Was Hitler Christian,Athiest,Savior-Madman) FACTS welcomed along with your opinions

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

What will solve the Humanites problems, then? Religion certainly won't, we have seen that time and time again throughout history. Then what will? Do you have all the answers?

No, nothing is going to solve all of humanities problems. Nothing. Not religion, not science, nor some other unforseen ethical/rational system. Get used to the problems. The best you could possibly hope for are new problems that are slightly less virulent than the old problems.

Actually, when I look at this definition I find myself thinking that Humanism could indeed help sove some ugly social problems extant in our world. People's duty is to promote human welfare, is it not? I think so. I think I might be a Humanist; I'll have to look furthur into the definitions of Humanism & think more about it.

ASSUMING, for the moment, that as creatures with limited foresight and calculating ability, it actually IS possibly to have a significant impact on social problems without creating unintended side effects that turn out to be worse (such as feeding al the world's starving people without figuring some practical and effective means of birth control):

Why would you think that it was a person's duty to promote human welfare?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

No, nothing is going to solve all of humanities problems. Nothing. Not religion, not science, nor some other unforseen ethical/rational system. Get used to the problems. The best you could possibly hope for are new problems that are slightly less virulent than the old problems.

Listen to the elder god. He's right, you know. Problems will be here as long as we are.

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

No, nothing is going to solve all of humanities problems. Nothing. Not religion, not science, nor some other unforseen ethical/rational system. Get used to the problems. The best you could possibly hope for are new problems that are slightly less virulent than the old problems.

I agree completely.
'The problem with people is they're too human.'-Hobbes
Yes, it came from a comic strip, but I think it's true.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

... However, many evil deeds have been done in the name of I KILL IN THE NAME OF GOD! type reasoning. I dont really see how you could have a parallel situation for non-religious folk.

I'm sure it's only a matter of time. If you say no, that couldn't possibly happen, because athiests have this special understanding of the sanctity and fragility of life, you are deluding yourself. Badly.

If it hasn't happened YET (which is debatable, you should go back and look more closely at some of the greek city states, and the french revolution) it's just a matter of time before some promising young athiest gets on the soap box and says:

"There is no god! Religion is evil, a system perpetrated by clever hucksters and con men to benefit themselves. The followers of those outmoded, ridiculous doctrines are the bane of mankind's existence. Since they will never willingly give up their optiate, they must be destroyed, before they doom the rest of us... Let the UN-holy war commence."

If you think this will never happen, you don't understand human politics.

[rohirrim TR]

wow what an amazing thread where was i when it started *ponders* oh well I got to remember this one and try to read it in its entirety some time.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

ASSUMING, for the moment, that as creatures with limited foresight and calculating ability, it actually IS possibly to have a significant impact on social problems without creating unintended side effects that turn out to be worse (such as feeding al the world's starving people without figuring some practical and effective means of birth control):

Why would you think that it was a person's duty to promote human welfare?

Because, in the long run, helping other people tends to lead to personal benefits (i.e. less starving people = less disease = smaller chance of global epidemics). You don't have to look to religion for that kind of logic, you just have to think globally.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The key point is that incredible violence has been justified by atheism, just as it has been justified by religion. If Stalin had believed God would judge him for his crimes, he probably would have thought twice before murdering over 20 million people.

It didn't stop Urban II. Or was that okay because he wasn't killing humans, he was killing heathens? Is that okay in your bible?

[brownjenkins]

By the way, Stalin used atheism and nationalism much like the church uses scripture. To control people. The writings themselves were irrelavant.

The point is to inspire with a belief system and make the populace do what you wish of them. This is why absolute belief systems should be avoided and people should be encouraged to think more about the real world and what is good for society.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Because, in the long run, helping other people tends to lead to personal benefits (i.e. less starving people = less disease = smaller chance of global epidemics). You don't have to look to religion for that kind of logic, you just have to think globally.

Thinking globally, would lead one to the conclusion that it would be more beneficial to convert the excess biomass into energy...

Or euthanize and sterilize a portion of the population.

You'll have to do better than that if you want to populariaze enlightned self interest as a basis for an ethical system.

There are no free lunches. Every change demands sacrifice, and has unintented consequences.

In other words, because of the conflict between the human survival instincts of altruism and competition, there will always be those who choose short term benefits, because short term benefits translate into LONG term benefits when you look at genetic selection.

If you're talking about personal benefits as the basis for ethics, you lost an awful lot of people right there, because They'll have more children than you because they invented a way to turn senior citizens into diesel fuel... and it's all about personal benefits right?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

This difference is we aren't quite so obsessed about "proving" anything. We're more than willing to accept the fluid nature of reality.

Atheists aren't obsessed with "proving" anything because they can't prove anything! They have nothing to work with except their feelings and thoughts that there isn't a god.

Christians, OTOH (to take my own case because I'm most familiar with it) have a LOT to work with and discuss. They can start with analysis of ancient literature and compare the NT to other ancient manuscripts (Some sample questions - 1. What is the earliest copy in existence? (how much time between when it was originally written and the earliest copy?) 2. How many manuscripts do you have? 3. How do they vary among each other? ) and then compare the results with other religions' manuscripts. They can move on to historical accuracy (The gospel of Luke, for example, names 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands with complete accuracy) and compare it to other religions (no historical evidence for any of Mormonism's geographical names). It can be logically analyzed for internal consistency, and in terms of "what conclusions can be logically drawn from these statements" and then compared to observeable reality. There's just a lot to work with! Now none of this is "proof" - but there's certainly a lot to talk about and analyze.

Atheists can basically say, "I don't think there's a god. I really don't think there's a god." Or they can add further statements about their opinions, like, "If there was a god, then such-and-such wouldn't happen". Of course that's an opinion; it's not proof. No wonder they're not into proof! Seriously, think about it! They can be into negative proof against other religions, but there's really no positive proof for their own beliefs.

Also, good, sincere Christians are "into proof" because they, personally, have seen huge benefits in their life and want to share with others in hopes they'll see the reasonableness of the faith and choose to become a Christian, because they care about others and want them to experience the good things that they have experienced. Sure, some people are into power, but I think the majority of true Christians are not. I think the only motive that an atheist would have to try to convert someone to atheism is the belief that it's good to not be deluded (which atheists think religious people are).

As far as the fluid nature of reality - sure, customs and opinions change, but reality is what is really true (whether we perceive it or not), and two conflicting statements cannot both be true.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Thinking globally, would lead one to the conclusion that it would be more beneficial to convert the excess biomass into energy...

Or euthanize and sterilize a portion of the population.

Exactly. Brownie tends to think with a basis of Christian ethics that he won't admit to

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

I'm sure it's only a matter of time. If you say no, that couldn't possibly happen, because athiests have this special understanding of the sanctity and fragility of life, you are deluding yourself. Badly.

If it hasn't happened YET (which is debatable, you should go back and look more closely at some of the greek city states, and the french revolution) it's just a matter of time before some promising young athiest gets on the soap box and says:

"There is no god! Religion is evil, a system perpetrated by clever hucksters and con men to benefit themselves. The followers of those outmoded, ridiculous doctrines are the bane of mankind's existence. Since they will never willingly give up their optiate, they must be destroyed, before they doom the rest of us... Let the UN-holy war commence."

If you think this will never happen, you don't understand human politics.

Still how can you kill in the name of NO god? What scripture do you get your directives from?

This is different then saying an atheist can do cruel and evil things. Many christians have convinced themselves that god wants us to destroy all Heathens/Pagans/Jews/Homosexuals/Blacks/Dodo Birds/French Canadians etc. etc. because of how they interpreted their own scripture or because of what they have heard preached. An atheist (which by the way is simply another form of religion as far as Im concerned) as far as I know has no such equivalent rigid inspiration. And the concept of "agnostic influenced atrocities" is too paradoxical to comprehend really.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

...it's just a matter of time before some promising young athiest gets on the soap box and says:

"There is no god! Religion is evil, a system perpetrated by clever hucksters and con men to benefit themselves. The followers of those outmoded, ridiculous doctrines are the bane of mankind's existence. Since they will never willingly give up their optiate, they must be destroyed, before they doom the rest of us... Let the UN-holy war commence."

Oh, I've already heard the first 3 sentences of your little speech right here on Entmoot many times! It's not too far of a jump to the 4th sentence. In fact, I've even already heard here on the Moot that "religious" people shouldn't vote on matters (like abortion) where they might vote according to their religion ... sheesh! And those statements come from people that like to call themselves "tolerant" - go figure!

Originally Posted by IRex

Still how can you kill in the name of NO god? What scripture do you get your directives from?

This is different then saying an atheist can do cruel and evil things. Many christians have convinced themselves that god wants us to destroy all Heathens/Pagans/Jews/Homosexuals/Blacks/Dodo Birds/French Canadians etc. etc. because of how they interpreted their own scripture or because of what they have heard preached. An atheist (which by the way is simply another form of religion as far as Im concerned) as far as I know has no such equivalent rigid inspiration.

People kill because of their BELIEFS - whether they're written down or not.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Many christians have convinced themselves that god wants us to destroy all Heathens/Pagans/Jews/Homosexuals/Blacks/Dodo Birds/French Canadians etc. etc. because of how they interpreted their own scripture or because of what they have heard preached. An atheist (which by the way is simply another form of religion as far as Im concerned) as far as I know has no such equivalent rigid inspiration.

By what stretch of the imagination, Rex, is one's interpretation of Scripture 'rigid'?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

In other words, because of the conflict between the human survival instincts of altruism and competition, there will always be those who choose short term benefits, because short term benefits translate into LONG term benefits when you look at genetic selection.

It isn't really that simple. Hitler and Stalin are examples of people (powerful and intelligent people) who took that approach and ultimately failed. Short-term destruction for your own benefit only works if you hold all the cards, which no one does, at least not forever. You might benefit for 10 years (like Hitler) or a lifetime (like Stalin), but in the end, you fail. True longterm success comes to those societies that compromise their own desires with those of others.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Exactly. Brownie tends to think with a basis of Christian ethics that he won't admit to

I'd say that it's the just that the christians are trying to claim ownership of the basic human ethic that has existed since long before some creative thinkers decided to hatch up the "god" idea and give him all the credit.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Atheists can basically say, "I don't think there's a god. I really don't think there's a god." Or they can add further statements about their opinions, like, "If there was a god, then such-and-such wouldn't happen". Of course that's an opinion; it's not proof. No wonder they're not into proof! Seriously, think about it! They can be into negative proof against other religions, but there's really no positive proof for their own beliefs.

Not really. I don't need proof because a) I know it is a pointless endeavor and b) whether god exists or not is irrelavant. All the ethical questions in life can be dealt with admirably without bringing god into the picture. Arguably better because, as this thread proves, religion is a devisive issue. And by devisive, I mean that it takes the focus away from the real problems and solutions by concentrating on the esoteric.

There are plenty of good reasons to help the poor achieve a better existance, for example, without bringing religion into the picture. And, if you do bring religion into the picture, you get stupid debates about things like whether or not contraception should be given as a method of controlling the spread of AIDs in Africa because some religions believe it is "against god's will".

Sorry. We just don't need that kind of thinking anymore.

[Rían]

Then don't object if someone prefers "eat your neighbor" to "love your neighbor"!

And the existence of god is VERY relevant if that god knows information about reality that we don't, wouldn't you say?

[Nurvingiel]

Why does this thread appear as just "..." on the main page?


By the way, I'm sorry about the total Godwin's law violation that occurred in the other thread. That was largely my fault.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

People kill because of their BELIEFS - whether they're written down or not.

Well it certainly helps to have a kind of guide book that acts as a "higher source" by which people can twist justification of their most heinous actions. One has to admit that the atheist does not have this convenience.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

By what stretch of the imagination, Rex, is one's interpretation of Scripture 'rigid'?

‘Ridid’ modifies ‘inspiration’ youll note in my post. My reference is to the fact that there is no specific finite tome or guide book by which the atheist can simply take his inspiration FROM as has been done by countless millions of Christians over the course of history. Not to say their interpretation is the correct one. That’s always open to debate. But its there for them to do that at will. And easily justify, through DIRECT application of religion (Christianity in this case) a heinous act. The atheist, although certainly capable of similar heinous acts, does not have this powerful tool at his side.