practices." To start with, the legal issues were ethical ones. I could name a host of other ethical issues I have with Microsoft, but I couldn't find "proof" beyond "newspaper X prints Y about Microsoft enforcing issue Z on school district A," which you wouldn't accept despite the countless examples that exist. You also wouldn't accept that if there are enough of these types of "rumors" and "stories," from around the entire country, they probably aren't all false.

 

4) As for being a member of BBO, he's also a public figure. He's being praised on this thread as a public figure. Not as a bridge player, not as a bridge promoter, but as a public figure. You take an interesting view if you allow a public figure to be praised, but condemn the mention of the flaws. That's what happens when you put yourself in the spotlight, and I for one am not going to sit back and watch someone in that big a spotlight be mindlessly praised without at least presenting the other side.

 

Let me make this clear: I did not make a personal attack. I made claims backed up by court findings about the actions of a company headed by the very public figure of Mr. Gates. I then said that giving away money does not make a person good.

 

5) As far as his being "my host" is concerned, well I guess I made it clear recently in another thread we both know you read that I wasn't aware of this until a day or two ago. But I anticipated a mention of the fact, and have no rebuttal for it, except to say that if you honestly expect people to stay mum about a PUBLIC FIGURE they have issues with on a forum like this, you're only fooling yourself, regardless of who is hosting it. I presented NO LIES, I have NOTHING to gain, and I said what I said fully aware that you might respond by cutting me off from BBO. That would be your over-reaction. The fact that he is host isn't going to keep me from rebutting mindless praise.

 

6) I am not going to fall at someone's feet just because they like the same game I do, and they have money to invest in it's promotion. I care more about the poverty-stricken anywhere, and I'm clearly not falling at his feet over charity work.

 

7) It's nice to know that you're just as good as most of the rest of us at the following: i) jumping to conclusions based on evidence that isn't there, ii) completely misreading the intent of comments (such as my ones about the Church), iii) mocking a large group of people based on religious belief (if "brainwashing" and your little comment about "forgiveness" isn't mockery I don't know what is), iv) rude and crude language (spewing vomit on my keyboard?), v) implicit accusation of lies. And I'm sure there are other things I'm missing.

 

 

And for the record: If my post is to be evaluated as a personal attack on Mr. Gates the public figure, then there is no way yours isn't a personal attack on me. I don't think you have the high ground.

[Al_U_Card]

corporation=religion=domination=suit yourself (six of one half a dozen of the other).

[fred]

You are willing to forgive the Catholic Church for the centuries of torture, murder, extortion, brainwashing, financing various genocides, and for running the biggest and most successful pedophilia ring in history

What are you referring to by "financing various genocides"?

 

Fred, usually I am all for criticizing the Catholic church, but I think the words "running the biggest and most successful pedophilia ring in history" are a bit over the top.

Agree - I could have used less inflammatory language. Sorry to those who were offended.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[y66]

When I make comments like some of the ones I've just read, I find that the temporary insanity defense works best, followed by a nap. Think I'll take one myself.

[kenberg]

I'm going to go out on a twig here. The suggestion was to list books that reveal something of how we think. For better or for worse, my taste in popular fiction may be the most revealing. Some years back, I read Gorky Park. Besides being a good read, it has towards the end a pretty devastating, and I fear rather accurate, critique of American justice as it is actually practiced (This was totally excised from the so-so movie).

 

I mentioned before the biography of Hamilton. I think realism is in short supply in the world and I am partial towards anything, biography, fiction, what have you, that presents characters that address the world in ways that I find to be respectful of the world as it actually is.

 

And (not so subtle prod) I am hoping this thread gets back to its very interesting original purpose.

 

I'll try to come up with something a little more highbrow for a future post.

[sceptic]

You are willing to forgive the Catholic Church for the centuries of torture, murder, extortion, brainwashing, financing various genocides, and for running the biggest and most successful pedophilia ring in history

What are you referring to by "financing various genocides"?

 

Fred, usually I am all for criticizing the Catholic church,

Agree - I could have used less inflammatory language. Sorry to those who were offended.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

but I think the words "running the biggest and most successful pedophilia ring in history" are a bit over the top.

 

bet you cant name a bigger one?