Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:21 am
All the faith you need, pragmatically, is solipsism.
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
joedead wrote:That made me laugh. Not in a mean way. That is, I enjoy your reading your posts. You certainly don't back down from anything!It is of course, my opinion that the majority of Athiests do not devote much thought to pondering the nature of their social surroundings with an objective viewpoint.
I would start off by recommending Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russel and then The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins gets alot of flack from people I know (even atheists) for coming off as condescending, so I would go with Russel first.In any case, do you have a link to an example of Athiest pondering the consequence of an Athiest humanity ? I really can't see it as anything but a recipie for mass murder. A different perspective would be very interesting, especially the reasoning behind it.
Both of them tackle the idea that athiests' lack of belief in god somehow makes them less moral. Both do an admirable job of explaining how morality can exist outside of religion, and both have made cases that it even precedes religion.
I personally don't have anything negative to say about non-athiests. I became an athiest after a long, objective search for what I believe to be rational and reasonable truth. I believe my search for truth to be a good enough reason to believe the way I do. I still question my beliefs, btw. Who knows? Perhaps someday I'll find my past reasoning to be too weak to justify my beliefs, and I'll have to change again. Therefore, I do not begrudge someone for what they believe in. I only hope they have examined and questioned their own beliefs thoroughly before coming to their conclusions.
MSimon wrote:Alex,
The universality does not prove anything except that such belief is helpful for survival. Men it seems need faith. Where things go bad is if they pick one that is counter reproduction.
alexjrgreen wrote:Bertrand Russell's essay is here http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.htmljoedead wrote:I would start off by recommending Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russel and then The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins gets alot of flack from people I know (even atheists) for coming off as condescending, so I would go with Russel first.
In the archaeological record, special care for the dead appears as part of the transition to modern human behaviour. As far as can be reasonably determined, most humans, at most times, in most places, have exhibited religious behaviour.The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men.
In historical times, the overwhelming majority of cultures have believed in a God (or gods). The details of these beliefs have varied very widely, but the concept of the supernatural is almost universal.
Even for an atheist, this represents an evidential base that deserves enquiry.
joedead wrote:
I would start off by recommending Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russel and then The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins gets alot of flack from people I know (even atheists) for coming off as condescending, so I would go with Russel first.
Both of them tackle the idea that athiests' lack of belief in god somehow makes them less moral. Both do an admirable job of explaining how morality can exist outside of religion, and both have made cases that it even precedes religion.
I personally don't have anything negative to say about non-athiests. I became an athiest after a long, objective search for what I believe to be rational and reasonable truth. I believe my search for truth to be a good enough reason to believe the way I do. I still question my beliefs, btw. Who knows? Perhaps someday I'll find my past reasoning to be too weak to justify my beliefs, and I'll have to change again. Therefore, I do not begrudge someone for what they believe in. I only hope they have examined and questioned their own beliefs thoroughly before coming to their conclusions.
Bertrand Russell wrote:That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.
FYI, I just checked out the link, and would like to specify I was refering to his ENTIRE book, not just this single lecture. If I had any of my books with me, I would just browse through them and directly quote them. But I just moved and my entire library is packed up in boxes several states away.The proof is in the piles of Dead bodies througout history. I'd much rather live under a corn ball religion that is relatively benign, than to remove ALL negative feedback controls, and then having to dodge all the people who are trying to kill me.
David
Now, explain your reasoning to me, and I'll try my best to pick it apart as logically as possible. It seems to me this is just a loaded statement that's full of assumptions, but I can't be sure until you clarify.I really can't see it as anything but a recipie for mass murder.
We should invite him to check out this site; perhaps fodder for his comic?"Totally off-topic, but does anyone else here read xkcd? "
Yes.
joedead wrote:
FYI, I just checked out the link, and would like to specify I was refering to his ENTIRE book, not just this single lecture. If I had any of my books with me, I would just browse through them and directly quote them. But I just moved and my entire library is packed up in boxes several states away..
joedead wrote:
Well, I still find fault with your reasoning and would like counter-attack, but I have the feeling you've already made up your mind about this, eh?
.
joedead wrote: Regardless, I'm much less likely to convince you than Bertrand Russel and Dawkins. But I'll bite on this one last point.
Getting back to your original statement:Now, explain your reasoning to me, and I'll try my best to pick it apart as logically as possible. It seems to me this is just a loaded statement that's full of assumptions, but I can't be sure until you clarify.I really can't see it as anything but a recipie for mass murder.
Let her' rip.
Excellent. Was waiting for you to finish this. I'll rip into this later this weekend.Perhaps this is unfair to characterize these events as the result of Athiesm, as it can be argued that the bigger component is the fact that they were left wing socialists. Possibly, but it seems to me that as socialists/communists are vehemenently athiestic, athiesm itself must be a component of their doctrine, and therefore must bear some responsibility.
"In this anxious time for America, one fact looms above all others in our people's mind. One tragedy challenges all men dedicated to the work of peace. One word shouts denial to those who foolishly pretend that ours is not a nation at war. This fact, this tragedy, this word is: Korea. A small country, Korea has been, for more than two years, the battleground for the costliest foreign war our nation has fought, excepting the two world wars. It shall been the burial ground for 20,000 America dead. It has been another historic field of honor for the valor and skill and tenacity of American soldiers. All these things it has been-and yet one thing more. It has been a symbol-a telling symbol-of the foreign policy of our nation. It has been a sign-a warning sign-of the way the Administration has conducted our world affairs. It has been a measure-a damning measure-of the quality of leadership we have been given. Tonight I am going to talk about our foreign policy and of its supreme symbol-the Korean war. I am not going to give you elaborate generalizations-but hard, tough facts. I am going to state the unvarnished truth. What, then, are the plain facts? The biggest fact about the Korean war is this: It was never inevitable, it was never inescapable, no fantastic fiat of history decreed that little South Korea-in the summer of 1950-would fatally tempt Communist aggressors as their easiest victim. No demonic destiny decreed that America had to be bled this way in order to keep South Korea free and to keep freedom itself-self-respecting. We are not mute prisoners of history. That is a doctrine for totalitarians, it is no creed for free men. There is a Korean war-and we are fighting it-for the simplest of reasons: because free leadership failed to check and to turn back Communist ambition before it savagely attacked us. The Korean war-more perhaps than any other war in history-simply and swiftly followed the collapse of our political defenses. There is no other reason than this: We failed to read and to outwit the totalitarian mind... World War II should have taught us all one lesson. The lesson is this: To vacillate, to hesitate-to appease even by merely betraying unsteady purpose-is to feed a dictator's appetite for conquest and to invite war itself."