301. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #44434 by SRWB on May 24, 2007 at 5:30 pm

The Wee Flea said, in part, (post 110)

But the principle that Harris enunciates is one that is profoundly dangerous that there are some beliefs which are so bad that holding them requires the death sentence.

This topic has already been flogged in at least two other threads, but let's repeat it here for David's edification. Here is Sam Harris's quote in full…

The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense...

Now others on this thread have already addressed the phrase "may be justified". That in itself should be sufficient to convince anyone that Harris is not advocating wanton killing just for the beliefs people hold. However, the particular phrase "while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others" is perhaps the crux of the issue. To my mind, this at least implies that the perpetrators have moved beyond thought and belief, and have moved to action. Arguably, we now have a completely different set of circumstances and, in this context, Sam's quote makes perfect sense. Even David admits he has "no problem punishing people who have already acted inappropriately or criminally" or "dealing with those who have a previous record".

Then David muddies the waters concerning homosexuality by asking about polygamy and paedophilia. (BillySands– excellent response to that question by the way.). I was left wondering what one had to do with the others. I'm still wondering……………………………..

302. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #43189 by SRWB on May 20, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Mark (et al),

Can others play along?

What is this supposed to prove?

Archaeologists have known for some time that Alexander used the debris of the abandoned mainland city to build a causeway 3,000 yards long and up to 180 yards across.

"The causeway would have been built of timber - for which Phoenicia was renowned throughout the ancient world - stone and rubble."

Now please read Ezekiel 26:12 again. Ezekiel was spot on, over 270 years before it happened. He knew because Yahweh told him.

This can be interpreted a number of ways:

a. If Tyre was razed it should be apparent that there would be much "timber, stone and rubble". It's also possible that much of it would be laid (dumped) in the "the midst of the water".

b. Midst of the water tells us nothing – how far out from land is the midst? Tyre was a coastal city, thus it is to be expected that detritus from the city's sack would end up in the sea.

c. How does this in any way suggest another attack, over a causeway, some 270 plus years later? To "lay" does not necessarily imply to build. Even if it did, it doesn't mean anything because the crucial timeline is not included in this so-called prophecy. Why would this not refer to Nebuchadrezzar's attack?

d. What else would the ancients have built a causeway of, other than stones and timber? That's hardly prophetic, seeing they didn't have steel girders, cement and the like.

303. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #43174 by SRWB on May 20, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Homosexuality is present in animals that have a wide range of reproductive hierarchies.

I couldn't agree more. But then those other animals probably don't create moral guidelines either! So what is your theory?

304. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #43078 by SRWB on May 20, 2007 at 1:07 pm

steve99,

But we are not talking about other animals here. Humans do not have the same sort of reproduction hierarchy that many other animal species do, i.e. where only Alpha males and females reproduce, etc. As I said, it's only my theory.

305. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #43061 by SRWB on May 20, 2007 at 12:03 pm

It does if you expect there to be reproduction!

306. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #43058 by SRWB on May 20, 2007 at 11:41 am

I think part of the concern about homosexuality is that in early societies, which tended to be hunter-gatherer or proto-agricultural cultures, human groups tended to be small, and thus dependant upon children. Clearly, homosexuality would not have been helpful in maintaining the size of the clan/tribe. The issue of pre-marital sex might just relate to age-old misogyny; after all, few cultures get all upset about men doing it, but most go to extraordinary lengths to prohibit women from doing so. Of course, it may just have been the personal feelings and dislikes of a leader/chief/headman, who was clever enough to include these prohibitions into a holy book, thereby cementing control over the peasants. By the same token, I've always wondered about religion-inspired dietary and clothing codes, and such things as circumcision. But these are just my theories.

307. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42400 by SRWB on May 18, 2007 at 6:54 am

M & S - Marks and Spencers?

308. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #42154 by SRWB on May 17, 2007 at 5:58 pm

mjr1007 and Dianelos Georgoudis,

I think we are starting to go in circles now. My first question is this…

Is there a difference between "nothing (or everything) happens" and "reality"? Those two terms/phrases have been used interchangeably in this exchange, and I want to make sure we're on the same wavelength. It might seem simple, but clearly it's not. Can reality exist without anything happening? Can anything happen without reality? And I really don't care whether anything (one) is observing it.

Dianelos Georgoudis,

An example of a system with consciousness but no intelligence would be that of a newborn baby

Is it? Is a newborn really aware of its own existence? It might also have a very rudimentary intelligence, which, more importantly, has potential to increase.

If a personal God of limitless goodness exists then it is reasonable to expect that personal goodness (i.e. virtue) is the greatest good, and that God would want us to have that greatest good.

So you say, and it might be reasonable to expect. But the mere existence of such a being, let alone its "goodness", is debatable - check the Old Testament. And why would a god necessarily want you to be good? Can't you be good on your own?

What scientific arguments have you seen that explain why the universe is not swarmed with intelligence?

Most probable by the measure that all other alternative explanations are very unlikely.

The evidence for that assertion is that it is the best explanation I know of for the objective evidence that the cosmos is so quiet as far as signs of extraterrestrial intelligence goes. If you have a better explanation I would very much like to hear it.

I answered this previously in my post # 113.

Now I must apologize – the remainder of your posts # 119 and # 120 are incomprehensible to me? Perhaps I'm thick, but it might be because you're all over the map on this one! Try to focus, and for your God's sake, get off the computer simulation horseshit. I'm pretty sure that we are not in one, and so are you.

Good night.

309. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #41850 by SRWB on May 17, 2007 at 7:44 am

mjr1007,

Speaking of logic, you said...

Pointing out inconsistencies in religion is not a valid criticism of COG.

then…

Even if their religion is not inconsistent or contradictory it's still valid to criticize their COG, not necessarily wise, but valid. The point here is that even if every religious COG is inconsistent and contradictory, logically speaking, you can't prove anything about COG.

OK, I agree that we can't prove or disprove COG – I don't think anyone can definitively say otherwise, and I don't think they have (you can argue "this is typically the position of atheists", but that is not my experience). However, just as you argue for such an entity, I will argue, whether it's "wise" or not, that, based on all the available evidence, including inconsistent and contradictory religions, the likelihood of such an entity's existence is remote. Note, I did NOT say it does not exist!

Again I don't have to prove the existence of a UO, just that it is not inconsistent with the evidence.

And that you may have done (I would prefer to have an expert in the field verify your conclusion). Again, as you said, that doesn't mean that it is true. But why is it likely that a UO would only function at a sub-atomic level? Can you cite evidence that a UO exists at other levels? And what about my question in regards to the possibility that there are even smaller sub-atomic particles that we can't (yet) see, which are actually influencing events, and not just "observing"?

cheers

310. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41732 by SRWB on May 16, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Let's all slow down and lighten up a little! Dower, and others, have merely pointed out that perhaps a little decorum is in order. We all know that Falwell was not perfect (an understatement), and that to pretend otherwise would be somewhat hypocritical. He should not get a free pass, but put it into perspective. He may have believed and spouted hateful nonsense, but did he ever physically harm anyone (emotional harm yes) as compared to others like Hitler, Stalin and Bin Laden, who have also, rightly, been attacked on this site. I was under the impression that part of the atheistic worldview was about compassion and love of life (after all we only get one) for our fellow humans. Besides to carry on this way, gives the faithful another stick with which to beat us fanatical, evil unbelievers.

311. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #41683 by SRWB on May 16, 2007 at 3:01 pm

mjr1007 ,

You said...

The point here is that religion and COG are not equivalent and can not be used interchangeably. I will say this again, pointing out inconsistencies in religion is not a valid criticism of COG.

I never said the two concepts were equivalent; others may have and did so quite understandably. I said they were similar. If you assume that God/COG/UO are spiritual, philosophical, conceptual, then presumably they are not material things, and are not easily explained. To do so, it is possible, even likely, that we have come up with religion and religion-like philosophies to come to grips with such ideas. I would argue, however, that anyone who proclaims that their religion is the inerrant word of God, and if that religion is inconsistent (and contradictory), then it is valid to criticize their COG.

I've read one theory about the structures of the Universe (the largest known structure) being cause by small variations in the distribution of sub atomic particles (quarks if memory servers) immediately after the big bang. Pretty much covers the entire scale of the universe.

A single Universal Observer influencing the structure of the universe by effecting quantum events.

OK, let's start there. But remember that I am not a physicist (I wish one would jump in here...). You asserted, "a single Universal Observer influencing the structure of the universe by effecting (sic) quantum events". This may be true, but you have not offered any definitive proof. How do "small variations in the distribution of sub atomic particles (quarks if memory serves)" indicate the existence of a UO?

Let's now go back to one of your first series of assertions.

In quantum mechanics nothing occurs unless it's observed.
The act of observing influences the event.
Things occur without human observation.
Things must have been observed.
The simplest explanation is an unseen universal observer.
This observer, observes all and therefore influences all.
Therefore there exists an all knowing all powerful observer.
Some may choose to call the universal observer God.

As I understand it, in a quantum mechanics context, the term 'observable' is used interchangeably with 'physical quantity', and should be treated as a technical term with the same meaning. Therefore, let's assume anything that can be observed has a physical quantity. However, the issue of whether or not simply observing has any effect on occurrence is debatable, as you also admitted…

My claim is that the Universal Observer … is a reasonable interpretation of evidence. By no stretch of the imagination is it the only interpretation or does it prove the existence of a higher power. It merely disproves, by counter example, the statement that there is no reasonable interpretation. It now throws the issue into a gray area where nothing is provable or disprovable.

To my way of thinking, it appears counterintuitive to argue "reality does not exist when we are not observing it." Why would reality on a macro- level work any different on a micro- or atomic level (again, I am not a physicist)? By way of an analogy that laymen can understand, such a line of reasoning is comparable to the age-old question, does a tree make a sound in the forest when it falls over. You said, "the simplest explanation is an unseen universal observer." I would argue that if something has an effect on an event, it is no longer just an observer; it is an executor. But what if there are even smaller sub-atomic particles that we can't (yet) see, which are actually influencing events? What does that do to your UO argument?

Dianelos Georgoudis,

Now clearly consciousness is the central fact of our existence, and therefore understanding consciousness should be central too.

OK, but I would have thought that our physical being is the central fact of our existence. Other things exist that arguably don't have consciousness, i.e., lower animals and plants.

If in reality we all exist within a computer simulation (and some people seriously propose this possibility, see www.simulation-argument.com) it wouldn't make the slightest difference to science.

What? If this is true, then the mere fact we are in a computer simulation has everything to do with science! How can computers exist without science (and technology)? Someone's or something's science is definitely at play in this scenario.

So the objective observation I would like to suggest is that there is a positive correlation between intelligence and theistic belief, while conceding that some time will be necessary before things stabilize.

Is there any objective observation that makes the existence of God more probable that we can make here and now? I think there is:
According to all that science teaches us we would expect that the universe should be swarmed with intelligent civilizations aggressively expanding. But the universe is dead silent. How can we explain that observation? There are several possible answers but I find them all highly unlikely (life is an incredible rare phenomenon; we happen to be one of the very first civilizations in the universe; we exist in some kind of protected cosmic zoo; all civilizations self-destruct; we live in a computer simulation.) By far the most probable explanation is that the universe is quiet because all civilizations (that do not self-destruct) evolve towards a spiritual and therefore humble kind of organization - evidencing that intelligence slowly but surely leads towards theism.

Are these really "objective" observations? I don't think you have made that case at all. Then you made some comments in regards to intelligence and happiness (I'm paraphrasing). First, I don't agree that all atheists equate intelligence with academic prowess. Intelligence encompasses more than academic issues; how about common-sense, wisdom, the ability to grasp concepts intuitively? Second, so what if religious people tend to be happier? It still doesn't prove the existence of God. Third, I'm not sure "that science teaches us we would expect that the universe should be swarmed with intelligent civilizations aggressively expanding"; in fact, the opposite is more likely. In any event, portions of that argument actually cut both ways. In regards to "swarmed with intelligent civilizations", it's very likely that earth and all its life forms are very probably unique or, in a very tiny minority, within the universe. At the moment we have no real evidence to believe otherwise. Conversely, we also know that life, where it does exist, does aggressively expand – look at the variety on earth, including in even the farthest and most inhospitable reaches of it, i.e., the poles, the ocean depths, etc. You said you find the idea that "life is an incredible rare phenomenon" unlikely. Why? We have not yet found any credible evidence of life anywhere else in this universe. How does your belief that civilizations evolving "towards a spiritual and therefore humble kind of organization - evidencing that intelligence slowly but surely leads towards theism", provide any kind of proof? What do spirituality and humility have to do with intelligence, and how do humility and theism relate? Can't atheists be humble?

Now let's go back to your comment about intelligent civilizations aggressively expanding. We humans are intelligent and inquisitive, maybe even rapaciously so – probably another aspect of our consciousness. And we are very keen to expand our horizons, worlds, knowledge, etc. However, apparently, if I understand you correctly, that is indicative of a non-theistic bent. So neither aggressive expansionism nor theism are true about humanity? Surely that's not what you are arguing?

312. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #41010 by SRWB on May 15, 2007 at 10:38 am

mjr1007

What exactly do you mean by depends in this context?

"Depends on" was meant in the context of our discussion pertaining to the relationship between God/COG/UO and religion. I used religion in its most commonly understood term which refers to the belief in some sort of supernatural controller; nothing more, nothing less. That aside, I understand the arguments about whether or not Buddhism is a religion.

Dianelos Georgoudis,

You are correct; you did not say, "consciousness is the proof of the existence of God".

Contrasted to that a theistic worldview can explain consciousness. According to the theistic worldview the most fundamental aspect of reality is not matter but spirit, and the most overarching existent is not the universe but God. The theistic worldview does not deny the existence of matter or of the universe, but rather claims that these are secondary to and contingent on the existence of spirit and of God. And how can God explain our consciousness? Well the basic idea is that God is a conscious subject him/herself and therefore able to create other conscious subjects.

Couldn't consciousness be the result of evolution? Can consciousness only be explained by a theistic worldview? Does God consist of matter? And if not, can beings which are solely conscious create or must they also consist of matter to do so? Obviously, I do not agree that spirit is more fundamental than matter. I would argue the opposite, as many living things arguably exist without consciousness. How can the intangible be more important than the tangible? Would we, or anything else, exist if we were not composed of matter? And if so, what form would we take? That is only partly a rhetorical question, as the idea of existing without matter is unfathomable, and might be superfluous and pointless.

313. Why Christopher Hitchens is not Great

Comment #40902 by SRWB on May 15, 2007 at 7:24 am

Logicel, pewkatchoo,

What role do you think Pascal's Wager plays in all this? As opposed to some sort of genetic imprinting, could people of faith be subconsciously subject to a meme like this?

314. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #40368 by SRWB on May 14, 2007 at 7:29 am

Mjr1007,

I'll take issue with one aspect of your argument.

A (equivalent) B
There are members of the set A (which exist without) B
There are members of the set B (which exist without) A

Therefore A (not equivalent) B

You state that this is basic logic. Although I do not have any formal logic training, I see a major flaw in this construction. If A is "equivalent" to B, then logic dictates they are the same. The analogy you cited would work better if A was "similar" to B. However, I will grant you that God/COG/UO and religion are not necessarily the same thing, hence they are similar, but not equivalent. Nevertheless, one depends on the other, by definition.

Dianelos Georgoudis,

You assert that the very fact humans have consciousness proves God exists. Why couldn't our consciousness merely be proof of our ability to create a concept of God in an attempt to rationalize our existence? The beauty of nature, love and good deeds are all emotions and concepts that could have developed over time and through evolution. Do animals appreciate the beauty of nature? Is nature always beautiful? Sometimes it is exceptionally harsh and violent. Doesn't that argue against God's existence?

315. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39651 by SRWB on May 11, 2007 at 12:51 pm

I don't believe that "fear of punishment" keeps the faithful in line. If that were true, assuming the statistics showing that most people believe in some variation of God are correct, we wouldn't have so many of them in jail, nor would they be committing so many crimes. Of course, they could be hedging their bets that they will be forgiven. Another option, is that many who profess to believe, actually don't!

316. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39647 by SRWB on May 11, 2007 at 12:35 pm

elfinabout,

Even if we agree, as you said that "the Oxford Dictionary has a very unprofessional habit of redefining words according to common usage, ignoring completely their original, etymological roots", the fact is that in a large part of the English-speaking world it is the standard (at least it is in Canada and the UK – I'm not sure about Oceania) and common usage trumps. Other dictionaries probably do likewise. Furthermore, etymology concerns origin and sources of words, nothing more. Language, like life, evolves. Let's take the word "gay" (not be flippant or "take the piss", as they say in the UK). Clearly it has origins that are no longer associated with its current meaning, and very few people, barring the elderly and outside the UK, use it in its original sense. You used the word "sinister" as an example. Outside of heraldry, its original meaning, left, has been lost. Another example is the English word "gauche", strangely enough, from the French for left as well (what is it with all this anti-leftist rhetoric?). See my point?

On the "Americanisation" of English words, I understand your comment. But as a Canadian, I guess I am uniquely placed to do so. I am guilty as charged, but I tend to drop letters, as in armor vice armour, and color vice colour, because to me it looks better phonetically (and although it's pretty idle, I'm lazy so I convince myself I'm saving letters and time – LOL). By the same token, why do Brits insist on saying things like aeroplane and aluminium?

317. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39613 by SRWB on May 11, 2007 at 9:49 am

"You know, Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it."

LOL...reminds me of another favorite Costanza quote which is apt here...

"Do you ever just get down on your knees and thank God that you know me and have access to my dementia?"

318. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39609 by SRWB on May 11, 2007 at 9:34 am

SteveN,

Agreed!

319. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39601 by SRWB on May 11, 2007 at 9:13 am

Elfinabout,

Not to cast aspersions on you, but you would do well to rethink your definition of paedophile (and paedophilia). According to Oxford Concise paedophilia means "sexual desire directed towards children". I know this is not what you mean, according to your post above, but it could certainly be construed that way in accordance with dictionary definition and common usage.

320. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39590 by SRWB on May 11, 2007 at 8:21 am

SteveN,

Agree - that is why I put sin in quotation marks. It is generally understood that sin has religious connotations, but the Oxford Concise Dictionary also refers to breaking a moral law. Call them transgressions, offences, misdemeanors, rule-breaking, whatever...

But, I'm not sure that we, as a species, would not still feel guilt and require forgiveness, even if there were no religious precepts. If you believe we are capable of moral thought and behavior even without God and religion, couldn't we, wouldn't we, still fell guilt about doing something wrong?

321. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39577 by SRWB on May 11, 2007 at 7:36 am

Ah, the age old questions – What is the meaning of life? Why are we here and what 's life all about? Hasn't science answered them – isn't the purpose simply to propagate our species. So when you get right down to it, and to be brutally frank, it isn't about anything other than survival of the species! As someone else said on another thread, "Sane, non-deluded people live their lives convinced that it's the only one they're ever going to have so they make the most of it knowing how fortunate they are to be alive. They don't behave as if this life is a rehearsal for some heavenly stage show in which they will play a very minor bit part!"

In regards to the "we're all a bunch of confused, condemned guilty sinners" argument – BS! Atheists can't forgive, and are, by definition, confused? Nonsense. I'm sure even the earliest humans (hominids) had a concept of "sin", i.e., rules of survival that when broken, endangered or harmed the immediate family/clan group, which predates Christianity or other religion by thousands of years.

322. Sam's Flea!

Comment #39566 by SRWB on May 11, 2007 at 6:36 am

Rob,

You said...

The fact that they are 'evolving with the times' may well suggest that they haven't understood what the Scriptures teach with regard to God. There are numerous verses in the Bible which state that God is unchangeable and His law immutable.

That's what YOU believe; I don't, and obviously many other Christians don't buy it hook, line and sinker either. My question was "what makes you correct?" Obviously, I'm looking for something a little more definitive as proof than quotes from the Bible, which can easily be dismissed as an inerrant guide due to its many contradictions and inaccuracies. What else have you got that proves your interpretation is the correct one? Why are you so convinced that Paul, Peter and Jesus were so right? Didn't they have a vested interest in this new religion, i.e., could it have been about power and control of the flock?

Whenever anyone uses the word 'liberal' about the UK, I must say I struggle to suppress my laughter. It is not liberal (nothing at all like classical liberalism); it is anarchic. … By contrast the Bronze Age would have been a veritable haven of liberalism.

Are you kidding me? Check your history books and the archaeological evidence. The Bronze Age, and almost all of human history for that matter, has been one of brutish violence, short lives due to famine and disease, tribal conflict and expansionism, etc. (oh yeah, and much of it because of religious and cultural differences). Let's not pretend that the "good ole days" were so great, but you do admit that. I think you miss the obvious – the overall quality of life (and I'm not referring to the spiritual) is now much better for a majority of humans than it ever has been, even in Britain. Furthermore, how can Britain be so "anarchic", yet still have so many "curbs on freedoms"? I don't live in Britain, but I do visit quite often – it's not all doom and gloom, and probably better than most of the rest of the world!

I'm not quite sure what you mean by, 'we've already been judged'.

I think that is pretty clear. You wrote in an earlier post (# 279) "God has testified that 'the whole world lieth in wickedness'. That includes you and I, and this means that we are condemned already." In post #293 you stated, "the whole human race lies under condemnation, but God would rather forgive us than condemn us." Therefore, basic logic tells me that if I have been condemned, I must have already been judged. Clear now?

323. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38926 by SRWB on May 9, 2007 at 2:00 pm

"It is a tenet of evangelical Christianity that the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ created a new covenant with the church, so they no longer believe that a man should stone his wife to death if she is not a virgin."

I'm with all the previous comments. This quote is just good old cherry-picking going by another name...

324. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38848 by SRWB on May 9, 2007 at 10:09 am

And I agree with you - essentially people should be free to think and believe anything they like. But once they begin to behave or act in a certain way, we can conceivably draw the line. My point was that this is what Harris implies with his statement "while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others". I guess the problem of interpretation comes down to whether you place emphasis on "inspiring" or "commit". Once someone has gone beyond inspiration to committing, they are fair game, in my opinion. The next question that begs is what do you mean by "a specific plot"? Must we wait until a specific attack is completed, or may we act pre-emptively based upon previous acts committed by the same person/group?

PS - there are peaceful atheists as well!

325. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38832 by SRWB on May 9, 2007 at 9:17 am

Romin_Devourin,

Your comment # 95

The issue of Harris's "quote" has been addressed on another thread, but here's the quote in context...

The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense...

As I stated there, the particular phrase "while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others" is perhaps the crux of the issue. To my mind, this at least implies that the perpetrators have moved beyond just thought and belief, and have moved to action. Arguably, we now have a completely different set of circumstances and, in this context, Sam's quote makes perfect sense. This is NOT the same thing as advocating killing people just for what they believe and think.

Are you suggesting that is not the case, now that you have seen the quote in context?

326. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38512 by SRWB on May 8, 2007 at 12:35 pm

I have had another look at Harris's quote. Here it is in context...

The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense...

The particular phrase "while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others" is perhaps the crux of the issue. To my mind, this at least implies that the perpetrators have moved beyond thought and belief, and have moved to action. Arguably, we now have a completely different set of circumstances and, in this context, Sam's quote makes perfect sense.

327. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38459 by SRWB on May 8, 2007 at 7:15 am

Russell (et al),

Well said. But in regards to freedom of thought and belief I think the issue comes down to the simple philosophy that it is OK for one to think and believe whatever one wants, but when one crosses over into action, especially action that is harmful to others, we have a different ball game. That is why most societies have limits on freedom of expression, such as laws against hate speech, etc. Of course, this is fine line, and one that democratic (and mostly secular) countries are increasingly wrestling with. But we all agree that religion and faith should not get a free pass just because they speak to faith. Nor should they be treated deferentially, especially when they spout misogyny, homophobia and death to those who have transgressed some bizarre rule. But even in such cases, I'm not sure I advocate "killing people for their beliefs."

328. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38158 by SRWB on May 7, 2007 at 6:25 am

As a native of Ottawa, I can assure you there are a number of people who think like this (and Ottawa is a great city). I wrote Gardner an e-mail and congratulated him on this article, which was a rejoinder to a two part series on faith written the week before. I responded unfavorably to the previous articles in a letter to the editor, but alas while it was considered, it was not published (however, two others taking atheistic positions were). So the fight continues....

329. The God Delusion

Comment #37375 by SRWB on May 4, 2007 at 9:30 am

Scot,

Essentially, I think we are violently agreeing here! My point is that the golden rule is objective, but only in theory, as it is impossible to comply with without some deviation. To make my point, you are correct in asserting that killing is not always wrong, i.e., in self defence of ourselves or of family. Where I would disagree with you is that deviation is only about morality - does justified killing make it right? Arguably yes, based upon morality, but the killer has violated the golden rule as an objective measure, and has now turned it into a subjective one because of the influence of personal choice, feeling and opinion.

330. The God Delusion

Comment #37364 by SRWB on May 4, 2007 at 7:41 am

Scot,

I don't disagree with you at all. I actually believe that the golden rule is about as objective
as we can get, since it is probably one of the oldest objective morals in existence. What could be simpler and more easily understood?

However, that doesn't mean it's an easy rule to adhere to, does it? We all know that. As an example, is killing always wrong? I think we could argue that it isn't, within certain narrow arcs. But then we would argue that we now have a subjective moral, and I would agree with you. But the point is that if it was possible to actually follow the golden rule without deviation, it would be very objective.

331. The God Delusion

Comment #37203 by SRWB on May 3, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Scot,

What about, as Briancoughlanworldcitizen alluded earlier, something as simple as the golden rule. Is that an objective method?

332. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37080 by SRWB on May 3, 2007 at 10:48 am

Fishpeddler, Bonzai,

I see how you may get the impression that oao's comments were meant in a negative light. I didn't (don't) see it that way - consider it from the first point made, "referring to Judaism is not as dangerous as to Islam" (this was later also alluded to in the thread). That is, any comments made against Jews and Judaism are not likely to result in death threats, effigy burning and physical attacks. And I am aware that merely criticizing Israel or Jews runs the risk of being labelled anti-semitic, but we should all be able to see through such obfuscation. Yes, I agree that Israel should be criticized when required, but that does not mean those doing the criticizing are anti-semites. Let's not forget the real issue being discussed here; that is the fallacious idea of God, Yahweh, Allah, Wotan, Amon Ra, whatever, regardless of whose religion/culture the deity belongs to.

333. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37047 by SRWB on May 3, 2007 at 9:04 am

Richard,

I think you may be overreacting. I cannot see anywhere in oao's posts where he has accused you of anti-semitism. Did I (we) miss something?

334. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #37019 by SRWB on May 3, 2007 at 6:53 am

Weefree said..

I notice on another thread that you claim my proofs are all about personal experience. Actually only one is.

What I actually said was "It goes without saying, that they are based mostly on his personal opinions and feelings – still no proof, in other words, just conjecture." Your use of the word experience is disingenuous as it conveys a stronger sense of proof, based on observation and acquaintance with facts and events than "opinions and feelings". I think you give yourself too much credit!

335. Sam's Flea!

Comment #36906 by SRWB on May 2, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Are we talking about the erudite and scholarly Doug Wilson who on this site provided fonts of literacy and clear thinking such as …

And when I have made that point, you bet I'm done, because the argument's done. Put a fork in it. And if there is no God, it is not a metaphor. Shake up two bottles of soda and put them on a table where everyone can see them. Let them both fizz over like crazy. Which one is winning the debate? Dawkins or me?

The cultured and learned Doug Wilson who has been accused on this site of espousing slavery and the exile or execution of homosexuals among other things?

Is that him?

336. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36853 by SRWB on May 2, 2007 at 2:03 pm

test

337. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36807 by SRWB on May 2, 2007 at 11:38 am

# 48 - Weefree's (David's) "proofs" are repeated, and addressed by me and others, on the "Shout your doubt out loud" thread. It goes without saying, that they are based mostly on his personal opinions and feelings – still no proof, in other words, just conjecture.

338. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36780 by SRWB on May 2, 2007 at 9:44 am

The flow chart is great - printed it off as well.

I think devolved should stay; if only, as someone on a another thread said, to keep the mind sharp like doing sudoku

339. Sam's Flea!

Comment #36605 by SRWB on May 1, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Rob,

How does it feel to be so superior in that you seem to be one of the few Christians who really knows what it is to be Christian? What makes you correct? Your reliance on interpreting scripture is hardly convincing, seeing that very large numbers of so-called Christians, relying on and believing the same writings, are not as fundamental as you. They apparently are evolving with the times, or perhaps they've been convinced that something may not be quite right.

Finally, your true colors show - what's with all the commentary about Tony Blair and others and 24-hour drinking, gambling, relaxed divorce laws, Civil Partnerships Act, a partial ban on the parental right to smack children, legislation which partially legalises brothels, and tax and nursery system that encourages mothers to abandon their children before they can even crawl? I'm beginning to think you don't like living in the UK as it's obviously too liberal for you. The Bronze Age would've been right up your alley. But didn't Jesus say something to the effect that you should not judge lest you be judged yourself?

And now despite all this iniquity and wickedness suddenly you are confident that more of us will go to heaven than to hell, "because God's desire to show mercy is greater than His desire to show justice". But in an earlier comment you said we are already condemned, even though God doesn't want to judge us, he just wants to forgive us. But if we are condemned, then we have already been judged, and we have automatically been earmarked for a one-way trip to hell.

So which is it?

340. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #36263 by SRWB on April 30, 2007 at 5:15 pm

David,
I can't resist responding (quiet night)

"Agreed. But the fact that we exist, and that the conditions for our existence are there, is a powerful indicator that someone or something created those conditions. "

Something? Then we agree that it might not have been your God?

"Why? Why is it just as likely? And who says we evolved that way? You are just posting your beliefs/faith without any evidence because it all has to fit in with your metanarrative that their cannot be a God.

There has been enough evidence posted on this site and in all the research done throughout the last few hundred years, and while it is not conclusive, the scales tip towards the conclusion that your God does not exist. Remember, we were discussing YOUR unsubstantiated "top ten" list.

"I see – we are evolving towards a better and more moral stance. This is not immediately obvious. Perhaps we don't like to get killed – but maybe we like to kill. How does the golden rule make sense in the world of the Selfish Gene?"

Maybe we do like to kill, but only when and if it's necessary, i.e., to eat, to defend our families, etc. I didn't say the rule was perfect, but your Bible is not the standard to emulate by any stretch!

"So good and evil are just 'concepts'. Just that means it's ok to regard Belsen as just the expression of a certain mode of behaviour. We can make no moral judgement on it? As for why human beings cannot be innately good – I live in the real world where what we observe is that human beings are clearly not innately good."

Prove to me that they are not just concepts. How do you decide what you like? We do make moral judgments all the time, and between you and me Belsen was an atrocity which most of the world recognizes. My point is that we humans obviously recognize that certain behaviors are good and that some are evil. So that doesn't change the fact that the word "good" and "evil" are labels we use. You must live in a pretty nasty world - I didn't think Scotland was that bad!

"Why strange? I hate Macdonalds but I love real food. I hate techno-pop but love real music. What's the problem?"

You didn't answer the question – real what? Religion? Faith? Observance of ritual? Don't go off on a tangent about food and music.

"I'm afraid most atheists on this site frequently cite their experience. Rightly so. However it is not absolute. Nonetheless experience is an essential part of being."

Again, I think you are being deliberately obtuse. You spoke of taste in regards to experiencing God. Explain that.

"History itself."

Absolute conjecture on your part. I too know a little bit about history, as do most of the people who frequent this site, seeing we all live it as well. How come my personal experiences have convinced me there is no God? Haven't we all experienced more or less the same history? So is it God or personal choice?

"why? Is there no scope for sinners in the Church? Is there no scope for freedom? Is there no scope for mistakes?"

Of course there is, but that wasn't your original point. You stated that the Church itself was one of the things that caused you to doubt because of the way Christians and preachers have sometimes behaved. You then concluded that the good behaviour is only explicable due to the "grace and love of God". Proof? What explains the bad behaviour?

"Agreed – not on its own, but in conjunction with the other stuff it works very well."

So you say, but many here would disagree, especially if all of your other points are in error.

"Amusing. Who says God 'needed a son'. God is triune, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I think this reflects more the nature of God as love than anything else. As for the masses not thinking for themselves – the very thing that the early church did was to encourage its followers (who were mostly slaves) to think for themselves. It is the same today. Sadly the atheist mindset is to control everyone and to force us all to come to 'the Higher Consiousness' or at least put us down as Untermenschen. The last thing most atheists seem to want is people to think for themselves – especially when they end up disagreeing with the atheist belief system."

It's not really amusing at all. It's delusional, especially when the majority of the world doesn't believe in your triune deity. You were the one who provided the quotes about Jesus the son and heir, through whom God made everything. So I guess YOU said he needed a son to help him. God is love? We've heard that little tidbit quite a bit lately. For me, love is love. I'm also not sure how true it is that Christianity freed all the Roman slaves. To me it appears they exchanged physical shackles for mental ones. Lastly, I, as an atheist, am not interested in controlling anyone, thereby forcing you to reach a higher consciousness or to be an "untermensch". Even if that was true, why on earth would we wish to pursue two such divergent outcomes? I'm interested in the truth, nothing more.

cheers

341. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35914 by SRWB on April 29, 2007 at 9:58 am

Burly Gates,

"All appeals to societal norms as a basis for morality are logically fallacious."

Not necessarily, but you are confusing issues. Argumentum ad populum merely holds that just because a majority believes something that it is correct – that is logically fallacious. A societal norm is just a predominant practice and it could be moral.

"It is invalid and improper to infer that God does not exist because some theists have done awful things."
I couldn't agree more, since one has nothing to do with the other. Theists and atheists alike are responsible for their own behaviour.

"The "6,000 year old" Problem of Evil (#298) is actually not a problem at all since it is an irrational question and, as such, it cannot lend any weight to arguments against God's existence."

I'm not sure how evil (and good) has anything to with God's existence? Aren't they just labels humans put on certain modes of behavior? I'm also pretty certain these concepts (behaviors) have been around for longer than 6000 years. They neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

342. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35690 by SRWB on April 28, 2007 at 10:30 am

You have to watch all three videos! Wow, some really amazing proofs, like asking ordinary people on the street for evidence (as if they are authoritative), like the claim that "Lucy" the Australopithecus was really a chimp, or the stunts which try to distort our relationships to the great apes by booking them on flights and taking them into restaurants! But the best part was the weird jumping from a plane, being saved by Jesus analogy.

What a couple of raving bullshit artists!

343. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35466 by SRWB on April 27, 2007 at 8:40 am

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, David's "proofs", such as they are (extracted from his website), are listed below. I have not posted them in their entirety, but have made comments concerning each in an attempt to draw him out and keep this thread interesting:

1. "The Creation."

You obviously take this as a given, even though creation may be putting too fine a point on it. The mere fact that the heavens, earth and we exist, does not necessarily mean we were created by God.

2. "The Human mind and spirit. Why are we conscious? Why are we special? And life. Where does it come from? How can we get life from non-life?"

We evolved that way. Who says we are special; we are probably just a more advanced life-form. Life from non-life is just as likely as being created from dust.

3. "The Moral Law. How do we know what good and evil is? Why do we have a sense of that at all?"

Because we don't like to get killed, hurt, cheated, lied to, stolen from, etc. The golden rule developed over thousands of years of evolution and the growth of human civilization.

4. "Evil."

Why can't humans be innately good? Christianity may have it wrong, as many other faiths do not ascribe to this theory. Besides good and evil are concepts to describe certain modes of behaviour, nothing more.

5. "Religion. Yes there is so much in religion that is wrong and in many ways I hate religion. Generally I think it is a human imitation that more often than not blocks the way to God rather than opens it. And yet it is an imitation of something that is real.…"

Strange comments about hating religion and being an imitation of the real! Real what? Isn't this kind of an admission that man created God? Besides, hearts were "made" to pump blood.

6. "Experience. I believe because I have tasted that God is good."

Wow, tasting God and a hippie poster! Hardly proof of God since ice cream tastes good and I've seen lots of inspirational posters (we have them hanging around the office).

7. "History."

Conjecture on your part that history makes more sense only in the context of God. Proof?

8. "The Church."

How do "beautiful people" behaving in the "most wonderful, inexplicable ways" have anything to do with the existence of God? There are "beautiful people" (and "ugly" ones) in all faiths, not just Christianity, and among atheists too. If the church represents God as you would have it do, it would be at its best all the time.

9. "The Bible."

There's nothing wrong with using the Bible as a source of "challenge, comfort, truth and renewal". But your assertions that it speaks to you, even without the loopyness and esoteric interpretations, still doesn't go anywhere near proving the existence of God or its inerrancy.

10. "Jesus."

One of the great enduring mysteries is why God, who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent actually needed a son "appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." Furthermore, thinly veiled threats regarding being taken captive through "through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" are indicative of the need for the early church to control its flock. Clearly this is an attempt to keep the masses from thinking for themselves.

344. Reply to a Christian

Comment #35434 by SRWB on April 27, 2007 at 6:29 am

"Are you aware that it is generally accepted in academia that the gospels were written within 50 years of Jesus' death? If someone was to write a first-hand account of the Holocaust now, would you take it to be accurate? I suspect you would, and that was over 60 years ago. 50 years is not actually a long time for first-hand accounts of events."

I'm not sure that we can draw a valid comparison between accounts of Jesus' life and the holocaust as you have suggested. For one, those who wrote the gospels had an agenda (political, faith-driven, etc) to pursue, so might have succumbed to a little bit of propagandizing and deliberate distortion to further that agenda. Second, levels of literacy in the ancient world were unlikely to be as high as they are today. Spreading stories by word of mouth is notoriously inaccurate even within a small group (games like telephone or Chinese whispers) let alone over a relatively short span of 50 years. Coupled with high illiteracy rates was the almost total lack of media capabilities, i.e., newspapers, newsreels and radio, etc., to corroborate the details like with the holocaust.

345. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35239 by SRWB on April 26, 2007 at 4:51 pm

I think we are on the same wavelength. I was merely attempting to follow on your thought about arguing with believers.

Make sense now?

346. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35235 by SRWB on April 26, 2007 at 4:36 pm

krogercomplete said:

"...but it is quite another to argue that they make any sense."

Then what we must continue to do is to argue that their ideas are deluded and nonsensical.

In regards to the BBC, British government and newspapers, among other organizations, being atheistic, I will expand upon my earlier comment and say I think it is more accurate to say they are nonreligious, preferring to walk the fine line for fear of causing offence. Here in Canada, it is the same thing; everyone in a position of power is too politically correct to speak ill of religion or dare question it. To paraphrase Dawkins, everyone defers to it and affords it far too much respect. One of the key issues that is always overlooked is that constitutional or common law rights which grant or protect freedom of religion are designed to ensure no one is persecuted because of their beliefs. Such protection is not intended to shield believers from questioning, doubt and criticism.

347. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35182 by SRWB on April 26, 2007 at 1:51 pm

"I will try to explain. Of course He can judge us. But the point is that He doesn't actually want to judge us. 'As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked' (Ezekiel 33:11). In other words, the whole human race lies under condemnation, but God would rather forgive us than condemn us."

Ok, so you say we are already condemned, but God doesn't want to judge us, he just wants to forgive us. But if we are already condemned, then we have already been judged. Ezekiel also goes on to say (33:11) that essentially even the righteous will be condemned (killed?) for committing even one iniquity (mistake). Wow, pretty long odds for avoiding condemnation! And why wouldn't God just condemn those who were really wicked, as opposed to those of us who are just naughty from time to time? But that begs the question as to just how wicked does one have to be? I mean, is there a list of iniquities and wickedness that we should all strive to avoid (other than the obvious breaking of the 10 commandments)? Such a list would be very handy.

As for behaving abominably and then confessing, I happen to agree with you but not because I'm likely to be judged so I can get to heaven, but because I believe in treating people the way I like to be treated. And it makes getting along in life a little easier if we can cooperate and behave in a civilized manner.

We will continue to disagree with your assertion that atheism is an organised religion. I do not belong to any organized house of (un)worship nor do I have an (un)holy book that I refer to, quote endlessly and live by. I am reminded of the quote that "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

And I'm not sure where you get the evidence that the BBC, the British government and the newspapers are institutionally atheist? You'll have to convince me of that.

"… if evolution were true, it would in no way be evidence for the non-existence of God. Yes, it would prove the God of the Bible to be a falsehood, but it would have nothing whatsoever to say about the possible existence of a God behind the evolution of the world."

This is another non sequitur in that I assume you believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. If that is true, then it must follow that if the Bible is false then the whole Christian God idea is also unlikely to be true. Remember there were all kinds of other gods before and there are still a few other varieties around today. Which one is true? Or are none of them true?

I don't direct any ire at God because I don't believe he exists. I do direct ire and indignation at the ideas floated by those who do believe. Moses et al are dead and gone. What's the point of arguing with and debating them?

348. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34952 by SRWB on April 25, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Bizarro,

Of course there is an element of faith in everything we believe, but you are confusing the issue. Faith can be further broken into degrees or levels. By this I mean, to follow on one of your examples, that I have great faith, even a great degree of certainty, that my neighbor across the street exists. In fact, I spoke with her today. Conversely, I did not see or speak with God today (or ever in my 40 plus years for that matter). See the difference?

However, you also said "there may not be any surefire way to prove God's existence, but there is certainly no lack of good reasons to believe it." Care to lay some of them out - I mean reasons based on evidence, not faith.

349. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34950 by SRWB on April 25, 2007 at 4:50 pm

A lucky guess, but wasn't the dog supposed to guess it?!

I need more proof!

350. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34864 by SRWB on April 25, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Rob, where to begin?

I see that a few of my fellow atheists have already responded, and correct they are that you have regurgitated back what you "learned" (and I use the term loosely) from the Bible. You are absolutely correct in that I personally do not believe in the inherent wickedness of people. You claim God "has testified that 'the whole world lieth in wickedness' and "that includes you and I, and this means that we are condemned already."
Whether that's true is open to a lot of conjecture and your interpretation may not be correct. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that you are correct, so I do not believe.

"He certainly does know. And knowing it, He will judge it. Which is why we need to confess it."

Please explain to me that logic of that series of statements. Can the omniscient God not judge you self-proclaimed wicked sinners without you confessing it? If you're automatically guilty and condemned (your words remember)anyway why bother confessing? Using that logic I might as well behave abominably my whole life and then confess.

Free will - I think it's a flawed concept that christians use to justify sin, nothing more. My point is that any creator who is omniscient would know that humans (supposedly made in his image) will err, but how would that be possible if they are made in his image? Or is this just nonsense too?

And yes, I would prefer that my friends and family love me because they want too rather than because they were coerced into it.