51. Comment #53167 by jlinden31 on June 29, 2007 at 10:55 pm

Here is the problem. You can prove the elephant in the trunk. Its the five step method and I live my life by it. I am a cultural anthropologist living in Orange County (which is like living in a very wealthy extension of the bible belt). I have learned where man creates his gods and why. I can trace any savior, god, God, myth back to a starting point and a cultural need for that symbol (god).
Step 1-Is there an Elephant in the trunk, I will guess no, certainly not a full grown elephant and not a living one but we'll test it.
Step 2- Has the weight of the car changed from its usual weight, if so is there anything else in the car that could contribute to that change without it being and elephant.
Step 3- Lets weigh the car, open the trunk, clean the trunk out, check to see if any elephant fibers or DNA were ever present, and finally check the car for peanuts.
Step 4- Having found no evidence for an elephant ever having been in the car science then dictates that within a 98.00 chance of being correct, we have no elephant and probably never have. This is a Theory. It may change one day, I may have to test the elephant hypothesis again one day but for now...no, there is no elephant.
Step 5-Test again.
I test mans logic. Mans need for fitting into what we perceive as a big picture. Being lonely in the universe and feeling the impending death that comes to us all is possibly the worst sickest feeling I have ever had. I understand why we need ghosts and legends, folklore, myths, and gods. We use them as guides and moral makers. We use them to create structure in our society and questioning these things tends to throw our own view points into chaos.
No, there is no God. There have been countless gods to be a theist over but there is no God anymore than there is an Elephant in my trunk.
Those who would call atheism a belief system are partly correct. Are you a scientist or someone who possesses scientific critical thinking that has led them to a 98.00 certainty or are you someone whose perspective of the world just doesn't jive with dogma and creation? There must be several types of atheists, as many as variations of Christians or Buddhists. There must be because we all have our own eyes and ways of seeing our world we just share a common "belief" or outcome to our own perceptions despite our own ways of getting there.
No god in no heaven. Thanks for letting me ramble.

Other Comments by jlinden31

52. Comment #53245 by eye of horus on June 30, 2007 at 9:57 am

As a secular humanist, I always marvel that Western religions, which are large-scale late arrivals whose foundations are very much this-worldly, continue to charm otherwise intelligent people.

Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Xianity, and Islam, each presents a silly moralistic cosmic dualism (good/evil, God/Devil, religious/secular, permanent/transitory) combined with a somewhat dilute monotheism.

Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, God, and Allah are spiritual equivalents of comic book super-villains.

Opposition to Western faiths certainly does not make one an atheist. Calling someone an 'atheist' in the U.S. is a slur -- remember "godless atheism" of the old Red Scare days. But faith, of course, is never the issue.

Ideology is. Ideology masquerading as religion bamboozles the masses, the media.

Undermining the Constitution, trashing biological science, and perverting education to suit ideologies of social control and cultural domination by right-wing politico-religionists is what we have too much of in America.

Home grown Xian Taliban frighten me much more than Osama and all Islamic mullahs combined.

eye-of-horus
copyright asserted 2007

Other Comments by eye of horus

53. Comment #53444 by jonjermey on July 1, 2007 at 1:41 pm

There's not much point arguing whether we know or simply believe that there is no God until we agree on what God is.

Do I know that there isn't an incredibly powerful non-human being invisibly monitoring everything I do? No, not with absolute certainty.

Do I know that there isn't an intangible Deity for whom I secretly feel worshipful love and respect? Yes.

So pick your definition and go to it.

Other Comments by jonjermey

54. Comment #53908 by Philip1978 on July 4, 2007 at 4:22 am

pewkatchoo,
I screamed aloud to the David Robertson
I said dont lie dont say you dont know
I say you'll pay for your mischief
In this world or the pub
Oh and then he fixed me with a freezing glance
And the hellfires raged in his eyes
He said do you wanna know the truth son
Ill tell you the truth
Your souls gonna burn in a lake of fire

Other Comments by Philip1978

55. Comment #54125 by windfall on July 5, 2007 at 1:26 pm

I have to agree with others here that Penn is a lousy philosopher and an inchoherent writer (though he's pretty funny and a great illusionist). The elephant example is lame (and as jlinden31 pointed out in comment #53167) it is open to scientific refutation in a way that the standard immaterial god and soul are not.

A much better example (and the one I always cite, courtesy of Massimo
Pigliucci) is the immaterial unicorn:
http://www.booktalk.org/rationally-speaking/01-12-unicorns.php

I found Penn's reasoning cryptic and more condescending than anything (which doesn't help when there's not much substance). He could best aid the cause by continuing to show how easy it is to fool people (similar to Derren Brown)

Other Comments by windfall

56. Comment #54252 by Kakashi_monkey on July 6, 2007 at 6:42 am

That was kind of confusing. "Beyond atheism"?

Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey

57. Comment #54430 by Enlightenme.. on July 7, 2007 at 3:36 am

^ Sorry, but Penn's elephant stands scrutiny, with his further quasi-religite qualifications added, that's the point!
His blue-touch-paper elephant can be massless, require no energy source (peanuts) whatever thou wilt.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

58. Comment #198518 by theIdiot on June 24, 2008 at 7:42 am

I've always found individuals who write such articles, and those who fawn over it to be the biggest dopes.

"No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future."

Here we have the biggest dipshits mouthing off religious nonsense, about the magical power of disbelief. With the belief that disbelief is the path yielding to more compassion for humanity. But for every one who can say "this is the only life we got, and we got to care more", you'll get those who proclaim that "life is short, so we should just party hard", which means little care for much at all. Indifference can be quite comforting in a cruel and irreparable world.

Compassion does not hinge on belief or disbelief, morons, it's hinges on human nature, where compassion is easily forgone for other competing desires, like economic stability. "Life is short" does not trounce our competing desires, that resort in human indifference, as much as preachers of the secular myth pronounce otherwise. Loving other might just as well be an unnecessarily, and detrimental luxury.

God does not hold back individuals from loving, human natures holds them back. We love as much as monkeys love other monkeys, and bears love other bears, and occasionally a bear will eat his own cub.

And next time someone wants to pass this vile rubbish, this dimwitted secular myth, as scientific, or informed, pass me the bucket so I can vomit.

Other Comments by theIdiot

59. Comment #198520 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 7:47 am

Comment #198518 by theIdiot

And next time someone wants to pass this vile rubbish, this dimwitted secular myth, as scientific, or informed, pass me the bucket so I can vomit.

Sorry to upset your stomach, but it is not just scientific, but the only rational way to deal with an understanding of reality.

Belief in God is dangerous because it gives people the feeling of certainty and divine authority. It bypasses conscience and self-analysis.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

60. Comment #198524 by AllanW on June 24, 2008 at 7:57 am

Hey theIdiot, thanks for your driveby shit-shower.

Now if you can explain, to add to Steve's comment, how a life lived under the yoke of a divinely inspired instruction to concentrate upon and prepare for the afterlife is less damaging than one which concentrates on how we live this life as it's the only one we have, then I'm prepared to listen.

Other Comments by AllanW

61. Comment #198526 by Quetzalcoatl on June 24, 2008 at 7:58 am

"theIDiot"- appropriate.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

62. Comment #198529 by advocatus_diaboli on June 24, 2008 at 8:07 am

I am going to have to side with theidiot partially. Human nature is the problem, religion is merely a justification or symptom, take your pick. Though he misses every other point and manages to wing himself in the foot in the process.


I think he fucks it up in assigning human nature the problem and then proceeding no further. "God" is a dangerous justification for the actions of that human nature in it excuses people from having to reasonably support their decisions. It is not a panacea to the woes of the world, but it is an important step.

Other Comments by advocatus_diaboli

63. Comment #198537 by Sciros on June 24, 2008 at 8:22 am

(EDIT: this isn't in response to advocatus_diaboli but rather the earlier posters) That doesn't sound to me like what theIdiot was saying, though. He is saying that living without religion will not make you *more* compassionate than otherwise. I think for some people that may well be true, especially if their religious convictions aren't/weren't/wouldn't be terribly strong to begin with. However, it should be noted that religion may also turn people from compassion to cruelty, if their religious convictions are/become strong enough.

So, this really comes down to how strong one's religious beliefs are, and how much they drive one's behavior and outlook.

(theIdiot also didn't actually say anything in favor of religion in my opinion, so from his post it doesn't necessarily follow that he is advocating a theistic world view at all...)

But anyway there's a quote on this site that's something like "good men may do good and evil men may do evil, but for good men to do evil, that takes religion." Something along those lines. I think it's insightful and should hopefully settle this matter.

As for the article and the whole "belief in no god," well, I think it's a needless exercise in semantics and little more. Yes, most people who understand the scientific method wholly reject the idea of absolute certainty, and rightly so. But we all still treat some things as, essentially, certainties (law of conservation of energy, for example, or that evolution does happen). And in those cases, to say "I believe in ~" doesn't strike me as an attempt to add yet further credence to those things. It merely asserts that we treat them as *fact,* just using rather unscientific terminology.

Other Comments by Sciros

64. Comment #198543 by theIdiot on June 24, 2008 at 8:33 am

Hey dip shit Allan, did you read a defense for the afterlife in my post? Arguing with me an irrelevant point isn't going to get you too far. But out of boredom I'm going to discuss it anyway.

I would like you to find one believer who claims that afterlife belief negates a need for justice, compassion, concern for the poor, in fact wasn't the Rich Man's torment exactly because of his unconcern for the suffering Lazarus? Judging that preparation for the afterlife involves living a life of good in the here and now, kind of defeats your point doesn't it?

Now, I'm not arguing my fellow dip-shits that afterlife belief produces better individuals, than disbelief does. Or that an afterlife believe yields with it a power to make us more loving individuals, the point which our fellow morons miss is that disbelief does not either.

And for advocate of rationalism, we can reasonably support many of our decisions, even that nasty ones, by it. There's reasonable justifications for the Iraq war, and even rationalist such as Christopher Hitchens is a mouthpiece for it. There was rational justification for Nazism, eugenics, communism, the atomic bomb.

Compassion is rarely advocated my rationalistic justification. We can feed the poor in order that they work better for us, without any compassion or love for them what so over. My love for the poor and suffering humanity, needs no rational justification for it. Rationalism can just as well be indifference, in fact this is basis for Hobbesian politics.

Religious individuals need God's Justification to commit those dangerous acts they desire to do, God cannot be ignored for them, non-religious individuals can and have called for similar actions but they don't need to claim that God justifies them as well, their justification suffices.

To confront the stupidity of individuals who think religious belief is dangerous to life and limb, based on their dimwitted intuition, rather than hard science, I turn to Anthropologist (and atheist mind you) Scott Atran:

"The speculations I heard in the conference, about what religion can or cannot do and what the motives or consequences of religious belief are, have been almost entirely supported by the smallest of data sets, usually a N of 1" the speculator himself or herself " and only on the basis of that person's selectively uninformed opinion. Imagine if you tried to do science this way, you'd be met with embarrassment and bewilderment, not lauded or applauded.

Of course, if it can be proven that religious beliefs are particularly dangerous to life and limb " at least any more dangerous than a belief in the cleansing power of "democracy" " attempts at (say) de-Islamicization might be as important as de-Nazification. Yet there is no such proof, and in the absence of any proof, or even compelling data of any sort. In fact, those of us doing actual empirical research in this area have uncovered evidence to the contrary of what was claimed. Jeremy Ginges, a psychologist at the New School, finds that belief in God does not promote violence, combative martyrdom or almost anything else the "God delusion" was blamed for at the conference."

Other Comments by theIdiot

65. Comment #198552 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 8:44 am

theIdiot-

You do seem to have got things all twisted up.

There aren't just two options - religion or hard rationalism.

We aren't vulcans or robots. We live emotional and lives, and that is good. Our feelings are vital for our interactions with others.

The problem with religion is that it prevents open discussion of certain feelings, and it gives them divine backing.

"I don't like gay people" can be discussed.
"My religion does not approve of homosexuality" becomes protected by both the speaker's own feelings that God is on their side, and also by the taboo against criticising religion.

Religion is a serious problem in a society that desires fairness, as it allows groups to claim privilege.

As for Atran, I am not a fan, I am afraid. I find his denial of the clear evidence of the testimonies of those who commit acts in the name of religion puzzling.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

66. Comment #198594 by AllanW on June 24, 2008 at 9:28 am

Hey, theIdiot replies. So not a driveby then. Good on yer. Let's see what he says.

"dip shit" … "irrelevant point" …"the point which our fellow morons miss is that disbelief does not either." …"There was rational justification for Nazism, eugenics, communism, the atomic bomb." … "confront the stupidity of individuals who think religious belief is dangerous" …"Yet there is no such proof" … "those of us doing actual empirical research in this area" …"belief in God does not promote violence, combative martyrdom or almost anything else the "God delusion" was blamed for at the conference."

Ok. TheIdiot, you have to lay off the coffee, mate. Seriously; your post reads as if it's written by a very angry, frustrated and hyper young man. Not an ad hom just a friendly suggestion. To post a frothing-at-the-mouth piece to a thread a year old as your first post to the site is a little, er .. abrupt and might give people a false impression of you. I'm happy to assume we got off on the wrong foot so let's get to the meat.

I'm interested in your research; anything we can read yet? I'm also interested in your colleagues' research; anything published that you can link to?

I don't think 'rational' means what you think it means. The justifications for 'Nazism, eugenics, communism' etc may have been persuasive but they were not rational. Eugenics? Nazism? All predicated upon appeals to base emotions of fear and ignorance not rational enquiry and sceptical information.

'No such proof' for the premise that religious belief is more dangerous than democracy? Really? Seriously? Have you read the papers lately? Just a few of the articles posted on this site lately about children dying through medical care being withheld due to religious views would surely give you pause for thought about this one?

And your final assertion 'belief in God does not promote violence, combative martyrdom or almost anything else the "God delusion" was blamed for' is a good basis for a discussion. Want to have that discussion?

Other Comments by AllanW

67. Comment #198633 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 10:26 am

God does not hold back individuals from loving

That's nice. God (Yahweh) has certainly been getting nicer and nicer over the last few centuries, at least, here in the UK he has. The Quakers discovered two hundred years ago that they had an "Inner Light" which could tell them what to do, without referring to the Gospels. (This was OK because it was God's Inner Light). Other dissident groups started finding the same thing, i.e. they just KNEW what God wanted because it was inside them somehow.

The niceness just grew and grew for some of the lucky ones, until we ended up in the UK with a God of Love and Niceness who pretty much trusts people to know what the right thing to do is ALL ON THEIR OWN!

But all is not nice in other places. In some places God doesn't trust people at all. In places in America he gets pretty cross with particular individuals and he makes sure EVERYONE WHO LISTENS knows all about how nasty they are and how they should be treated. Another God called ALLAH gets VERY CROSS at EVERYONE who won't be nice to him and that makes the people who do love him very cross as well....

Sorry, what did you say at the top?

Grow up!

Atran wouldn't know evidence if it bit him in the backside.

God licenses hatred in the heart of the religious. An atheists hatred must always stand on its own merit.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

68. Comment #198934 by theIdiot on June 24, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Ah, phil rimmer, another dope, it should have been apparent to the average reader, that I'm not referring to god existing, yahweh, or whatever else. I could have wrote a belief in God does not hold back individuals from loving, I just didn't think readers here would have been too dimwitted to figure out that is what exactly what I implied.

Judging that Scott Atran, is the anthropologist working with the state department in studying suicide terrorist, brief the National Security Council, and is involved in conflict negotiations with the middle east, I'd argue he sure knows more of what he's talking about, than dopes who take their notion of understanding of the religious mind from the uniformed pens of the Sam Harrises and Richard Dawkins of the world.

One should actually read and watch Scott Atran at Beyond Belief, with Sam Harris and company, where he rips into them for their dribble.

Other Comments by theIdiot

69. Comment #199034 by phil rimmer on June 25, 2008 at 5:30 am

I'm not referring to god existing

And you think I am????!!!!!!

My whole piece was about people's beliefs and how it affects their behaviour in spurious and adverse ways.

I watched Atran's performance at Beyond Belief ages ago. It sent me scurrying to read more of his stuff. My conclusion. Atran is a poor scientist with a conclusion in his head that he seeks to match up with his scant data, whilst rejecting other valid data.

Regarding the use of his conclusions here, they are narrow and irrelevant. The mind of terrorists is a poor place to start in assessing the behaviour of the average religite.

Are you going to offer any relevant proof for your assertions that religious beliefs have no bearing on compassion or hatred?

Even IF it had no bearing, the point remains that hatred (say) justified by religious dogma is far, far more difficult to dislodge because religion demands (and gets) respect, and is allowed to go unchallenged. Even IF it had no bearing, religion "locks in" behaviours.

EDIT Are you suggesting that Muslims would show as little compassion for girls and women if they were atheist?

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2770,Saudi-Marriage-Officiant--It-Is-Allowed-To-Marry-A-Girl-At-The-Age-Of-One

Other Comments by phil rimmer

70. Comment #200260 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 7:40 am

What we have here, is YOU rejecting Atran because he doesn't conform to your preconceived conclusion. You claim he rejects other valid data, yet I don't recall a single individual from Beyond Belief (let's not forget Dawkins, and Harris were in attendance as well), who presented Atran with data to reject. He rejected there dimwitted intuition, but not their data, particularly after he was bold enough to claim they had none.

But let's put you to the test, please provide us with scientific research, and studies on the matter of what religion can and cannot do. Please show me the scientific data that leads us to believe the religion locks in behaviors, such as hatred? Or will you have the balls to admit the truth, that you just made that part up? That you pulled it out your ass? Own up to it fool!

Your post is one of the more comical one's that I've read on the magical powers of atheism. Of how the disbelievers fairy dust, recreates the world in care bear love, dislodging all the hatred in the world, through a belief in Godlessness. Please teach me, how as a believer I would be led to love more, if i turned to disbelief?

And let me teach you and your fellow dimwits something, if you claim that religious dogma locks in negative behaviors such as hatred, better so than irreligion, the same would be true of positive behaviors such as love, this is what logically follows. The same way if anyone is to claim this as true: "but for good men to do evil, that takes religion, than it logically follows that this is also true "but for evil men to do good, that takes religion." Now, I don't agree with either of these views, I just wanted to reveal the silliness of those who do.

None of these conclusion are satisfying, and it treat religion as if it's something mutually exclusive, and a stimuli, rather than an expression of ones social context. Religion is how one interprets what stimulates him, it an as expression. Religion doesn't teach me to hate or love, it provides me a language to express my hatred or love. Strangely one finds this oddity in the unbelievers argument, that it's nature that leads us to compassionate behavior, not one's religious upbringing, yet for some reason they work in reverse when in comes to hatred. They are quick to provide the evolutionary explanation for why we love, yet they seem miserably clueless as to why we hate.

"EDIT Are you suggesting that Muslims would show as little compassion for girls and women if they were atheist?"

Ah silly man, do you think such practices were foreign to pre-islam Saudi Arabia, where the pagan religions that dominated had no bearing on morality at all? Religion wasn't the source of the patriarchal structure of the pre-Islam Saudi Arabia, nor is it the source of it post-Islam. Judging that this structure is all most universal for all civilizations at one point in time, a learned perspective involves far more than religious scapegoating. A social context doesn't emerge out of religion, religion emerges out of it's social context.

And relativist might argue with you, that your notion of a lack of compassion here, is the product of western arrogance and ignorance. A society might view the notion of an individual taking in a child of family who couldn't afford to take care of her, in a marriage contract that postpones sex until she is of an appropriate age, to be an act of compassion. In fact, I'd even argue that most individuals who support such acts, see it as such.

But hey, who the fuck are you to tell a Saudi what you think is right or wrong, to impose your western morality on him?

Other Comments by theIdiot

71. Comment #200270 by Steve Zara on June 27, 2008 at 8:16 am

I could have wrote a belief in God does not hold back individuals from loving

But it does. It clearly does, and it is easy to see why. Having a belief that your prejudices are supported by the creator can encourage people to bypass their conscience and their rationality.

Comment #199034 by phil rimmer

Thanks for this post. It is nice to know I am not alone in this opinion of Atran.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

72. Comment #200288 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 9:01 am

Re - theidiot

Bloody hell - this guy really knows how to come across like a twat doesn't he. Sounds like a petulant little 18 year old who hasn't learnt how to compose sentences yet.

Other than that his posts are basicaly full of shit. He seems to be well practiced in the art of not really making whatever argument he's trying to make.

also check this out:

Now, I'm not arguing my fellow dip-shits

At least he considers himself one of us dipshits, lol

Other Comments by phatbat

73. Comment #200297 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 9:17 am

70. Comment #200260 by theIdiot

"but for good men to do evil, that takes religion, than it logically follows that this is also true "but for evil men to do good, that takes religion."

er, no it doesn't, it's a completely seperate issue. Make the logical case if you think that is true.

Strangely one finds this oddity in the unbelievers argument, that it's nature that leads us to compassionate behavior, not one's religious upbringing, yet for some reason they work in reverse when in comes to hatred. They are quick to provide the evolutionary explanation for why we love, yet they seem miserably clueless as to why we hate.

seem clueless? perhapse you could explain why evolutionary explainations of our emotions exclude hatred from their explanitory power.

Do we take it from this that you are a creationist and don't believe evolution happened.

Ah silly man, do you think such practices were foreign to pre-islam Saudi Arabia, where the pagan religions that dominated had no bearing on morality at all? Religion wasn't the source of the patriarchal structure of the pre-Islam Saudi Arabia, nor is it the source of it post-Islam. Judging that this structure is all most universal for all civilizations at one point in time, a learned perspective involves far more than religious scapegoating. A social context doesn't emerge out of religion, religion emerges out of it's social context.

The origin of such practices is not disputed nor the issue. The issue is that it still goes on now and it is likely to go on as long as nearly an entire religious body of people idolise mohammed as a perfect example of personhood, and consider anything he did as good.

And relativist might argue with you, that your notion of a lack of compassion here, is the product of western arrogance and ignorance. A society might view the notion of an individual taking in a child of family who couldn't afford to take care of her, in a marriage contract that postpones sex until she is of an appropriate age, to be an act of compassion. In fact, I'd even argue that most individuals who support such acts, see it as such.

But hey, who the fuck are you to tell a Saudi what you think is right or wrong, to impose your western morality on him?

We are people who's moral code is actualy based on whether an act does actual harm to people. Not based on whether it supposedly pleases some imaginary friend. Since that little girl cannot simply choose to unmarry herself when she grows up and decides if she wants to be married to the person chosen for her then she is basicaly enslaved to the person of her father's choosing.

Twat.

Other Comments by phatbat

74. Comment #200309 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 9:34 am

Ah, steveyboy, I'm surprised you don't see the comedy in your own post.

So are you saying if I relied on my conscious it would lead me to choose love over hatred?

Does my conscious have a transcendent moral framework, different than my own? Does it compel me to love and hate, what I don't feel compelled to love and hate already?

If I am to reject the silly voice of the fairy in the sky, why not reject the voice of the fairy in my head as well.

Rational decisions are not necessarily moral at all, and moral decisions are not necessarily rational. In fact rationality can do away with morality with ease.

So you're saying that Atheist who supported Hitler had an easier time getting over their jewish prejudices than their Christian counterparts? Are you saying that Godless nations such as France, are less hostile and have an easier time integrating into their society muslim immigrants, than the US, who sees itself as dominantly christian?

Are you saying that Hindu Indians, who have no religious basis for an opposition towards homosexuality, have an easier time getting over this prejudice than American Christians? Are you saying they are less hostile towards gay men, than Americans, since they have no religious basis for their prejudice?

It seems you don't have much of a clue as to the nature of prejudice now do you? I doubt you formed your earlier view from research, or learning, but more or less from self promotion.

Other Comments by theIdiot

75. Comment #200313 by Steve Zara on June 27, 2008 at 9:43 am

But let's put you to the test, please provide us with scientific research, and studies on the matter of what religion can and cannot do. Please show me the scientific data that leads us to believe the religion locks in behaviors, such as hatred? Or will you have the balls to admit the truth, that you just made that part up? That you pulled it out your ass? Own up to it fool!

Well, I think your post is a clear example.

Please teach me, how as a believer I would be led to love more, if i turned to disbelief?

We have seen that happen. People have moved away from religion and rejected what they have been taught was God's opinion of gays, women, people of other religions, and have become more compassionate.

We have seen that in the UK, where political support for the rights of such people have moved way ahead of general religious opinion of what those rights should be. As the country as become more secular, compassion for those who are different has increased.

Funny how people make such excuses for religion. I have no idea how much money is spend on advertising each year, but it shows that people can be manipulated and persuaded. And yet, some religious people try and claim that the framework of religion has no effect. All one needs to do is to look at the current problems in the Church of England over homosexuality. Two groups, one supporting gay rights, the other calling gay people "lower than dogs", but both claiming the Holy Spirit has guided their thinking. Take the Holy Spirit away, and these people may at least show a bit more humility and listen to reason - they won't have the "God says I am right" excuse.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

76. Comment #200314 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 9:43 am

phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 9:01 am
"Bloody hell - this guy really knows how to come across like a twat doesn't he.

"Now, I'm not arguing my fellow dip-shits."
At least he considers himself one of us dipshits, lol"

No shit sherlock!

Ever notice I go by the name "the idiot"? Accusing everyone of being dipshits, without claiming I have the potential to be one too, would just be too cruel.

:)

Other Comments by theIdiot

77. Comment #200315 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 9:49 am

76. Comment #200314 by theIdiot

Ever notice I go by the name "the idiot"? Accusing everyone of being dipshits, without claiming I have the potential to be one too, would just be too cruel.

you're doing more than just claiming the potential - you are claiming to be a dipshit with us. Which begs the question why would you try and insult people by accusing them of being like you?

Other Comments by phatbat

78. Comment #200318 by Steve Zara on June 27, 2008 at 9:57 am

theIdiot-

You do seem a happy fellow.

Let me explain something to you.

1. Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years without hitting each other too much, as a result of conscience.

2. If you want to claim any transcendent morality that comes from God, or anywhere else, you had better give an explanation of how that actually works. I look forward to that with interest. Get something that does work, and it will rank you up with the greatest thinkers in history. If you can't, it just makes you a rather tedious ranting buffoon. I wonder which it will be?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

79. Comment #200319 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 9:58 am

Phatbat: "er, no it doesn't, it's a completely seperate issue. Make the logical case if you think that is true. "

Let's take a break, if you can't figure out why this is not a separate issue, then God (or Dawkins) or your fellow disbelievers here help you. Because I'm not going to waste my time addressing this sort of stupidity. Anyone with a half a brain can figure why this is so, perhaps someone else would like to teach our poor phatbat why.

Phatbat: "seem clueless? perhaps you could explain why evolutionary explanations of our emotions exclude hatred from their explanitory power. Do we take it from this that you are a creationist and don't believe evolution happened."

Oh my fucking God! Phatbat read what I wrote again. In fact, since you don't know how to read, take it your mother and ask her to explain for you. And if your mother is as dumb as you, then go ask a HS teacher.

I swear if phatbat is a good measure of the intelligence of atheist, than you all are a sorry bunch.

And Phatbat, my child when you figure out the errors of your previous response than I'll respond.

Sincerely,
Twat

Other Comments by theIdiot

80. Comment #200320 by Steve Zara on June 27, 2008 at 10:01 am

I swear if phatbat is a good measure of the intelligence of atheist, than you all are a sorry bunch.

Do please rise to my intellectual challenge.

A mechanism for the action of transcendent morality please. Next on the request list will be a proof that a human mind can detect the supernatural. I can keep you busy for ages.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

81. Comment #200325 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 10:11 am

Re: theidiot

I am so glad theidiot's rantings are down in print for all to see, that way he can't deny saying it.

Oh my fucking God! Phatbat read what I wrote again. In fact, since you don't know how to read, take it your mother and ask her to explain for you. And if your mother is as dumb as you, then go ask a HS teacher.

OK lets read it again.

They are quick to provide the evolutionary explanation for why we love, yet they seem miserably clueless as to why we hate.

So either we are miserably clueless as to the reason we hate or we are not. You stated that we were clueless or seem that way. Which is why i wrote this:

seem clueless? perhapse you could explain why evolutionary explainations of our emotions exclude hatred from their explanitory power.

meaning that we do have the ability to explain human emotions incluing hate and thus you are wrong.

Twat.

Other Comments by phatbat

82. Comment #200327 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 10:14 am

Steveyboy: "Let me explain something to you.

1. Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years without hitting each other too much, as a result of conscience."

Judging that human beings are the most predatory or nature's creation, it seems we've survived by hitting each other a lot. War, Genocide, Slavery have all played as components in the survival game, are they products of our conscious as well?

"2. If you want to claim any transcendent morality that comes from God, or anywhere else, you had better give an explanation of how that actually works. I look forward to that with interest. "

Ah, dear friend, do I make any sort of case for a transcendent morality? You're the one that seems to have a faith in such a thing. Why should I listen to my conscious? Does my conscious know something I don't know? What the fuck is it anyway. If i wanna punch a man in the face for stepping on my shoes, does a little angel in my head tell me not to do so?

So please, explain more to me.

Other Comments by theIdiot

83. Comment #200329 by Diacanu on June 27, 2008 at 10:22 am

theIdiot-

It's really this simple, I'm good because I'm good, you're good because you fear an invisible man in the sky sending you to a pit of fire in the mantle of the earth.

You're a scumbag.

Next case.

Other Comments by Diacanu

84. Comment #200332 by Steve Zara on June 27, 2008 at 10:27 am

Judging that human beings are the most predatory or nature's creation, it seems we've survived by hitting each other a lot. War, Genocide, Slavery have all played as components in the survival game, are they products of our conscious as well?

Please could you use the correct word? The word is "conscience".

They are all the effect of behaviour. Conscience is part of what influences behaviour.

Does my conscious know something I don't know?

Yes, it does, actually. It has been tuned by millions of years of evolution.

What the fuck is it anyway.

Hard-wired and trained patterns in the connections in our brains.

If i wanna punch a man in the face for stepping on my shoes, does a little angel in my head tell me not to do so?

Do you punch a man in the face for stepping on your shoes? Are you really stupid enough to think that a belief in God is behind that?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

85. Comment #200333 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 10:27 am

Stevey: [quote] Do please rise to my intellectual challenge.

A mechanism for the action of transcendent morality please. [/quote]

Tisk, Tisk, Tisk stevey, shame on you for raising questions for arguments I never made. I ridiculed you for treating the conscious as containing some sort of transcendent notion of morality that we are to adhere to, then you turn and ask me for the mechanism for a device I never claimed or even eluded to existing? Please make sense of this for me.


[quote] Next on the request list will be a proof that a human mind can detect the supernatural. I can keep you busy for ages. [/quote]

What the fuck is this? If these are the type of questions that are suppose to keep me busy for ages, let me ask you similar ones:

Prove to me the earth is flat.

Prove to me that the moon landing was a conspiracy.

Prove to me that Martha Steward is a space alien.

They have the same damn problem stevey, none of us claimed to have such proof, nor have any of us claimed to hold such a position. And I have to wonder what was the purpose of such dimwitted questions?

Other Comments by theIdiot

86. Comment #200334 by Steve Zara on June 27, 2008 at 10:31 am

Comment #200333 by theIdiot

You do seem to have a short memory.

You posted:

God does not hold back individuals from loving, human natures holds them back.

To me, that implies that there is a God that does not hold back individuals.

That is a claim about transcendence and the supernatural.

Of course, if you wish to retract or rephrase that sentence...

Please clarify your position on the existence or otherwise of this deity. I am afraid I am getting a bit bored of this ranting, so sometime soon would be nice.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

87. Comment #200335 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 10:34 am

Diacanu on June 27, 2008 at 10:22 am
"It's really this simple, I'm good because I'm good, you're good because you fear an invisible man in the sky sending you to a pit of fire in the mantle of the earth."

Listen dipshit, I don't even believe in a fucking invisible man in the sky, or a pit of fire in the mantle of the earth, so what the fuck are you talking about?

And I'm pretty sure I'm good for the same reason everyone else is good, and I'm pretty sure I'm a scumbag for the same reasons everyone else is a scumbag.

So shut your ass up, before you start looking like the idiot.

Sincerely,
Scumbag.

Other Comments by theIdiot

88. Comment #200337 by Steve Zara on June 27, 2008 at 10:37 am

Comment #200335 by theIdiot

Listen dipshit, I don't even believe in a fucking invisible man in the sky, or a pit of fire in the mantle of the earth, so what the fuck are you talking about?

Look you ranting buffoon. You seem unable to post coherently. You throw out statements that say one thing, and then you rant something else.

If you want to argue about the role of religion, then argue it, but stop being an infantile pottymouth.

If you apologise, I'll respond, otherwise I have tired of you.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

89. Comment #200339 by Diacanu on June 27, 2008 at 10:40 am

theIdiot-

So shut your ass up,...

Or you'll what, Butch?

Other Comments by Diacanu

90. Comment #200341 by al-rawandi on June 27, 2008 at 10:40 am

Prove to me the earth is flat.

Prove to me that the moon landing was a conspiracy.

Prove to me that Martha Steward is a space alien.

The earth is flat, science hasn't proved it is round, and people who say it is round are just dogmatists.

The moon landing was a conspiracy by atheists. How do explain the flag moving in the picture, it was shot in a movie studio.

Marther Steward (sic) (try Stewart) is a space alien. How do I know, I feel it. Not only is she a space alien, she created all life on earth long ago and has returned to look over us and make cooking shows. She appears like she is a regular human being, but she simply has everyone fooled.

I feel it ok, I feel it. It just makes rational sense that the earth was created by a rational being, and Martha Stewart is that being.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

91. Comment #200343 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 10:51 am

Diacanu

"Or you'll what, Butch? "

or the rest of my sentence, sweetie.

Other Comments by theIdiot

92. Comment #200345 by AllanW on June 27, 2008 at 11:04 am

Guys, read his posts here and on the forum. Ignore the juvenile language and reread them with a clear head.

He's a nihilist who feels so pissed-off about it he has to spread his loathing and misery around. Just ignore, there's nothing of substance in his words just a loud yawp against the world.

Other Comments by AllanW

93. Comment #200346 by Diacanu on June 27, 2008 at 11:04 am

theIdiot-

Deuurr!!!!

Pretty much what I thought.
Marked as troll.

Other Comments by Diacanu

94. Comment #200347 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 11:14 am

Stevey: "Please could you use the correct word? The word is "conscience"."

Sure, my apologies.

Stevey: "They are all the effect of behaviour. Conscience is part of what influences behaviour."

Uhm, so is conscience a part of what influences the behavior that led to war, slavery, genocide?

If so, then are you promoting that we follow it? If not, than are you claiming that the conscious has a transcendent moral quality about it, that excludes it from promoting such things, even if such things are seen as means of survival?

Stevey: "You do seem to have a short memory.

You posted:
"God does not hold back individuals from loving, human natures holds them back.""

So when Einstein wrote that "God does not play dice" Do you take this to mean that Einstein believed there was a God, but he just didn't play dice in his spare time?

My own religious or non-religious beliefs are not the topic of discussions, so i don't see how they are relevant in this particular thread. Since the question deals with the role of religion on behavior, not if I personally believe or not.

But I'll tell you anyway, but don't expect me to answer a 101 questions on it. I'm half atheist, half Christian. I'm enthralled by the Christian Gospel, but I haven't committed to it. I'm stuck at beauty humiliated and crucified; on what triumphed: misery or hope. Sometimes i wake up believing, some times I don't, but I'm always reflective and captivated.

Other Comments by theIdiot

95. Comment #200348 by decius on June 27, 2008 at 11:19 am

I'm half atheist, half Christian.

BWAHWAWAWAAAAAAAAAA

Frigging clown.

Other Comments by decius

96. Comment #200349 by Steve Zara on June 27, 2008 at 11:22 am

So when Einstein wrote that "God does not play dice" Do you take this to mean that Einstein believed there was a God, but he just didn't play dice in his spare time?

You aren't an Einstein (but then who is?). When someone comes here and makes a direct statement about God, there is no reason not to take it as read.

My own religious or non-religious beliefs are not the topic of discussions, so i don't see how they are relevant in this particular thread. Since the question deals with the role of religion on behavior, not if I personally believe or not.

First, topics of discussion can be whatever people want them to be. Second, beliefs matter. A creationist asking questions about evolution is suspect, for example. Background is important.

But I'll tell you anyway, but don't expect me to answer a 101 questions on it. I'm half atheist, half Christian. I'm enthralled by the Christian Gospel, but I haven't committed to it. I'm stuck at beauty humiliated and crucified; on what triumphed: misery or hope. Sometimes i wake up believing, some times I don't, but I'm always reflective and captivated.

That is interesting, if weird and contradictory. And posted calmly. If you wish to discuss the role of religion in behaviour, that's fine by me. But cut the crap and insults, OK? It's dull.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

97. Comment #200350 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 11:29 am

Here I edited my previous post and added what follows, but I believe you may have missed it, while you were responding to my post unedited, so here it is:

Stevey: "Please could you use the correct word? The word is "conscience"."

Sure, my apologies.

Stevey: "They are all the effect of behaviour. Conscience is part of what influences behaviour."

Uhm, so is conscience a part of what influences the behavior that led to war, slavery, genocide?

If so, then are you promoting that we follow it? If not, than are you claiming that the conscious has a transcendent moral quality about it, that excludes it from promoting such things, even if such things are seen as means of survival?

Other Comments by theIdiot

98. Comment #200353 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 11:39 am

Stevey: "First, topics of discussion can be whatever people want them to be. Second, beliefs matter. A creationist asking questions about evolution is suspect, for example. Background is important."

Beliefs matter, dependent on topic. If I'm asking questions on evolution it would be appropriate to state I am a creationist (which I'm not), but for this discussion it's entirely irrelevant.

I seen no reason to start every post on this forum, with a disclaimer that I'm not a creationist, I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky, or a pit of fire in the mantle of the earth, or that one can prove the supernatural, all things that I've been accused of on this thread, and all things that were irrelevant to the topic.

Other Comments by theIdiot

99. Comment #200354 by Steve Zara on June 27, 2008 at 11:42 am

Uhm, so is conscience a part of what influences the behavior that led to war, slavery, genocide?

If so, then are you promoting that we follow it? If not, than are you claiming that the conscious has a transcendent moral quality about it, that excludes it from promoting such things, even if such things are seen as means of survival?

I am not mentioning anything transcendent at all.

Human behaviour is a result of millions of years of evolution. It seems likely that we started off in small wandering groups of families and friends. We can have different in-group and out-group feelings. We can feel differently towards friends and family than towards people we don't know.

That is easily explained in terms of evolution, as cooperation and support are a stable strategy for behaviour in such conditions.

Conscience is part of our mental make-up that has arisen from evolution - it is sort of like a "safety override" on behaviour, to help stop us being sociopaths. But, this can sometimes only be effective in-group.

The problem we have as a species is our reaction to those not in the same group, which is why we get things like slavery and xenophobia.

Fortunately, we have also evolved self-awareness and language. That allows us to realise the situation we are in - large societies with mixed populations - and re-train our own brains through culture and ethical ideas to include in our "in-group" people of different groups. Our minds are adaptable.

The problem that I see with religion is that it can act as a block to that training of our minds, because it gives protection of certain ideas from open debate, and also because it encourages people to think that certain ideas are privileged by having a divine nature. It acts as a drag on the ethical development of society for that reason. We can see evidence of this by the way religious institutions attempt to hold back the granting of certain rights to minorities.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

100. Comment #200355 by shad0w on June 27, 2008 at 11:42 am

"What we have here, is YOU rejecting Atran because he doesn't conform to your preconceived conclusion. You claim he rejects other valid data, yet I don't recall a single individual from Beyond Belief (let's not forget Dawkins, and Harris were in attendance as well), who presented Atran with data to reject. He rejected there dimwitted intuition, but not their data, particularly after he was bold enough to claim they had none."

Actually Sam harris did present some evidence. Namely the mountain of letters and videos of the people flying planes into buildings , or who strap bombs on themselves explicitly stating that they are doing it based on a religious doctrine. If that is not evidence enough for you i don't know what is.

ANd then there is written historical evidence on the basis of the crusades and 'liberating the holy land' (although the church and the crusaders at the time had other more earthly motives.. Profit profit profit!), written evidence from those nutjobs that went and killed doctors , and bombed clinics over abortions, historical and written evidence over the burning of whitches, etc etc.
The list is really too big to mention here. All that evidence is _explicitily_ stating religious doctrine as justification of said actions. Why is it that that data is summarily dismessed i wonder?

I find Atran's work very exciting and interesting to be perfectly honest. However i find his conclusions a bit hard to swallow since he ignores the evidence mentioned above.

Other Comments by shad0w