Thread: Atheists

Originally Posted by gwahir

i know it's not what you want to hear, but, yes. i mean, those people are prescribing certain things, and advising others, but (1) mostly they DESCRIBE problems without telling anyone what to do about them, and (2) there is simply no atheist tome or single text or whatever that all our beliefs come from. you don't have to believe anything to be an atheist. you don't have to believe anything to be an atheist. you can believe in invisible unicorns and think that we are tiny sentient playthings living in a giant dollhouse owned by galaxy-sized space beings and still be an atheist. there are stupid atheists who know and care fuck all about science, but don't believe in god.

Sorry, I didn't make this clear - there is atheism, the belief in no gods. Then there are Atheists, people who identify themselves in part by their lack of belief. You are correct in saying there is no doctrine - I never said there was. There is definitely a common attitude of hubris through knowledge that people who identify themselves as atheists tend to have, as though their second look and subsequent rejection of religion somehow qualifies them as geniuses. This is what I have fault with and refer to when I say Atheists.

It doesn't help if I say I knew all this already, does it?

Originally Posted by gwahir

you're right that, mostly, a person's atheism will stem from his or her intuitive trust in observable facts and knowledge gained by scientific means, but-- so what? that's to be expected, isn't it? it doesn't mean you have to believe anything to be an atheist.

The bolded part is a vast load of bullshit. what about children indoctrinated to believe there is no God? regardless of the justifications given, their faith in the lack of God stems from what they were told as a child, not from some vague sense of intuition that something doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by gwahir

you know, i was going to mention, say, oppenheimer there, but i reconsidered. he recoiled from all the horror his work caused. go on, name one person who's ever purposefully done something bad in the name of science.

I mean there's the whole Nazi use of human experimentation. We can argue that the primary motivation was for the glory of the reich, but it could not happen unless the science was sufficiently advanced, thus the primary goal was advancing science. There's the whole unit 731, where the Japanese did things like vivisect live people (for fear decomposition would affect results) after infecting them with virulent diseases. This shit wasn't done in the name of religion, it wasn't done in the name of a political party or as torture to a subgroup of the population; it was done to advance science and understanding. I'm absolutely certain there are more examples of this happening, but these are the 2 off the top of my head.

For the names, iirc, it's Joseph Mengele and Shrio Ishii, respectively.

Originally Posted by gwahir

people use science and technology in reprehensible ways all the time, but they don't act "in the name of science".

You're right - the ones that do it in the name of God are more honest about their intentions. They really believe they are doing it in the name of God.

Originally Posted by gwahir

they act out of greed or ambition or fear or hatred.

Usually "in the name of greed/ambition/fear/hatred" makes for a terrible rallying cry.

Originally Posted by gwahir

you might say the same applies to religious evil people, only you know as well as me how easily i can find examples of people doing things "in the name of" religion -- whether there are any other substantive causal factors or not. here's your challenge, coq: find me an example, from real life, not sci fi, of someone purposefully doing something reprehensible in the name of science.

While previously I gave groups of people who did terrible things specifically to advance science, if not in the name of it (something religious folk have done as well), here is someone who purposefully tortured people in the name of science: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ewen_Cameron]Donald Cameron[url].

Originally Posted by wiki entry

This was Dr. Cameron's ongoing "attempts to establish lasting effects in a patient's behaviour" using a combination of particularly intensive electroshock, intensive repetition of prearranged verbal signals, partial sensory isolation, and repression of the driving period carried out by inducing continuous sleep for seven to ten days at the end of the treatment period. During research on sensor deprivation, Cameron experimented with the use of Curare, (the deadly poison used by South American Indians to tip their arrow heads), to immobilise his patients. After one test he noted: "Although the patient was prepared by both prolonged sensory isolation (35 days) and by repeated depatterning, and although she received 101 days of positive driving, no favourable results were obtained." Patients were regularly treated with hallucinogenic drugs, long periods in the "sleep room", and testing in the Radio Telemetry Laboratory that was built by Rubinstein under Dr. Cameron's direction. Here, patients were exposed to a range of RF and electromagnetic signals and monitored for changes in behaviour. It was later stated by other staff members who had worked at the Institute that not one patient sent to the Radio Telemetry Lab showed any signs of improvement afterwards.

I found out about this in Naomi Klein's the Shock Doctrine, where one of Cameron's patients lives was completely destroyed by him. He did what he did not because he was paid to develop a method of torture for the CIA, but because he truly thought that erasing someone's mind and starting over was a good idea to cure mental issues.

Originally Posted by gwahir

you don't think that's religiously motivated?

No. It's pretty simple, too: Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about fucking kids and keeping your friends who fuck kids safe from laws.

Originally Posted by gwahir

then, at best, it's motivated by a twisted sense of needing to protect one's community based on shared religion.

which is a purely social factor, I might add, because the shared element could be replaced by any other hierarchical organizational system with the same effect (I'm lookin at you, Penn State).

Originally Posted by gwahir

of course it's to protect the image of the church and stymie the loss of adherents. they do that so "christianity's" power is not dimished. how does that make it any better? how does it make it not what i said? if you're saying the people at the TOP, the very peak of the catholic faith, are "extremists", i'm saying that, again, you've misunderstood the word.

I don't want this to turn into a "Nuh uh, YOU'RE wrong!" argument, but you really don't seem to know what the word "extremist" means. Here's a wiki definition, while I'm on the site:

Originally Posted by wiki entry for Extremism

Extremism is any ideology or political act far outside the perceived political center of a society

Basically, you have different amounts of belief in a system and how much this system affects your life. Non-believers bottom the scale with 0 in both. Extremists tend to top the scale in both. There is a scale of extremists who will act in their own interest as well. Fanatics generally will not abuse the system for their own gain, but there are those who will as well. Of these two types, which do you think most likely to work their way to the top of a religious hierarchy? The ones who play the political game to win, motivated by self-interest.

In this way, those at the top are, in fact, extremists. Most religious folk I've met are pretty regular people who don't fuck kids, beat women or terrorize their neighbourhoods. They live their life according to their faith, but they don't make their faith the center of their existence, which is something an extremist does.

Originally Posted by gwahir

the people at the very highest place in the church are criminals who are deeply entrenched in a system of aiding and abetting child abusers. this has been very well documented.

Yeah, I really can't argue that, nor do I disagree with it or try to make apology for what they do.

Originally Posted by gwahir

i'm saying, you can't write off extremists as a loony fringe minority. they're all over the place. religion invites extremism, what with its "do this right or you'll go to hell" stuff.

Religion doesn't invite extremism. Some people are inclined to it by personality, but most become extremists because of the situation that they live in. Things like poverty, lack of food, water, work and education will all lead to extremists popping up everywhere because the people have nothing else to live for, even if they wouldn't normally be inclined to be extremists. You're blaming the tool, mon ami.

Originally Posted by gwahir

if i have a problem with religion, it's that the main religions, at least, want you to be extremist. they ASK you to be. they want your whole life lived in service to your god's commands, even if your god's commands are horrifying and insane.

Religions don't want you to be extremists. Those in charge of smaller groups may imply that you should be, but religions, if we're going to anthropomorphize them, just want you to be a part of them. If you're going to take part, you must follow all the doctrines perscribed. Here's the Baha'i list, you can tell me if it's horrifying and insane:

Originally Posted by Shoghi Effendi

The independent search after truth, unfettered by superstition or tradition; the oneness of the entire human race, the pivotal principle and fundamental doctrine of the Faith; the basic unity of all religions; the condemnation of all forms of prejudice, whether religious, racial, class or national; the harmony which must exist between religion and science; the equality of men and women, the two wings on which the bird of humankind is able to soar; the introduction of compulsory education; the adoption of a universal auxiliary language; the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty; the institution of a world tribunal for the adjudication of disputes between nations; the exaltation of work, performed in the spirit of service, to the rank of worship; the glorification of justice as the ruling principle in human society, and of religion as a bulwark for the protection of all peoples and nations; and the establishment of a permanent and universal peace as the supreme goal of all mankind—these stand out as the essential elements [which Bahá'u'lláh proclaimed].

I mean, to balance this out, this summary is coming from a faith that views homosexuality as an illness to be cured, but you can't tell em that this kind of doctrine is going to turn people into monsters. Too much of what you're ascribing to religions stems more from people than the faiths they are a part of.

Originally Posted by gwahir

huh? there's a difference between limiting someone's education and systematically, purposefully teaching them to be suspicious of any people or knowledge that contradicts their teachings.

I agree, this is a reprehensible practice.

Originally Posted by gwahir

teaching them, for instance, that dinosaur bones are the work of the devil to fool us. remember, these people are a huge proportion of americans. not the majority, perhaps, but not a fringe minority. there are so many creationist museums that all do quite nicely for themselves.

I wouldn't say a huge proportion of Americans, and I would also say very, very few educated or intellectual Americans. This brings up another topic - what of the people who have not the ability or inclination to decide for themselves what is true or not? There are plenty of people who exist entirely off of what they learned from their parents/community and attempts to later teach them tend to fail. This is another topic altogether, but my arrogant, armchair assumption is that they would be followers in any cause pitched to them properly (meets their needs, appeals through benefits etc.).

Originally Posted by gwahir

and then there are the presidential candidates who say "you know there's something wrong in america when gays can serve openly in the military but kids can't say prayers in school".

Again, this is politicians seeking to be elected playing, to a limited extent, their own beliefs, but mostly telling the people they see what they think they want to hear.

Originally Posted by gwahir

Originally Posted by gwahir

the more moderate, sensible members of any one community -- whether it be a religious, national, ideological or cultural one -- need to be the first to come out decrying the actions of extremists and look at fixing things. instead, moderate religion has a real problem with denying, ignoring and distancing itself. when a passage in the bible literally says "gays are an abomination who should surely be put to death", and then someone quotes it when they kill gays, that's not taking a doctrine out of context. that's basic literacy and following clear instructions.

uh... i guess not, no, but i'm not sure what you're getting at with the question.

Would you give this moral imperative to someone who lives in Iran to protest what Iran does at the cost of their own lives? That moderates living under the yoke of Nazi Germany should do the same? It's a pleasant thought, and, if acted on early enough (when it is too difficult to tell what's going on because, again, religion is a single causal factor among many) will see change, but after this oppression has taken hold... it's not easy. You're blaming the victim at this point, or the witness.

Originally Posted by gwahir

ok, i'm going to do a quick google search, so take or leave these passages. "if a man lies with another man, he is an abomination and should surely be put to death" is nearly verbatim, from memory. that ALONE should be enough for you. but i'll include a few:

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - why are you reading this as documented history instead of something like the Iliad? This is after-the-fact history writing by the victors, recorded in a book with many editors and translated a minimum of 3-4 times. To use this as provocation for anyone, especially since it applies to a world and worldview that existed over 2000 years ago, is completely insane.

Originally Posted by gwahir

Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT) (this one is just insane)

I... I just don't understand. I can see the point of the parable (do as God instructs, pretty common as far as religion goes, and while 2000 years in the future, the crime and punishment seem at odds, it may not have at that time), but I don't understand how this is a terrible thing.

Originally Posted by gwahir

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT)

When I ask for context, quoting a paragraph isn't enough - you need to tell me significant points that occur before this passage and what it leads into. If I provide a random paragraph from a short story:

Originally Posted by The Ransom of Red Chief, O. Henry

Ebenezer Dorset, Esq.:

We have your boy concealed in a place far from Summit. It is useless for you or the most skilful detectives to attempt to find him. Absolutely, the only terms on which you can have him restored to you are these: We demand fifteen hundred dollars in large bills for his return; the money to be left at midnight to-night at the same spot and in the same box as your reply -- as hereinafter described. If you agree to these terms, send your answer in writing by a solitary messenger to-night at half-past eight o'clock. After crossing Owl Creek, on the road to Poplar Cove, there are three large trees about a hundred yards apart, close to the fence of the wheat field on the right-hand side. At the bottom of the fence-post, opposite the third tree, will be found a small pasteboard box. The messenger will place the answer in this box and return immediately to Summit.

If you attempt any treachery or fail to comply with our demand as stated, you will never see your boy again.

If you pay the money as demanded, he will be returned to you safe and well within three hours. These terms are final, and if you do not accede to them no further communication will be attempted.

TWO DESPERATE MEN.

It doesn't make much sense, does it?

The other part of context is understanding this story in the perspective of someone who lives in a world where aqueducts haven't even been invented yet. It is a military history flavoured with God, IMO.

Originally Posted by gwahir

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" (Bukhari 84:57)

“I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” (Quran 8:12)

This is exactly what I was talking about - you need to provide full content, not a single line, and provide context for whatever passage you're quoting. Of course I'll agree with you if you provide me with only small enough bits that agree with your opinion. This isn't enough to explain what's happening.

In the interest of adding another bit of effort for myself, here's the first quote, in full:

Originally Posted by Bukhari 84:57

Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

First, I am unfamiliar with the book "Bukhari", but from what I internet detective'd:

Originally Posted by yahoo answers lol

Bukhari is only recognized by Sunni muslims. Shias have their own Hadiths. Ahmadiyya muslims do not follow Hadith at all as far as I know.

So we're already dealing with a text applicable to a single sect of a schism'd faith. I am unaware of the important particulars that differentiate the Sunnis and the Shias, so don't take my word for it.

But if you want to get into the detail of "whoever changed the _____ religion, kill him." why do you think this is horrific? People who go to change the text or the meaning of scripture are trying to create their own faith - this is a pretty fuckin serious crime. On top of this, we're also dealing with a text that has been translated, although I'm relatively certain in this first case that the meaning probably wouldn't change too much.

It's difficult to get into why the idea of changing scripture is such a severe no-no with people who have no professed doctrine. The best analogy I can give is to say: what if someone decides to alter the scientific method? Why would they do that? Is it to improve it? Is it to make cheats easier to get away with? Does it enrich the changer? What impacts would this have on the community? and so on.

The last quote, from Qu'ran 8:12 comes again without context. It is handpicked from a verse that's talking about a larger army of unbelievers assaulting the smaller army of muslims, apparently in the city of Madinah. What kind of pep speech do you think they're going to get?

Originally Posted by gwahir

and more, but i have to go. i can find more if you want, later. you are free to look up context and see how it tempers any of the hateful, violent insanity of the passages themselves.

Man, you really should've looked up context yourself - the two you picked for Islam are either incomprehensible (because neither of us understand significant detail to correctly understand how that verse impacts the Islamic population at large, and because it's translated from another language completely), or, as I said in the first place, cherry picked to sound terrible out of context.