Do you agree with Voltaire that “those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”?

First topic message reminder :

Most people who follow a particular religion do so because of geography. If you’re born in Iran or Indonesia, the odds are that you’ll be a Muslim. If you’re born in Spain or Italy, you’ll as likely as not be a Catholic. In Germany, you'll probably be a Catholic if you grow up in Cologne, Mainz or Bavaria, but a Protestant if you are raised in another part of the country. I suppose many of us aren’t able to detach ourselves from the conditioning we’ve received when young, but I still find it hard to accept that otherwise rational people will believe things that there is no logical reason to believe.

Virgin birth? Can you really believe that? How about resurrection, a fantasy that the early Christian Paul wrote about? Is it any coincidence that in his native Tarsus there were inscriptions calling Herakles, who died and descended into Hades, a divine saviour? The legend has it that Herakles came back to life in due course; does that sound familiar? And then there’s an angel called Gabriel popping in for a chat with Muhammad in his cave, while another angel, this time called Moroni, told Joseph Smith where to find some gold plates. A lot of people really believe all this nonsense.

The three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – all teach that unquestioned faith is a virtue. Many protagonists assert that every word in the Bible or the Qur’an must be believed as the literal truth. The danger then is that some followers of those faiths read the more violent parts of the Old Testament, or the verses of the Qur’an which date from after Muhammad’s flight to Medina, and then interpret the requirements of their religion accordingly.

I wouldn’t dream of claiming that atheists don’t commit atrocities, for nationalism or some other political ideology, or just because they’re insane (although the latter often suffer from religious mania). But isn’t the idea of encouraging people to believe absurdities the first step on the road to committing atrocities such as 9/11, 7/7 and the Charlie Hebdo massacre?

Dr, Shedlon,
As far as I am aware all Muslims think the same as the terrorists but are not agreeable with the way in which they express their belief.

I have never said that the terrorists were influenced by anything, I have asked if one feels we are giving those intent on radicalising young people ammunition to do so.

You have a point though, is it possible that the terrorists were initially influenced by the immoral behaviour that abounds in the western world? and want a better and more acceptable way of life [ to them]

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                As far as I am aware all Muslims think the same as the terrorists

That may be because you're pathologically incapable of a single rational thought, and seem to value your own thought process so highly you don't bother thinking about, let alone checking for evidence for, the asinine claims you make. This one is a humdinger by the way, even for you.

Polyglide wrote:I have never said that the terrorists were influenced by anything, I have asked if one feels we are giving those intent on radicalising young people ammunition to do so.

You stopped asking some time ago as you have no interest in listening to anyone else's opinion. The answer by the way is no, same as it was on the first page, and for the same reasons. Not that you have any interest as your mind is as closed as any I've ever encountered.

Polyglide wrote:You have a point though, is it possible that the terrorists were initially influenced by the immoral behaviour that abounds in the western world?

No, and I have never made this point at all. For someone who so often berates everyone for not understanding what you've said you seem remarkably inept at grasping what others have written. Or is this another deliberately mendacious attempt to misrepresent what I've said. Immoral behaviour no more "abounds in the western world" than anywhere else.

             

Let's try a Christian example for a change:

"Eunice Spry (born 28 April 1944) is a British woman from Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire,  Jehova's Witness who was convicted of 26 charges of child abuse against children in her foster care in April 2007. She was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment and ordered to pay £80,000 costs. In sentencing, the judge told Spry that it was the 'worst case in his 40 years practising law'."

LINK HERE

It seems yet another example that Voltaire might have had a valid point, though I look forward to the usual semantics about what constitutes an absurdity, and yet another invocation of "The No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Dr, Sheldon,
Eunice Spry was not a Jehova's Witness, she pretended to be one, just as judges, MPs, doctors, nurses, charities, along with members of all religions etc; etc; have memebers who behave in manners that prove their claims to be so and so is just a means of obtaining their sordid desires.

There is not one scection of society where these events do not accur.

I think you will find that the more EDUCATED a society becomes the more often it leads to the ultimate destruction of what real life should be all about.

Our world at the present time is lost in every respect.

Rubbish. You can't wave away examples of Christians committing atrocities using the no true Scotsman fallacy.  Look it up or follow one of my many links. 

I see your attack on education continues apace. You may think ignorance is a panacea for societies ills but it's an absurd claim you also offer no justification for this idiotic claim. We're not surprised tbh...

Dr, Sheldon,
The state of the world says it all, there has never been so much devision and threat to the world in general, if education has done anything it has enabled unfotunate people to realise that they are unfortunate and this causes the problems we now are facing, had all education gone along with doing something about improving everything for everyone then it would have been less devisive. Ignorance is bliss.

Polygllide wrote:The state of the world says it all, there has never been so much devision and threat to the world in general,

Nonsense, making up subjective lies is easy, try showing one shred of evidence for this absurd claim beyond blithely pointing at the world and smugly reaffirming it.

Polyglide wrote:had all education gone along with doing something about improving everything for everyone then it would have been less devisive.

Polyglide wrote:had all education gone along with doing something about improving everything for everyone then it would have been less devisive.

Unlike religions you mean? Oh the irony.

Yes I can see why religions pedalling superstitious lies like misery and suffering being a pass into heaven is dented by education and knowledge, What I don't see is why anyone thinks this is a bad thing.

Polyglide wrote:Ignorance is bliss.

Ignorance and superstitions are divisive, hence the fractious and sectarian nature of religious beliefs.

You must be ecstatic, but I'm afraid I totally disagree.

What has any of that to do worth the thread question? You've been offered a few examples to support Voltaire's premise, and all you've offered in response is semantics about the definition of an absurdity, and yet another use of the common logical fallacy "no true Scotsman".

I know I'm wasting my time as you think ignorance is bliss, but here's another link explaining it:

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Dr, Sheldon,
I think you will find that the most henious crimes have nothing at all to do with absurdities and the main point being, who decides what exactly is absurd ?.

I think you will find no one claimed the most heinous crimes were due to absurdities. I think you'll find you've produced yet another irrelevant straw man polemic. I also think you'll find your factoid is meaningless without evidence, which yet again is entirely absent from your post. The dictionary defines an absurdity, and as I said previously we're passed such pointless semantics.

Dr, Sheldon,
I am fully aware what an absurdity is and the dictionaries explanation.

This does not mean that what one feels is absurd another does so, it is a matter of ones feelings towards a matter.

What confidence! Cogito ergo sum.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I am fully aware what an absurdity is and the dictionaries explanation.

                This does not mean that what one feels is absurd another does so, it is a matter of ones feelings towards a matter.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Yesterday at 4:25 pm

I think you will find no one claimed the most heinous crimes were due to absurdities. I think you'll find you've produced yet another irrelevant straw man polemic. I also think you'll find your factoid is meaningless without evidence, which yet again is entirely absent from your post. The dictionary defines an absurdity, and as I said previously we're passed such pointless semantics.

It's axiomatic that the person who accepts the absurdity does't find it absurd, this has been explained to you, more than once, try using objective reasoning to view Voltaire's assertion if you can.

Dr, Sheldon,
Then let me put the matter of absurdities to you.

We know the universe exists, we know that the earth exists, we know that you cannot get something from nothing, we know that their are numerous forms of animal and plant life and that the extent of the universe is unknown etc; etc;

I believe that God created all forms of material from energy and created all forms of life from the material and that the universe etc; is still in a state of progress.

There is no evidence to refute my belief.

I believe that as part of God's plans he created the earth and the Bible gives the account along with all the creations therein.

The evidence of matter from energy is apparent, splitting the atom proves the fact.

There is no feasible alternative to the above.

You would have to believe that something can come from nothing and intelligence and living things from dead material and with no explanation of where anything came from in the first place, including energy etc;

To my mind the most absurd is the latter.

Why


do


you


insist


on using


ridiculous line



breaks?


They are very



very


very


annoying, and

utterly pointless.


try hitting the comma key

for a change


and get your


elbow off

the return key ffs!

Your post is an absurd rehash of the Kalam cosmological argument, it's been debunked innumerable times. Here's another for you HERE.

Beyond that your post has no relevance at all to the thread, I tire of telling you to take your irrelevant proselytising elsewhere, it's every rude, and very tiresome. Have you anything salient to the thread to post?

Dr, Sheldon,
If line breaks upset you it is just proof of your lack of consideration for those who are not so familiar with a computer and in no way alters the content.

My post is entirely relevant, you just, as usual, cannot appreciate the inferance.

Nope, your post was entirely irrelevant to both the thread title and my post preceding it that was an expansive response to your previous post, and which of course you ignored entirely as per usual. Your post was an absurd rehash of the Kalam cosmological argument, it's been debunked innumerable times. Here's another for you HERE..

Since I have asked many times politely for you to desist from your annoying excessive use of unnecessary line breaks, and you have of course ignored these, and now throw a tantrum when I illustrate the point. It's obvious you prefer to annoy and irritate rather than discuss, otherwise why not just accept that it adds nothing and is annoying? It's not as if you've ever even acknowledged the many times I have asked.

Dr, Sheldon,
I am very upset at annoying you with breaks but I thought you may need a rest as you appear unable to understand what I say.

To get back to the point in question.

If a person is lacking in intelligence he/she can be lead astray without any absurdities being involved, however, if you can make up a absurd story at the same time it would no doubt help, so the answer to the question is YES. under certain ccircumstances.

Unnecessary line breaks don't add cogency or clarity. Your posts don't need simplifying they need some kind of rational logical consistency and verifiable facts or evidence.  

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason you keep insulting peole by claiming they don't understand your posts is your fault, and not theirs?

Dr, Sheldon,
I am sorry if I have insulted peole but we cannot all be perfect.

I don't doubt it, but you don't seem to want proper debate, but rather to preach about your beliefs in the hope of proselytising others. Open debate requires some degree of reciprocity, this is going to be impossible when you are 100% certain of your position, and all criticism either ignored or viewed as a personal slight, and thus reacted to rather than rationally examined.

"We know the universe exists, we know that the earth exists, we know that you cannot get something from nothing"

I am just moving through the mountains of argumentation here, Polyglide. Your statements are interesting but one cannot make them with the certainty you employ.

The question of "the universe existing" is a question about existence and what existence means. Does the universe exist in the same way that John Wayne exists on screen? - there when we watch and gone when we leave the cinema.

It used to be taken as an axiom that we cannot get something from nothing but those who deal with sub-atomic particles would tell you that whole universes appear from nothing and vanish and that actual can occur from virtual. In mathematics we can use imaginary numbers and we discover that these impossible creations make the solution of real equations possible.  We used to suppose that 1 + 1 would forever give 2, but when we deal with speeds approaching that of light this logic does not apply.

As for faith leading us into atrocities - faith more than anything else does this. Yes, there are individuals with warped minds who kill; but for organised atrocities you cannot beat a strong faith. The sad thing is that martyrs of every faith each believed that their own god was the true one; human driving force supplied the ammunition. Yesterday it was  Christian saints; today it is jihadis- all keen on getting to heaven. Religion supplies the incentive - for the jihadis, virgins, however absurd the notion of beings created for the specific purpose of human intercourse. Once used, do they miraculously remain virginal? Who knows?

Hi marcolucco, you should probably be aware that Polyglide touts the Kalam cosmological argument with tedious regularity and ignores all responses. I'm fairly sure he doesn't understand what he does read. He uses "god of the gaps polemics a lot, and again either won't or can't understand why these are flawed.

Most importantly he has claimed, and does claim that he is literally 100% certain of his beliefs. I have tried in vain to explain that in epidemiological terms this is impossible, but since philosophical epistemology is not my area by an means, and I have linked the basics, he simply ignores these stridently telling me how stupid I must be. This is a recurring theme in his posts, and he has labelled everyone who disagrees with him as lacking common sense, and that everything he believes is obvious common sense. He doesn't seem to grasp how subjective opinion, or 100% faith differs from objective evidence.

He's a creationist and claims to know science is wrong based on both his own personal experiences of "breeding birds" and them not morphing into new species (I know) and on his 'knowledge' of science, I need not say that he is, as are most creationists, scientifically illiterate as you'll find out all too soon.

It's good to see another poster with some erudition enter this dialogue anyway, as discussion has been difficult, as of course it will be when dealing with anyone who has 100% certainty.

Dr, Sheldon,
You make too many assumptions.

It would be nice if someone who was a Christian joined the instead of having the majority of heathens involved.

I have never ever said that evolution does not take place and with regard to breeding animals I have bred birds of many kinds for over 70 years along with many other animals and one can breed through selection to any given requirement, this in no way is contrary to my belief in God as the creator of all things.

The whole point is not what has gone on in between but how everything was created in the first place, I believe God created everything, you prove me wrong and a credible alternative.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                You make too many assumptions.

That's rich coming from you, care to show one you claim I've made? I'm guessing not.

Polyglide wrote:  It would be nice if someone who was a Christian joined the instead of having the majority of heathens involved.

I agree, as I find your attitude and beliefs decidedly un-Christian.

Polyglide wrote: I have never ever said that evolution does not take place

This dishonest semantics again, it's beyond tedious to read this lie over and over, as you know full well we're talking about Darwinian species evolution which you have denied again and again. I have zero inetrest in your bird brained bird breeding theories, unless you can cite research and evidence from it that has passed scientific muster? Maybe I fell asleep and didn't catch the news on TV that a private bird breeder has falsified species evolution? The problem is that for all your bluster you still think species evolution can occur over a single human lifetime, hence your risible claim that you have falsified it because none of your birds have morphed into new species. Do you really not know how laughably idiotic that is? It shows as profound and through an ignorance of Darwinian evolution as I've ever encountered. You even used the tired old creationist clichéd lie of evolution involving humans evolving from monkeys. In fact I'm not even sure you know the difference between evolved from and shared common ancestry, or for that matter the difference between a monkey and an ape.

Polyglide wrote:and with regard to breeding animals I have bred birds of many kinds for over 70 years along with many other animals and one can breed through selection to any given requirement, this in no way is contrary to my belief in God as the creator of all things.

It doesn't disprove the existence of mermaids either, so I'm not sure what your point is?

Polyglide wrote: The whole point is not what has gone on in between but how everything was created in the first place, I believe God created everything, you prove me wrong and a credible alternative.

God of the gaps, it's your claim you prove it happened, I don't have to prove your claim wrong as you have no evidence, and again I tire of explaining such a simple logical rule to you. If I claimed I had an invisible unicorn in my front room, that was undetectable by physical human senses, then tasked you to disprove it, would you seriously think it's existence validated? I ask because that's what you're doing repeatedly.

                " It would be nice if someone who was a Christian joined the instead of having the majority of heathens involved."
It is curious to see the word "heathen" written today. It generally suggests someone who is ignorant of Christianity and was reserved for the barbaric uninformed. I suspect that my knowledge of Christianity is at least equal to your own, polyglide. Before one discusses, one should know the arguments of the opposing side.
I am also aware that defeating some Christian protagonist oratorically in no way adds to, or subtracts from, his god. There are some excellent Christian writers who put a lot of thought into their theistic support. What is rather amusing is the contradictory statements you use, apparently to reinforce a claim for God's existence.....

God can do anything and his main concern at the moment is the protection of those people who are faithful to him
AND
We are not aware of the circumstances and therefore unable to offer comment on God's actions,

...... and yet you just have commented on his actions. It raises a smile to see that you can even say "at the moment", as though you had a privileged view of your deity's diary. God may well be dead after his astonishing act of creation ex nihilo. There is little evidence he is around or even cares - apart from your own testimony, that is!

His certainty and claims are even more ironic in light of this gem from yesterday:

polyglide wrote:
Dr, Sheldon, You make too many assumptions.

Almost as hilarious as the capital y, and the extra commas. It's quite amusing to me how often theists seem to be totally 'irony impaired'. This LINK is for you Polyglide, you're welcome.

Dr, Sheldon,
I am very pleased to give you the cause for a laugh as I feel your life must be at the very least miserable and lacking variety etc;

Far better a few extra commas or a few spelling mistakes than an old lot of rubbish which clearly indicates you have no perseption of anything that is not subject to scientific approval etc;

If you're going to hurl insults about my perception,  then perhaps you'd best learn to  spell it first?   Your grammar is certainly no more execrable than the post content I can assure you. I notice you prefer to ignore all the points made in favour of petty insults. ...

Dr, Sheldon,
Make some relevant and sensible points and I will go over my posts for spelling mistakes etc; prior to sending them.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Make some relevant and sensible points and I will go over my posts for spelling mistakes etc; prior to sending them.

I tire of making expansive responses only for you to ignore them. Go back and read a few for a change, and see if you have anything sensible to offer by way of response. You spent a whole page ignoring my responses and simply typing irrelevant, you have repeatedly ignored my requests for you to clarify what the point of this thread is, and all my posts and evidence that refute your initial premise you've simply either dismissed out of hand or completely ignored. If you try responding to some of these, in an adult sensible and cogent manner, then I'll happily discuss them and the topic, though it seems a very limited one since you don't appear to want to discuss it as much as preach about your own beliefs, in order to condemn behaviours and freedoms that you yourself don't like.

All the ammunition required to radicalise young Muslims is in the Koran, and I've quoted many of the relevant texts already, more than once. If crime were a catalyst then the behaviour of UK citizens is hardly as bad as those of the religious fascists they are running to join. If it is down to decent people living their lives in a way that offends them then why is it only a tiny minority that turn to religious fascism like ISIS? Even if these claims were true I fail to see what it so you're asking be done, we're not going to turn ourselves into slaves to placate religious fascists like ISIS, and we already criminalise the other behaviours you listed.

You never answered this either:

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, You make too many assumptions.

That's rich coming from you, care to show one you claim I've made? I'm guessing not.

Dr, Sheldon,
Go back a few posts and you will see I answered the question.

Of course if someone is open to manipulation they can be lead towards anything including atrocities.

by polyglide Yesterday at 4:50 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Make some relevant and sensible points and I will go over my posts for spelling mistakes etc; prior to sending them.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Yesterday at 11:36 pm All the ammunition required to radicalise young Muslims is in the Koran, and I've quoted many of the relevant texts already, more than once. If crime were a catalyst then the behaviour of UK citizens is hardly as bad as those of the religious fascists they are running to join. If it is down to decent people living their lives in a way that offends them then why is it only a tiny minority that turn to religious fascism like ISIS? Even if these claims were true I fail to see what it is you're asking be done, we're not going to turn ourselves into slaves to placate religious fascists like ISIS, and we already criminalise the other behaviours you listed.

You asked for relevant sensible points yet ignore them?? What can this mean?

Dr, Sheldon,
I can understand the points you raise but they do not change the fact that the actions [legal or otherwise] that are abundantly against the religion of others are actively performed on a regular basis in a country that is also the residence of those who think them abhorent and this leaves it open for those attempting to radicalise the young to use them as a means of pointing out that they may be better elsewhere.

Response moved to "food for thought" thread.

Voltaire's premise is already established IMHO.

Dr, Sheldon,
I can well understand what Voltaire is all about.

However, you can read into it many other matters.

If a person is easily lead and open to manipulation then they can be lead in many ways and into many situationns not only atrocities but also for good.

So the answer is, Yes, but with the reservation that you can make someone believe an absurdity and make them perform something good.

So you are saying that so long as you are performing something good then it's ok to be deluded?

I'm not sure I want to go through life believing nonsense when I can perform something good and still live in the real world.

snowyflake,
Can you actually undertsand what is written?

The question posed , those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities?

I never said nor intimated anything other than what I posted and how on earth you can reach your illogical conclusion is beyond me.

So the answer is, Yes, but with the reservation that you can make someone believe an absurdity and make them perform something good.

That was YOUR statement which you posted as a refutation of Voltaire's statement. So in other words, so long as you perform good things believing absurdities (like belief in god) is ok. I actually don't have too much of a problem with this. There are lots of deluded people who do good things. They aren't the ones I'm worried about.