Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[Rich]

Then you never disagreed with my argument.

I disagree with this statement

Besides the main thrust of the nazi propaganda machine against the Jews was socio-economic based not religious

 

[dan-cat]

Nevermind that it didn't, it was very easy for Americans to believe this because Iraq is part of the muslim world, and the attackers were part of the muslim world.

Apart from the fact that Iraq was a secular state at the time.

 

[Rich]

Your lack of a direct response suggests more implications.

That's a joke right?

 

[dan-cat]

What do you make of the correlation? And btw, I DO think this one is causal.

That a childs sphere of reference is smaller than an adults.

 

[dan-cat]

It is worth remembering in the context of Nazi Germany and the tacit support of the Catholic Church for that regime was the teaching of the church that the jews were guilty of the murder of Jesus Christ. This doctrine was not abandoned until the 1960's and it certainly helped people to see the jews as different and in some way sub-human.

Yes, good point.

But this was not a main theme in nazi propaganda. Religion, as in belief of the super-natural, was rarely used as an inciteful tool.

 

[Alisa]

Apart from the fact that Iraq was a secular state at the time.

The U.S. is proclaimed to be a secular state as well. Doesn't make it true.

 

[Alisa]

That a childs sphere of reference is smaller than an adults.

Most people disagree with just about everything their parents expose them to. Do you take your parents choice of clothes, music, house, job, etc. as your own?
Then why do most people take their parents choice of religion as their own?
I obviously have my own answer to this question, but what is your explanation?

 

[dan-cat]

The U.S. is proclaimed to be a secular state as well. Doesn't make it true.

If you are saying that Saddam's regime was run with spiritual guidance then I would have to disagree with you.

 

[Alisa]

If you are saying that Saddam's regime was run with spiritual guidance then I would have to disagree with you.

That is not what I am saying at all. I am simply saying that the U.S. is part of the christian world and Iraq is part of the muslim world.

 

[dan-cat]

Most people disagree with just about everything their parents expose them to. Do you take your parents choice of clothes, music, house, job, etc. as your own?
Then why do most people take their parents choice of religion as their own?
I obviously have my own answer to this question, but what is your explanation?

First off I disagree whole-heartedly with your first statement.

I am way more similar to my parents than I would care to admit. I see similarities in my in-laws to their parents but they would hate me if I pointed it out.

For me a parents nurture is a fact of life and a good fact too. I don't think one should be able to pick how another child is nurtured. What is the alternative? Give babies electric shocks when they see a cross? I'm getting images of Brave New World here.

 

[dan-cat]

That is not what I am saying at all. I am simply saying that the U.S. is part of the christian world and Iraq is part of the muslim world.

But neither state is genuinely run by a spiritual leader are they?

 

[Alisa]

First off I disagree whole-heartedly with your first statement.

ok, I will say it a different way. I guess I should just be direct. Just be aware, I am not saying this to personally offend you or anyone else.
A person's religion is usually determined by the religion of their parents. This tells us that the "choice" of religion is actually an illusion. Most people have no more chosen their religion than they have chosen their parents. (Can we at least agree that we don't get to choose our parents?)
Given that most people have their religion chosen FOR them as a child, how can it be claimed that those same children, now grown up, have "thought for themselves" and "chosen to have faith"? I am not implying that religous people are unintelligent or unedcuated, which is what you and others seem to think I was implying, I just think many people are deluded as to how much "thinking for themselves" they have actually done. Again, not you or anyone else in particular.

 

[Alisa]

But neither state is genuinely run by a spiritual leader are they?

No, and I didn't say they were.

 

[Rabbie]

ok, I will say it a different way. I guess I should just be direct. Just be aware, I am not saying this to personally offend you or anyone else.
A person's religion is usually determined by the religion of their parents. This tells us that the "choice" of religion is actually an illusion. Most people have no more chosen their religion than they have chosen their parents. (Can we at least agree that we don't get to choose our parents?)
Given that most people have their religion chosen FOR them as a child, how can it be claimed that those same children, now grown up, have "thought for themselves" and "chosen to have faith"? I am not implying that religous people are unintelligent or unedcuated, which is what you and others seem to think I was implying, I just think many people are deluded as to how much "thinking for themselves" they have actually done. Again, not you or anyone else in particular.

I think we are to a certain extent products of our cultural background and for most british people that is a christian culture. I assume it is similar in the US. Dawkins has been quoted recently that he is a cultural christian and in "The God Delusion" even makes remarks about "Atheists for Jesus". I know that my view of the world is coloured by my presbyterian upbringing. And as the Jesuits say "give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man"

 

[CraigDolphin]

I don't really want to talk about your personal faith so much as faith in general.

That's fine. If you hadn't speculated about my likely having been indoctrinated by my parents I'd never have mentioned it Amusing to me since nether of my folks were believers at all!

This tells us that the "choice" of religion is actually an illusion

If that's really your contention, or hypothesis, then I personally am an example that falsifies your hypothesis. So is my sister. I personally know many others who did not have religious parents. So, if you respect scientific method you'll admit your contention, as stated, is flawed.

Now if you were to rephrase your contention along the lines of 'upbringing increases the chance that the child will become religious or atheistic depending on the parent's belief' then I'd go along with you.

But people do have free-will and can rise above their upbringing and education if they choose to do so. I think it's more common not to swim against the current, so to speak, but we all can if we choose to do so. I'm one case in point. I know there are many others who now believe in God but were not brought up by believers. Your premise that choice is just an illusion is demonstrably wrong. Choice can be influenced by environment, but it is not dictated by same.

People are not automatons, we do have free will. We can, and will continue to exercise our right to choose our own beliefs. But even so, even if choice were an illusion as you say, given that you could not advance a single argument that objectively proves my faith to be misplaced, what is wrong with that?

Where I am extremely uncomfortable with your line of thought is where it seems to lead when viewed in the context of your discussion of how religion itself is 'bad' for society. It seem to me that you're warming up to say 'children should not be allowed to learn religion until after they've safely been indoctrinated with the atheist worldview'....?

Please tell me I'm wrong about that.

If I'm not wrong, then you're waaaay out of line, in my opinion. No different than the well-meaning crusader knights-templar, out to save the moslems from themselves and betraying their own faith in the process. Or the Nazis and their social engineering to perfect the Aryan race.

What gives you the right to force your worldview on my children? (If I had any) There's not one shred of evidence that contradicts the existence of God. Yet you feel your opinion and choice is so superior to mine that you wish to override my opinion despite the fact that you can't couldn't advance a single argument that gave me pause, was incompatible with my belief, or even demonstrated the ability to think at a level above an undergrad biology student with no idea as to where the boundaries of philosophy and science meet. You are trying (failing IMO) to justify your pogrom with a flawed 'for the good of society' argument entirely reminiscent of the Nazi justification for THEIR pogrom against jews and gays and political dissidents.

Frankly, the idea that anyone could start thinking the way you appear to be heading is a perfect example of how an entirely atheistic society would likely degenerate into a type of 'morality' that would horrify and offend most people alive today.

If that is truly your vision of how society should operate into the future, Alisa, then I'm appalled. You're well down that slippery slope of intolerance and self-righteous hubris that is the basis for so many of history's worst atrocities. I truly hope that I'm wrong that you're heading down that road, but it seems to be the logical extension given your fatally flawed premises and the accompanying flawed arguments about religion's effect on society.

Let me ask you, would it be right for me to take your child and instruct him in my faith against your better judgement? Just because I am convinced you're wrong and I can enforce my will?

And if I'm wrong that that's where you're heading, then I sincerely, and thankfully, apologize for my error. People who could demonstrate that level of intolerance and narrowmindedness send shivers down my spine, so my reaction is fairly visceral to that. History has shown too many bloodbaths begun with the best of intentions, but accompanied by the foolish idea that anyone should dictate what everyone else can believe.

----------------------------------------------------------

In any case, I think we've reached an impasse. I cannot agree with you that religion is a negative thing (unless twisted to serve worldly goals, like anything else), that choice is an illusion, and that no-one should be allowed to teach their values to their children (unless they are atheists) as you seem to advocate.

 

[Mike375]

Quote:
Alisa....I said the vast majority of very successful sales people are "believers". Not 51%, not 61%..way above and as you know there is virtually no other occupation that can so directly equate results as in the some of the sales areas. This is not a default position....hard cold numbers.

So salespeople are religous. So what? Can you prove that atheists are less successful as sales people? If so, can you prove that they are less successful BECAUSE of their atheism? That is a rhetorical question, the answer is no. And even if you could, which you can't, I am not sure that being a better salesperson is such a noble goal that it would justify belief in the supernatural by itself. Because you keep bringing it up, I guess you can't think of any other benefits of belief in the supernatural.

Alisa, firstly you should bear in mind that in spite of your sarcastic comment about sales being such a noble goal there is nothing much happens until a sale is made. You can qualify as an actuary and that will get you a job in an institution or gov't dept. where your influence is about zero. To get a lot further you will need to "make a sale" and therein lies the answer as to why the atheist does not do as well. Edison did not get to be what he was by just inventing. Wernher von Braun was perhaps one of the best salesman of the 20th century.

A belief in a supernatural means grabbing hold of a concept that is not material, you can't touch it etc. Virtually all large achievements have required a person to push forward to something that can't be touched, is statistically unlikely to happen etc. The atheist (as you have demonstrated time and again) needs proof.

 

[dan-cat]

I am not implying that religous people are unintelligent or unedcuated, which is what you and others seem to think I was implying, I just think many people are deluded as to how much "thinking for themselves" they have actually done. Again, not you or anyone else in particular.

Have you ever been to a Southern Baptist service?

I can assure you the vigor in which the congregation is asked to question themselves is quite something. If the preacher has not caused you to think about yourself, to introspect, then he won't have felt he's done his job.

The atheist viewpoint, from what I can gather seeks to eliminate such humility. A great book that tackles this subject is Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. I am not what you call a typical christian but this book certainly pulled me away from the atheist point of view. It's an awesome read for believers and non-believers alike.

By the way you're not offending me. Feel free to speak directly.

 

[dan-cat]

No, and I didn't say they were.

So how do you reach the conclusion that the Iraq war was motivated by spiritualism?

 

[Rich]

But neither state is genuinely run by a spiritual leader are they?

Which country is?

 

[Pauldohert]

It is worth remembering in the context of Nazi Germany and the tacit support of the Catholic Church for that regime was the teaching of the church that the jews were guilty of the murder of Jesus Christ. This doctrine was not abandoned until the 1960's and it certainly helped people to see the jews as different and in some way sub-human.

For the person who keeps asking that this thread be kept civil, that post is a disgrace.

What you post there is no more than religious bigotry (with totally unfounded basis). NO doubt the irony of which will be lost on you.

You imply the teaching in the catholic church was cos Jews mudered Jesus, Catholic support was and should be for the Nazis and genocide. Absolutely laughable that you think that true.

Its absolute tripe and puts you squarely in the idiot, bigot corner. I think that was civil enough in the circumstances! If that wasn't what you intended to write perhpas you would like to clarify your views.