school in Connecticut

[mike777]

Hmm, now I appear to have done the same thing again, but perhaps you added the btw after I quoted the first line this time? Very sorry if that's not the case.

 

I realize you didn't direct your comments to anyone, but given the effort mikeh has put into detailing some of the many complaints about religion, your comment hit a nerve with me. As I said, maybe I am missing something, and I again apologize for taking the one line out of context initially.

 

 

No problem I admire and respect you.

 

 

Perhaps I should just say in Pascal's wager there are costs to both sides of the bet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

 

 

 

Someone once told me that asking why one likes religion is sort of like asking a guy why he married his wife.

 

 

We invent reasons or maybe we just like how they smell; the smell of incense and candles in a church or perfume on our wife and that esthetic is reason enough.

 

 

:)

[Scarabin]

Hitler was not what one might today call a mainstream christian, and it does appear that his attachment to the church 'evolved' especially later in life. However, as one example, in 1934 he gave a speech in which he portrayed Christ as a militant anti-semite, and for a long period he seems to have espoused a form of christianity that was stripped of its jewish roots.

 

He made many positive references to christianity in his pursuit of power. It appears that whether one would define him as a christian depends on how broadly one views that term. I can see and respect a view that excludes him, but my view would see him as a christian for much of his life, including much of his time as a nazi, albeit definitely a non-mainstream christian.

 

btw, I don't 'feel contempt for those who disagree with me'. I assure you I feel no such emotion towards you, as one rather recent example of someone who disagrees with me :D

 

Discussions like this generate an amazing degree of energy and several pages of posts have buried my original complaint. I feel however that I owe you an apology. I now accept completely that you did not twist truth to enhance your arguments.

 

I still feel however that your definition of christian may be too inclusive. I take it to be that you include as christian anyone who claims to be a christian or speaks approvingly of it? My judgment, beliefs, opinions are heavily coloured by my experience, indeed I expect this to be true of you, and everyman. Because of this I would exclude people whose conduct (deliberate conduct not just weaknesses) is completely opposed to christianity.

 

Anyhow, please accept my apology.

[mikeh]

No problem I admire and respect you.

 

 

Perhaps I should just say in Pascal's wager there are costs to both sides of the bet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

 

 

 

 

There appears, at least to me, to be a direct correlation between the willingness of someone to raise Pascal's wager, as an argument in favour of a belief in a god, and the lack of understanding of the relevant issues as possessed by that someone.

 

An intelligent child of 13 could work out the problem with the wager...I know I did during a time when I was learning the reality that there were religions other than Xianity, and a teacher told of us the wager (I am pretty sure he didn't spell it out the way I now understand it, but maybe that's my faulty memory).

 

What are the odds that one chooses the correct god? Even just counting the ones we've invented so far, and many of them are undoubtedly lost in pre-history, the odds must be literally thousands to one against, and we are a young species!

 

Once one assumes an effectively infinite number of gods, pascal's wager breaks down to a 50-50 proposition, but in the meantime, if you have chosen to believe in a god, you will for the rest of your life be required to devote time and, usually, money to the worship of that god, thus detracting from your ability to prosper.

 

Of course, there are more aspects to this than this short post raises, but pascal's wager, in the form usually advanced by theists, isn't the powerful argument they seem to think it to be.

[mike777]

For starters hmm not sure why everyone wants to cut what I think is my point but anyway.... :)

 

as I said there are costs to both sides of the wager.

 

"Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated future philosophies such as existentialism, pragmatism, and voluntarism"

 

It seems MikeH is ready to take one side of the wager and that makes a free capitalist market( other thread but perhaps a more important one that touches our lives) and an interesting social discussion away from tv, video games and cellphones. It makes life worth living and bbo forums :)

 

---

 

 

if you have chosen to believe in a god, you will for the rest of your life be required to devote time and, usually, money to the worship of that god, thus detracting from your ability to prosper

 

 

btw I really like the issue raised here....so once again I will post my point...

granted in a previous post I raised the issue of suckers vs those focused on the payoff.

 

 

Someone once told me that asking why one likes religion is sort of like asking a guy why he married his wife.

 

 

We invent reasons or maybe we just like how they smell; the smell of incense and candles in a church or perfume on our wife and that esthetic is reason enough.

 

----

 

 

edit I note in rereading MikeH used the word believe...that is a word that deserves an entire other thread.

 

I touched on it in another post.

[mikeh]

 

Discussions like this generate an amazing degree of energy and several pages of posts have buried my original complaint. I feel however that I owe you an apology. I now accept completely that you did not twist truth to enhance your arguments.

 

I still feel however that your definition of christian may be too inclusive. I take it to be that you include as christian anyone who claims to be a christian or speaks approvingly of it? My judgment, beliefs, opinions are heavily coloured by my experience, indeed I expect this to be true of you, and everyman. Because of this I would exclude people whose conduct (deliberate conduct not just weaknesses) is completely opposed to christianity.

 

Anyhow, please accept my apology.

I appreciate your courtesy and respect your views. However, may I commend to you research into the 'no true scotsman' argument, which, it seems to me, you have just raised, as do so many moderate Xians. You reject the notion that a Xian is anyone who claims to believe in the divinity of christ unless that person shares certain values with you. What gives you special status? Why should I accept you as a true Xian and reject another who claims, as passionately as you, that he believes in christ and that it is your type that are not true Xians?

 

Do I take it that you reject all those christians who participated in the Crusades? What about the Russians who fought several wars in the 1800's to prctect orthodox christianity?

 

Or the Spanish priests who destroyed the records of Central and South American religions and histories, in the name of christ?

 

Or the inqusitors?

 

Or those who fought in the wars of the reformation?

 

or who used slogans such as 'For God and Country' or 'God is with us' to enhance the willingness of young men to die for the benefit of the ruling elites, who usually went nowhere near the fighting.

 

You know, if you eliminate all who have violated any of the 10 commandments, or any of Jesus's alleged teachings, then you'd have a pretty small church :P At least in terms of the hierarchical power structure.

 

My latter comments may be somewhat unfair, since you don't exclude those who err through weakness

[mike777]

MikeH again repeats the issues of intolerance and just as important those who bet with no skin in the game,

 

with more eloquence in his writings.

 

 

to enhance the willingness of young men to die for the benefit of the ruling elites, who usually went nowhere near the fighting.

 

 

Issues I discussed.

[Scarabin]

I appreciate your courtesy and respect your views. However, may I commend to you research into the 'no true scotsman' argument, which, it seems to me, you have just raised, as do so many moderate Xians. You reject the notion that a Xian is anyone who claims to believe in the divinity of christ unless that person shares certain values with you. What gives you special status? Why should I accept you as a true Xian and reject another who claims, as passionately as you, that he believes in christ and that it is your type that are not true Xians?

 

Do I take it that you reject all those christians who participated in the Crusades? What about the Russians who fought several wars in the 1800's to prctect orthodox christianity?

 

Or the Spanish priests who destroyed the records of Central and South American religions and histories, in the name of christ?

 

Or the inqusitors?

 

Or those who fought in the wars of the reformation?

 

or who used slogans such as 'For God and Country' or 'God is with us' to enhance the willingness of young men to die for the benefit of the ruling elites, who usually went nowhere near the fighting.

 

You know, if you eliminate all who have violated any of the 10 commandments, or any of Jesus's alleged teachings, then you'd have a pretty small church :P At least in terms of the hierarchical power structure.

 

My latter comments may be somewhat unfair, since you don't exclude those who err through weakness

 

Whoa Mike, please slow down.

 

1) I was raised as a Protestant in the 1930's but now claim to be an agnostic. Why ? Because I am not really sure about anything.

 

2) I sought to convey to you my apology for misjudging you and also that I feel that a definition that includes anyone who claims to be a christian as a christian is too loose. I feel that a value limitation has to be imposed even though this will be subjective. That is based on experience.

 

3) Who am I to judge? Well, in my autobiography the rest of you are merely extras, and Peter Drucker once said that a man who reaches age 40 with a completely open mind has to be a moron.

 

If I have to go through history picking out christians I would distinguish between leaders and followers, probably not judging the latter. Thus I could not accept Adolf Hitler as a genuine christian (and I would have doubts about the sanity and critical judgment of anyone who did. I cannot help this.)

 

I do not think Napoleon was a christian although I feel less strongly - probably because he is more remote. Conversely I think I would accept Marlborough as a christian despite his greed and unscrupulousness. Probably accepting him as a man of his time.

 

Now I have paid you the compliment of answering your post as accurately as I can. All of us are the products of our culture and affected by emotion and reason.

[mike777]

I do not think Napoleon was a christian although I feel less strongly - probably because he is more remote. Conversely I think I would accept Marlborough as a christian despite his greed and unscrupulousness. Probably accepting him as a man of his time.

--

 

 

lets give Napoleon his due:

He was on the field of battle, he did not just post to his blog.

He knew that one can be a hero or leader and not win.

He was a risk taker, with his own human capital.

 

 

Fair enough to debate his version of the Golden Rule.

[CSGibson]

By saying that you judge something as harmless it implies that you are JUDGING it.

 

I also think that I was being too subtle: It's atheism (the "i" is part of the "-ism" or "ist", not part of the "athe").

 

Thank you spellcheck.

 

Of course I was judging. Judging does not imply condescention, I wasn't judging it in the sense of weighing its overall value as an idea, so much as judging what possible negative impact could occur from this idea. We all weigh and measure ideas, or otherwise we are parrots, repeating what we have heard before. But whatever, at this point I judge this tangent to be worthless, so I am going to excercise my judgment and stop feeding this line of thought from here on out.

[Mbodell]

However, I disagree with the accusations of bigotry made by Cthulhu D and MBodell, and their suggested “substitutions” to demonstrate why Fluffy’s statement was bigotry. I do not equate atheism with race or sexual identity. Saying that I am an atheist describes a choice I have made. It says something about how I think, and perhaps even implies a greater than average degree of rationality.

 

That said, ascribing characteristics to an individual, simply because they are part of a group in which such characteristics are prevalent, is not something I approve of. As a rule, I abhor all stereotypes and generalizations.

 

Still, some of them make more sense than others do, and not all are bigotry..

 

To me, Fluffy’s assertion is actually plausible on the surface. After all, isn’t one of the main reasons men invented gods to get people to “behave?” If there were not so much evidence to the contrary, it might seem logical to accept that people who don’t believe in any god, are less likely to “behave.” Fortunately, there is indeed much evidence to the contrary.

 

I did not mean to equate atheism with race or sexual identity, but I do think it is useful to see if something that folks might see as harmful stereotypes or generalizations with one group, they might not realize was there when you switch which group is in play. If you wouldn't say, and would be offended by, "Women generally have no morals" or "Asians generally have no morals" then I think you could come around to understand why some (maybe not all, but more than a few) take offense to explicit or implied "Atheists have no morals".

 

Also, I don't want to put words in your mouth or necessarily say you meant this, but I read the juxtaposition of "I do not equate atheism with race or sexual identity. Saying that I am an atheist describes a choice I have made." to partially imply that distinctions/generalizations/stereotypes made about atheists as a group have more legitimacy than about race and sexual identity because beliefs (like atheism) are choices while the others are fixed and not a choice (to first approximation, ignoring the folks who believe sexual identity is a choice and/or those who believe race is a social construct and therefore can be part of a choice). I realize the bit after that caveats that slightly, but still legitimizes some of those assertions. I disagree with this implication (again, not necessarily implying you are making it, just saying I read it in what was written and have been bothered by it for the last day or so and feel compelled to respond to it) for at least two major reasons:

 

1. I don't think whether something is chosen or not should effect whether or not an individual should be grouped for stereotype. If there was a pill that magically changed your race or your sexual orientation, such that it became 100% a choice, I still think racism and homophobia would be wrong. The fact that someone can have a sex change doesn't justify sexism. etc.

 

2. I don't think belief really is a choice, at least not for everyone. I mean it is clear that belief is fluid and changes over time (but then again, for some, so does sexual identity, racial identity, and gender identity). For me personally, I convinced my parents to get me baptized when I was ~10 because I was convinced I wouldn't go to heaven when I died if I wasn't baptized. But a few years after that I moved my beliefs to agnostic and a while after that I shifted to full atheism. I think rational thought and exposure to ideas helped effect a change in my beliefs. However, I'm not sure I actively decided what to believe (in fact during some of that transition I still actively wanted to believe again in my Christian upbringing, particularly around post-death beliefs, but I was not successful in believing what I now perceived as the pleasant fantasy instead of the rationally correct belief). If I wanted to make a choice to believe in the fsm, I really can't. If I try to believe there's a pink elephant in the room, I'm not successful. So at least for some people belief is a little more a reflex or outside of conscious control rather than an explicit conscious choice. So for me, saying I'm an atheist does not describe a choice I've made.

 

I also think, getting back to the original statement, that there is a special responsibility when you make assertions about groups, especially groups that have an historic context of being mistreated, or having negative stereotypes commonly used, that you restrict them to things that actually are supported by evidence - not merely off the cuff things that seem plausible to you. If someone doesn't do that and repeats a negative prejudice about a group or attributes negative attributes to a group, then I think there is a good chance that the statement in question is an example of bigotry (and I'm intentionally focusing on the statement, *not* on the person making the statement, in my labeling).

[billw55]

You know, if you eliminate all who have violated any of the 10 commandments, or any of Jesus's alleged teachings, then you'd have a pretty small church :P At least in terms of the hierarchical power structure.

 

My latter comments may be somewhat unfair, since you don't exclude those who err through weakness

Indeed, Christian teaching expressly states that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. By itself, this certainly does not bar them from being Christians. Still, it is entirely reasonable to draw a line somewhere. If you get bad enough, sooner or later, your actions will show you as a non-Christian, by general agreement.

 

The good news, ostensibly, is that one can always repent and be saved, by accepting Christ in one's heart, and making real change in how one acts and lives. This can be viewed as quality or a flaw, depending on one's point of view.

[Trinidad]

2. I don't think belief really is a choice, at least not for everyone. []

 

If I wanted to make a choice to believe in the fsm, I really can't. If I try to believe there's a pink elephant in the room, I'm not successful. So at least for some people belief is a little more a reflex or outside of conscious control rather than an explicit conscious choice. So for me, saying I'm an atheist does not describe a choice I've made.

Maybe you can't chose to believe in the FSM, but you can chose to make your children believe in the FSM. You can make children believe in Santa, the Tooth Ferry, the Easter Bunny, witches, ghosts, magicians, the FSM and God.

 

The crux is that children who are told about these first seven will at some point be told that they don't exist. And if the children figure it out for themselves, they will be praised that they found out.

 

Parents who tell their children that God exists, however, will keep insisting that He exists, and add to that that the child has to believe it or he and his parents go to hell, which supposedly doesn't look much like Disneyland.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

By saying that you judge something as harmless it implies that you are JUDGING it.

What's wrong with that?

[Hanoi5]

I really think people just love discussing for the sake of it. I got bored by the fifth page of this discussion, but maybe it was because I wasn't doing anything else at the same time.

 

Aren't religions born of the human need for explanations? I believe they are, though later they also became a tool for managing people. It lasted for as long as science could explain most of the things but this of course didn't come up all at once (and there are still 'gaps' as Mike very well pointed out). So the thing is religion could stop some bad behaviors of the people who were afraid of hell and stuff. (Of course some other people used religion as a license to kill/exterminate enemies/opposers). But since religion has been in decadence (at least Christianity, I don't know about the numbers of Islam) some people don't have that 'force' that guides them. And as the world is evolving/progressing faster everyday we see changes we cannot cope with and I think this is one of the reasons this sort of terrible things happen.

 

Of course there is also the other side. People who are induced to killing others in the name of a god. And these religions (or these sects in some religions) have to be controlled. Or maybe religions should 'evolve' too.

 

So in the end I conclude that the main problem is education. And not only formal education, for many things we believe in and find as true are those that were induced by our parents and the people who raised us. Why isn't parenthood legislated?

[blackshoe]

Do you perhaps mean "why isn't parenthood licensed and regulated?" B-)

[Hanoi5]

I do. I thought 'legislated' covered that.

[dwar0123]

I do. I thought 'legislated' covered that.

How do you propose enforcing that? Forced reversible sterilization for everyone? How would you prevent people from just getting it illegally reversed? How do you deal with immigration, sterilization centers at all entry points?

 

Or do you just want to fine/jail/educate people for having children while unlicensed?

 

What would be the intent of the licensing? Would it be to limit dogma's that parents are allowed to teach their children? How would you enforce that? How would you determine which dogma's are acceptable?

 

I think legislate leaves way more to the imagination then you intend :)

[Fluffy]

I didn't mean to insult anyone really, was just pointing out that religion works into not letting people become mass murders, it works for me at least.

[mikeh]

I didn't mean to insult anyone really, was just pointing out that religion works into not letting people become mass murders, it works for me at least.

I understand that may be your belief, but empirical evidence strongly...overwhelmingly as I understand it...is to the contrary. Please note: I am NOT saying that religious belief is a significant cause of mass killings, although the events at Jonestown and maybe Waco show that some extreme forms of religious belief do seem to lead directly to murder and mass enforced suicide.

 

I suspect that the fact that many mass murderers in the US, as an example, have been people of faith (or at least, church-goers) primarily and maybe exclusively arises only because most people in that country are believers.

 

I suspect that mass murderers are more mentally ill than anything else...I include serious depression, and extreme anger and so on in that catch-all.

 

Anyway, I appreciate that you wrote in good faith. And I am glad to see you posting.

 

Btw, I know you didn't mean this, but your last phrase 'it works for me' suggests that absent your faith you'd become a mass murderer! I very much doubt that. Look at all the atheists posting here....I've certainly butchered a lot of bridge hands but neither I nor any of the others appear to have yet taken to mass murder, so maybe you should think a little more carefully when you suggest that a view of the world shared by a lot of very well-educaated and intelligent people (some of us here qualify as such) is a cause of mass murder.

[Fluffy]

But I reallly meant that, when I was researching the existence of god years ago, some paths that impliead non existance of god led to logically kill myself or kill others; its a long story. This was bad for 2 reasons: I don't like to kill people and I am lazy, so doing nothing is better than doing something. I think it played some sort of role when I finally found 'some' evidence of God and choose to believe.

 

I don't mean to state that I would be a mass murder if I didn't hope for an aferlife, but at least it makes me reject the idea of becoming one very quickly if I ever think of it.

[blackshoe]

the events at Jonestown and maybe Waco show that some extreme forms of religious belief do seem to lead directly to murder and mass enforced suicide.

At Jonestown, members of a religious sect blindly followed their leader's bidding and committed suicide. At Waco, members of a religious sect were assaulted by the federal government, the assault started a fire, (there were tanks knocking down the walls while some idiot on a bullhorn kept repeating "this is not an assault") and 76 people died in that fire. Apples and oranges.

[nigel_k]

I don't think Jonestown had much to do with religion either.

[mikeh]

At Jonestown, members of a religious sect blindly followed their leader's bidding and committed suicide. At Waco, members of a religious sect were assaulted by the federal government, the assault started a fire, (there were tanks knocking down the walls while some idiot on a bullhorn kept repeating "this is not an assault") and 76 people died in that fire. Apples and oranges.

I think it only fair to point out that the siege began after the members of the branch davidian sect (a religious cult) shot and killed several law enforcement people who were merely trying to serve warrants. Only after this murder did the government call for the surrender of the killers, who, instead of surrendering, sealed themselves and the other cult members, including children, in an armed compound.

 

So it was really an armed insurrection motivated by a bizarre but definitely religious belief system.

[mikeh]

I don't think Jonestown had much to do with religion either.

maybe you should look it up, then. never hurts to fact check.

 

of course, you might be one of those who claim that it isn't religious unless it's your type of religion, but a religious cult is a religious cult whether you approve of it's beliefs or not. The name of the cult was the People's Temple. Few non-religious groups adopt the name 'temple' btw.

[mikeh]

But I reallly meant that, when I was researching the existence of god years ago, some paths that impliead non existance of god led to logically kill myself or kill others; its a long story.

 

You really need a better line of research. I can assure you that I know of NO source of atheist ideas that leads to any desire to kill myself. When you are of the view that we have only one life, the logical consequence, it seems to me, is to cherish it.

 

Indeed, historically and even today, the promise of an afterlife actually drives people to suicide.

 

People in despair think they are 'going to a better place'. Islamic suicide bombers are promised entry into paradise. And so on.

 

Frankly the notion that you thought that the non-existence of god was a reason to kill yourself strikes me as strange, but the notion that it was a reason to kill others makes me very concerned indeed, if you really mean it. Wtf were you reading?