"I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religon"

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

I disagree with your critique that Dawkins does not rebutt the arguement well. He makes a perfectly sensible argument against the position that atheisms lack of religious guidelines lead to moral degeneracy and this was the cause of wars and ethnic cleansing.

The initial argument is quite specific about Hitler and Stalin. It's not a general argument which is what you have gone off on a tangent on.

My point regarding both "sides" is the side claiming religion causes wars and the side that says atheism causes wars (genocide, ethnic cleansing insert your moral outrage of choice). Both arguments are flawed because they presuppose the wrong driving force behind such atrocities.

I can't follow you.
You try to clarify "both sides" by focussing on "the" side. Logically makes nosense.

I mentioned banners as a methaphor, something that unites people, "we are all this particular thing that you arent so we can kill you" ... you have seen banners before right?

What's the relevance?

However, I would point out that no atheist hijacked planes and flew them into buildings in the name of a god who, for all intents and purpses, should be able to wipe out unbelievers with a mere thought.

Sorry I can't follow any of your point(s).
There's no direction, just a few random comments about atheism.
What are you trying to argue?
Can you try to be more specific?
Pick a specific point to argue or rebutt. Number them if you have more than one. Right now, I can't follow you.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Quotes from Hitler on Christianity. These are taken from Hitler's Table Talk, private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann.

Great posts PDN. Liked the Hitchens one too.

ron_darrell

I don't think it's a matter of opinion whether Hitler was a Christian or not. Religion of any kind is incompatible with the ideals of Fascism. Fascism creates a cult leader who for want of a better word becomes god to his people. He is the epitome of what his people represent and steps are taken to make him seem, all-knowing and all-powerful. To then have the idea that this 'god' worships another would undermine his power. And the very idea, from an anti-semitics point of view, of the son of god being a Jew would be absolutely abhorrent.

That said Hitler and the SS experimented with creating a 'German' religion based on the pagan germanic/celtic cults of the pre-christian era adapted to suit their own ends. In fact a great deal of the archeological work done by the Nazis in the late 20's and early 30's was to prove that the German people were the original people (the Aryans) undiluted by mixture with other races and to discover the original religion of these people. The end aim of the discovery was to show the lineage of Hitler back to the gods of these people again reinforcing his importance.

Personally, I'm atheist however I can understand the importance of religion in the lives of others. Religion of itself is neither good or bad. Most world religions teach of peace and love and understanding. By the same token, many wars have been fought in the name of these religions. A leader will look for that force which solidifies his people behind him. The aim of most hatred and war is either power, land or money. Religion only comes into it to get your people to decide to die for you so that you can get the power, land or money without thinking 'what's in this for me'.

As for the original point, I personally find when people talk in broad brush strokes or 'small frontal lobes' and 'underevolved mammals' they are basically making the point that we could be more than we are. Which is tosh. We are what we are. We may get 'better' (whatever that means) but we may get 'worse' (again a very relative term) but chances are we'll stay the same. Our brains, our minds are not the same as other animals and we need religion (as a species but not as individuals) to help us get through the night to find the next day. Would we really carry on if we thought that this is all there is? What would be the point?

-RD

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Yeah, maybe leave Adolf out of it.
We could all trawl Google and find Hitler quotes suggesting he was/wasn't a Christian.

Whatever about Hitler and Stalin, Mao was certainly personally an atheist, and he was probably the biggest killer of the three.

It's entirely irrelevant, though, because we have no evidence that they committed their crimes because of their atheism, or on behalf of atheism (how would that even work?) - or indeed, in any other cause than their own monstrous egos.

The Christian might well argue that they would have not have done what they did had they been good Christians - to which the obvious reply is that they wouldn't have done what they did if they had been good people, no matter their religion or lack of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

The Christian might well argue that they would have not have done what they did had they been good Christians - to which the obvious reply is that they wouldn't have done what they did if they had been good people, no matter their religion or lack of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Corollary:
anyone who is an asshole and is religious will be an asshole without their religion.

Looks like the Stalin, Hitler and "Look what your religion has done" arguments are all moot.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Corollary:
anyone who is an asshole and is religious will be an asshole without their religion.

Looks like the Stalin, Hitler and "Look what your religion has done" arguments are all moot.

I'd say so...

“I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religon”

say Christopher Hitchens

To every complex problem there is an answer which is simple, obvious, and wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

The initial argument is quite specific about Hitler and Stalin. It's not a general argument which is what you have gone off on a tangent on.

No the original argument was not about Hitler or Stalin (nor Bush, Reagan or any others). I was pointing out that skilled oratory alone does not make anyone right.

The rest of your points are deliberatly obtuse.

I was arguing simply that to make the claim that religion causes war is erroneous because it presupposes that religion is the direct cause of war rather than economic or social concerns that rech no further than greed, ego and envy.

Exactly the same point can be made when confronted with the argument that atheism, lacking in a religious structure to define ones morals, leads to moral degeneration which in turn leads to horrors like those perpetrated under Stalin, Mao, Hitler or Pol Pot.

The core of my argument was that both accusations, which have been levelled by various people at either side (side meaning either theism or atheism) are characteristically nonssense and should never be brought up because they contain the logical flaws obvious by now.

In other words, I was agreeing with your poisition but saying it differently.

My other statements should be obvious enough.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

No the original argument was not about Hitler or Stalin (nor Bush, Reagan or any others). I was pointing out that skilled oratory alone does not make anyone right.

The rest of your points are deliberatly obtuse.

I was arguing simply that to make the claim that religion causes war is erroneous because it presupposes that religion is the direct cause of war rather than economic or social concerns that rech no further than greed, ego and envy.

Exactly the same point can be made when confronted with the argument that atheism, lacking in a religious structure to define ones morals, leads to moral degeneration which in turn leads to horrors like those perpetrated under Stalin, Mao, Hitler or Pol Pot.

The core of my argument was that both accusations, which have been levelled by various people at either side (side meaning either theism or atheism) are characteristically nonssense and should never be brought up because they contain the logical flaws obvious by now.

In other words, I was agreeing with your poisition but saying it differently.

My other statements should be obvious enough.

Sorry I can't follow your posts, points.
Maybe others can.
Good luck.
Tim.

solas

thats just silly...and complicated. Surely if men created religion then men are to blame. Besides, someone name me a war which a woman started. Men like fighting, preservation of the species and all that. its that straight forward.

solas

men are quite stupid though.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Corollary:
anyone who is an asshole and is religious will be an asshole without their religion.

Looks like the Stalin, Hitler and "Look what your religion has done" arguments are all moot.

People tend to miss the point about these "look what your religion has done" arguments. It is not about the leaders per say, it is the issue of why so many people follow them.

Society will always produce psychopathic monsters.

The central issue is why to people, often large groups of people who would be considered moral, follow these people to often devastating ends.

It is at this point that I point the finger of blame at religion, and more generally religion like concepts such as fundamentalist nationalism or communism, not for producing the monsters but for the fact that so many people follow them.

Zombrex

solas wrote:

men are quite stupid though.

true ... we gave women the vote for a start ...

solas

why women don't start wars wrote:

WOMEN do not avoid fighting because they are dainty or scared, but because they have a greater stake than men in staying alive to rear their offspring. Women compete with each other just as tenaciously as men, but with a stealth and subtlety that reduces their chances of being killed or injured, says Anne Campbell of the department of psychology at the University of Durham.

Across almost all cultures and nationalities, men have a much smaller role than women in rearing children. "Males go for quantity of children rather than quality of care for offspring, which means that the parental investment of women is much greater," says Campbell. And unlike men, who can't be sure that their children have not been fathered on the sly by other men, women can always be certain that half an offspring's genes are theirs.

Men are motivated to remove any genetic threats to their own pool, wheras women are motivated to preserve life.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

true ... we gave women the vote for a start ...

The sort of comment that's distinguished by having a blast radius....

Wicknight wrote:

People tend to miss the point about these "look what your religion has done" arguments. It is not about the leaders per say, it is the issue of why so many people follow them.

Society will always produce psychopathic monsters.

The central issue is why to people, often large groups of people who would be considered moral, follow these people to often devastating ends.

It is at this point that I point the finger of blame at religion, and more generally religion like concepts such as fundamentalist nationalism or communism, not for producing the monsters but for the fact that so many people follow them.

Which is to say all "group" concepts. Unfortunately, that collapses the argument down into a tautology:

1. wars are conflicts between groups
2. groups are the cause of wars

Humanity is not really an individualistic species (a few individuals excepted). Would you honestly consider it proven that religious grouping is more productive of actual deaths (as a proxy measure for hate) than national or ideological groupings?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

Sorry I can't follow your posts, points.
Maybe others can.
Good luck.
Tim.

Uh-huh.

Anyway, your point regarding Dawkins is incorrect.

The point waas made in the God Delusion that it is believed my many theists that atheism, as a philosophy, is bereft of morality because to their minds, morality is absolute and stems (generally) from God.

Dawkins challenges this first pointing out that atheism is not responsible for the atrocities comitted by Stalin (who was the example of a nasty Atheist given) or Hitler (who was also mentioned and who belief structure is questionable) because to suggest that they did such things as a result of their atheism (thus having no moral compass or whatever) is to presuppose that such things are born of atheism or cannot exist without atheism. Which is nonsense.

Secondly he points out that morality, far rom being an absolute quantity, is in fact inherent to humans as a base concept (killing is other humans is abhorent, stealing makes others feel bad etc) and constructed by humans thereafter to meet societal or utterly foolish theological constraints.

This, would appear to be a solid arguement.

PDN

solas wrote:

Besides, someone name me a war which a woman started.

The Falklands War, started by Margaret Thatcher.
Queen Elizabeth I provoked war by authorising pirate raids against Spanish bullion ships in peacetime.
Catherine the Great started the first Russo-Turkish War. She also invaded Sweden.
Indira Gandhi started a war with Pakistan.
Bloody Mary got England into a disastrous war with France.
Tzu Hsi started the Boxer Rebellion.
Joan of Arc hyped the French up to fight a war.
Deborah, in the book of Judges, both started and led the Israelites in a war of liberation.
Nana Yaa Asantewaa led the Ashanti in a war against the British in Ghana.
Queen Zenobia, ruler of Palmyra, started a war against Rome.
Queen Boadicea, led the ancient Britons in a war against the Romans.

God preserve us from women rulers!

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

The Falklands War, started by Margaret Thatcher.
Queen Elizabeth I provoked war by authorising pirate raids against Spanish bullion ships in peacetime.
Catherine the Great started the first Russo-Turkish War. She also invaded Sweden.
Indira Gandhi started a war with Pakistan.
Bloody Mary got England into a disastrous war with France.
Tzu Hsi started the Boxer Rebellion.
Joan of Arc hyped the French up to fight a war.
Deborah, in the book of Judges, both started and led the Israelites in a war of liberation.
Nana Yaa Asantewaa led the Ashanti in a war against the British in Ghana.
Queen Zenobia, ruler of Palmyra, started a war against Rome.
Queen Boadicea, led the ancient Britons in a war against the Romans.

God preserve us from women rulers!

lol,

Not suprised the Iron Lady topped the list, but I thought it started when the argies landed?

(edit: because I clicked the wrong part of the screen)

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

The Falklands War, started by Margaret Thatcher.
Queen Elizabeth I provoked war by authorising pirate raids against Spanish bullion ships in peacetime.
Catherine the Great started the first Russo-Turkish War. She also invaded Sweden.
Indira Gandhi started a war with Pakistan.
Bloody Mary got England into a disastrous war with France.
Tzu Hsi started the Boxer Rebellion.
Joan of Arc hyped the French up to fight a war.
Deborah, in the book of Judges, both started and led the Israelites in a war of liberation.
Nana Yaa Asantewaa led the Ashanti in a war against the British in Ghana.
Queen Zenobia, ruler of Palmyra, started a war against Rome.
Queen Boadicea, led the ancient Britons in a war against the Romans.

God preserve us from women rulers!

Ah, the monstrous regiment of women...

cordially,
Scofflaw

solas

PDN wrote:

The Falklands War, started by Margaret Thatcher.

I'm pretty sure she was a man. But thanks for highlighting some wars which weren't started on a religious bias.

Queen Elizabeth I provoked war by authorising pirate raids against Spanish bullion ships in peacetime.
Catherine the Great started the first Russo-Turkish War. She also invaded Sweden.

I'm wonder how many male advisors helped plan and execute them.

Indira Gandhi started a war with Pakistan.

wasn't india already emedded in quite a lot of upheaval and a fight for independance?

Bloody Mary got England into a disastrous war with France.
Tzu Hsi started the Boxer Rebellion.
Joan of Arc hyped the French up to fight a war.
Deborah, in the book of Judges, both started and led the Israelites in a war of liberation.
Nana Yaa Asantewaa led the Ashanti in a war against the British in Ghana.
Queen Zenobia, ruler of Palmyra, started a war against Rome.
Queen Boadicea, led the ancient Britons in a war against the Romans.

God preserve us from women rulers!

would be a pain in the arse to go through them one by one and I don't want to have to defend royalist imperialist along the way. In most scenarios though, there was a history of unrest anyway and leading someone to vistory isn't the same as starting a war
Joan of Arc didn't start a war for instance, she fought in a war that had already consumed much of france.

Scofflaw

solas wrote:

But thanks for highlighting some wars which weren't started on a religious bias.

What, like the first and second world wars?

mystified,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

What, like the first and second world wars?

mystified,
Scofflaw

Or Vietnam and Korea?

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

Or Vietnam and Korea?

The Russo-Japanese War? The Franco-Prussian War? The Boer War? The Wars of the Roses? The Peloponnesian War? The Persian War?

still mystified,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

Uh-huh.

Anyway, your point regarding Dawkins is incorrect.

Look, this started when I said about Hitchens:

"An argument that facism was a derivative from Catholism."

You said:

"Dawkins brought up a similar point... as a response to the claim that Hitler was an Atheist where he shows (to those who werent already aware - leavinig cert history class) that Hitler was infact a Catholic"

I disagreed with this. For a start it's not a similar point, it's a different point.

But I was speaking specifically about Dawkins rebuttal of Hitler was a nasty atheist argument.

You read the book so you know he spends a few pages talking about this specific argument and (he then a few pages about the specific Stalin argument).

I was talking specifically about this.

You are moving onto Dawkins general views on atheism and morality which (although related) are actually different points. He argues different things here as he is talking about humans in general no longer specifically about Hitler.

It's impossible to have a logical discussion because I am talking specifically about specific arguments, you are moving onto other arguments and I think you are assuming I have a position on them which I don't have.

It's a mess. Suggest if you wish to continue you focuss specifically on Dawkins rebuttal of the specific Hitler argument. It's a page or two in the book.

If you wish to move onto his general about morality and atheism, state that clearly before you are going about them.

Note: I did say - "I don't think Dawkins rebutts but that's a different topic for a different thread."

The point was made in the God Delusion that it is believed my many theists that atheism, as a philosophy, is bereft of morality because to their minds, morality is absolute and stems (generally) from God.


Dawkins challenges this first pointing out that atheism is not responsible for the atrocities comitted by Stalin (who was the example of a nasty Atheist given) or Hitler (who was also mentioned and who belief structure is questionable) because to suggest that they did such things as a result of their atheism (thus having no moral compass or whatever) is to presuppose that such things are born of atheism or cannot exist without atheism. Which is nonsense.

Secondly he points out that morality, far rom being an absolute quantity, is in fact inherent to humans as a base concept (killing is other humans is abhorent, stealing makes others feel bad etc) and constructed by humans thereafter to meet societal or utterly foolish theological constraints.

This, would appear to be a solid arguement.

See above.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

It is at this point that I point the finger of blame at religion, and more generally religion like concepts such as fundamentalist nationalism or communism, not for producing the monsters but for the fact that so many people follow them.

"Religion like concepts"? What kind of doublespeak is that?

Wicknight, you appear to be trying to sneak non-religious causes of violence under a religious heading. This wouldn't, by any chance, be connected with your rejection of the notion that without religion we would soon be fighting over something else?

Let's be straight about it. Nationalism and communism strongly suggest that human beings, if religion is removed, will quickly become passionate enough about something else to start killing one another.

Dades

solas wrote:

why women don't start wars

except on internet forums...

I'm just wondering when this because a gender issue.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

"Religion like concepts"? What kind of doublespeak is that?

I don't see religion as a separate ideology to something like fundamentalist nationalism or communism. They all irrational and work in similar "religion like" ways through promise, punishment and manipulation.

When someone says "You are bad and should seek forgiveness from the State, now do this ..." that works in a similar fashion to when someone says "You are sinful and should seek forgiveness from God, now do this ..."

PDN wrote:

Wicknight, you appear to be trying to sneak non-religious causes of violence under a religious heading.

Not exactly. I'm "sneaking" both religious causes of violence and violence caused by something like fundamentalist Communism, under the same group header.

Religion is not the only cause of "evil" or hatred in the world. Religion is simply a product of an aspect of human society that can also cause things like Stalin's Russia. It is that aspect (which I cannot think of a good name at the moment, we will call it X) that I oppose. This includes opposing religion, but it also includes opposing ideologies such as Communism.

My problem is X. X leads to religion, but it also leads to other things.

PDN wrote:

This wouldn't, by any chance, be connected with your rejection of the notion that without religion we would soon be fighting over something else?

I don't reject that idea. But I don't see it as a valid reason to keep religion.

The simple fact of the matter is that of all the ideologies that can fall under "X", religion is probably the worst.

Why?

Because of the supernatural aspect of religion, that allows it to promise pretty much anything. Remember the "Promise, punishment and manipulation" above?

While it is likely that one can find someone so caught up in say nationalistic pride that they are prepared to blow themselves up, finding someone who will do this and believe that this is the end of them completely would be rare.

On the other hand finding someone who will be prepared to do this because religion has promised them an eternity of bliss after they do this and suddenly it seems like a much less of dire outcome (who wouldn't want to spend an eternity of bliss?).

The various ideologies that fall under X above, such as Communism, are limited in what they can offer and promise. As such they are limited in how they can manipulate. The carrot in front of the stick is rather small.

Religion on the other hand has a massive carrot that can change into an apple or a banana depending on what the donkey wants it to be. There is a reason why Christianity spread across the world and has lasted (and no its not because it is true), where as an ideology such as Communism has almost died away after only a 100 years. What communism attempts to offer is not on par with what something like Christianity attempts of offer.

PDN wrote:

Let's be straight about it. Nationalism and communism strongly suggest that human beings, if religion is removed, will quickly become passionate enough about something else to start killing one another.

No. Something like the "love of the Fatherland" or "Devotion to the State" are simply not as powerful motivating factors as "Would you like eternity of blissful existence after you die"

You will find far more people who are prepared to do bad things because they want life after death than people who are prepared to do bad things because they want fair working environment or a strong sense of national pride.

Religion is very clever in targeting what people fear most, and brashful enough to proclaim that is can fix these problems when nothing else can.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Humanity is not really an individualistic species (a few individuals excepted). Would you honestly consider it proven that religious grouping is more productive of actual deaths (as a proxy measure for hate) than national or ideological groupings?

Not quite sure how one would go about proving or disproving that. I also don't think hate is necessarily the correct emotion to focus on. A Palestianian suicide bomber may love his god far more than he hates the Israelis he is about to kill, He might not hate them at all. That is actually kinda the point. He isn't doing it because he hates Israelies, he is doing it because he loves his religion and his religion has told him this is what to do if you love your religion. It is the same process in play when a 18 year old red blooded American joins up to his army. He is joining not because he hates the next people the US Army are going to invade, but because he loves his country and wishes to serve it, often unquestioningly

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Humanity is not really an individualistic species (a few individuals excepted). Would you honestly consider it proven that religious grouping is more productive of actual deaths (as a proxy measure for hate) than national or ideological groupings?

Not quite sure how one would go about proving or disproving that. I also don't think hate is necessarily the correct emotion to focus on. A Palestianian suicide bomber may love his god far more than he hates the Israelis he is about to kill, He might not hate them at all. That is actually kinda the point. He isn't doing it because he hates Israelies, he is doing it because he loves his religion and his religion has told him this is what to do if you love your religion. It is the same process in play when a 18 year old red blooded American joins up to his army. He is joining not because he hates the next people the US Army are going to invade, but because he loves his country and wishes to serve it, often unquestioningly

Yes, but in that case, we still find ourselves really only making the statement that group identities (especially where attached to an 'external' ideal) are the binding force for group conflict - still a tautology.

If we looked at the number of wars that have been fought for the stated aim of producing religious change (ie converting the heathen, destroying the infidel), I think we will find far fewer deaths than have been produced by wars fought for other aims, which seems to me to contradict the original statement by Hitchens.

cordially,
Scofflaw

solas

The Atheist wrote:

except on internet forums...

I'm just wondering when this because a gender issue.

I was just practising being facetious. People hate for lots and lots of reasons, theres no one cause. blaming religion as being the source of all hatred is no less solvent to claiming all men start wars. (even though statistically, it appears that way)

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Yes, but in that case, we still find ourselves really only making the statement that group identities (especially where attached to an 'external' ideal) are the binding force for group conflict - still a tautology.

Just to clarify I don't agree with Hitchens that group ideologies such as religion or nationalism are the only cause of group conflict.

But I never saw that as a reason to not oppose them.

The argument that if you removed religion people would just fight over something else so what is the point is a bit like saying that if you cure HIV people are just going to die from something else. While that might be true (and the history of medicine seems to bear it out) that still isn't a reason to not try and cure HIV. At the very least they won't be dying from HIV