Thoughts on the Uprisings in North Africa and Middle East?

[ThaG]

regarding the topic of eliminating religion to create a fair society, the former Soviet Union banned religion, and they were far from an open/just society.

Banning religion and completely eradicating it are two very different things. Do you know how many people are religious in the former communist countries right now? Do you know how many people may not go to church but believe in all sorts of woo, from psychics to the various eastern brainwashing "philosophies"? Probably not, but I do know and I can tell you that whatever 45 to 72 years of atheist propaganda achieved was erased in the span of just a few years after the changes. Because:

1. Religion was never banned to begin with and it wasn't repressed constantly throughout the whole period - there were times when it was seriously targeted and large period of time, especially towards the end of communism when it was left alone. Yes, churches were destroyed here and there, but the institution of the Orthodox church continued its existence and there never was any real ban on religious beliefs.

2. Atheism was promoted but it was never backed up by the development of critical thinking in children in schools. And without critical thinking, atheism is worthless and it loses its foundations so it becomes very easy for people to be lied by any charlatans once the charlatans are not kept in check by the government any more. Communist countries had the strongest mass educational system mankind has ever seen but those schools developed problem-solving ability in math and a very large foundation of knowledge in the science, but they never really taught the scientific method. To this day, where I come from, exams in the sciences consist of testing your ability to reproduce what was said in lectures and not on testing any real analytical abilities whatsoever. That was still much better than what they do in schools in the US where neither the facts are taught, nor the critical thinking ability is developed, and on top of that, religion is not only not attacked but promoted, but it was still very far from where it should have been. Also note that, on the very high level in the US (the MIT and Ivy League type of institutions) things are in much better shape, while even in the very top universities in the Eastern block, it was still mostly memorize-and-reproduce.

So it is not surprising that the Soviet Union tried to get rid of religion and not only it didn't succeed, but the whole experiment failed - the whole thing simply wasn't done the right way. That's because the system became authoritarian from the very beginning, and in an authoritarian system, developing that kind of mastery of critical thinking skills among the population is not seen as a desirable thing from the people on top (who most likely didn't have much of a grasp of the concept themselves).

 

[HERESY]

Until mankind has "Solved for God", until all religious books/text have been accounted for and done away with, and until mankind becomes similar to the Geth or the Borg, with no opinion or ability to believe as they choose, religion will never be 100% banned or eradicated. Now go ahead and wage your war if you want, but you will never win against it. Never.

 

[ThaG]

Until mankind has "Solved for God", until all religious books/text have been accounted for and done away with, and until mankind becomes similar to the Geth or the Borg, with no opinion or ability to believe as they choose, religion will never be 100% banned or eradicated. Now go ahead and wage your war if you want, but you will never win against it. Never.

So basically, you are assuming that God has to be disproven before we stop believing in him. While there is no evidence to suggest that we should believe in him to begin with....

I've listened to a number of otherwise very highly educated and intelligent people try to convince me of the existence of God, from relative unknowns to Ken Miller and Francis Collins, and they all made complete fools of themselves in the process, but nothing compares to this:

http://www.veritas.org/Campus/Schedule.aspx?cid=4#f674

Which is also very relevant to what you are saying as the guy was trying to tell us how M-theory and other string theories can not be evidence against the existence of God (Hawking was making the argument that God is not necessary for the explanation of anything anymore in his book) because they were untested so we couldn't be sure whether they are right or not. From which it follows that he either:

1. thinks that there is sufficient evidence for and negligible evidence against Christianity and its claims to convince him to become a Christian

or

2. thinks that evidence doesn't matter and we can believe in whatever the fuck we want.

Pick your epistemological poison pill...

 

[HERESY]

So basically, you are assuming that God has to be disproven before we stop believing in him.

That isn't an assumption. Someone can come with 100% proof that God does NOT exist and people will still believe that he does. They will say the evidence was fabricated, people have an agenda, etc. God himself can come to earth (like christians believe Jesus is God in the flesh) and people STILL didn't believe.

While there is no evidence to suggest that we should believe in him to begin with exists....

That all depends on what you deem to be evidence. You may say evidence is something that can be tested and verified. Another person may say evidence is an experience they had as a child.

I've listened to a number of otherwise very highly educated and intelligent people try to convince me of the existence of God, from relative unknowns to Ken Miller and Francis Collins, and they all made complete fools of themselves in the process, but nothing compares to this:

http://www.veritas.org/Campus/Schedule.aspx?cid=4#f674

Thag, everyone is making fools of themselves. In all aspects of life, everywhere on the planet. Get used to it or it will consume you.

Which is also very relevant to what you are saying as the guy was trying to tell us how M-theory and other string theories can not be evidence against the existence of God (Hawking was making the argument that God is not necessary for the explanation of anything anymore in his book) because they were untested so we couldn't be sure whether they are right or not. From which it follows that he either:

1. thinks that there is sufficient evidence for and negligible evidence against Christianity and its claims to convince him to become a Christian

or

2. thinks that evidence doesn't matter and we can believe in whatever the fuck we want.

Pick your epistemological poison pill...

Again, this goes back to what is the accepted criteria of evidence. Again, personal experience and what people go through will trump what some people have deemed to be evidence. This is human nature, and like I told you before, until belief in opinion or choice are done away with, people will always believe in a religion or higher power. Until God is solved for or science answers every question man has ever pondered, people are going to believe in a religion or say that God did "X".

Look into the Gettier problem, and on the real man, try not to let this stuff eat you up. Come to grips that people are people, are going to believe what they want, etc.

 

[ThaG]

That all depends on what you deem to be evidence. You may say evidence is something that can be tested and verified. Another person may say evidence is an experience they had as a child.

That personal experience does not constitute valid evidence has been agreed upon a long time ago.

Again, this goes back to what is the accepted criteria of evidence. Again, personal experience and what people go through will trump what some people have deemed to be evidence. This is human nature, and like I told you before, until belief in opinion or choice are done away with, people will always believe in a religion or higher power. Until God is solved for or science answers every question man has ever pondered, people are going to believe in a religion or say that God did "X".

See above.

And I am very well aware of the fact that people will not stop believing in God. That doesn't mean I am going to stop pointing out this is a problem. That's like saying "People will always kill, rob and rape, what's the point of having laws and enforcing them?"

Look into the Gettier problem, and on the real man, try not to let this stuff eat you up. Come to grips that people are people, are going to believe what they want, etc.

There is a big difference between science and the Gettier problem. Science is a collective enterprise where evidence gets repeatedly reproduced and verified, theories are proposed based on multiple lines of evidence and are eventually tested, in multiple different ways by new evidence. Does it mean we can be 100% certain about anything? No, but it is the best we have. To put religion on equal footing is laughable...

 

[HERESY]

That personal experience does not constitute valid evidence has been agreed upon a long time ago.

Again, that all depends on what you deem to be evidence. You may say evidence is something that can be tested and verified. Another person may say evidence is an experience they had as a child. So REGARDLESS if someone a hundred years ago, a thousand years ago, etc agreed on it, the person who has experienced "X" is still in a position to say fuck what they are talking about I know what I experienced and it was "X". You can't get around this.

See above.

No, YOU see above.

And I am very well aware of the fact that people will not stop believing in God. That doesn't mean I am going to stop pointing out this is a problem. That's like saying "People will always kill, rob and rape, what's the point of having laws and enforcing them?"

Killing, robbing and raping is inherently wrong. Mala in se. Believing in God is not inherently wrong, and if it is declared wrong it is Mala prohibita. You're comparing two different things here.

There is a big difference between science and the Gettier problem.

Without googling do you know what the gettier problem is? Better yet, can you tell me why you think I listed it?

Science is a collective enterprise where evidence gets repeatedly reproduced and verified, theories are proposed based on multiple lines of evidence and are eventually tested, in multiple different ways by new evidence.

Is anyone here disputing what science is or what science says evidence is? No. What I'm telling you, and what you don't grasp, is people don't give two shits about what science says and many of them have valid reasons for it. Many of them have invalid reasons for it, but at the end of the day you nor I can sway a person this way or that way.

Does it mean we can be 100% certain about anything?

You just lost your premise.

No, but it is the best we have. To put religion on equal footing is laughable...

Who is putting religion on equal footing? The person who has experienced "God" or some supernatural event or something they attribute to god? No, they don't give a shit about science or what science says is evidence so they aren't putting it on equal footing. They aren't testing by the same methods. The definition and criteria of what constitutes as evidence is different.

 

[ThaG]

The definition and criteria of what constitutes as evidence is different.

Which is a problem and you don't understand it. There is a very good way to determine what constitutes evidence and what doesn't what is a proper epistemological practice and what isn't and it is whether the knowledge (and you can tell me knowledge isn't really knowledge all you want, it doesn't really matter in this case) derived using this method predicts the behavior of the world around us or not. If it doesn't that means that the method isn't working and should be abandoned, if it does, then the method gets a pass until proven otherwise. Personal experience fails that test spectacularly, same goes for everything else except for the the scientific method.

 

[HERESY]

Which is a problem and you don't understand it. There is a very good way to determine what constitutes evidence and what doesn't what is a proper epistemological practice and what isn't and it is whether the knowledge (and you can tell me knowledge isn't really knowledge all you want, it doesn't really matter in this case) derived using this method predicts the behavior of the world around us or not. If it doesn't that means that the method isn't working and should be abandoned, if it does, then the method gets a pass until proven otherwise. Personal experience fails that test spectacularly, same goes for everything else except for the the scientific method.

Good way to totally avoid the things presented. People don't care about the methods. No matter how much you tell me about science or about what is or isn't, the one true fact is people don't care about it and are going to believe what they will regardless of what evidence they have or not. To a person who is going off personal experience, science or the criteria is NOT a factor. Again, The person who has experienced "God" or some supernatural event or something they attribute to god doesn't give a shit about science or what science says is evidence so they aren't putting it on equal footing. They aren't testing by the same methods. The definition and criteria of what constitutes as evidence is different.

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Until mankind has "Solved for God", until all religious books/text have been accounted for and done away with, and until mankind becomes similar to the Geth or the Borg, with no opinion or ability to believe as they choose, religion will never be 100% banned or eradicated. Now go ahead and wage your war if you want, but you will never win against it. Never.

I totally agree with you.

Belief in God is going nowhere, anytime in the next 100,000 years.

Just like our desire to pass on our genes to the next generation - belief in God is an evolutionarily derived survival strategy - so we would have about the same luck trying to eliminate everyone in the worlds fear of the dark. Not possible, not gonna happen.

 

[HERESY]

Belief in God is going nowhere, anytime in the next 100,000 years.

Just like our desire to pass on our genes to the next generation - belief in God is an evolutionarily derived survival strategy - so we would have about the same luck trying to eliminate everyone in the worlds fear of the dark. Not possible, not gonna happen.

Please tell Thag, this.

 

[ThaG]

I totally agree with you.

Belief in God is going nowhere, anytime in the next 100,000 years.

Just like our desire to pass on our genes to the next generation - belief in God is an evolutionarily derived survival strategy - so we would have about the same luck trying to eliminate everyone in the worlds fear of the dark. Not possible, not gonna happen.

1. It is by no means an evolved survival strategy for the species; it is a survival strategy for groups within the species as it keeps them together and improves their competitive fitness, but for the species as a whole it has turned out to be detrimental. Richard Dawkins' "virus of the mind" metaphor has always been very accurate.

2. Some of us have very successfully gotten rid of not only religion but all the philosophical and socio-cultural baggage that comes with it. All it takes is not being indoctrinated into it at an early age and an exposure to science and scientific thinking at an early age. Some people can do it even later in life. It is by no means something that can not be eradicated. But it requires effort, lots of it

3. That religion is not going anywhere I actually agree. What I don't agree with is the resignation to that fact that comes with such a statement. Religion is much worse than rape, murder and robbery, we are not going to go extinct because of those, but are definitely in danger of going extinct because of religion.

 

[HERESY]

Thag, you can take everything you just said, remove the word religion and replace it with anything that is harmful to society as a whole and what will you end up with? Here I'll show you.

1. Ethnocentrism is by no means an evolved survival strategy for the species; it is a survival strategy for groups within the species as it keeps them together and improves their competitive fitness, but for the species as a whole it has turned out to be detrimental.

2. Some of us have very successfully gotten rid of not only ethnocentrism but all the philosophical and socio-cultural baggage that comes with it. All it takes is not being indoctrinated into it at an early age and an exposure to science and scientific thinking at an early age. Some people can do it even later in life. It is by no means something that can not be eradicated. But it requires effort, lots of it

3. That ethnocentrism is not going anywhere I actually agree. What I don't agree with is the resignation to that fact that comes with such a statement. Ethnocentrism is much worse than rape, murder and robbery, we are not going to go extinct because of those, but are definitely in danger of going extinct because of ethnocentrism.

 

[ThaG]

#3 doesn't hold. And this is an irrelevant argument anyway - if it is supposed to show that what I say about religion is not true, then it fails at that

 

[HERESY]

It does hold as one can say in many instances etnocentrism is the cause of murder, rape and robbery and not simply a case of correlation. And given the fact that ethnocentrism has led to many tribes and peoples being wiped from the face of the planet, one can say it holds.

What you are saying about religion isn't true in the sense that it is applicable to everyone or that everyone believes it. It is your opinion and your belief, one you are entitled to, but it doesn't make it true for everyone. If we were to apply your claim to science and use the scientific method, your claim would fall flat on it's face. I didn't post it to show that what you're saying about religion is wrong. I posted it to show you that if you remove the word religion you can replace it with anything that is harmful to society as a whole. Do you understand now?

So no it isn't an irrelevant argument. What is irrelevant is the comical claim that religion is the root to/of the problem.

 

[HERESY]

Now let us take a look at your statement again and replace the word religion with Atheism. A christian or muslim would say the following:

1. Atheism is by no means an evolved survival strategy for the species; it is a survival strategy for groups within the species as it keeps them together and improves their competitive fitness, but for the species as a whole it has turned out to be detrimental.

2. Some of us have very successfully gotten rid of not only atheism but all the philosophical and socio-cultural baggage that comes with it. All it takes is not being indoctrinated into it at an early age and an exposure to religion and religious thinking at an early age. Some people can do it even later in life. It is by no means something that can not be eradicated. But it requires effort, lots of it

3. That atheism is not going anywhere I actually agree. What I don't agree with is the resignation to that fact that comes with such a statement. atheism is much worse than rape, murder and robbery, we are not going to go extinct because of those, but are definitely in danger of going extinct because of ethnocentrism.

Same thing. Replace it with anything you wish. Try cocaine and drug use for example and guess what? You'll get the same scenario over and over again.

 

[ThaG]

#1, #2 and #3 don't hold

 

[HERESY]

#1, #2 and #3 don't hold

If you're a theist with the belief that atheism is bad and atheist should convert it does hold. Unlike you I'll take some time to explain some of this and won't simply rattle off.

1. Atheism is by no means an evolved survival strategy for the species; it is a survival strategy for groups within the species as it keeps them together and improves their competitive fitness, but for the species as a whole it has turned out to be detrimental.

A theist can say it isn't an evolved strategy for the species as the theist may believe that something such as proselytizing is a survival strategy for thiests everywhere regardless of religion. In addition, the theist may believe that all mankind (the entire species) has a "spark" or "finger print" of God. Knowing this to be true, the theist can then say the atheist is in the "out group" or operating in rebellion or contrary to Gods will or divine plan.

The theist may then say atheism is only a survival strategy for people who do not want to become a theist, who are against theism and who have been rejected by theists and other religious institutions. They can then say atheism is detrimental to religion or theism as a whole because it can hinder member growth (in numbers) and "spiritual growth." They can then site things such as communism or how certain Asian countries treated religion and site these things as being detrimental to the growth I just mentioned.

2. Some of us have very successfully gotten rid of not only atheism but all the philosophical and socio-cultural baggage that comes with it. All it takes is not being indoctrinated into it at an early age and an exposure to religion and religious thinking at an early age. Some people can do it even later in life. It is by no means something that can not be eradicated. But it requires effort, lots of it

The theist can say that atheism is full of philosophical or cultural mumbo jumbo. From the many questions such as "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it" to the person who has converted from atheism, they can site it. The theist can then say overcoming atheism is simply a matter of exploring other religions and accepting the core values and universal truths (similar to unitarians) and that it should be done at an early age and in the home since the home, not the church, mosque, temple, etc is the first agent of socialization. The theist can then say people can do it later in life and cite conversion as proof. The theist, depending on what doctrine or dogma he holds can then say it can be eradicated. Such an example would be a christian saying Jesus will "seperate the sheep and the goats" or a muslim saying that all people of the books (jews, christians and muslims) will be accepted by Allah while everyone else (the infidels) will suffer. However, an EXTREMIST will say MAN has the power to eradicate atheism and may go to extreme lengths to eradicate it.

3. That atheism is not going anywhere I actually agree. What I don't agree with is the resignation to that fact that comes with such a statement. atheism is much worse than rape, murder and robbery, we are not going to go extinct because of those, but are definitely in danger of going extinct because of atheism.

Again, depending on what the theist actually believes, he may think atheism is not going anywhere as he may think it is a matter of choice and that God does not care or will not punish those who don't worship him/her/it. The theist can then say atheism is worse than rape, murder and robbery, because the theist may hold the belief that not believing in God, or any type of deity, is the worst form of seperation, punishment or wrong one can have or suffer. He may believe that not having a relationship with God robs the person of a unique experience that God wants to share with his creation.

Do you understand now? Simply saying "#1, #2 and #3 don't hold" without looking at things for context, or having a valid understanding of what religion is happens to be very foolish.

 

[NAMO]

this thread is going off in another direction now.

 

[NAMO]

The question I want to put to the world is, can we get someone else other than USA/UK and to a lesser extent Australia doing something about this current crisis? Why can't other Nations take action for once?

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

1. It is by no means an evolved survival strategy for the species; it is a survival strategy for groups within the species as it keeps them together and improves their competitive fitness

What is the difference between a "survival strategy for the species" and "a survival strategy for groups within the species"?

Don't many survival strategies play out on a micro level? How can something be a survival strategy for a group of people but not the species in general?

but for the species as a whole it has turned out to be detrimental. Richard Dawkins' "virus of the mind" metaphor has always been very accurate.

Whether or not belief in God has turned out to be detrimental is outside of the scope of our debate and totally irrelevant.

The desire to consume sugar or make lots of babies are both becoming detrimental to our species, does that mean they are not evolved strategies?

I am very familiar with Dawkins' work, and while I agree with much of it, I recognize that is highly debatable and far from widely accepted truth.

2. Some of us have very successfully gotten rid of not only religion but all the philosophical and socio-cultural baggage that comes with it. All it takes is not being indoctrinated into it at an early age and an exposure to science and scientific thinking at an early age. Some people can do it even later in life. It is by no means something that can not be eradicated. But it requires effort, lots of it

And there also some very intelligent, highly educated people that still believe in God as well.

The fact that you were able to get rid of the impulse to believe in God is not evidence that everyone can or will.

Furthermore, even if everyone hypothetically could and did get rid of the impulse, that is in no way evidence that is wasn't an evolved survival strategy to begin with.

3. That religion is not going anywhere I actually agree. What I don't agree with is the resignation to that fact that comes with such a statement.

Fair enough. However there is a difference between resignation and recognizing reality. It's gonna be tough for you to fight a battle when you don't even seem to fully understand your enemy.

Religion is much worse than rape, murder and robbery, we are not going to go extinct because of those, but are definitely in danger of going extinct because of religion.

Add religion to the list of things that are increasing our odds of causing our own extinction.

Many which, by the way, are evolutionarily derived survival or reproduction strategies.