And atheists are humans too. That's why atheists who got power committed atrocities comparable to (if not worse than) those committed by religious people. Not because Hitler and Stalin were really closet religious people who put up an atheist facade, but because they were human. Just like religious leaders.
And again, you're holding "atheists" up as the ideal. That's not the defining quality I'd like to see in people. It's one of the natural externalities of being reasonable and skeptical.
You're throwing up a false dichotomy. Again, it's not "atheists" and "religion", it's what I noted in my previous post. I'm not accusing anyone of being closet religious people, I'm saying that it's not an intrinsically important distinction whether someone believes in god or not.
...no. The problem is that the distinction of "religion" isn't really important, as it's simply delusion with an otherworldly entity tacked on. The problems are the same. I have no reason to be ashamed of explicitly "anti-religious" movements in the vein of Nazism or Stalinism, because they're really all on the other side of the fence from me.
And that's why the article is so interesting to me. It's not a dichotomy between "religion" and "non-religion" it's skepticism and reason versus dogmatism and... I dunno, things like gullibility and relativism.
And dogmatism and gullibility exist in the atheist movement. Case in point: no one gifted with reason, after thinking things through, would reach the conclusion that Nazism, Communism and religions are all the same. That's something someone would read off the internet and decide to blindly follow without thinking because it makes him feel good.
And God isn't "tacked on" religion, it's the basis of religion. If you remove some extra that's tacked on a concept, the main concept remains unchanged. If you remove God, religion falls apart. While Communism and Nazism don't only exist without God, they actually demand that there's no God. The only category you can accurately group Nazism, Communism and religion in together is "English words".
Why do people with at least a cursory knowledge of biology believe in races?
I'm not certain that it's relevant.
EDIT: but by all means, feel free to explain.
It exists solely as a social construct because of objectively and provably false beliefs from past generations and people feel just fine in continuing it now even though they know better. Why? Because people are human and realize that. While we are all the same, our background and awareness is shaped by out ethnicity and past cultures. To ignore it under the hope of forging a society without racial distinctions would be foolish.
You're throwing up a false dichotomy. Again, it's not "atheists" and "religion", it's what I noted in my previous post. I'm not accusing anyone of being closet religious people, I'm saying that it's not an intrinsically important distinction whether someone believes in god or not.
If you are an atheist, there is no getting around it: religion, as per Dawkins, is a delusion. Deluded people do crazy things and are often dangerous. We need to have a category for these people, just as we have a category for "large, man-eating carnivores."
...no. The problem is that the distinction of "religion" isn't really important, as it's simply delusion with an otherworldly entity tacked on. The problems are the same. I have no reason to be ashamed of explicitly "anti-religious" movements in the vein of Nazism or Stalinism, because they're really all on the other side of the fence from me.
And that's why the article is so interesting to me. It's not a dichotomy between "religion" and "non-religion" it's skepticism and reason versus dogmatism and... I dunno, things like gullibility and relativism.
And dogmatism and gullibility exist in the atheist movement. Case in point: no one gifted with reason, after thinking things through, would reach the conclusion that Nazism, Communism and religions are all the same. That's something someone would read off the internet and decide to blindly follow without thinking because it makes him feel good.
1. It's like you're not reading what I'm saying.
Me: It's not a dichotomy between "religion" and "non-religion" ...
You: ...exist in the atheist movement.
2. I don't think anyone's suggesting they're all "the same" any more than one could or would would say that Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism are the same. There are parallels. I could talk about cults of personality in Stalinism and Nazism, for example. Or Juche.
It exists solely as a social construct because of objectively and provably false beliefs from past generations and people feel just fine in continuing it now even though they know better. Why? Because people are human and realize that. While we are all the same, our background and awareness is shaped by out ethnicity and past cultures. To ignore it under the hope of forging a society without racial distinctions would be foolish.
I think you're misunderstanding the point. It's disingenuous to be concerned with religion and not other dogmas:
Another one of Voegelin's "political religions," which by our definition are not religions at all (no anthropomorphic paranormal entities) is Marxism. Let's tweak Marxism slightly and assert that the writings of Marx were divinely inspired, leaving everything else in the history of Communism unchanged.
Marxism, unlike Nazism, is still very popular in the world today. A substantial fraction of the professors in Western universities are either Marxists, or strongly influenced by Marxist thought. Nor are these beliefs passive - many fields that are actively taught and quite popular, such as postcolonial studies, seem largely or entirely Marxist in content.
This is certainly not true of Nazism. It is also not true of Christianity or any other "religion" proper. Many professors are Christians, true, and some are even fundamentalists. But the US educational system is quite sensitive to the possibility that it might be indoctrinating youth with Christian fundamentalism. "Creation science," for example, is not taught in any mainstream university and seems unlikely to achieve that status.
Another one of Voegelin's "political religions," which by our definition are not religions at all (no anthropomorphic paranormal entities) is Marxism. Let's tweak Marxism slightly and assert that the writings of Marx were divinely inspired, leaving everything else in the history of Communism unchanged.
Marxism, unlike Nazism, is still very popular in the world today. A substantial fraction of the professors in Western universities are either Marxists, or strongly influenced by Marxist thought. Nor are these beliefs passive - many fields that are actively taught and quite popular, such as postcolonial studies, seem largely or entirely Marxist in content.
This is certainly not true of Nazism. It is also not true of Christianity or any other "religion" proper. Many professors are Christians, true, and some are even fundamentalists. But the US educational system is quite sensitive to the possibility that it might be indoctrinating youth with Christian fundamentalism. "Creation science," for example, is not taught in any mainstream university and seems unlikely to achieve that status.
I'm pretty sure races exist. But like so many other things they are
ultimately irrelevant because the variations intrinsic to racial-ethnic groups fall within much larger bounds of intrinsically-human variation. Just the same, one's devotion to a delusion, to racism or atheism, falls just the same within human bounds, and furthermore within bounds tied to our personalities,
and any devotion to spirituality, challenged by skepticism or not, marginalized or used to soothe over moral qualms, called to attention daily or only during crisis,
is something uniquely personal, uniquely human, and ultimately fit only to be addressed -- at this point in the game -- on a person-to-person basis.
Hitlers and Thompsons and Westboro Baptists will, if the vision of rationality succeeds, come to stand not as deluded adherents to anything that is larger than themselves,
but first and foremost deluded adherents to themselves.
People and people's methods of rationalizing things are their own. Not all people are fit for logical rationalizations at all times, and this is appropriately so-- as Feral pointed out, religion is a deeply-rooted part of our culture now.
To attack religion is faulty. To attack delusions is faulty. To attack anything, when nothing widespread is offensive, is faulty.
Logic and rationalization should be praised and edified by more widespread and vocalized adoption into overarching policy, and the things that drove people to blind and myopic 'delusions' should continue to be marginalized.
There are many people in this world, in this present day, who will turn to religion no matter how illogical because they are not prepared-- for reasons unique to themselves, for themselves, because of themselves!-- they are not prepared, and unable to reasonably-- to rationally!--
face religion as a 'delusion,' as you call it out as such.
There is no larger distinction. People are people, and people's behavior and adoption of illogics at all times falls within the acceptable and established bounds of human variation.
I do not understand this thread, or the question it poses in the subject line. I do not understand many of the arguments posed that are rational and logical, and especially those meandering lines that Loren draws in favor of rations and logics.
I understand, mostly and most inherently, those viewpoints that go against him, and respect that people are individual persons, and not a commensurate whole,
and there is no good to come in a denial, an attacking of, or a disbelieving of an established and critical overlay of our culture and so many cultures.
Me: It's not a dichotomy between "religion" and "non-religion" ...
You: ...exist in the atheist movement.
More like:
You: Silly religious people will delude themselves into believing anything. Not like rational atheists like me.
Me: You deluded yourself into believing something ridiculous in the OP of this very thread. So, no.
2. I don't think anyone's suggesting they're all "the same" any more than one could or would would say that Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism are the same. There are parallels. I could talk about cults of personality in Stalinism and Nazism, for example. Or Juche.
I'm reasonably certain this is why you have people like Sam Harris (and me, for that matter) rolling ideologies such as communism and Nazism up with religion. They [...] only have remained "nonreligious" as no representative or contemporary of those movements has seriously labeled them as such.
God [is] the basis of religion.
No. Buddhism.
Yes, you're right on that point. I was fooled into trying to group all religions together into a simple category. You have a point - religion is a complex and fuzzy thing.
@Incenjucar: Hitler was strongly anti-Catholic (and anti-Christian), and only put up a smiling face in photo-ops to fool the large Catholic German population (and you, apparently). He was also anti-other-religions, too (see for reference: Jews).
I'm pretty sure races exist. But like so many other things they are
ultimately irrelevant because the variations intrinsic to racial-ethnic groups fall within much larger bounds of intrinsically-human variation. Just the same, one's devotion to a delusion, to racism or atheism, falls just the same within human bounds, and furthermore within bounds tied to our personalities,
and any devotion to spirituality, challenged by skepticism or not, marginalized or used to soothe over moral qualms, called to attention daily or only during crisis,
is something uniquely personal, uniquely human, and ultimately fit only to be addressed -- at this point in the game -- on a person-to-person basis.
Hitlers and Thompsons and Westboro Baptists will, if the vision of rationality succeeds, come to stand not as deluded adherents to anything that is larger than themselves,
but first and foremost deluded adherents to themselves.
People and people's methods of rationalizing things are their own. Not all people are fit for logical rationalizations at all times, and this is appropriately so-- as Feral pointed out, religion is a deeply-rooted part of our culture now.
To attack religion is faulty. To attack delusions is faulty. To attack anything, when nothing widespread is offensive, is faulty.
Logic and rationalization should be praised and edified by more widespread and vocalized adoption into overarching policy, and the things that drove people to blind and myopic 'delusions' should continue to be marginalized.
There are many people in this world, in this present day, who will turn to religion no matter how illogical because they are not prepared-- for reasons unique to themselves, for themselves, because of themselves!-- they are not prepared, and unable to reasonably-- to rationally!--
face religion as a 'delusion,' as you call it out as such.
There is no larger distinction. People are people, and people's behavior and adoption of illogics at all times falls within the acceptable and established bounds of human variation.
I do not understand this thread, or the question it poses in the subject line. I do not understand many of the arguments posed that are rational and logical, and especially those meandering lines that Loren draws in favor of rations and logics.
I understand, mostly and most inherently, those viewpoints that go against him, and respect that people are individual persons, and not a commensurate whole,
and there is no good to come in a denial, an attacking of, or a disbelieving of an established and critical overlay of our culture and so many cultures.
When I said that I wanted to be poignant, this is what I had meant.
:^: :^:
I missed what she was trying to say. Existence is a funny thing. The feelings Oboro expresses can lead to the very denial of the self.
And that denial of self is contextually-reasonable, because people driven to illogical things do not usually do so because of voluntary adherence to something they understand as illogical.
The crux of the entire thing is that people who act 'irrational' are often doing so because they are motivated to by a causation which cannot be reasoned away otherwise. Do you think that people who 'find religion' in the wake of trauma do so because they have rationalized that, because of an injustice, there must be an all-powerful and benevolent God?
People 'rationalize' things in this way because these 'delusions' are selling something that society otherwise does not. It's the impetus of those opponents of 'delusions' such as religion to recognize that factor we are not supplying, and make it readily available at a lower cost-- in whatever currency that cost is counted out. And, if they are basing their reason on a cold and thoroughly-verifiable logic--
which I will not applaud or condemn,
they will need to find that 'something' via their verifiable logic. That is all. It's rather cut and dry, in that regard. Now it's just up to Loren and Co. to do their work, instead of stoning the heathens.
I'm pretty sure races exist. But like so many other things, they aren't necessarily bound by solid scientific lines.
Or really any scientific lines. Sorry, but the difference between members of different races at the biological level is no more significant than between members of the same race. This isn't a controversial issue. Race does not exist beyond what we've constructed.
First poignant, now slap-worthy solipsism? I'm even more confused.
I think people find religion in the wake of trauma because both are powerful and irrational and so forth.
I don't think anyone "rationalizes" religion. Or, rather, it is folly of them to try.
Precisely! (to your third line)
And so, it is faulty to attack those who come to religion for these reasons, because if one hypothesizes-- or proves-- that religion is in these situations unreasonable,
the impetus should not be to highlight and attack this unreasonable system or its adherents, but determine, as I said, what it supplies that logic and rationality do not in our current culture.
Then, to supply them, and verify that new and better hypothesis. The scientific method does not stop with 'do research, identify something that does not accord to scientific observation, and poke it with a long science-stick.'
Yes, and on that I totally agree. I think it is entirely too common that piss-ant atheists attempt to attack the logic of religion, without displaying any awareness whatsoever of religion's relationship to logic (or lack thereof).
It's like trying to rationalize why someone shouldn't like a particular poem that they think is beautiful.
The author seems to indicate that the field is overly intertwined with Marxism, which may mean that something like dependency theory is being taught by rote. I'm not certain.
2. I don't think anyone's suggesting they're all "the same" any more than one could or would would say that Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism are the same. There are parallels. I could talk about cults of personality in Stalinism and Nazism, for example. Or Juche.
I'm reasonably certain this is why you have people like Sam Harris (and me, for that matter) rolling ideologies such as communism and Nazism up with religion. They [...] only have remained "nonreligious" as no representative or contemporary of those movements has seriously labeled them as such.
That's correct. No one. I can roll up Hinduism and Christianity along certain commonalities, too. I have not indicated that they are all "the same". That would be a strawman of my position.
EDIT: oops, and I see that I did, in fact, use the word "ideology" earlier. I hope it didn't cause any confusion.
Nazism and Communism are not religions, Loren. They are the opposite of religion. They are what people like Dawkins and you do when they get power.
I was skimming through the thread and this jumped out at me.
Where the hell do you get off, Richy?
Honestly, this is simply the meanest, most insulting comment I think I've ever read on the Penny Arcade forums. Trolls call each other fags and members commonly call each other stupid fuckers, but I don't believe anyone has ever implied that a fellow member was actually so deranged and evil so as to want to kill millions of his fellow human beings whom he disagrees with.
I agree with Loren and Dawkins. I think religion is bullshit and many religious people are delusional, or at least mildly brainwashed.
From this statement, where in the FUCK do you get off claiming that I am a mass murderer.
I've talked to plenty of religious people who think I'm even more delusional than I think they are. And the thought that any of them would be mass murderers if they got power has simply never crossed my mind. That is because I know that a person who strongly believes people are wrong or even delusional about something is not the same as a person who wants to kill people who believes differently than they do.
Religion isn't the quality that the OP is concerned with.
Indeed, the main point of your OP was that religion, Communism and Nazism can all be grouped together as "delusions", and that distinctions between them are noninformative, unimportant, and confusing.
2. I don't think anyone's suggesting they're all "the same" any more than one could or would would say that Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism are the same. There are parallels. I could talk about cults of personality in Stalinism and Nazism, for example. Or Juche.
I'm reasonably certain this is why you have people like Sam Harris (and me, for that matter) rolling ideologies such as communism and Nazism up with religion. They [...] only have remained "nonreligious" as no representative or contemporary of those movements has seriously labeled them as such.
That's correct. No one. I can roll up Hinduism and Christianity along certain commonalities, too. I have not indicated that they are all "the same". That would be a strawman of my position.
So when you say "the only reason Communism and Nazism are considered nonreligious is because no one bothered labelling them as such", you actually mean "there are certain points that can be used to draw comparisons between Nazism, Communism and religions"? Talk about poorly expressing yourself.
And you can't roll up anti-religious ideologies like Nazism and Communism together with religion without accepting the fact that you can roll them much easily with other anti-religious ideologies, like, say, that of Dawkins, Harris, and you. Funny thing is, you seem to take offense at that, despite the numerous and obvious similarities between your philosophies (which is not to say that you are identical on every point, of course), and while argueing for your more tenuous rolling-up.
I'm pretty sure races exist. But like so many other things they are
ultimately irrelevant because the variations intrinsic to racial-ethnic groups fall within much larger bounds of intrinsically-human variation. Just the same, one's devotion to a delusion, to racism or atheism, falls just the same within human bounds, and furthermore within bounds tied to our personalities,
and any devotion to spirituality, challenged by skepticism or not, marginalized or used to soothe over moral qualms, called to attention daily or only during crisis,
is something uniquely personal, uniquely human, and ultimately fit only to be addressed -- at this point in the game -- on a person-to-person basis.
Hitlers and Thompsons and Westboro Baptists will, if the vision of rationality succeeds, come to stand not as deluded adherents to anything that is larger than themselves,
but first and foremost deluded adherents to themselves.
People and people's methods of rationalizing things are their own. Not all people are fit for logical rationalizations at all times, and this is appropriately so-- as Feral pointed out, religion is a deeply-rooted part of our culture now.
To attack religion is faulty. To attack delusions is faulty. To attack anything, when nothing widespread is offensive, is faulty.
Logic and rationalization should be praised and edified by more widespread and vocalized adoption into overarching policy, and the things that drove people to blind and myopic 'delusions' should continue to be marginalized.
There are many people in this world, in this present day, who will turn to religion no matter how illogical because they are not prepared-- for reasons unique to themselves, for themselves, because of themselves!-- they are not prepared, and unable to reasonably-- to rationally!--
face religion as a 'delusion,' as you call it out as such.
There is no larger distinction. People are people, and people's behavior and adoption of illogics at all times falls within the acceptable and established bounds of human variation.
I do not understand this thread, or the question it poses in the subject line. I do not understand many of the arguments posed that are rational and logical, and especially those meandering lines that Loren draws in favor of rations and logics.
I understand, mostly and most inherently, those viewpoints that go against him, and respect that people are individual persons, and not a commensurate whole,
and there is no good to come in a denial, an attacking of, or a disbelieving of an established and critical overlay of our culture and so many cultures.
If I understand your point, it's basically that atheists such as Loren and myself should not be so confrontational about religion, because religious people—for personal reasons—may not be ready or willing to face the question of the truth of their beliefs. And if they're not hurting anyone, we have no right to put them in such an uncomfortable position if they don't desire it.
I agree. I don't think atheists should accost random strangers on the street and harass them about their delusional faith. It's annoying (if not infuriating) when certain evangelical Christians cross that line and accost people about their sin.
However, let's be realistic as to the extent of atheist "evangelism." Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are often accused ob being evanglists or fundamentalists about their cause. Who are they accosting? Who are they dragging out of their comfort zone? They are writing and selling books about their opinions. They are not trying to force you to read the books. Nobody is.
The people who buy The God Delusion want to read it. For whatever reason. Maybe they're having doubts and want to explore. Maybe they are true believers and want to see the enemy's argument. Whatever the case, nobody is forcing them to read their books or download their speeches on Youtube. Nobody is being forced out of their comfort zone to listen to atheist philosophy.
So while I think it's important for us atheists to avoid becoming "evangelical," I think we are a long way from there. And I can't help but feel that such accusations are often an attempt to muzzle our message, moreso than a legitimate complaint.
I don't think that atheists are acting evangelical at all, I think they're harping on foregone conclusions in order to sell more books, and will continue to lick those bones clean so long as it's profitable.
The logical conclusion I draw, and the logical conclusion that very logically, so logically follows from any identification of 'religious delusion,' has to have been realized by Dawkins and the other contemporaries.
So.
How come I am not hearing about atheist hypotheses on the cultural and societal standards that are driving people by droves to adopt this delusion, even in small or ineffectual part? I have not heard anything to this effect, and certainly no hypotheses past it on any action-- if action exists within the logical framework, which it should in order to validate their attacking the delusion-- that can be undertaken to stop people from flocking to an illogic over a logical system.
I say "how come I am not hearing," because I am open to your saying, "Well, it's an underrepresented and glanced over topic in [these books] and [these papers]." I'm not absolutely up-to-date on atheist thought, and I just want to bring to the forefront the fact pursuants of logic should reach the same conclusion I have, and if they're not in this just for the dollars, they should follow that conclusion with the same application of logic that got them there.
Identifying the delusion en masse is not the end-point, it's the beginning. If we are just looking at America, I want to see popularized and vocalized explanations for why the delusion is appealing, and why logical frameworks are failing in those same situations.
And yes, I will settle for, "Well, it's just generational jet lag," but I think that would ignore other causations, so it would just have to be a component of a larger answer set.
So when you say "the only reason Communism and Nazism are considered nonreligious is because no one bothered labelling them as such", you actually mean "there are certain points that can be used to draw comparisons between Nazism, Communism and religions"?
No, it's that "religion" is poorly defined such that the only really distinguishing feature to call attention to itself is the whole "god" bit, and even that, as pointed out earlier, isn't necessary. Look up Juche. It's pretty much Stalinism, and it's generally considered a religion.
And you can't roll up anti-religious ideologies like Nazism and Communism together with religion without accepting the fact that you can roll them much easily with other anti-religious ideologies, like, say, that of Dawkins, Harris, and you. Funny thing is, you seem to take offense at that, despite the numerous and obvious similarities between your philosophies (which is not to say that you are identical on every point, of course), and while argueing for your more tenuous rolling-up.
You are of course free to enumerate the numerous and obvious similarities. I have already repeated the commonalities I'm concerned with at least once in this thread, those being largely dogmatism and a lack of skepticism.
To reiterate my pain point, when one is concerned with dogmatism and a lack of skepticism, religion simply becomes a subset of these characteristics along with innumerable other movements, ideologies (if you will), beleif systems, and whatnot. This of course includes Nazism, Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, astrology, supersition, Lysenkoism, and others.
My point and that of the article in the OP, as I understand it, is that it's disingenuous to be merely concerned with one breed of dogmatism and nonskepticism (religion), because the features that distinguish it from other schools of thought in the above list aren't really critical to declaring religion exceptionally problematic. It also gives me pause in identifying myself as an atheist, because that's not the defining quality of my attitude towards these beliefs, and in some ways, it's unfair to single religion out. Certainly, religion is separate in its own way, but it's not separate in such a way as to significantly uncouple itself from the other societal and personal delusions out there, to make it worthy of exclusive consideration, or to award the others immunity from consideration.
Nazism and Communism are not religions, Loren. They are the opposite of religion. They are what people like Dawkins and you do when they get power.
I was skimming through the thread and this jumped out at me.
Where the hell do you get off, Richy?
Honestly, this is simply the meanest, most insulting comment I think I've ever read on the Penny Arcade forums. Trolls call each other fags and members commonly call each other stupid fuckers, but I don't believe anyone has ever implied that a fellow member was actually so deranged and evil so as to want to kill millions of his fellow human beings whom he disagrees with.
I agree with Loren and Dawkins. I think religion is bullshit and many religious people are delusional, or at least mildly brainwashed.
From this statement, where in the FUCK do you get off claiming that I am a mass murderer.
I've talked to plenty of religious people who think I'm even more delusional than I think they are. And the thought that any of them would be mass murderers if they got power has simply never crossed my mind. That is because I know that a person who strongly believes people are wrong or even delusional about something is not the same as a person who wants to kill people who believes differently than they do.
I think you owe Loren a huge fucking apology.
Calm down Qingu.
First, don't skim the thread, and actually read it. Read Loren's OP, to which I was replying. That'll put my comment in context. The OP itself is a long essay on why distinctions between Nazism, Communism and religion are false and meaningless.
My reply, in this context, was meant to point out that Nazism and Communism have nothing to do with religion, and have far more in common with Dawkins-style "religion is a disease" atheism. Now, you can take as a personal attack, even though I wasn't talking about you, thinking of you, and had no idea what your religious views even were until this moment.But that would be missing the point.
The point was that Loren was making a misguided (I believe the exact word I used was 'retarded') grouping of Nazism, Communism and religion, for no apparent purpose other than being able to assign the faults of the first two to the group (i.e. "delusion"), and then attack "delusion" on those grounds to prove them all (including religion) dangerous.
Though I don't doubt Dawkins would start killing "sick" religious people if he had the power to do so with impunity (though he'd claim it's for the good of society), I don't think all his followers (or Loren and you specifically) would do so. Nor do I believe all Nazis wanted to kill Jews, nor all Communists wanted to kill enemies of the state, nor do all Christians want to burn heretics at the stake, nor did all Americans wanted to invade Iraq as payback for 9/11. We all have our nutcases, and our problems when they manage to get power.
Now if you still feel I owe you an apology, let me know. But I definitly do not owe one to Loren. He created a thread to discuss his theory that Nazism, Communism and religion can be rolled together - or in other words, that Hitler, Stalin and me are part of the same group. If anything, he owes me an apology.
Though I don't doubt Dawkins would start killing "sick" religious people if he had the power to do so with impunity...
I'm declaring this baseless until you provide some hint of evidence. You also realize that the OP is critical of Dawkins, don't you?
What? It's the entirely logical thing to do, right? Religious people are sick. If they can't be cured, they should be gotten rid of. We should herd them into one place to keep them seperate from other people. And once they're seperate, what use are they? How can they possibly contribute to society? Thus, to the ovens with them.
I don't think that atheists are acting evangelical at all, I think they're harping on foregone conclusions in order to sell more books, and will continue to lick those bones clean so long as it's profitable.
I disagree and this is from talking openly with religious people on a Christian forum for several years, as well as coming from a secular-religious family.
Yes, the arguments against religion (and the counterproofs against God-proofs) have been made over and over again for centuries. In a sense, there is nothing new in these books. However, most Americans simply have no idea what these arguments and counterproofs are. Most Americans are not well-versed in philosophy. Most Americans have no fucking idea who David Hume or Bertrard Russel are. Hell, most Americans aren't well-versed in the Bible. (I remember reading in Time that something like half of Americans are so Biblically illiterate that they can't name a gospel.)
So I don't think atheist authors and proponents are being greedy. They're spreading a message to an audience that hasn't heard it at all—an audience that, judging from the sales of the books, is actually interested.
How come I am not hearing about atheist hypotheses on the cultural and societal standards that are driving people by droves to adopt this delusion, even in small or ineffectual part?
Ironically, I think we've heard just as much about this as we've heard about why the religion is a delusion. Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud all extensively discussed the roots of the religious "delusion," the cultural, social, and mental phenomena that drive people to adopt the delusion.
And Dawkins, at least, does talk about the roots of the delusion—albeit in a highly speculative, biologically-based framework. You've probably heard about memetics, and I personally think it's a pretty fascinating explanation for the "opiate of the masses."
I say "how come I am not hearing," because I am open to your saying, "Well, it's an underrepresented and glanced over topic in [these books] and [these papers]." I'm not absolutely up-to-date on atheist thought, and I just want to bring to the forefront the fact pursuants of logic should reach the same conclusion I have, and if they're not in this just for the dollars, they should follow that conclusion with the same application of logic that got them there.
Identifying the delusion en masse is not the end-point, it's the beginning. If we are just looking at America, I want to see popularized and vocalized explanations for why the delusion is appealing, and why logical frameworks are failing in those same situations.
And yes, I will settle for, "Well, it's just generational jet lag," but I think that would ignore other causations, so it would just have to be a component of a larger answer set.
I think you raise a good point but I also think that the "root causes" of the so-called delusion have been dealt with pretty extensively by both famous recent philosophers and contemporary atheists like Dawkins. But at the same time, I do feel that it's more important to directly address the legimitacy of religious faith itself, rather than speculate and theorize about the reasons why religion is so widespread. The first method actually engages the religious person in debate. The second method treats the religious person like a faceless statistic or a lab rat.
Though I don't doubt Dawkins would start killing "sick" religious people if he had the power to do so with impunity...
I'm declaring this baseless until you provide some hint of evidence. You also realize that the OP is critical of Dawkins, don't you?
What? It's the entirely logical thing to do, right? Religious people are sick. If they can't be cured, they should be gotten rid of. We should herd them into one place to keep them seperate from other people. And once they're seperate, what use are they? How can they possibly contribute to society? Thus, to the ovens with them.
Though I don't doubt Dawkins would start killing "sick" religious people if he had the power to do so with impunity...
I'm declaring this baseless until you provide some hint of evidence. You also realize that the OP is critical of Dawkins, don't you?
What? It's the entirely logical thing to do, right? Religious people are sick. If they can't be cured, they should be gotten rid of. We should herd them into one place to keep them seperate from other people. And once they're seperate, what use are they? How can they possibly contribute to society? Thus, to the ovens with them.
Your science is not best.
Religions are contagious! Also, pre-emptive striking.
What? It's the entirely logical thing to do, right? Religious people are sick. If they can't be cured, they should be gotten rid of. We should herd them into one place to keep them seperate from other people. And once they're seperate, what use are they? How can they possibly contribute to society? Thus, to the ovens with them.
What? It's the entirely logical thing to do, right? Religious people are sick. If they can't be cured, they should be gotten rid of. We should herd them into one place to keep them seperate from other people. And once they're seperate, what use are they? How can they possibly contribute to society? Thus, to the ovens with them.
What? It's the entirely logical thing to do, right? Religious people are sick. If they can't be cured, they should be gotten rid of. We should herd them into one place to keep them seperate from other people. And once they're seperate, what use are they? How can they possibly contribute to society? Thus, to the ovens with them.
Are you making fun of Richy?
No, I'm asking you to rebutt the logic here.
Oh. 'Cause it looks like you're making fun of Richy.
Posts
And again, you're holding "atheists" up as the ideal. That's not the defining quality I'd like to see in people. It's one of the natural externalities of being reasonable and skeptical.
You're throwing up a false dichotomy. Again, it's not "atheists" and "religion", it's what I noted in my previous post. I'm not accusing anyone of being closet religious people, I'm saying that it's not an intrinsically important distinction whether someone believes in god or not.
I'm not certain that it's relevant.
EDIT: but by all means, feel free to explain.
Race as in culture, not biological.
And God isn't "tacked on" religion, it's the basis of religion. If you remove some extra that's tacked on a concept, the main concept remains unchanged. If you remove God, religion falls apart. While Communism and Nazism don't only exist without God, they actually demand that there's no God. The only category you can accurately group Nazism, Communism and religion in together is "English words".
It exists solely as a social construct because of objectively and provably false beliefs from past generations and people feel just fine in continuing it now even though they know better. Why? Because people are human and realize that. While we are all the same, our background and awareness is shaped by out ethnicity and past cultures. To ignore it under the hope of forging a society without racial distinctions would be foolish.
=!
1. It's like you're not reading what I'm saying.
You: ...exist in the atheist movement.
No. Buddhism.
I know, I was trying to be poignant. I'm sure I failed at the attempt, but I needed to get in some cents.
I'm sorry, but, -what-?
"Religious" in the context here is as in religious behavior, not as in "We believe in magic" behavior.
Religion contrasted with spirituality.
I think you're misunderstanding the point. It's disingenuous to be concerned with religion and not other dogmas:
Marxism, unlike Nazism, is still very popular in the world today. A substantial fraction of the professors in Western universities are either Marxists, or strongly influenced by Marxist thought. Nor are these beliefs passive - many fields that are actively taught and quite popular, such as postcolonial studies, seem largely or entirely Marxist in content.
This is certainly not true of Nazism. It is also not true of Christianity or any other "religion" proper. Many professors are Christians, true, and some are even fundamentalists. But the US educational system is quite sensitive to the possibility that it might be indoctrinating youth with Christian fundamentalism. "Creation science," for example, is not taught in any mainstream university and seems unlikely to achieve that status.
What's wrong with postcolonial studies?
and any devotion to spirituality, challenged by skepticism or not, marginalized or used to soothe over moral qualms, called to attention daily or only during crisis,
is something uniquely personal, uniquely human, and ultimately fit only to be addressed -- at this point in the game -- on a person-to-person basis.
Hitlers and Thompsons and Westboro Baptists will, if the vision of rationality succeeds, come to stand not as deluded adherents to anything that is larger than themselves,
but first and foremost deluded adherents to themselves.
People and people's methods of rationalizing things are their own. Not all people are fit for logical rationalizations at all times, and this is appropriately so-- as Feral pointed out, religion is a deeply-rooted part of our culture now.
To attack religion is faulty. To attack delusions is faulty. To attack anything, when nothing widespread is offensive, is faulty.
Logic and rationalization should be praised and edified by more widespread and vocalized adoption into overarching policy, and the things that drove people to blind and myopic 'delusions' should continue to be marginalized.
There are many people in this world, in this present day, who will turn to religion no matter how illogical because they are not prepared-- for reasons unique to themselves, for themselves, because of themselves!-- they are not prepared, and unable to reasonably-- to rationally!--
face religion as a 'delusion,' as you call it out as such.
There is no larger distinction. People are people, and people's behavior and adoption of illogics at all times falls within the acceptable and established bounds of human variation.
I do not understand this thread, or the question it poses in the subject line. I do not understand many of the arguments posed that are rational and logical, and especially those meandering lines that Loren draws in favor of rations and logics.
I understand, mostly and most inherently, those viewpoints that go against him, and respect that people are individual persons, and not a commensurate whole,
and there is no good to come in a denial, an attacking of, or a disbelieving of an established and critical overlay of our culture and so many cultures.
Me: You deluded yourself into believing something ridiculous in the OP of this very thread. So, no.
@Incenjucar: Hitler was strongly anti-Catholic (and anti-Christian), and only put up a smiling face in photo-ops to fool the large Catholic German population (and you, apparently). He was also anti-other-religions, too (see for reference: Jews).
When I said that I wanted to be poignant, this is what I had meant.
:^: :^:
Yeah, but then somebody slaps the solipsist and tells them to stop imagining them hitting themselves, and the world turns.
The crux of the entire thing is that people who act 'irrational' are often doing so because they are motivated to by a causation which cannot be reasoned away otherwise. Do you think that people who 'find religion' in the wake of trauma do so because they have rationalized that, because of an injustice, there must be an all-powerful and benevolent God?
People 'rationalize' things in this way because these 'delusions' are selling something that society otherwise does not. It's the impetus of those opponents of 'delusions' such as religion to recognize that factor we are not supplying, and make it readily available at a lower cost-- in whatever currency that cost is counted out. And, if they are basing their reason on a cold and thoroughly-verifiable logic--
which I will not applaud or condemn,
they will need to find that 'something' via their verifiable logic. That is all. It's rather cut and dry, in that regard. Now it's just up to Loren and Co. to do their work, instead of stoning the heathens.
I think people find religion in the wake of trauma because both are powerful and irrational and so forth.
I don't think anyone "rationalizes" religion. Or, rather, it is folly of them to try.
Or really any scientific lines. Sorry, but the difference between members of different races at the biological level is no more significant than between members of the same race. This isn't a controversial issue. Race does not exist beyond what we've constructed.
And so, it is faulty to attack those who come to religion for these reasons, because if one hypothesizes-- or proves-- that religion is in these situations unreasonable,
the impetus should not be to highlight and attack this unreasonable system or its adherents, but determine, as I said, what it supplies that logic and rationality do not in our current culture.
Then, to supply them, and verify that new and better hypothesis. The scientific method does not stop with 'do research, identify something that does not accord to scientific observation, and poke it with a long science-stick.'
It's like trying to rationalize why someone shouldn't like a particular poem that they think is beautiful.
Neither does the self. Let's all go get ice cream.
The author seems to indicate that the field is overly intertwined with Marxism, which may mean that something like dependency theory is being taught by rote. I'm not certain.
There you go again. False dichotomy. Religion isn't the quality that the OP is concerned with.
That's correct. No one. I can roll up Hinduism and Christianity along certain commonalities, too. I have not indicated that they are all "the same". That would be a strawman of my position.
EDIT: oops, and I see that I did, in fact, use the word "ideology" earlier. I hope it didn't cause any confusion.
Where the hell do you get off, Richy?
Honestly, this is simply the meanest, most insulting comment I think I've ever read on the Penny Arcade forums. Trolls call each other fags and members commonly call each other stupid fuckers, but I don't believe anyone has ever implied that a fellow member was actually so deranged and evil so as to want to kill millions of his fellow human beings whom he disagrees with.
I agree with Loren and Dawkins. I think religion is bullshit and many religious people are delusional, or at least mildly brainwashed.
From this statement, where in the FUCK do you get off claiming that I am a mass murderer.
I've talked to plenty of religious people who think I'm even more delusional than I think they are. And the thought that any of them would be mass murderers if they got power has simply never crossed my mind. That is because I know that a person who strongly believes people are wrong or even delusional about something is not the same as a person who wants to kill people who believes differently than they do.
I think you owe Loren a huge fucking apology.
So when you say "the only reason Communism and Nazism are considered nonreligious is because no one bothered labelling them as such", you actually mean "there are certain points that can be used to draw comparisons between Nazism, Communism and religions"? Talk about poorly expressing yourself.
And you can't roll up anti-religious ideologies like Nazism and Communism together with religion without accepting the fact that you can roll them much easily with other anti-religious ideologies, like, say, that of Dawkins, Harris, and you. Funny thing is, you seem to take offense at that, despite the numerous and obvious similarities between your philosophies (which is not to say that you are identical on every point, of course), and while argueing for your more tenuous rolling-up.
I agree. I don't think atheists should accost random strangers on the street and harass them about their delusional faith. It's annoying (if not infuriating) when certain evangelical Christians cross that line and accost people about their sin.
However, let's be realistic as to the extent of atheist "evangelism." Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are often accused ob being evanglists or fundamentalists about their cause. Who are they accosting? Who are they dragging out of their comfort zone? They are writing and selling books about their opinions. They are not trying to force you to read the books. Nobody is.
The people who buy The God Delusion want to read it. For whatever reason. Maybe they're having doubts and want to explore. Maybe they are true believers and want to see the enemy's argument. Whatever the case, nobody is forcing them to read their books or download their speeches on Youtube. Nobody is being forced out of their comfort zone to listen to atheist philosophy.
So while I think it's important for us atheists to avoid becoming "evangelical," I think we are a long way from there. And I can't help but feel that such accusations are often an attempt to muzzle our message, moreso than a legitimate complaint.
The logical conclusion I draw, and the logical conclusion that very logically, so logically follows from any identification of 'religious delusion,' has to have been realized by Dawkins and the other contemporaries.
So.
How come I am not hearing about atheist hypotheses on the cultural and societal standards that are driving people by droves to adopt this delusion, even in small or ineffectual part? I have not heard anything to this effect, and certainly no hypotheses past it on any action-- if action exists within the logical framework, which it should in order to validate their attacking the delusion-- that can be undertaken to stop people from flocking to an illogic over a logical system.
I say "how come I am not hearing," because I am open to your saying, "Well, it's an underrepresented and glanced over topic in [these books] and [these papers]." I'm not absolutely up-to-date on atheist thought, and I just want to bring to the forefront the fact pursuants of logic should reach the same conclusion I have, and if they're not in this just for the dollars, they should follow that conclusion with the same application of logic that got them there.
Identifying the delusion en masse is not the end-point, it's the beginning. If we are just looking at America, I want to see popularized and vocalized explanations for why the delusion is appealing, and why logical frameworks are failing in those same situations.
And yes, I will settle for, "Well, it's just generational jet lag," but I think that would ignore other causations, so it would just have to be a component of a larger answer set.
No, it's that "religion" is poorly defined such that the only really distinguishing feature to call attention to itself is the whole "god" bit, and even that, as pointed out earlier, isn't necessary. Look up Juche. It's pretty much Stalinism, and it's generally considered a religion.
You are of course free to enumerate the numerous and obvious similarities. I have already repeated the commonalities I'm concerned with at least once in this thread, those being largely dogmatism and a lack of skepticism.
To reiterate my pain point, when one is concerned with dogmatism and a lack of skepticism, religion simply becomes a subset of these characteristics along with innumerable other movements, ideologies (if you will), beleif systems, and whatnot. This of course includes Nazism, Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, astrology, supersition, Lysenkoism, and others.
My point and that of the article in the OP, as I understand it, is that it's disingenuous to be merely concerned with one breed of dogmatism and nonskepticism (religion), because the features that distinguish it from other schools of thought in the above list aren't really critical to declaring religion exceptionally problematic. It also gives me pause in identifying myself as an atheist, because that's not the defining quality of my attitude towards these beliefs, and in some ways, it's unfair to single religion out. Certainly, religion is separate in its own way, but it's not separate in such a way as to significantly uncouple itself from the other societal and personal delusions out there, to make it worthy of exclusive consideration, or to award the others immunity from consideration.
First, don't skim the thread, and actually read it. Read Loren's OP, to which I was replying. That'll put my comment in context. The OP itself is a long essay on why distinctions between Nazism, Communism and religion are false and meaningless.
My reply, in this context, was meant to point out that Nazism and Communism have nothing to do with religion, and have far more in common with Dawkins-style "religion is a disease" atheism. Now, you can take as a personal attack, even though I wasn't talking about you, thinking of you, and had no idea what your religious views even were until this moment.But that would be missing the point.
The point was that Loren was making a misguided (I believe the exact word I used was 'retarded') grouping of Nazism, Communism and religion, for no apparent purpose other than being able to assign the faults of the first two to the group (i.e. "delusion"), and then attack "delusion" on those grounds to prove them all (including religion) dangerous.
Though I don't doubt Dawkins would start killing "sick" religious people if he had the power to do so with impunity (though he'd claim it's for the good of society), I don't think all his followers (or Loren and you specifically) would do so. Nor do I believe all Nazis wanted to kill Jews, nor all Communists wanted to kill enemies of the state, nor do all Christians want to burn heretics at the stake, nor did all Americans wanted to invade Iraq as payback for 9/11. We all have our nutcases, and our problems when they manage to get power.
Now if you still feel I owe you an apology, let me know. But I definitly do not owe one to Loren. He created a thread to discuss his theory that Nazism, Communism and religion can be rolled together - or in other words, that Hitler, Stalin and me are part of the same group. If anything, he owes me an apology.
I'm declaring this baseless until you provide some hint of evidence. You also realize that the OP is critical of Dawkins, don't you?
What? It's the entirely logical thing to do, right? Religious people are sick. If they can't be cured, they should be gotten rid of. We should herd them into one place to keep them seperate from other people. And once they're seperate, what use are they? How can they possibly contribute to society? Thus, to the ovens with them.
Yes, the arguments against religion (and the counterproofs against God-proofs) have been made over and over again for centuries. In a sense, there is nothing new in these books. However, most Americans simply have no idea what these arguments and counterproofs are. Most Americans are not well-versed in philosophy. Most Americans have no fucking idea who David Hume or Bertrard Russel are. Hell, most Americans aren't well-versed in the Bible. (I remember reading in Time that something like half of Americans are so Biblically illiterate that they can't name a gospel.)
So I don't think atheist authors and proponents are being greedy. They're spreading a message to an audience that hasn't heard it at all—an audience that, judging from the sales of the books, is actually interested.
Ironically, I think we've heard just as much about this as we've heard about why the religion is a delusion. Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud all extensively discussed the roots of the religious "delusion," the cultural, social, and mental phenomena that drive people to adopt the delusion.
And Dawkins, at least, does talk about the roots of the delusion—albeit in a highly speculative, biologically-based framework. You've probably heard about memetics, and I personally think it's a pretty fascinating explanation for the "opiate of the masses."
I think you raise a good point but I also think that the "root causes" of the so-called delusion have been dealt with pretty extensively by both famous recent philosophers and contemporary atheists like Dawkins. But at the same time, I do feel that it's more important to directly address the legimitacy of religious faith itself, rather than speculate and theorize about the reasons why religion is so widespread. The first method actually engages the religious person in debate. The second method treats the religious person like a faceless statistic or a lab rat.
Your science is not best.
Religions are contagious! Also, pre-emptive striking.
Are you making fun of Richy?
No, I'm asking you to rebutt the logic here.
Oh. 'Cause it looks like you're making fun of Richy.