Strange when I read Churchill's war speeches rallying Christendom against the cruelty and slaughter of Hitler's War Machine....just saying a lot of the West's values came from Christianity, even as things are more secular in Europe. Not implying Winnie was doing God like Tony Blair either. Besides, he gladly took help from the Soviet Union. This is one of many posts that answer the image problem atheists have in America... Hate to break it to you, but this is not just my observation but tens of millions if not a 100+ million Americans are wondering why so many atheists have branded themselves as angry and combative...they project themselves this way in many other palaces than this forum. See Major Religions Ranked by Size It estimates roughly 80% of the World's population believes in some kind of Supreme Being....YMMV, but it's almost certainly a majority of the population as well as the vast majority of Americans. When people hear endless vitrolic rants about how stupid religion is - all of religion, it's very difficult not to take that as personally offensive...if someone does something stupid, it implies THEY are stupid. I'd think the "brights" (Brights movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) would have the PR skill to use wrong or mistaken over loaded words such as stupid, but apparently not. I'm just the messenger: American atheists have created their own image problem and apparently many insist on reinforcing it.
Way to go Doug, that is just plain sick to think that unfathomable tragedy is in anyway humorous. You would be related to Ahmadinejad would you?
What nonsense. Atheists respond when religious zealots try to enforce their brand of delusion on others, and then are labeled "angry" in a display of freudian projection. You just cannot understand why someone like me would tell someone like you to take your delusions and stuff it. I am singularly uninterested in your apocalyptic visions, fantasy of a virgin mother, or assorted paranoias except as they affect me. Pascal's argument is illogical. Get over it.
^ I could never make an attack on you like the one you just inflicted upon yourself....it's like I pointed out you need to stop shooting at your right foot and out of spite you shoot your left foot. The NPR quote would be just as valid even if you never heard from me, spiderman, Treb. Be out most of Saturday - got things to do in my life.
Is there a happy median between logic and belief? Or is humanity cursed to carry on these petty squabbles forever, each 'team' striving to get to the young minds first, hoping to win the most adherents to their cause?
Judging by Christianity's long standing love affairs of heretic trials, witch torture, inquisitions and general attraction to human suffering in hopes of coverts*, I'd have to say it will continue but it is by no means petty. Remember Haiti ?
...wasn't witch trials a few centuries ago? That's relevant? CHRISTIAN RELIEF SERVICES - Haiti Relief and Rebuild Update
Of course the millennia of Christianity inspired abuse and murder is relevant. Has Christianity reinterpreted its theology and condemned 99.9% of its history ? Fat chance All I hear is "they were not true Christians, WE ARE." Of course that is what all of you say LOL
^ your doing a great job of confirming this... I have not heard of any inquisitions or witch trials in 2012.
I am willing to bet that neither Hitler or Hussein et al. killed many people. They ALL relied on obediant people. An evil person with no one to obey them is weak. Compare the worst serial killer to Hitler. Obedience to higher authority is the most dangerous thing we do.
Yup. Just like the blacks before them. Another small group of angry people complaining against the majority of happy Americans for no reason at all.
Pat Robertson Cites Haiti's Earthquake As What Happens When You 'Swear A Pact To The Devil' | ThinkProgress Apparently.
:focus: After doing a bunch of reading, I've come to the understanding that Pascal's Wager is seriously flawed. Fundamentally, its rests upon Pascal's predisposition to accept that there is a god. It appears that he never attempted to prove, or at least did not comment upon, a proof for the existence of his god. This flies in the face of his own statements: Thus every demonstration requires that one first identify ‘the evident principles that it requires. For, if one does not guarantee the foundations, one cannot guarantee the building’ (II, 175). Also, FWIW: In contrast with all knowledge that is derived from experience and reason, Pascal identified ‘authority’ as the exclusive foundation of religious belief. Authority depends on memory and is purely historical, because the objective is simply to find out what someone said or wrote. This applies ‘especially in theology’ (Preface to the Traité du vide: I, 452), a discipline which Pascal presents as if there could be no dispute about what is revealed in the scriptures or, more fundamentally, about whether a particular writing belongs among the canonical texts. He could not have avoided noticing that there were many religious traditions that claimed to report divine revelations, and that each in turn rested its claims on its own authority as a reliable witness to earlier historical events and their interpretation. This was apparent even with Christianity and, within Catholicism, Pascal was familiar with decisions of church Councils that determined which interpretations of its doctrinal history were acceptable and which were anathemized as heretical. Thus the history of churches was rife with disputes about how to identify the appropriate religious authorities. Since Pascal rejected the validity of rational arguments as a criterion for distinguishing between what was authentic or otherwise in Christian belief, he had to rely ultimately on a personal choice of what to believe about the supernatural, and then to interpret that personal choice as if it were inspired by a special grace from God. It seems evident that the circularity of Pascal's self-justification could be repeated, with appropriate changes, by equally committed members of other religious traditions. Above text extracted from this source, and is recommended reading: Blaise Pascal (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Again, thank you Daniel for cracking the door on a topic, a man, and a historical era that I admit to only just barely being able to comprehend. Of a more mundane nature, the Pascaline; Pascal's calculator - Wikipedia
My observation was directed at you and YOUR attempt to link one of the worst tragedies in all of mankind's history to make a point in a relative meaningless internet forum discussion. It's commonly used: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum]Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
I base my claim that we're all born with a strong sense of right and wrong on the fact that EVERYONE has strong opinions that certain actions are right, and others are wrong, though we quarrel endlessly on the details. However, you are right that I've never watched a child grow, so perhaps it would be more correct to say that as we develop into adults, we all develop a strong sense of right and wrong. The IDEA of right and wrong is inherent in all of us. The details about what is right and what is wrong are purely cultural and personal. And we say "NO" a lot because we strongly disagree with the other person about what constitutes wrong. I believe with all my being that if anything can be called wrong, then nuclear weapons fall into that category. And I chose to protest them in the most emphatic way I had available without myself resorting to violence. The problem with claiming that we need a higher authority is that we cannot agree on who or what deserves that position; and if an invisible, unknowable spiritual being is the higher authority, then there's no way of settling disputes over what its wishes are. Consider the bloody history of violence between people who all believe in the same god! The Christian churches stopped burning people at the stake only when they lost the political power to do so, and everywhere clerics of any religion come to political power, the result is intolerance, murder, and mayhem in the name of whatever god they believe in. However, I will give you this: An authority that was universally accepted, and was kind, considerate, gentle, and loving would be a wonderful thing. But good luck convincing the world to accept your preferred authority (or even convincing all Christians of your particular interpretation of the Bible) without killing them all, or being killed by them as they try to convince you.
I'm not ready to swing completely to the viewpoint that we have to be taught right and wrong. The understanding of what is right and wrong does emerge with kids. I have raised them. The huge difference is the development of the discipline of doing right. The concept of sharing is trivially simple for a kid to understand as being good. Practicing constructive sharing is a lifelong task. A "philosophy" of what consist of good and evil is an endless academic debate. A working principal of treating others as you would be treated is incredibly alike in all cultures. Using that definition, a really consistent categorization is possible and universal. However, rarely has knowing this rule resulted in adhering to it.
I am absolutely delighted to discuss this stuff in a constructive way. Congratulations. Not so sure about that... the second word/action children seem to learn is "Mine". Of course every child is different, it is just a general observation. No doubt. I say that brought on by looking in the wrong places. Where did that principle come from?
Wait. I missed it, but it seems like someone fell for Godwin's law. This also means that whoever did so, lost the argument and we are all free!
