So...why is it religions hate each other and atheists?

by Boudica Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:41 pm

First topic message reminder :

Having given the topic some serious consideration, I have no idea why the religious hate each other and the irreligious. And vice versa, of course.

Despite being collective worship coordinator at my secondary school, I am an athiest. Not proudly so, I might add - I just don't have faith in a deity or multiples thereof. Having said that, I have no issue with anyone who does. Harnessed in the right way, it can be an astonishing force for good.

I suspect the umbrella I would fall under is humanist, although I have never chosen a banner for myself. I believe in people: the family and friends around me; my students and colleagues; members of the human race in general.

The thing I object to is the evangelising fraternity who,when I politely reject their view of the universe, choose to label me as ... well, all sort of insulting and unfair nonsense. At this stage, please believe that I find Richard Dawkins as irritating as any ayalloah, church elder or priest.

Ultimately, if your religion fascilitates your ability to be a good, kind and humane person, brilliant. If you can be the same without a god, more power to your elbow.

So why can't we leave each other to get on with it?

by snowyflake Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:53 am

Rock, this is beneath you. You are taking one youtube clip and proclaiming attributes to someone who has clearly and irrefutably denied god/gods/God. By doing so, you imply that one heavily edited statement is therefore truth. As you well know, it is not.

Please, for future reference, you do not need to define words to me. I am perfectly capable of opening a dictionary if I find a word too difficult for my poor little old brain.

by Guest Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:20 am

by Shirina Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:38 am

As with the superior alien race that Dawkins said might be responsible for life on earth, Odin is the Big Dog of a superior alien race that is neither eternal nor omnipotent. The comparison with Norse gods “works” insofar as other aspects of this possible alien race are concerned;

Dawkins was talking about a superior alien race, not gods of any kind, type, or of any pantheon. Now, if you're talking about the Ancient Astronaut Theory whereby our earlier ancestors mistook high technology for magic and the supernatural, that's fine, but you're still misapplying the definition of a theist by having us wade neck deep into the slime of semantics.

Richard Dawkins does not believe in any god or gods. He does, however, believe that there are deified objects and people - but that only means he knows that some others believe in deified objects and people, not that he, himself, believes they are deities. For instance, if I said to you that I believe you believe in God, that does not make me a theist.

I can post those comparisons on this thread, if anyone desires.

By all means.

To me, it’s expositing that which Dawkins has said and reaching conclusions therefrom.

Well, coming from someone who has watched many of Dawkins' debates with Christian apologists, I haven't a clue where you're getting this insistence that Dawkins believes in the Norse pantheon. I would love to see how you arrived at such a conclusion.

by Shirina Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:15 am

Ben Stein: From the Horses Mouth

by polyglide Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:53 am

Yes you are correct about jubberish, Shirina.

by polyglide Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:06 am

The example of the dogs shows that it is possible for a selection of isolated animals carrying certain dominant genes could become more unlike in appearance etc; than others of the same kind.

The chromosomes could also be defective and only carry certain genes having lost the others.

All living things have DNA, they do not all have the same DNA, that is why you can determine one human being from another and another species from another.

There are too many different scenarios involving genes etc; that could involve hours of debate but I base my beliefs on what I have actually experienced in breeding animals.

by Guest Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:24 pm

by Shirina Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:56 pm

The video is distastefully constructed. I dislike “spin doctored” videos hosted by non-dispassionate narrators.

I suppose a creationist would find the video "distastefully constructed."

Also, this narrator seems to cast an aspersion against Jews in a vaguely-worded apparent reference to Stein’s faith, which is not stated anywhere in the video.

You see racism everywhere, Rock. However, the problem with Judaism is that it is both a race and a religion so criticizing the religion (as any atheist would do) amounts to the same thing as racism in the eyes of some.

by oftenwrong Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:29 pm

QUOTE "Science did not lead to the Holocaust."

Though if you consider Philosophy to be something of a Science,
people like Martin Heidegger may face some tough questioning at The Last Trump.

Hitler's Philosophers by Yvonne Sherratt
Publisher Yale £25 pp302

by Guest Wed Mar 13, 2013 6:13 pm

by Shirina Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:27 pm

I remember that you had no problem with a crypto-racist professor stating that there wasn’t enough Black history in existence to warrant a course of study, or even one class, but that he would agree to insert one unit of Black history in one of his history classes.

Speaking of spin-doctoring, your above quote is a good example. I never said those words or anything amounting to those words.

What I DID say is that history is unique in all other subjects taught in school because it is constantly expanding. Every day is another day of history that will eventually have to be taught. When I was in high school, we barely got into the 1960's before the school year was over. I had to learn everything from that point onward on my own. Most people will never do that. So what happens then when it is the year 2100 and we're still only teaching US history up to the 1960's?

My argument was, and still is, that trying to cram the history of every ethnic group in America into a "general studies" history course is a bad idea. Sure, the really BIG historical events involving ethnicity such as slavery and the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's should be taught in a "general studies" course because those things shaped the entire nation. But teachers simply don't have time to dwell on, say, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII simply to avoid excluding Japanese-Americans.

History is going to HAVE to be broken down into separate ethnic history studies - specialized courses that focus primarily on the various ethnicities. I never once said there isn't enough Black history to fill a course, I said there isn't enough TIME in a "general studies" course to dwell on historical specifics if the only reason to do so is because of the ethnic group involved. If today's teachers cannot get through Vietnam before the school year ends, how are teachers going to find the time to teach about 9/11? Every time you insert some new unit about ethnicity, something else has to be cut out. What will it be? I've already noticed that WWII has been shaved off considerably to make room for the Japanese-American internment scandal.

Meanwhile, two thirds of Jews alive in Europe prior to an anti-Jew racist’s ascension n to power in Germany had been exterminated by the end of World War II.

Incidentally, the textbook I had to teach from gave the Holocaust one single paragraph. Just a few sentences. Barely a mention. The internment of Japanese-Americans received 3 entire pages. The war itself? Only 2.5 pages.

But of course there must be some other explanation for this extermination other than anti-Jewish racism.

This isn't about the Holocaust, it's about the video.

However, I won't be sidetracked. You said you could explain how Richard Dawkins was a theist and instead you started up with anti-semitism and the Holocaust.

First, I would like for you to explain how Dawkins is a theist (as per your offer).

Second, I would like for you to quote herein the anti-semitic statements made by the narrator of the video.

by Guest Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:20 pm

Shirina wrote:
This isn't about the Holocaust, it's about the video.

Ich bin ein Jude.

Shirina wrote:
Second, I would like for you to quote herein the anti-semitic statements made by the narrator of the video.

Ich bin ein Jude.

by snowyflake Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:36 pm

You fail to see racism when it’s staring you in the face.

Rock, you fail to see an atheist when he's staring you in the face. And by taking one sentence from a video clip, you have labelled Dawkins a hypocrite. That's very wrong of you to do and I think you know it. I don't want a point by point explanation or your legalese or dictionary definitions of well-known words on this please. I would like an honest answer to a simple question.

Is Richard Dawkins an atheist and is he intrinsically hypocritical in regards to his atheism?

If you base your answer on that video clip I will be very disappointed. I think you're better than that, Rock.

by Shirina Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:58 pm

I remember it clearly. I’ll never forget it. As it was on Proboards, I cannot retrieve it.

I know what I said, Rock. I even repeated it for you. I know the topic well because it is one I have often debated in the past.

Ich bin ein Jude.

Judaism does not get a free pass in the eyes of atheists. Religion is religion is religion. I'm not going to be hamstrung by this nonsensical notion that a criticism of the Jewish religion is racism against Jewish ethnicity. I say bollocks to that. There are many Jews who are not Jewish which goes to show you the difference.

It's the same kind of argument I see right-wingers use by claiming that any criticism of the Israeli government's policies is anti-semitism.

Since that isn’t enough for you

Carte blanche "rule by proclamation" arguments are never enough for me. If you're going to compare Dawkins' view on atheism with the Norse pantheon, then I expect actual comparisons such as quotes from Dawkins placed side by side with the tenets of Norse beliefs.

you will actually seek to understand the comparison in a way that you have never exhibited hereon in regards to the oft offered Genesis 1:1 - Big Bang “who-what-when-where” comparison.

I showed you how your comparison doesn't work, a post you ignored. I'm also not in the business of having my counter-arguments brushed aside in a patronizing way by implying that I "simply don't understand." You always act like a closed book filled with secrets, a book that hints of vast knowledge yet says very little. If you have something, put it on the table. I'm just not buying the "if you seek to understand ..." responses. Unless the Greek version of Genesis 1:1 consists of dozens of pages of hitherto never before seen text, then it's a simple sentence that explains nothing to any advocate of science.

Ich bin ein Jude.

Since you refuse to back up your bare assertions with actual quotes (something that shouldn't be too hard), I'll do it for you (again).

The "non-dispassionate narrator" makes a very simple and very true claim. Ben Stein on one hand says that science leads to Darwinism which leads to Social Darwinism, the belief that some races are superior to others. Yet, on the other hand, the "non-dispassionate narrator" shows how Ben Stein subscribes to a religion (Jew OR Christian) which makes the claim that the Hebrews are the chosen people of God. Even the specific verse in the Bible PROVING the claim true was given in the video. Essentially, what the "non-dispassionate narrator" was saying is: How can Ben Stein accuse science of creating racism when the Bible does it, as well? And from THAT you manage to use pretzel logic to arrive at anti-semitism? That's absolutely ABSURD!

Like I said, Judaism is just another religion in the eyes of atheists and it does NOT get a special dispensation from atheists to make it above criticism just because an ethnicity is attached to the religion. There was no racism in that video. End of story.

by Guest Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:27 am

Shirina wrote:
Ich bin ein Jude.
Judaism does not get a free pass in the eyes of atheists.

Nine million minus six million equals three million, Ich bin ein Jude.

Ich bin ein Berliner - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/hH6nQhss4Yc

by Guest Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:35 am

by Guest Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:38 am

by snowyflake Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:42 am

We weren't discussing Stein. We were discussing your assertion that Richard Dawkins is a theist and intrinsically hypocritical.

It is (sadly) noted you didn't answer my very simple question.

by Guest Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:18 pm

by Guest Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:30 pm

Shirina wrote:
… Judaism does not get a free pass…

… this nonsensical notion that a criticism of the Jewish religion is racism against Jewish ethnicity.

… the "non-dispassionate narrator" shows how Ben Stein subscribes to a religion (Jew…)

Even the specific verse in the Bible PROVING the claim true was given in the video.

… Judaism is just another religion…

… it does NOT get a special dispensation…

There was no racism in that video. End of story.

Ich bin ein Jude.

by snowyflake Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:18 pm

The chromosomes could also be defective and only carry certain genes having lost the others.

It is clear you have no understanding of chromosomes and genes.

All living things have DNA, they do not all have the same DNA, that is why you can determine one human being from another and another species from another.

All living things have the same DNA. The four base pairs of Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine are present in all DNA of all living things. Their combination and chromosomal arrangement is what separates species and individuals.

I would like to know how your experience is better or more knowledgable than a trained scientist in genetics?

by snowyflake Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:25 pm

I sadly note your lack of patience.

You said your point by point explanation was for Shirina.

I do not require a point by point explanation. It is a simple question requiring a simple answer. If you cannot back track on your statement due to some kind of pride or whatever then fine. That video clip did not show Richard Dawkins to be intrinsically hypocritical or a theist.

I know it can be difficult to admit when you make a mistake and you don't even have to apologise for it. Just don't repeat it. It's not true and it irritates me when people tell untruths.

by snowyflake Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:29 pm

Ich bin ein Jude.

What does this even mean? You're a Jew, Rock?

When looking at the forest, it hardly works to tell people that the forest is full of pine trees because you had your eyes fixed on ONE pine tree. Try to take in all of the forest and all of the trees eh?

Take care of yourself, Rock.

by Shirina Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:14 pm

Ich bin ein Jude.

You always go this route when you don't have a counter-argument.

by Guest Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:37 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Ich bin ein Jude.

During the darkest days of the Cold War, after the government of the Soviet Union’s lap-dog East Germany had erected the Berlin Wall to keep freedom-seeking Germans inside that Soviet Union-worshipping hellhole, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. President of the United States, an American USV of Irish heritage and genealogy, spoke these words in Berlin:

Ich bin ein Berliner - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/hH6nQhss4Yc

At that time, upon hearing John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s spoken words, this humble young man, a Black American and Black Texan of West African, Cherokee, and Irish heritage and genealogy, barely old enough to have dried the moisture behind his ears, pledged to anyone who would listen that, along with my president, “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

At this time, sixty-eight years after British commoners and American farm boys began discovering Nazi extermination camps and liberating surviving human flotsam from SS beasts, anytime anti-Jew remarks are made and/or anti-Jew actions are taken, whether overt or covert, whether “over here” or “over there”, the identity of this humble older man of West African, Cherokee, and Irish heritage and genealogy is this: Ich bin ein Jude.

Europeans, I’ve noticed, often tend to minimize the horrific nature of the successful de-Jew-ification of Europe. Perhaps some of these minimizers are naively unaware; perhaps others of these minimizers don’t care.

Here are some numbers:

Comparisons 1933-Present Jewish populations by European nations

Austria: 1933 pop, 250,000; Present pop, 9,000; Difference, -241,000; Percent 1933/present, 3.60%

Lithuania: 1933 pop, 155,000; Present pop, 4,000; Difference, -151,000; Percent 1933/present, 2.58%

Romania: 1933 popm 980,000; Present pop, 9,700; Difference, -970,300; Percent 1933/present, 0.99%

Poland: 1933 pop, 3,000,000; Present pop, 3,200; Difference, -2,996,800; Percent 1933/present, 0.11%

Total: 1933 pop, 8,946,800: Present pop, 1,433,685; Difference, -7,513,115; Percent 1933/present, 16.02%

All free men, wherever we may live, are citizens of Y’srael; therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words, Ich bin ein Jude.

by polyglide Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:22 pm

I am a Cristian and proud of it.

It is not religions that hate each other but some members of every religion are fanatics which is the cause of most conflicts between religions.

So far as I am concerned any religion that conflicts with mine is a false religion as the Bible indicates, there would be many of them.

by Guest Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:24 pm

by tlttf Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:37 pm

So strange he said it twice?? Is there a song there somewhere?

by **Ivan** Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:58 pm

tlttf. Occasionally, when a member posts a message, it appears twice. The same problem occurs on Twitter from time to time. Let's hope that, if it should happen to you, there isn't someone waiting to pounce with sarcastic comments.

by Shirina Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:30 pm

I’ve reached my conclusion. Your conclusion is yours to reach.

The hole in your argument, Rock, is that Dawkins never mentioned gods of any kind. He did not appeal to the supernatural for an explanation. It is quite clear by his words, however similar they may be to Norse mythology, had absolutely nothing to do with supernatural gods. There is a danger in taking things too literally and a danger in assuming what a person means when using certain words. Not everyone uses the precise dictionary definition when using words to communicate. This failure to be precise results in everything from slang to colloquialisms. Thus if I said, "That movie was really cool," a dictionary literalist would have to assume that a) the temperature in the theater was slightly chilly or b) the movie itself (the film) was below average in temperature.

Now, I don't think Dawkins was using slang as such, but what I do know is that some evolutionists will make the concession that a highly advanced alien race MAY have seeded life on earth or, in a more extreme case, genetically engineered humans from pre-existing hominid DNA (hence why the fabled "missing link" has been so elusive). Note, as well, that Dawkins said that both humans and these aliens would have come into existence through some "explicable or ultimately explicable process."

That last quote is extremely important as it rules out the supernatural. Oh, I know you're going to point to the definition of "supernatural" that you posed, but notice that it is definition number 4, and dictionaries usually itemize definitions by order of common usage. Almost no one uses the word "supernatural" to describe something merely abnormal. I've never heard anyone say something like, "I usually get C's in history, but this semester I received supernatural A's in the subject," or "My mom has always been there for me when the rest of my family was not. She's a supernatural care-giver." No, the term "supernatural" is almost exclusively used when there is NO explicable or ultimately explicable process. The word is used to describe magic, ghosts, mind reading, precognition, tarot card reading, seances, astrology, and a host of other spiritual and ultimately inexplicable phenomenon. The word is never used in accordance with definition 4, and I don't believe for a heartbeat that Dawkins himself would agree that he was referring to anything supernatural.

What Dawkins was referring to was the Ancient Astronaut theory of Eric van Daniken fame, not Norse mythology. Of course, the Ancient Astronaut theory proposes that ALL of our gods, including Yehweh, were the result of extraterrestrial visitations in our ancient past. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," as Arthur C. Clark once said. Our ancient ancestors would have no ability to frame an extraterrestrial visitation in scientific terms - thus, the aliens were explained as gods. That doesn't mean they WERE gods nor does it mean their "miracles" were at all supernatural. It simply means our ancestors could not describe what they witnessed in ways we would today.

I really don't know how deep is Dawkins flirtation with the Ancient Astronaut theory, but the theory that aliens could have seeded life here on earth is gaining traction. I think it's quite clear that this is what he was referring to, not some secretly held belief in pagan Norse gods - regardless of how similar Norse mythology might be. Your definition of "god" clearly calls this entity a "deity" which, by default requires a supernatural component. And, barring that, the definition does not distinguish between ACTUAL gods and an advanced race misidentified as gods. Yes, that distinction is important when we're talking about TRUTH. Remember the Aztecs thought the Conquistadors were gods when they most certainly were not.

In order to be a theist, one must believe in gods AS gods (not an advanced alien race), and I see nothing in Dawkins' words that alludes to such a belief.

by Guest Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:41 pm

by snowyflake Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:20 pm

Replacing Dawkins words with the Norse Gods is no different to me saying, "In the beginning, Zeus created the heavens and earth...." Anyone can replace anyone's words willy nilly to make it fit their own agenda.

Your explanation is a disappointment, Rock.

Dawkins is not a theist or intrinsically hypocritical. He is a scientist and an atheist, by his own words. He sees theism as detrimental to the human race and when I see the mental acrobatics that believers perform to justify their unjustifiable belief systems, I tend to agree with him.

by Guest Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:59 pm

by Shirina Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:36 am

The conclusion of the matter

Your entire post was an exercise in the infinitum ad nauseum fallacy. Repeating the same argument as a rebuttal to a refutation won't score you any points in a formal debate and is actually quite irritating in any non-formal discussion. This is why I won't press the issue any further even though I could.

by Guest Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:17 am

by egginbonce Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:05 pm

perhaps th question might be 'why do atheists hate religion'?.the answer could be the same,tho...............and in that way,atheism is supporting the cause that it purports to criticise.................and is thus a type of religion, if you view it broadly???
(as in'I'm an atheist',and this is what I think.....);its all a case of nailing ones colours to the mast,in order to find a sense of identity and self-worth- the actual cause might not, in fact, be important;merely stated and believed to be so ?)

by polyglide Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:14 pm

When contemplating the merits of any answer to a question the first consideration is. does the recipient of the question actually understand the
actual question.

In many cases all that is received in return is a further question that answers nothing.

If I was asked how to skin a rabbit I could do so step by step that would leave nothing to chance.

When I ask for the manner in which a butterfly evolved no one can give an answer, just a lot of speculation.

If they were sure of the process then as I could explain the skinning of the rabbit they should be able in a like manner explain the butterflies origin step by step.

by Tosh Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:14 pm

If they were sure of the process then as I could explain the skinning of the rabbit they should be able in a like manner explain the butterflies origin step by step.

Only a complete cretin would equate two billion years of genetic mutation and natural selection to skinning a rabbit.

Satan give me strength.

by Shirina Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:32 pm

perhaps th question might be 'why do atheists hate religion'?.the answer could be the same,tho...............and in that way,atheism is supporting the cause that it purports to criticise.................and is thus a type of religion, if you view it broadly???

Most atheists aren't out to destroy religion. We just want it kept on a tight leash. Those of us in the United States who profess to be atheistic are in a constant battle with religion to the point where it is often perceived as "the enemy." All you have to do is read some of my posts and you'll see why secularism vs. religion is a real ongoing fight and not just in the minds of atheists. Many, MANY times, religious nutjobs in America have proclaimed there to be a "war on religion" perpetrated by atheists. Atheists, on the other hand, claim there will be no such war as long as religion stops violating our basic freedoms, stops trying to make its religious tenets actual civil law. Keep in mind that there are still seven US states that ban atheists from holding public office, a clear violation of both the 1st Amendment AND the Supremecy Clause found within the US Constitution, yet they are still there.

Also, for many American atheists, American Christianity is embarrassing. When 60% of the country believes in a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve as historical fact while an overwhelming majority in other nations accept evolution, well, yeah, I tend to feel a lot of embarrassment for my country. Without a small cadre of scientists - most of whom are atheists - America would be wrapped in a scientific Dark Age of religious paranoia, superstition, xenophobia, fear, and bigotry. This is why atheists often find themselves fighting an uphill battle against those who want Creationism taught in our science classes, who still refuse to grant gays the right to marry, those who try to ban books from public libraries all across the nation, those who work in pharmacies and refuse to fill a perscription for birth control because of their religious beliefs, those who refuse to elect atheist politicians so that the atheist view has no voice in the political arena, on and on ... and on infinitum ad nauseum. In the United States of Jesus, religion is more than just a belief, it is the impetus for actions that are illegal, unethical, unconstitutional, and in some cases. down right despicable (i.e. parents letting kids die because their religious beliefs do not approve of modern medicine).

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:40 pm

An aphorism current in World War II was, "There are no atheists in the foxholes."

by Tosh Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:20 pm

An aphorism current in World War II was, "There are no atheists in the foxholes."

Wiki is back in town...you missed out this bit.

Several atheist organizations object to the phrase. The Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers has adopted the catch-phrase "Atheists in Foxholes" to emphasize that the original statement is just an aphorism and not a fact. The over 200 members of this organization publicly display their military service in order to show that there are atheists in foxholes, and on ships, and in planes.[18] The religious convictions of current U.S. military personnel are similar to those of the general American population, though studies suggest that members of the military are slightly less religious.[19] James Morrow has been quoted as saying "'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."[20] Due to its opposition to the phrase, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has erected a monument to "Atheists in Foxholes".[21]

by Sponsored content