Hitler and Stalin [Archive]

blutoski

4th June 2006, 09:29 PM

I used to make a similar argument. It's a fallacy. I think it is a genetic fallacy but I'm not going to take the time to look it up.

It's a hasty generalization. Going from one example to the class as a whole. Assuming it's true that Hitler was an atheist, the following could also be true:

Germans are unethical
Austrian-born Germans are unethical
Men are unethical
Short men are unethical
White men are unethical
Brown eyed men are unethical
Conservatives are unethical
People with bottle-brush mustaches are unethical
War veterans are unethical
Decorated war veterans are unethical
Ex-art students are unethical
People who value family are unethical
People who think a good government can be judged by a rising standard of living are unethical
People raised religious are unethical
People who believe God has a plan for their people are unethical
People who are part of an organization that has historically been disrespectful of Jews are unethical
People who are part of an organization that has historically been disrespectful of Moslems are unethical
People who are part of an organization that has historically been disrespectful of non-Christians are unethical
People who think natural cures are better than technological medicine are unethical
People who think health is all about eating natural foods and exercising are unethical
People who hate communists are unethical

Why is just the one factor being highlighted?

burrahobbit

4th June 2006, 09:30 PM

Hitler was definitely not an atheist. I think there is a HUGE thread on one of the other forums (fora?) on this.

Incidentally Stalin was a seminary student and nearly entered the priesthood.

Well trained in Orthodox theology he was. Something to do with his future actions it may have had?

TragicMonkey

5th June 2006, 03:33 AM

Hitler and Stalin?

Cute couple, but I don't see it lasting.

Darat

5th June 2006, 03:48 AM

I have had some discussions with some fundies and they keep throwing at me that because Hitler and Stalin were atheists it proves we are evil. Does anyone else see this same garbage thrown at them?

Simple answer - yes. It's happened many times in this very section of the forum.

And for anyone who wants to add to the discussion regarding Hitler's actual beliefs and if he was an atheist or not I suggest you read this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=167

My personal conclusion is that the only thing Hitler believed in is whatever passed through his head at any given moment. It would seem he was quite capable of believing 6 contradictory and impossible things before breakfast.

Curnir

5th June 2006, 04:39 AM

It's hard to say whether Stalin was an atheist or just another of those jealous monotheistic gods.

"O great Stalin, O leader of the peoples,
Thou who brought man to birth.
Thou who fructifies the earth,
Thou who restorest to centuries,
Thou who makest bloom the spring,
Thou who makest vibrate the musical chords...
Thou, splendor of my spring, O thou,
Sun reflected by millions of hearts." * (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stalin)

Aye I view communism as a religion.

Idol worship --- check
Belief in paradise --- check
enbalming dead leaders (well one at least) --- check
Calim to have monopoly on the ultimate truth --- check
the leader can do no wrong (well unless he happens to die then the new leader(s) might admit that he made errors) ---check
religious songs (well sort of anyway) --- check
striving to convert the "heathens" --- check
"holy" books --- check
Nice red uniforms --- hmm no that's the spanish inquisition

David Swidler

5th June 2006, 04:43 AM

Thank you for the opening for today's requisite Monty Python reference.

Anacoluthon64

5th June 2006, 04:53 AM

I have had some discussions with some fundies and they keep throwing at me that because Hitler and Stalin were atheists it proves we are evil. Does anyone else see this same garbage thrown at them?
With alarming and predictable regularity.

To refute it is, however, not difficult through judicious application of propositional calculus:

Proposition P = "Hitler and Stalin were atheists"
Proposition Q = "we are evil"

Symbolically, the fundies' argument is P => Q

But formal logic requires ~Q => ~P if P => Q is true. A little reflection will show ~Q => ~P to be a non sequitur, i.e. a false inference. Consequently, P => Q must be false.

:D

'Luthon64

arthwollipot

5th June 2006, 05:08 AM

Oh, you and your formal logic. What place does logic have in religion?

The Don

5th June 2006, 06:16 AM

The bloodiest civil war in history was the Taiping (sp) rebellion in China in the 1850s and 1860s. Tens of millions of people were killed on both sides. The leader of one side was a self proclaimed Christian. Therefore all Christians are evil.

Of course it could be claimed that he wasn't a true Christian but that's another kettle of fish altogether

Anacoluthon64

5th June 2006, 06:30 AM

Oh, you and your formal logic. What place does logic have in religion?
Would you accept that an adequate sufficiency gives the illusion that it's not faith-based in toto so at least we have something to argue about? Call me perverse, but I have this compulsion always to cloud an issue with logic...

'Luthon64

Kiwiwriter

5th June 2006, 06:33 AM

Hitler grew up in a Catholic family, but rejected doctrinaire Catholicism. He did believe in "Providence" over "God," as he believed in his divine mission to lead Germany.

Stalin was a seminary student, who switched to radicalism. I'm not clear and it's not clear if he was religious, atheistic, or just manipulative, paranoid, and self-serving. I vote for manipulative, paranoid, and self-serving.

Both persecuted organized religion. Both states sought to replace Christianity, Judaism, and other religions. Himmler was the main power in replacing Christianity with a bizarre mixture of Norse Odinism and occult worship. The SS were to be a core of Teutonic knights with their own weird religion, replacing Christianity.

Stalin's Communism had the cult of personality that worshipped semi-diving humans: Lenin and Stalin, with Leon Trotsky turned into a devil or anti-Christ. Stalin's titles included "The Shining Sun of Humanity" and "The Greatest Leader in History," and "Father of Orphans."

I'll let sociologists and psychologists figure these out.

headscratcher4

5th June 2006, 06:51 AM

Besides the logical problems...fundies should be reminded that both were raised in culturally religious communities that would have stressed the values that fundies appreciate...both served as alter boys or otherwise participated in church youth programs...Stalin actually went to a seminary. It is just as logical to say, it seems to me, that the seeds of their terror was planted in the wholesom atmosphere of church ritual and catichisms...they may have been athiests (it is unclear exactly what Hitler believed) but their sense of power, how to use it, ritual, patentry, terror, etc. all arguably come directly out of Christian tradition.

Now, your fundie friends will argue that ... well Hitler was raised a Catholic and Stalin an Easatern Orthodox...two false Christian doctrines, as it were, but than they have to start parsing christian beliefs and drawing distinctions amongst believers as inherently doomed or evil, etc. In short, it isn't just athiests, it is in fact anyone who doesn't belive exactly as they believe who are problematic...and not only is that logically problematic, it is bigoted and small minded in the extreme...and than you can accuse them of conflating Nazism and Stalinism with Catholiscism and maybe get them to admit their anti-semitism as well. You will be well on your way to a moral/pyric victory, if nothing else.

geni

5th June 2006, 06:52 AM

The bloodiest civil war in history was the Taiping (sp) rebellion in China in the 1850s and 1860s. Tens of millions of people were killed on both sides. The leader of one side was a self proclaimed Christian. Therefore all Christians are evil.

The An Shi Rebellion quite posebly had a higher death toll.

elliotfc

5th June 2006, 07:26 AM

I have had some discussions with some fundies and they keep throwing at me that because Hitler and Stalin were atheists it proves we are evil. Does anyone else see this same garbage thrown at them?

Not JP Losman I hope...I'm hoping for Craig Nall...

but anyhow, I've done it meself, I'm no fundie, and I usually do it in response to *these Christians were evil therefore Christianity is evil*. It's fun!

-Elliot

sackett

5th June 2006, 07:39 AM

Was Hitler short? I recall reading somewhere that he stood approx. 5’11” and was fairly big-boned. (He may not have done quite all of his brawling by proxy in the early days.) Perhaps he was one of those rare tallish men who give the impression of being short.* Or perhaps people wanted him to be short so that they could loathe him even more.

*Richard Nixon was like that. I’ve talked to people who knew him or saw him, and they say he was perhaps 5’6” tall. In fact, he also is supposed to have stood 5’11”. But Nixon was weird in so many ways, who can tell?

Meffy

5th June 2006, 07:46 AM

but anyhow, I've done it meself, I'm no fundie, and I usually do it in response to *these Christians were evil therefore Christianity is evil*. It's fun!
I can't think of intellectual dishonesty as "fun," whether it's on the believer's or the non-believer's part. Or both. Neither argument is valid. Two wrongs, etc., blah.

[edit] If I were the believer in this instance, I'd prefer to correct the one saying "these Christians were evil therefore Christianity is evil" and so gain the Moral High Ground. Even if it didn't help my argument, it'd be shiny and fun to wear on special days.

Kiwiwriter

5th June 2006, 07:57 AM

He was just under 5' 10", and weighed about 155 lbs. as an adult. While a hypochondriac, he was actually fairly healthy until wound down by war and the Bomb Plot of July 20, 1944. That bomb plot actually cut down on an increasingly trembly right arm.

After that, however, his health deteriorated steeply. He was likely to have been suffering from Parkinson's late in his life.

headscratcher4

5th June 2006, 08:01 AM

Also on the derail...I think Stalin was quite small...5'2 ish? Maybe a little taller but not much...oh, yes and the whithered arm and pocked-marked face also added to the appeal...

Kiwiwriter

5th June 2006, 08:05 AM

elliotfc

5th June 2006, 08:21 AM

I can't think of intellectual dishonesty as "fun," whether it's on the believer's or the non-believer's part. Or both. Neither argument is valid. Two wrongs, etc., blah.

Think outside the box.

If I were the believer in this instance, I'd prefer to correct the one saying "these Christians were evil therefore Christianity is evil" and so gain the Moral High Ground. Even if it didn't help my argument, it'd be shiny and fun to wear on special days.

Can't argue with fun. Fun's fun. And it's just fun. It isn't more than that. It might be. I wasn't saying it was.

-Elliot

Nova Land

5th June 2006, 08:24 AM

It is possible that Hitler may have been an atheist by some definitions of the word. Keep in mind that, even on a fairly reasonable site such as this, people are unable to agree on what atheist means.

Some people define atheist as someone who believes there is not a god. That's a fairly restrictive definition, and reduces the number of people who would be considered atheists. Other people define atheist as simply someone who does not believe in a god. That's a much more inclusive definition and increases the number of people who would be considered atheists. Then of course one must clarify what believe in means, and again it is possible to define that loosely or narrowly.

It would be good to find out just how the people you are arguing with define atheist. Who knows? By their definition they might be right that Hitler was an atheist -- but it may turn out that, by their definition, so are millions of other people they are less eager to call atheists.

One thing does seem fairly clear: if Hitler was an atheist, he was not open about it. He rose to power by claiming to be religious and by appealing to religious conservatives for support. If Hitler is an example of a dangerous atheist, then the danger is from people who purport to be religious and appeal to religious people to support them in furtherance of policies based on hatred and fear of scapegoat groups.

We can be no more certain of what is in George Bush's heart than what was in Hitler's. Both men said publicly that they believed in god and were motivated by trying to carry out god's wishes in their policies. If the fundies you are talking with are concerned about how Hitler used religious justifications to gain support for his campaign against the Jews, one obvious parallel is current politicians who are using religious justifications to gain support for campaigns against gays.

Outspoken atheists, on the other hand, would seem not to be something your friends need to worry about -- at least not as far as a Hitler parallel goes. And if those atheists are promoting a secular humanist agenda -- liberal policies based on respect and tolerance -- that would further reduce the need for the people you are talking with to be worried about atheists.

Scot C. Trypal

5th June 2006, 08:27 AM

Aye I view communism as a religion.

Idol worship --- check
Belief in paradise --- check
enbalming dead leaders (well one at least) --- check
Calim to have monopoly on the ultimate truth --- check
the leader can do no wrong (well unless he happens to die then the new leader(s) might admit that he made errors) ---check
religious songs (well sort of anyway) --- check
striving to convert the "heathens" --- check
"holy" books --- check
Nice red uniforms --- hmm no that's the spanish inquisition

I’ve often thought Communism had a number of odd similarities to Christianity. Like:

An Eden, in the hypothetical peaceful, egalitarian and communal hunter-gatherer cultures from which humanity began.

A Fall, in the invention of personal property, that lead to the sinful conditions we see today.

An Armageddon, where the workers will rise up through violent struggle.

And a Heaven, where Communism reigns and the Eden is regained.

Does anyone else think so, or am I just doing some erroneous pattern seeking?

elliotfc

5th June 2006, 08:29 AM

I’ve often thought Communism had a number of odd similarities to Christianity. Like:

An Eden, in the hypothetical peaceful, egalitarian and communal hunter-gatherer cultures from which humanity began.

A Fall, in the invention of personal property, that lead to the sinful conditions we see today.

An Armageddon, where the workers will rise up through violent struggle.

And a Heaven, where Communism reigns and the Eden is regained.

Does anyone else think so, or am I just doing some erroneous pattern seeking?

Scott you done good. You also left out they both start with the letter C.

-Elliot

Scot C. Trypal

5th June 2006, 08:34 AM

Scott you done good. You also left out they both start with the letter C.

LOL, there’s that too.

I take it you don’t think the communist worldview was influenced by Christianity?

elliotfc

5th June 2006, 08:40 AM

LOL, there’s that too.

I take it you don’t think the communist worldview was influenced by Christianity?

How could it not be? I also think atheism is influenced by Christianity. I wasn't trying to be dismissive Scott, I just think this can go down the John Wilkes Booth/Lee Harvey Oswald route real easy, particularly with smark alecks like me.

-Elliot

Trantor

5th June 2006, 09:05 AM

Hitler was also a vegetarian, so I guess vegetarians are also evil. I rememeber reading that he liked animals and found it hard to eat them; of course, he had no problem ordering the killing of humans. I find that type of thinking to be very similar to the religious thinking expressed over so many centuries.

Religious leaders have a long history of persecuting those that don't agree with them. In the name of God, they have killed more people than Hitler or Stalin ever have, and with much greater cruelty.

So if anyone asks about the lack of faith expressed by Hitler and Stalin, I would point out all those "faithful" leaders involved in the "Inquisition" and various other heretical hunts over the last 1700 years.

Scot C. Trypal

5th June 2006, 09:10 AM

How could it not be? I also think atheism is influenced by Christianity. I wasn't trying to be dismissive Scott, I just think this can go down the John Wilkes Booth/Lee Harvey Oswald route real easy, particularly with smark alecks like me.

-Elliot
Sure. I don’t mean to do that.

You’ve made me try to remember why I was struck by this in the first place. It was the Eden that got me wondering. Why would Communism propose a time in the past when everything was good in human civilization, when there doesn’t seem to be any substantial evidence for it? Seems humans have been warring and cruel throughout our past, even when we were hunting and gathering. That’s what made me think they were sort of building on already existing scaffolding—Eden, fall, war, heaven (or a sort of “God’s kingdom” on earth). But again, it’s just a similar pattern and I’d like to know if there’s more to it. Are there, say, records of early Communist references to Christianity?

Also consider, “And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.”, is in Acts. Taking in according to ability and giving out according to need sounds a bit plagiarized to me.

Meffy

5th June 2006, 09:15 AM

Think outside the box.
I'll think outside other boxes, thanks just the same. :-}

bobcarp

5th June 2006, 09:42 AM

Hitler and Stalin were atheists it proves we are evil.

They also both had mustaches, so everyone with a mustache must be evil.

rocketdodger

5th June 2006, 09:49 AM

For the hitler reference reply with Godwin's Law.

Wow, it just hit me why geni's tank looks the way it does now. There seems to be a trend going on....

headscratcher4

5th June 2006, 09:56 AM

One smoked the other didn't so: smokers must be evil as must non-smokers.

Gargoyle

5th June 2006, 10:20 AM

Simple answer - yes.
*snip*
I suggest you read this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=167

My personal conclusion is that the only thing Hitler believed in is whatever passed through his head at any given moment. It would seem he was quite capable of believing 6 contradictory and impossible things before breakfast.

Good thread...
I think Hitler, as well as Stalin, was only interested in subjects that could make them gain political power (and everything else that they might want), not what they actually stood for.
If there was something to gain from religion or whatever - well, fine - lets endorse it! Or the other way around...

elliotfc

5th June 2006, 07:51 PM

Religious leaders have a long history of persecuting those that don't agree with them. In the name of God, they have killed more people than Hitler or Stalin ever have, and with much greater cruelty.

Of course. There's probably been 1000 religious leaders for every 1 atheist leader.

The "who's worse" argument can be fun. Sure, I'll recognize the bad religious leaders, but I ain't about to try to convince 5 million plus Jews, in the next one, that Hitler wasn't all that bad, relatively speaking.

So if anyone asks about the lack of faith expressed by Hitler and Stalin, I would point out all those "faithful" leaders involved in the "Inquisition" and various other heretical hunts over the last 1700 years.

The gotcha game is fun. See?

-Elliot

Anacoluthon64

6th June 2006, 03:03 AM

I think Hitler, as well as Stalin, was only interested in subjects that could make them gain political power (and everything else that they might want), not what they actually stood for.How does that distinguish them from other political figures?

If there was something to gain from religion or whatever - well, fine - lets endorse it! Or the other way around...
Just like most everyone else, not so? Or is that a tad too cynical?

'Luthon64

elliotfc

6th June 2006, 04:02 AM

Good thread...
I think Hitler, as well as Stalin, was only interested in subjects that could make them gain political power (and everything else that they might want), not what they actually stood for.

Is that why Hitler went after Jews in other countries?

You could do gulags and concentration camps in...nicer ways...or not at all...or something else...I think it was politics plus a hell of a lot of baggage.

-Elliot

Gargoyle

6th June 2006, 04:11 AM

How does that distinguish them from other political figures?
They had a more "robust" way of expressing it than (some) politicians today - they used the brutal force of the totalitarian state for all the world to see (or what the world choosed to see :rolleyes: ). They killed off millions without blinking, and that could not be tolerated by the rest of the world! For long... unless they kill their own people... :nope:

To the "modern" politician, democracy is the word! A little "moneydropping" there, "extra" votes there and some propaganda (infotainment ;) ) to the media - voilá!! At least no one got killed... we hope...

Just like most everyone else, not so? Or is that a tad too cynical?

Aaahh, "cynical" has such a negative ring to it, I prefer "realistic" :D

Trantor

6th June 2006, 07:19 AM

Of course. There's probably been 1000 religious leaders for every 1 atheist leader.

The "who's worse" argument can be fun. Sure, I'll recognize the bad religious leaders, but I ain't about to try to convince 5 million plus Jews, in the next one, that Hitler wasn't all that bad, relatively speaking.

The gotcha game is fun. See?

-Elliot

While Hitler and Stalin were a pair of cruel and sick animals, at least they never pretended to be good and in the service of the Lord. They were more true. Take your choice, the animal who claims to be an animal or the animal that claims to be doing God's work.

If given the choice in which hands to die, I would take Hitler or Stalin. The death would be quicker. I would not be tortured to repent. I would not have to name other heretical people that would suffer my fate in the torture chambers.

Tanja

6th June 2006, 09:30 AM

I’ve often thought Communism had a number of odd similarities to Christianity.

This might be a slight derail, but as I grew up in a communist country I often thought of another similarity between communism and christianity, which was, I believe, deliberately done by the communist party.

I grew up in Croatia (then Yugoslavia), and Croatia is a very Catholic country. When you are Catholic child, you go through the "rites of passage" of first communion (around the age of 7-9, if I recall correctly) and then confirmation (around the age of 14).

Now, the communist involved the children in rites of passage around that same age - the first one was to "become a pioneer" at the age of 7, where we had to dress up in blue skirts of trousers, white blouses, red cravat and blue cap with a little communist star, and swear allegiance to Tito and the communist party. The second rite of passage was to become "omladinac" which translates as "Communist Youth", around the age of 14. I guess the Communist party wanted to install a sense of belonging and that the way to do it was to take over the existing rituals in the society...

Funny old communist days...

elliotfc

6th June 2006, 12:46 PM

While Hitler and Stalin were a pair of cruel and sick animals, at least they never pretended to be good and in the service of the Lord.

Are you saying that the Lord is a real thing? Did Hitler and Stalin believe in the Lord?

They were more true. Take your choice, the animal who claims to be an animal or the animal that claims to be doing God's work.

I'm not interested in that choice, I'll take Jesus.

If given the choice in which hands to die, I would take Hitler or Stalin. The death would be quicker. I would not be tortured to repent. I would not have to name other heretical people that would suffer my fate in the torture chambers.

Right. Because when God makes people die, he makes their death take a long time. God believes in torture. God also makes us name other heretical people. In all the time I've spent in this forum, your post is the first that has made me reconsider everything I believe in. Thank you for this. Hitler and Stalin are preferable to God. You have piercing and insightful points that no theology can possible counter. Trantor, you've done what others could not have done. I am a changed person because of your post. Viva Hitler, viva Stalin, down with the Christian God.

-Elliot

Meffy

6th June 2006, 01:06 PM

Good. Now on to disbelief in luxury hotels.

Hitler - Stalin
Statler - Hilton

Coincidence? Or ineffable mystery?

Trantor

6th June 2006, 01:39 PM

Are you saying that the Lord is a real thing? Did Hitler and Stalin believe in the Lord?

I'm not interested in that choice, I'll take Jesus.

Right. Because when God makes people die, he makes their death take a long time. God believes in torture. God also makes us name other heretical people. In all the time I've spent in this forum, your post is the first that has made me reconsider everything I believe in. Thank you for this. Hitler and Stalin are preferable to God. You have piercing and insightful points that no theology can possible counter. Trantor, you've done what others could not have done. I am a changed person because of your post. Viva Hitler, viva Stalin, down with the Christian God.

-Elliot

Elliot, I think you know that I don't believe that God has anything to do with torture. In all cases, it is the work of Man. Hitler, Stalin, the agents of the Inquisition, and agents of the Salem witch hunts, ect. are all very similar. If you read about the 200 years of the Christian Inquisition, you will be amazed at the institution of death that was created and maintained by the Church. Their methods were far more cruel than the Nazi death camps. Slow torture for extracting information on any potential enemy was accepted practice and it was done in the name of God. Millions of people were killed. In some cases, whole cities were almost depopulated because they were considered heretical, and that does not include the damage that was done to the newly discovered North American and South American native populations. I never said God had anything to do with it. Only Man is responsible.

elliotfc

6th June 2006, 04:47 PM

Elliot, I think you know that I don't believe that God has anything to do with torture. In all cases, it is the work of Man. Hitler, Stalin, the agents of the Inquisition, and agents of the Salem witch hunts, ect. are all very similar. If you read about the 200 years of the Christian Inquisition, you will be amazed at the institution of death that was created and maintained by the Church. Their methods were far more cruel than the Nazi death camps. Slow torture for extracting information on any potential enemy was accepted practice and it was done in the name of God. Millions of people were killed.

Millions eh?

He says millions.

Eh, not worth the time.

-Elliot

arthwollipot

7th June 2006, 06:08 AM

Do you have a problem with the word "millions" being applied to the victims of the Inquisition?

elliotfc

7th June 2006, 06:15 AM

Do you have a problem with the word "millions" being applied to the victims of the Inquisition?

Probably about 5000 people died during the course of the Inquisition. 5000 too many? Sure.

Probably about 150,000 witches were burned during the same period of time...350 years or so. You want to combine that with the Inquisition, that's fine.

I don't even know where to begin with the "millions" word. Do the math. How many a day? A week? Where? And when? I'm not the one who ought to have the problem, I've thought it through and done the research. Anybody else can do the same.

This topic doesn't bug me like it used to, as far as my personal problem about this.

-Elliot

Trantor

7th June 2006, 07:26 AM

Deus Ex Machina

7th June 2006, 07:34 AM

You are intitled to your opinion. If you think the Christian Church only killed 5,000 people, your information is nothing but Church propaganda. The Church (Protestant and Catholic) killed people of all kinds. Intellectuals, Jews, competing Christians, native conquered peoples, anyone who tried to challege their control. I remember reading one account where 20,000 people were killed in one town in Europe alone. Native people's deaths were not even taken into account. The death count may have been as high as 20 million or more.

Sorry but that's total crap. Try coming up with something other than "I read in a book once" - how about citing an historical study of some kind?

If your contention is that everyone who died in the chriatian era at christian hands is a victim of persecution of the church then having read an article somewhere in a book ain't gonna cut it.

Elliot is correct on his numbers about the Inquisition and the estimate of deaths attributable to witchcraft trials.

I'm sure it helps you Christians to sleep better, knowing that it was only a few deaths and they probably deserved it anyway. You probably have the Church experts and documents to prove it right?

well I'm just another atheist on the block so I don't care one way or another

Strangely, no records were ever kept on precise death numbers - surprise, surprise. In Cuba there are no original natives left, I wonder why? Let me tell you - they would not convert - they where ALL killed, then burned. Problem solved.

If no records were kept as you claim - how did you dream up your numbers then?

headscratcher4

7th June 2006, 07:45 AM

elliotfc

7th June 2006, 08:06 AM

You are intitled to your opinion. If you think the Christian Church only killed 5,000 people, your information is nothing but Church propaganda.

Re-read what I said. I was talking specifically about the Inquistion...which itself is a big vague, which inquistitions, what were and what weren't inquisitions, and all that.

The Church (Protestant and Catholic) killed people of all kinds. Intellectuals, Jews, competing Christians, native conquered peoples, anyone who tried to challege their control.

I disagree, but I think your dogma on this is unassailable. Anyone who tried to challenge their control? Really? Would you like some example of persons who tried to challenge the control of the Church and were not killed by the Church. I can give you at least 100s of examples, 1000s if I dug deep enough, or you could maybe be a bit less ridiculous in your dogmatic assertions. Think before you speak in absolutes.

I remember reading one account where 20,000 people were killed in one town in Europe alone. Native people's deaths were not even taken into account.

I'm interested in this account, if you can track it down.

The death count may have been as high as 20 million or more.

Could you break that down? Into eras? Locations? Who was directly responsible (priest, king, pope, bishop, order)?

I'm sure it helps you Christians to sleep better, knowing that it was only a few deaths and they probably deserved it anyway. You probably have the Church experts and documents to prove it right?

I didn't say anything about deserved, but that's more speculative dogma on your part.

I don't think it was a few deaths. I said 5000 too many. Again, read my posts carefully, that's helpful if we're going to have a discussion.

If you want to talk about *documentation*...well, your charge is particularly hopeless. Can you document 20,000,0000 deaths by the Church?

Strangely, no records were ever kept on precise death numbers - surprise, surprise. In Cuba there are no original natives left, I wonder why? Let me tell you - they would not convert - they where ALL killed, then burned. Problem solved.

All killed? The Siboneys, right? How could they have all been killed, have you ever read anything by de Las Casas?

-Elliot

Trantor

7th June 2006, 08:12 AM

Sorry but that's total crap. Try coming up with something other than "I read in a book once" - how about citing an historical study of some kind?

If your contention is that everyone who died in the chriatian era at christian hands is a victim of persecution of the church then having read an article somewhere in a book ain't gonna cut it.

Elliot is correct on his numbers about the Inquisition and the estimate of deaths attributable to witchcraft trials.

well I'm just another atheist on the block so I don't care one way or another

If no records were kept as you claim - how did you dream up your numbers then?

This is a pointless argument. Why don't you do a goggle search and see what's out there. There a lot of different numbers, many supplied by supporters of the Church. So, I guess you are saying that when Christians met native people, stole their gold and other valuables, then tried to convert them to Christianity under the threat of death - they really were not the subject of Christian persecutions. Strange thinking there.

elliotfc

7th June 2006, 08:17 AM

I've oft thought it was a question of technology. The various churches and religous based persecutions of history were limited because you could only directly kill so many manually...History is repleate with examples of relative efficincy when push came to shove, however, for example anti-semetic progroms in Germany in the middle ages or in Russia (fostered by "believers" one assumes) didn't do too badly given they only had fire, knives, swords, etc. For example, using starvation as a weapon (a'la Stalin) is pretty old hat in political/religous warfare -- Stalin was simply great at it.

But the primary motivation wasn't to kill as many people as possible. Stalin's motivation was to *kill millions*. And so he did. The religious based persecutions sought to enforce their own teachings and repress alternative teachings. If they could have done that without killing anyone, they would have. As for technology...surely they had better technology than burning people at the stake. Public executions were a part of it...but not for Stalin. That's because Stalin wanted to kill millions, you don't do that with public educations.

It's silly for me to do this in a sense...I'm not trying to defend horrible and atrocious behavior of the church and churchmen of the past. At the same time I don't want it equated with Hitler and Stalin. I guess you can make the association. Why? What's the point? Understand why what happened, happened. Bean counting and who's worse arguments, it's just a way for individuals who have particular beefs to lash out.

You don't like the Church. I get it. The Church has done some despicable things. I get it, and I agree. Everybody agrees. How much farther do you need to push this, and why?

My point is, if the inquisitions, witch-hunters, various anti-heritic crusaders, anti-semetic progrom perpetraiters, sectarian, reformationist regimes had had access to furnaces, train lines, electrified fences, machine guns, poinson gas, adding machines, etc. There is no telling how efficinet they could have been.

I disagree that they would have perpetuated such efficient killings as we have seen in the past century.

Imagine Phillip II of Spain, being able to bring those kinds of resources to either the Inquisition in Spain...or the one he allowed to devestate the Indian cultures of the new world

Imagine how the Tudor state (Mary, seeking protestant traitors or Elizabeth seeking Catholic traitors) could have made use of the technology the Nazi's had available to root out dissent?

I can imagine it I guess...I don't know enough about their personalities. Are you saying Phillip and Mary had hatred and fear within them commensurate to that of Hitler and Stalin? Maybe. If so, that has to do with them, and not religion. Where in Christianity does it say that it is good for rulers to efficiently kill millions?

I guess what I am saying is that historically, religiously based regimes, dictators, kings, Popes, etc. may have killed fewer people...but I don't think that it is for lack of trying.

I agree that you have no problem imagining this.

That you are so eager and driven to imagine this says more about you, then them, in my opinion. I don't know enough about the natures of these people to make the extensions that you make.

-Elliot

elliotfc

7th June 2006, 08:19 AM

This is a pointless argument. Why don't you do a goggle search and see what's out there. There a lot of different numbers, many supplied by supporters of the Church. So, I guess you are saying that when Christians met native people, stole their gold and other valuables, then tried to convert them to Christianity under the threat of death - they really were not the subject of Christian persecutions. Strange thinking there.

OK, now that's outside of the inquistions. I'm not going to defend this behavior. As long as you stay specific Trantor, we'll have a better time understanding each other, no?

-Elliot

Trantor

7th June 2006, 08:33 AM

OK, now that's outside of the inquistions. I'm not going to defend this behavior. As long as you stay specific Trantor, we'll have a better time understanding each other, no?

-Elliot

Maybe you did not notice, but I did mention native populations as being part inquisitions. The European inquisitions were happening at the same time as the crusades into the newly discovered lands were going on; the same people responsible for the European persecutions were involved in the native peoples persecution. I think Christians have an easier time seperating the persecutions into individual components - that way you can play with the numbers and sleep better.

elliotfc

7th June 2006, 09:01 AM

Trantor

7th June 2006, 09:13 AM

Yes, I agree. I'm sure you Foundies sleep well, and perhaps dream of the day when Jesus returns to take you to Foundie Heaven. It's a nice dream.

ceo_esq

7th June 2006, 09:40 AM

Maybe you did not notice, but I did mention native populations as being part inquisitions. The European inquisitions were happening at the same time as the crusades into the newly discovered lands were going on; the same people responsible for the European persecutions were involved in the native peoples persecution.

On what is your understanding of the nature and scope of the Inquisitions based? What specific facts are you alleging, for that matter, about the Inquisitions and the treatment of New World natives?

I think Christians have an easier time seperating the persecutions into individual components - that way you can play with the numbers and sleep better.

All serious historians separate, for example, the various Inquisitions into different historical phenomena. Not to play with numbers, but to be able to understand their differences and distinctive features.

headscratcher4

7th June 2006, 09:52 AM

It is arguable what Stalin's motives were...kill as many as possible? Seems unlikely. Subdue all possible oposition to his rule? Re-make society to suite his political/cultural vision? Clearly, he didn't care a heck of a lot about human life...completely indifferent it would seem...but I don't think it was about killing for killing sake any more than the religious wars/murders/deaths were about killing for killing sake. Stalin, I would argue, was killing for his own god...the Marxist/Lenist spiral of history just as Inquisitors tortured and killed for their god.

Indeed, it is arguable that even Hitler didn't kill for killing sake...I am sure he would argue that his policies were to erradicate sub-humans and save Western civilization, impose order, remake man, etc. Now, you can argue about how rational that was, you can show undoubtedly that there were psychopathic members of these regimes for whom killing was for killing sake...but, IMO, these regimes were ideologically based and killing was a means to an end, not an end in and of it self. THat end could be punishment, as were Stalin's starvation policies against peasants in the civil war, or as Nazi retaliatory policies against villages and populations for resistence...but in their crazy way, they thought they were serving a ideological end...a belief that IMO to them was as strong a motivation as any belief that motivates one to religious zealotry...

blutoski

7th June 2006, 10:14 AM

He was just under 5' 10", and weighed about 155 lbs. as an adult.

I stand corrected. Perhaps he just looked short standing in a crowd of SS aryan ubermenn.

Trantor

7th June 2006, 10:47 AM

On what is your understanding of the nature and scope of the Inquisitions based? What specific facts are you alleging, for that matter, about the Inquisitions and the treatment of New World natives?

All serious historians separate, for example, the various Inquisitions into different historical phenomena. Not to play with numbers, but to be able to understand their differences and distinctive features.

This will my last post on this particular thread. I am not a Christian historian, and make no claim as an expert. I have read several books on the history of the Christian Church and the various persecutions conducted by the church since it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Even in those early days of the Church, persecutions of competing Christian sects and other non-Christians groups was common. Some groups like the Gnostics and Nazarenes were completely wiped out, including the destruction of their sacred texts. This type of religious domination over the European continent and later extented into the new world, continued for as long as the Church existed. Sometimes the persecutions were limited and sometimes they were heavy, but the Church always fought for control, and death is an instument they freely used in the name of God. The year 1808 is generally considered the end of the Inquisition. Because of it's nature, there is conflicting information as to exact numbers, but there is much information out there that proves that the Christian Church has always conducted persecutions since it came to power. Only lately has the Church's power been restrained.

My only goal in this post was to point out that Hitler and Stalin were bad examples of the Human Race, but many religious Christian leaders were no better. Just because you claim to be doing God's work, does not make it so. I haven't researched it, but I bet other religions have a bad track record as well. Being a non-believer does not make us evil.

blutoski

7th June 2006, 10:54 AM

Being a non-believer does not make us evil.

One of the other things is that, all things being equal, has any atheis ever gone out there and pulled a stunt like these Crusades or Jihads: that is... has any atheist killed people "in the name of atheism" or to "eliminate religion".

I'm unaware of any examples.

(wasn't there a parody news report somewhere, like the Onion, that was titled: "Atheists, agnotsics clash: fifty dead" ?)

elliotfc

8th June 2006, 06:07 AM

Yes, I agree. I'm sure you Foundies sleep well, and perhaps dream of the day when Jesus returns to take you to Foundie Heaven. It's a nice dream.

You're sure about a lot of things.

Hey everybody. I'm a Foundie. Trantor is sure of it.

At least you recognize it's a nice dream. Would you feel better if we Foundies had not nice dreams? Do our dreams matter to you?

Why should anyone lose sleep over things that happened centuries ago, Foundie or not-Foundie?

-Elliot

elliotfc

8th June 2006, 06:12 AM

It is arguable what Stalin's motives were...kill as many as possible? Seems unlikely. Subdue all possible oposition to his rule? Re-make society to suite his political/cultural vision? Clearly, he didn't care a heck of a lot about human life...completely indifferent it would seem...but I don't think it was about killing for killing sake any more than the religious wars/murders/deaths were about killing for killing sake. Stalin, I would argue, was killing for his own god...the Marxist/Lenist spiral of history just as Inquisitors tortured and killed for their god.

Agreed. I'd add that he had no respect for due process or "benefit of the doubt". At least some of the Inquisitors went through the trouble of trials and testimony...and we do know that some of those trials led to exonerations, so you can't poo-poo that, unless your name is Trantor or you are a Foundie.

If Stalin had a speck of suspicion...off you went, I reckon. But no, he didn't just kill random people, there was a purpose behind it.

but in their crazy way, they thought they were serving a ideological end...a belief that IMO to them was as strong a motivation as any belief that motivates one to religious zealotry...

I do think that anyone in a position of power with people who support them must have some principles behind them that would lead to, or explain, their mass murder. Yes, of course Hitler thought he was serving either humanity or a small part of humanity, he didn't think he was killing for no reason.

-Elliot

elliotfc

8th June 2006, 06:13 AM

My only goal in this post was to point out that Hitler and Stalin were bad examples of the Human Race, but many religious Christian leaders were no better. Just because you claim to be doing God's work, does not make it so. I haven't researched it, but I bet other religions have a bad track record as well. Being a non-believer does not make us evil.

What Christian leaders were no better than Hitler or Stalin? And how do we measure that? I guess you're not going to reply to this Trantor, but I'm glad to see that at least in this case you are unsure, or are pretending to be unsure.

-Elliot

Dcdrac

8th June 2006, 06:15 AM

elliotfc

8th June 2006, 06:17 AM

One of the other things is that, all things being equal, has any atheis ever gone out there and pulled a stunt like these Crusades or Jihads: that is... has any atheist killed people "in the name of atheism" or to "eliminate religion".

You'd have to replace atheism with communism or Nazism. To eliminate religion...well...I think so. If you agree to that displacement.

It would be...wow...pretty damn hard to kill in the name of atheism. Because atheism is essentially about *disbelief in something*. I agree that that's not a very good motivation to *do* anything, let alone kill.

-Elliot

elliotfc

8th June 2006, 06:20 AM

Just point ot all the death and derstruction THEIR god is meant to have caused as recorded by their myth the Bible

It won't work. The analogy you make compares their "god" to Hitler and Stalin, and Christians won't accept the comparison. I understand that you think they ought to, but they just won't. Then you can call them illogical and unreasonable and dumb, and they'll say that you are all of that.

But at least you're right, right? That's the important thing.

-Elliot

Trantor

8th June 2006, 07:07 AM

What Christian leaders were no better than Hitler or Stalin? And how do we measure that? I guess you're not going to reply to this Trantor, but I'm glad to see that at least in this case you are unsure, or are pretending to be unsure.

-Elliot

Elliot, I did not mean any disrespect toward you personally. That is not my way. If I came across that way, you have my appologies. I am sure about those things that I have research myself and found to be true and based on facts. When I was in the process of questioning my own beliefs, I read a lot of books on the Christian Church in order to know the thruth for myself.

I will not do the research for you. You must do that on your own, if that's what you want. It's been some years since I read material on Christian history, but I do remember most of the general historical details. Yesterday, you got me thinking about some of this because you stated that the Iquisition involved only 5,000 deaths.

The timeframe of the Inquisition is not generally agreed on. Some researchers believe it started soon after the Church came to power after Constantine, others say it started in the 1100's and ended in the early 1800's. The figure of 5,000 deaths is the number the Catholic Church acknowleges. I don't buy it. A simple google search will confirm it. I had forgotten the details on some of the worst episodes of the Church persecutions, but I did a quick search and found the episode that claim never happened because it involved the death of 20,000 people. Keep in mind that this is but one incident in a 1700 year campaigne.

Go to any search engine or Wikipedia and type in Pope Innocent(boy I love that name!) The Albigensian Crusade against the Cathers in the city of Beziers. I submit to you sir, that if you arm 1,000 or 10,0000 soldiers with swords and let them loose, they can achieve results similar to those achieved by later day madmen with more advanced killing technology.

Anyway enough on this topic. Take care.

Anacoluthon64

8th June 2006, 07:12 AM

It would be...wow...pretty damn hard to kill in the name of atheism. Because atheism is essentially about *disbelief in something*. I agree that that's not a very good motivation to *do* anything, let alone kill.Not quite. Strong atheism asserts a positive belief that there is no god. It is easy to see how a sufficiently narrow-minded and fanatical perspective could spill over into murdering any opposition, perceived or actual. However, evidence is scant that strong atheists have ever resorted to such activity - whether this is the result of strong atheism's paucity or differences in morality is an open question.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, takes a more neutral I-don't-really-know(-nor-do-I-especially-care) tack, and for this version it is difficult to see how violence could ensue because there isn't much to defend either way from the position other than the right to hold this view.

'Luthon64

elliotfc

8th June 2006, 07:21 AM

Not quite. Strong atheism asserts a positive belief that there is no god.

A positive belief in a negative?

Should I do the math for you?

It is easy to see how a sufficiently narrow-minded and fanatical perspective could spill over into murdering any opposition, perceived or actual.

Too easy if you ask me. Is it easy to do it, or get to that point? I don't think so. Opposition remains, it exists.

However, evidence is scant that strong atheists have ever resorted to such activity - whether this is the result of strong atheism's paucity or differences in morality is an open question.

Yeah, but how many atheists have been in positions of great power and authority? Let's name ALL OF THEM. Now, what kind of dudes were these? Did they murder opposition, perceived/actual? In the name of atheism? No, they called it something else, the something else being an ideology minus god.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, takes a more neutral I-don't-really-know(-nor-do-I-especially-care) tack, and for this version it is difficult to see how violence could ensue because there isn't much to defend either way from the position other than the right to hold this view.

I agree that atheist/agnosticism...BY THEMSELVES...does not really extend to mass murder. You need more things in play. I'd extend that to Christianity.

I don't know about Islam, but I'll be charitable *to the religion* for now.

-Elliot

Anacoluthon64

8th June 2006, 08:07 AM

A positive belief in a negative?

Should I do the math for you?Please do, as clearly I'm insufficiently acquainted with these lofty matters to do it myself. The contention "I believe there is no god" is very different from the one that says "I do not believe there is a god."

Too easy if you ask me. Is it easy to do it, or get to that point? I don't think so. Opposition remains, it exists.Apologies, but your elevated rhetoric is too complex for my trifling mind to follow.

Yeah, but how many atheists have been in positions of great power and authority? Let's name ALL OF THEM. Now, what kind of dudes were these? Did they murder opposition, perceived/actual? In the name of atheism? No, they called it something else, the something else being an ideology minus god.Once again, comprehension largely fails. I haven't said, nor have I meant to imply, that atheists have perpetrated atrocities in the name of atheism. What I was suggesting is that it is conceivable that strong atheism can justify violence towards its opponents, and that it was notable that it hadn't done so to any striking extent, if at all.

'Luthon64

elliotfc

8th June 2006, 08:40 AM

S'alright Trantor, I'm a curmuddgeon.

pgwenthold

8th June 2006, 08:47 AM

While Hitler and Stalin were a pair of cruel and sick animals, at least they never pretended to be good and in the service of the Lord.

What in the hell are you talking about?

Reichstag speech in 1936:
"Today, I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

elliotfc

8th June 2006, 08:49 AM

Please do, as clearly I'm insufficiently acquainted with these lofty matters to do it myself. The contention "I believe there is no god" is very different from the one that says "I do not believe there is a god."

there is a God = A

I believe = B

B=negative A, in contention #1

negative B=A, in contention #2

That's the math. If we forget the math, can you tell me how they are very different?

Once again, comprehension largely fails. I haven't said, nor have I meant to imply, that atheists have perpetrated atrocities in the name of atheism. What I was suggesting is that it is conceivable that strong atheism can justify violence towards its opponents, and that it was notable that it hadn't done so to any striking extent, if at all.

If someone believed there is no god, it *is* conceivable that they can state that as a justification. I just think it's a weak justification.

Situation.

Atheist: I'm going to kill you!
Believer: Why?
Atheist: Because I do not believe in god!
Believer: But why is that a reason to kill me?
Atheist: Because...

I don't know how to fill in the blank. If anything I'm on your side on this. I don't see how simple atheism can justify violence. Maybe this is a reason to embrace simple atheism? Just saying "I do not believe in god" is a personal thing. Can you extend it? Sure. One way of extending it is saying "I do not believe in god, therefore I don't feel I have any reason to accept any rule or morality that is just arbitrarily made up by another person". In this case, I can conceive an atheist acting out, for a justified reason. But not many atheists think that way.

-Elliot

elliotfc

8th June 2006, 08:53 AM

What in the hell are you talking about?

Reichstag speech in 1936:
"Today, I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

A skeptical response:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

Basically the conclusion is that Hitler believed in some kind of mysticism. When I say that Hitler is an atheist, I guess I mean he doesn't believe in the the Christian God. He certainly believed in the supernatural.

Anacoluthon64

8th June 2006, 10:15 AM

That's the math. If we forget the math, can you tell me how they are very different?The "math," as you put it, is faulty because it's not "math." Try A = "blue berries" and B = "Sally does eat".

"Sally does eat non-blue berries": While we don't know whether or not Sally eats berries that are blue in colour, we do know that she eats berries of a colour other than blue.
"Sally does not eat blue berries": While we don't know her habits regarding differently coloured berries, Sally definitely does not eat berries that are blue in colour.

These statements clearly do not assert the same thing. Similarly,

"I believe there is no god": I exclude any possibility that god exists.
"I do not believe there is a god": While god may or may not exist, I am convinced that he does not.

Atheist: I'm going to kill you!
Believer: Why?
Atheist: Because I do not believe in god!
Believer: But why is that a reason to kill me?
Atheist: Because...Hardly. In your hypothetical exchange:

Atheist: I'm going to kill you!
Believer: Why?
Atheist: Because you willfully deceive and materially endanger yourself and others by promoting a fallacious idea!

If the Atheist/Believer roles are reversed and the Believer gave only "because you deny god" as a response, it would be similarly flawed as a justification. He would have to say something like, "Because you willfully deceive and spiritually endanger yourself and others by denying a factual idea."

'Luthon64

elliotfc

8th June 2006, 05:35 PM

"I believe there is no god": I exclude any possibility that god exists.
"I do not believe there is a god": While god may or may not exist, I am convinced that he does not.

OK.

Atheist: I'm going to kill you!
Believer: Why?
Atheist: Because you willfully deceive and materially endanger yourself and others by promoting a fallacious idea!

If the Atheist/Believer roles are reversed and the Believer gave only "because you deny god" as a response, it would be similarly flawed as a justification. He would have to say something like, "Because you willfully deceive and spiritually endanger yourself and others by denying a factual idea."

But an atheist does not have to necessarily believe that believers willfully deceive themselves, or materially endager themselves and others. An atheist can believe that a believer unwillingly believes what he/she believes...or/and believe that a believer materially prospers from their belief.

-Elliot

Anacoluthon64

9th June 2006, 12:59 AM

But an atheist does not have to necessarily believe that believers willfully deceive themselves, or materially endager themselves and others.If s/he is a strong atheist and one removes willfully (the word introduces an inadvertent ambiguity), then the conclusion is unavoidable - i.e. a strong atheist must logically conclude that that believers deceive themselves, and, through such deception, materially endager themselves and others.

An atheist can believe that a believer unwillingly believes what he/she believes...or/and believe that a believer materially prospers from their belief."Unwillingly believe" is oxymoronic in the context of god's existence. How can you believe god exists but do so unwillingly in the absence of any coercion or indecision? You may declare such a belief, e.g. as a result of duress, but that declaration says nothing about your actual belief. As for a believer materially prospering from their belief, any atheist who doubts this need only look at how well evangelists, especially the TV variety, and curches (see "tithe (http://www.answers.com/topic/tithe)") on the whole do materially. For the ordinary Joe, however, it is hard to see material benefit that ensues from belief - the opposite is a rather more common.

'Luthon64

elliotfc

9th June 2006, 05:51 AM

If s/he is a strong atheist and one removes willfully (the word introduces an inadvertent ambiguity), then the conclusion is unavoidable - i.e. a strong atheist must logically conclude that that believers deceive themselves, and, through such deception, materially endager themselves and others.

No, they can be deceived by others, don't you think? If I wake up tomorrow and there is an ambulance in my driveway and they are carting my theoretical wife away, I'm thinking something is really wrong. Then if everyone says "Ha Ha, June fools", I see that I have been deceived, but that's not self deception.

I don't think that a strong atheist has to believe that religious people endanger themselves and others. I just don't. 6 billion people on the earth living longer and longer lives, where do you get the imminent danger and radical harm done by religion? Would you prefer 60 billion people living to the age of 150? Why does every atheist objectively have to come down on your side? An atheist can believe that anybody can believe *anything* and still live a decent life. Look around, is everybody you know in imminent danger because of religious people? I know some people try to scare us into thinking so, but is it true?

"Unwillingly believe" is oxymoronic in the context of god's existence. How can you believe god exists but do so unwillingly in the absence of any coercion or indecision?

If you're born into it...you can believe that a religious believer believes what he/she believes because that's the environment he/she was born into. I guess that's how I meant it...I used the wrong phrase I guess.

You may declare such a belief, e.g. as a result of duress, but that declaration says nothing about your actual belief. As for a believer materially prospering from their belief, any atheist who doubts this need only look at how well evangelists, especially the TV variety, and curches (see "tithe (http://www.answers.com/topic/tithe)") on the whole do materially. For the ordinary Joe, however, it is hard to see material benefit that ensues from belief - the opposite is a rather more common.

I wasn't just talking about money. I get a lot of free meals at church. An atheist has never offerred me a free meal. :(

How about the Protestant work ethic? Isn't that, by definition, material benefit linked to religious belief?

-Elliot

9th June 2006, 06:42 AM

If Stalin had a speck of suspicion...off you went, I reckon. But no, he didn't just kill random people, there was a purpose behind it.

On the contrary, there was a strong random component with Stalin's purges, at least after he had dealt with his real opposition and especially when it comes for his efforts to keep the Communist Party "pure".

When it came time to purge some branch of the Communist Party, the Moscow Party HQ would send a letter there stating essentially that: "There is a conspiracy of <group X> that has <Y> members. Get rid of them". [I don't know whether Stalin himself concerned about details of these low-level purges or if he left them to his flunkies such as Jagoda, Jezov, and Mehlis]. After receiving such letter, the leaders of the particular branch would quickly find enough members of the said group from their midsts and arrange their arrests. Actually, they usually erred on the safe side and found several hundreds of extra counter-revolutionaries on the top of the required amount.

It was largely a matter of chance who got included in these lists of traitors.
The higher ranks of party officials didn't care about their identities, only that the required number of counter-revolutionaries were exposed. Anyone who caught the attention in some negative way, even if it didn't have anything to do with the treasonous-group-de-jour, could be accused and most who were accused were condemned and sent to Gulag or shot.

Anacoluthon64

9th June 2006, 07:42 AM

No, they can be deceived by others, don't you think? If I wake up tomorrow and there is an ambulance in my driveway and they are carting my theoretical wife away, I'm thinking something is really wrong. Then if everyone says "Ha Ha, June fools", I see that I have been deceived, but that's not self deception.The possibility of being deceived by others is neither precluded by anything I have written nor does it detract from my argument. Introducing it serves no useful purpose.

I don't think that a strong atheist has to believe that religious people endanger themselves and others. I just don't. 6 billion people on the earth living longer and longer lives, where do you get the imminent danger and radical harm done by religion? Would you prefer 60 billion people living to the age of 150? Why does every atheist objectively have to come down on your side? An atheist can believe that anybody can believe *anything* and still live a decent life. Look around, is everybody you know in imminent danger because of religious people? I know some people try to scare us into thinking so, but is it true?Sigh. Please show me where I have attached the labels "imminent" and "radical" to "danger" and "harm," respectively. Thereafter, please review prior posts for the distinctions I have drawn between "strong" and "weak" atheism, and agnosticism. Also, deceive should not automatically be read with an unstated deliberate. A strong atheist must conclude as I have stated for the same reason that one denounces quack medicine or a belief in guardian angels: one can conceive of situations in which a false belief prompts inappropriate action that endangers or harms someone. Moreover, I am fairly certain, though unfortunately I can present no proof of it, that the majority of god-doubters are agnostics or weak atheists - I base this purely on personal experience - and these two further categories are not forced to the same conclusions since they allow that god might exist. Consequently, you spuriously impute to me the claim that all atheists must conclude alike. I would kindly ask that you refrain from such kneejerk responses since they offend, are likely to be answered in kind, as well as being counterproductive.

I wasn't just talking about money. I get a lot of free meals at church. An atheist has never offerred me a free meal. :(

How about the Protestant work ethic? Isn't that, by definition, material benefit linked to religious belief?Perhaps you need to engage with more atheists then. As far as generosity goes, I cannot say whether belief or unbelief influences it to any appreciable extent, so you may be right.

The Protestant work ethic (http://www.answers.com/topic/protestant-work-ethic) is contingent on a particular conception of god, and is motivated through a specific interpretation of scripture. More importantly, a belief in god isn't necessary for one to agree that this ethic is both admirable and likely to spawn success if diligently followed. Atheists will reject the "prosperity as a sign of god's grace" assumption as unnecessary, and the resulting ethic would hardly be any different in effect. In other words, ensuing material benefit does not require a belief in god (whereas acceding to pay a tithe does), although such belief could provide the impetus to pursue wealth. The wealth then derives purely (in an ideal world!) from the effort that is expended, not from the act of believing itself. If we read "belief in god" to include all of the ancillary baggage associated with particular instances of such belief, then you are of course correct, but thus far the debate has been about atheism versus belief absent these encumbrances.

'Luthon64

elliotfc

9th June 2006, 09:31 AM

The possibility of being deceived by others is neither precluded by anything I have written nor does it detract from my argument. Introducing it serves no useful purpose.

Well, I think it shows that you can believe something because you have been deceived. You are saying that a strong atheist *must* believe that all religious believers are willfullly deceiving themselves. Why? When it's possible that you may be deceived by others?

A strong atheist must conclude as I have stated for the same reason that one denounces quack medicine or a belief in guardian angels: one can conceive of situations in which a false belief prompts inappropriate action that endangers or harms someone.

Hell, a *true* belief can prompt inappropriate action that endangers or harms someone.

You're trying to say something extremely specific, and I guess I admire that. I'm trying to get you to think outside of this specific assertion. Is it possible that false belief can lead to endangerment and harm? Sure. So can true belief. So can non-belief or indifference. Anything can lead to endangerment and harm. So what? Are you saying a strong atheist can assign a cause to endangerment/harm to singular groups with extreme bias, and not assign it to other groups? If so...fine...you can have that. It just shows then that strong atheists are very narrow-minded. I personally don't want to think that, but it's not such a bad thought I guess. Strong atheists are narrow minded. I could learn to accept that...though I don't.

Moreover, I am fairly certain, though unfortunately I can present no proof of it, that the majority of god-doubters are agnostics or weak atheists - I base this purely on personal experience - and these two further categories are not forced to the same conclusions since they allow that god might exist.

An agnostic is a weak atheist...well, that's something else entirely, and I kinda agree with that...maybe some agnostics would as well. And many agnostics would *vociefously* disagree with that. Would they be strong agnostics, by defending their personal agnosticism, or is that irrelevant?

Consequently, you spuriously impute to me the claim that all atheists must conclude alike.

NO! All *strong* atheists, you claim, must think alike. Isn't that your claim? Meaning...they think alike in the few ways that you yourself point out? I'm skeptical of that. I don't think strong atheists are confined by your particular assertions.

Of *course* I know that you think that different atheists think differently. I thought we were talking about strong atheists, whatever that means. Well, you've told me what you think it means, and I reject that.

I would kindly ask that you refrain from such kneejerk responses since they offend, are likely to be answered in kind, as well as being counterproductive.

I think this whole exercise is counterproductive, so I desist. Define strong atheists however you want, I'm not one so I guess it doesn't matter, and I doubt atheists really care how you define them (the *strong* ones of course*) either. -Elliot

Anacoluthon64

9th June 2006, 10:35 AM

I thought we were talking about strong atheists, whatever that means. Well, you've told me what you think it means, and I reject that.Fine. There's no point then in continuing the present debate, as I find myself unable to phrase its basics any clearer than I already have; simply reiterating them would be similarly fruitless.

'Luthon64

SirPhilip

12th June 2006, 11:44 AM

Well, I think it shows that you can believe something because you have been deceived. You are saying that a strong atheist *must* believe that all religious believers are willfullly deceiving themselves. Why? When it's possible that you may be deceived by others?An atheist, or anyone who doesn't need any objective law, condition, or rule, understands what religious metaphor and art point to, while the person who worships prose and art doesn't. Both intellectual and spiritual people are, to varying degrees, above their base human nature, and are curious what meaning lies beyond that - they are fundamentally two sides of the same coin. Metaphor and art point to the sublime, they aren't the sublime. Conflict erupts because people, understandably, have a strong need for their inner voice to be validated - and try to turn the natural world into an openly magical place, and delude themselves. On the flip side, western society is doing the same thing, trying to turn the earth into a hedonistic paradise. In ten years, where I'm typing this from likely will be underwater (http://www.climatecrisis.net) because of it.

elliotfc

12th June 2006, 06:02 PM

An atheist, or anyone who doesn't need any objective law, condition, or rule, understands what religious metaphor and art point to, while the person who worships prose and art doesn't. Both intellectual and spiritual people are, to varying degrees, above their base human nature, and are curious what meaning lies beyond that - they are fundamentally two sides of the same coin. Metaphor and art point to the sublime, they aren't the sublime. Conflict erupts because people, understandably, have a strong need for their inner voice to be validated - and try to turn the natural world into an openly magical place, and delude themselves. On the flip side, western society is doing the same thing, trying to turn the earth into a hedonistic paradise. In ten years, where I'm typing this from likely will be underwater (http://www.climatecrisis.net) because of it.

Does anybody know what genes we can alter so that we can grow gills so that in ten years we'll be able to breath underwater whilst we type and not have to wear the suits that have oxygen tanks? Those are probably really expensive and I also have aesthetic issues with them, they are opposed to my spiritual artistic sense. They are sub-sublime.

SirPhilip

12th June 2006, 08:00 PM

Does anybody know what genes we can alter so that we can grow gills so that in ten years we'll be able to breath underwater whilst we type and not have to wear the suits that have oxygen tanks? Those are probably really expensive and I also have aesthetic issues with them, they are opposed to my spiritual artistic sense. They are sub-sublime. To add to that, I wonder what Randi is going to do about the JREF, which sustained slight damage from Wilma. Hurricanes are increasing near expoentially, and it's only a matter of time before one 155+ mph storm hits the bullseye and flattens this entire area - possibly this year. Had Wilma (roughly 130 mph), from last year, been 15 mph higher, it probably would have taken my roof off, and I have 30 minutes of digital video of that ordeal. It's not a pleasant experience to go through. Had the power not been restored within a week, conditions would have approached an anarchy in some parts.

elliotfc

13th June 2006, 04:45 AM

To add to that, I wonder what Randi is going to do about the JREF, which sustained slight damage from Wilma. Hurricanes are increasing near expoentially, and it's only a matter of time before one 155+ mph storm hits the bullseye and flattens this entire area - possibly this year. Had Wilma (roughly 130 mph), from last year, been 15 mph higher, it probably would have taken my roof off, and I have 30 minutes of digital video of that ordeal. It's not a pleasant experience to go through. Had the power not been restored within a week, conditions would have approached an anarchy in some parts.

I think we are *way* off topic here, but your claim is wrong, hurricanes are not increasing near exponentially, check the graph 90% down on this page, we appear to be in a similar situation, hurricane-wise, as the late-40s through late-50s.

-Elliot

SirPhilip

13th June 2006, 12:05 PM

I think we are *way* off topic here, but your claim is wrong, hurricanes are not increasing near exponentially, check the graph 90% down on this page, we appear to be in a similar situation, hurricane-wise, as the late-40s through late-50s.-Elliot That's really not funny (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/%7Etk/glob_warm_hurr.html).

elliotfc

13th June 2006, 05:45 PM

That's really not funny (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/%7Etk/glob_warm_hurr.html).

Awww son of a something, I didn't post the link to the graph I was talking about, sorry. Here it is...

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastprofile.shtml?

Elind

13th June 2006, 05:50 PM

I have had some discussions with some fundies and they keep throwing at me that because Hitler and Stalin were atheists it proves we are evil. Does anyone else see this same garbage thrown at them?

Stalin said he was, did Hitler ever do so? Just because you like to kill certain people doesn't mean you can't do it in God's name.

Can we have some proof that Hitler was an atheist, please.

elliotfc

13th June 2006, 06:13 PM

Stalin said he was, did Hitler ever do so? Just because you like to kill certain people doesn't mean you can't do it in God's name.

Can we have some proof that Hitler was an atheist, please.

There seems to have been a moderated discussion about this in 2003...I'm posting it before I delve into it....
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?t=167

Hitler claimed to be many things at many times to many different people. Meaning we can pull out quotes to satisfy several different conclusions. I think it was in his interest to sell himself as a Christian (heck, he probably was a baptized Christian), so he did. He also entertained sundry esoteric mystical paganistic theories. Did he believe in the supernatural? I think so. Was he a theist as we typically consider theists (a singular, creative God who creates everything that ever was and is and will be)? I don't know. I'm pretty certain that Hitler believed in vague cosmic forces, and I believe he felt he was ordained to rise to his level of power. I think he believed it was his duty to do all that he did...a duty that came from outside himself. I think these beliefs go beyond simple theism/atheism.

I am of the opinion that...you can be an atheist...but believe in different levels of existence occupied by other, non-human entities. They are called gods, but they are kind of like to us what we are to ants.

-Elliot

Elind

13th June 2006, 06:22 PM

elliotfc

13th June 2006, 06:31 PM

Not my definition of atheist, but I have heard this claim many times, usually by Christians suggesting that there is a commonality between evil and atheism. Pretty unchristian if you ask me, but nevertheless unless someone can show something definite about it, which I suspect we would all know by memory by now if it existed, then Hitler was just another rote Christian who probably didn't think much about God; he had bigger things on his mind.

I don't know what you mean by rote Christian.

Was he a baptized Christian? I think so. Did he attend Christian churches for a time? Surely. Was he a dogmatically believing Christian during his years as leader of Germany? I'd bet the dog that he wasn't.

I think there are many many many more atheists in history and today than we will ever know. Hitler was a god to himself. That's a kind of atheism to me. A kind of atheism. I reckon many people in this forum will dogmatically define and classify who is and who isn't an atheist.

-Elliot

Elind

13th June 2006, 07:03 PM

I don't know what you mean by rote Christian.

Was he a baptized Christian? I think so. Did he attend Christian churches for a time? Surely. Was he a dogmatically believing Christian during his years as leader of Germany? I'd bet the dog that he wasn't.

I think there are many many many more atheists in history and today than we will ever know. Hitler was a god to himself. That's a kind of atheism to me. A kind of atheism. I reckon many people in this forum will dogmatically define and classify who is and who isn't an atheist.

-Elliot

I don't think that it is your place, as (I believe) a Christian (not rote) to make up your own definition of atheist and particularly "a kind of" atheist just to suit your own preferences.

You know what rote means. Going through the motions because that is what you've always done. Why do you think evangelicals have come up with this snazzy "born again" ad? Get people to think about it, in their way of course.

If you don't like rote, substitute lazy.

SirPhilip

13th June 2006, 10:41 PM

Awww son of a something, I didn't post the link to the graph I was talking about, sorry. Here it is...As much as I'd like (love) to agree, I have problems accepting this. For one thing, it's plainly obvious (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/%7Etk/glob_warm_hurr.html) hurricane activity skyrocketed (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23889-1782829,00.html) last year. I don't expect it to technically double this year in light of ever increasing global warming, but before hurricane season is over, we're going to be playing dice all over again with mother nature and a potential situation rivaling Katrina. :boxedin:

Nova Land

14th June 2006, 03:32 AM

Stalin said he was, did Hitler ever do so? Just because you like to kill certain people doesn't mean you can't do it in God's name.

Can we have some proof that Hitler was an atheist, please.
A lot depends on how one defines the word atheist. There's a good argument over definitions between RSLancaster and Chanileslie back in the thread "Should the JREF formally be an atheist skeptical organization?" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42180) from a year ago (and doubtless in many other threads as well).

If one defines an atheist as a person who believes there is not a god, then HItler probably was not an atheist. There is little if any evidence to support a claim that Hitler believed that all gods are non-existent. Hitler never formally declared himself to be an atheist.

If, on the other hand, one defines an atheist simply as a person who does not believe in a god, then Hitler quite possibly was an atheist. This is a much looser, much more inclusive, definition of what an atheist is. It is not necessary to formally declare oneself to be an atheist, or to formally state a belief that there is no god, in order to be classified as an atheist under this definition. (Note, for example, that chani in the thread I referred to was trying to include as atheists a number of people who did not consider themselves to be atheists.)

There are many people who do not explicitly say they disbelieve in gods, but who do not appear to have any belief in a god. Take, for instance, the racist group World Church of the Creator, which is often referred to as an atheist group. Since this is not a group most people care to be associated with or to have associated with them, Positive Atheism wrote a letter to them asking if they were atheists or not. Here (http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9873.htm) is their reply:
Thank you for your inquiry about our Church. No, we do not describe ourselves as atheists. Our race is our religion and we place Nature's laws at the forefront of our lives. We do not "worship" anything, whether it is "God" or any other unproven pie in the sky entity. We do not "worship" Nature either, for to worship anything is demeaning. We simply say that Nature has laws against racial mixing and that the White Race is Nature's Finest. By placing Race as central to our lives as our religion, we stay in line with these eternal laws and from that, all good things flow
So are they atheists or not? On the one hand, "we do not describe ourselves as atheists". On the other hand, "We do not "worship" anything, whether it is "God" or any other unproven pie in the sky entity."

If we use RSL's definition of atheist, then to settle the question of whether Hitler was an atheist we need to see what evidence there is that he declared himself to be an atheist or that he declared that all gods are imaginary. I don't see good evidence for that, so if I were discussing Hitler with RSL we'd probably be in agreement that Hitler was not an atheist.

If we use chani's definition of atheist, then to settle the question of whether Hitler was an atheist we need to see what evidence there is that Hitler held a belief in a god. If there is no good evidence that he held such a belief, then he'd be an atheist.

This is dicier to settle. He was raised as a Catholic, was officially a member of the Catholic church, and at various times in his career made statements for public consumption declaring a faith in god. But did he attend any church regularly? Did he express his faith in his conversations with his friends? If he believed in god, what were the characteristics of the god he believed? If he did in fact hold a belief in god, there should be some evidence of it -- some outward manifestations of this belief in his everyday life, such as church attendance, or private religious exercises, or mentions of his beliefs in his conversations with friends. If that evidence is there, I'm having trouble finding it.

In a different thread in this forum (which Darat linked to earlier) I've been going through Hitler's "Table Talks" -- his dinner-time ramblings to a captive audience of his friends and associates, in which he pontificated on a number of subjects including religion -- to see what Hitler did say in private about his religious beliefs. Hitler had virtually nothing good to say about Catholic belief, virtually nothing good to say about Christian belief, and seems to be generally negative toward virtually all religious belief. Like the World Church of the Creator folks, he appears to have believed in certain natural laws -- which Hitler saw as scientific, rather than religious, belief.

I am still undecided whether Hitler rejected all gods, or whether he had a god of his own which he believed in. But since the evidence that Hitler believed in any god is not very strong, if I were discussing Hitler with someone such as chani and she wanted to apply her definition of atheism I would probably have to concede that Hitler was an atheist. (Whether she would want to claim him, or not, is another question.)

(I am still working my way through the "Table Talks", so may have a clearer opinion by the time I get through it. It's difficult to say, because this is a translation of a transcription of long boring rambles, and since no critical questioning or discussion was permitted Hitler is free to express things in unclear, ambiguous, and even contradictory ways.)

Anacoluthon64

14th June 2006, 03:58 AM

A lot depends on how one defines the word atheist.

...snip...

Nova Land, I tried to make these distinctions, i.e. flavours of god-doubt, clear to elliotfc (starting here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1691874)), but they were rejected (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1694836) for no good reason that I can fathom. My argument was that a fanatical rejection of any possibility of god's existence (which I call "strong atheism") could conceivably prompt violence when challenged, and that the observation that such doesn't seem to have happened is curious.

'Luthon64

elliotfc

14th June 2006, 05:14 AM

I don't think that it is your place, as (I believe) a Christian (not rote) to make up your own definition of atheist and particularly "a kind of" atheist just to suit your own preferences.

Why not? There are many kinds of Christians. Many kind of Muslims. Many kind of atheists. I don't see why I have to be dogmatic about that reality when it comes to my religion, or atheism.

-Elliot

elliotfc

14th June 2006, 05:15 AM

As much as I'd like (love) to agree, I have problems accepting this. For one thing, it's plainly obvious (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/%7Etk/glob_warm_hurr.html) hurricane activity skyrocketed (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23889-1782829,00.html) last year. I don't expect it to technically double this year in light of ever increasing global warming, but before hurricane season is over, we're going to be playing dice all over again with mother nature and a potential situation rivaling Katrina. :boxedin:

If it's plainly obvious, then you don't need to point this out. That you point this out suggests that it is not plainly obvious.

Weather historians disagree with you. I can't speak for people who think that weather began within the past 30 years or so.

-Elliot

elliotfc

14th June 2006, 05:20 AM

My argument was that a fanatical rejection of any possibility of god's existence (which I call "strong atheism") could conceivably prompt violence when challenged, and that the observation that such doesn't seem to have happened is curious.

And my rejoinder was that it is curious to suppose that strong atheism would lead to violence. Given what you say....that it doesn't seem to have happened. Meaning the reality makes the supposition unfortunate.

-Elliot

Anacoluthon64

14th June 2006, 06:43 AM

And my rejoinder was that it is curious to suppose that strong atheism would lead to violence.Not so. The sum total of your rejoinders amounted, as a brief glance will show, to a series of feeble attempts at hijacking the argument via introduction of irrelevancies and obfuscations in the name of "trying to get [me] to think outside of this specific assertion (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1694635)." You have singularly failed to provide any cogent reason why, of all possible fanaticisms, fervid atheism should be exempt from manifesting violently.

Given what you say....that it doesn't seem to have happened. Meaning the reality makes the supposition unfortunate.Once again, your elevated prose is beyond my comprehension.

'Luthon64

Nova Land

14th June 2006, 03:23 PM

... a strong atheist must logically conclude that believers deceive themselves, and, through such deception, materially endanger themselves and others.
Perhaps a strong atheist must. What about a rational atheist, though? One who, instead of basing their actions on conclusions reached by reasoning from essences, bases their actions on empirical observation. The irrational atheist intuits the essential nature of believers, and reasons from there. The rational one looks around at actual believers, such as Kitty and Rolfe, judging them by the nature of their posts and their behavior in person (such as at skeptical get-togethers).

Rational Atheist: Hmmm. Logically, I know that (a) there is no god, (b) therefore believers in god are wrong to believe in god, (c) therefore they are deceiving themselves, (d) therefore they are a danger to themselves and others. And yet, from actual observation, Kitty and Rolfe seem to be beneficial influences rather than harmful ones, antidotes rather than poisons.

Either my logic, based on what Kitty and Rolfe must be like (independent of actually knowing them) is wrong, or my observation of what they actually are like is wrong.

It's possible they are incredibly good actors accomplishing a phenomenal deception. Or it's possible there's a flaw somewhere in my logic. As a rational person I put more credence in empirical observation than in abstract notions. Therefore I will put more credence in what I know of the actual Kitty and Rolfe than in my imaginary construct of them. I don't know what the flaw in my logic is, but since I can't seem to reconcile my logic with observable reality I'm going to go with the latter.

Nova Land

14th June 2006, 03:35 PM

... My argument was that a fanatical rejection of any possibility of god's existence (which I call "strong atheism") could conceivably prompt violence when challenged, and that the observation that such doesn't seem to have happened is curious.
Yes, it is interesting that a greatly-outnumbered minority holding a socially-unpopular view would refrain from using violence when their belief was challenged by members of the majority surrounding them.

I have noticed that people in a minority often behave differently when their numbers increase. Minorities are often ill-treated by majorities. There seems to be a mob-mentality which many people hold which makes them seem to feel entitled not just to voice their majority-approved views but to repress those who hold dissenting views. Some members of the mob even feel justified in using extreme measures (including not just verbal violence but physical violence, and calls for the jailing of the minority if it speaks up too vocally, too effectively, or too stridently). And if the minority reacts with violence in turn, the majority often turns a blind eye to the provoking actions directed at the minority but a very hostile eye to the minority's response. Thus, for a variety of reasons, minorities often behave with a great deal of restraint.

But when a group which has been a minority becomes a majority (either because its numbers in the wider world increase, or because it creates its own space in which it is the majority) the behavior of people in the group often changes. Quite often those who have been oppressed when they were a minority turn around and practice the same forms of oppression on others once they become a majority. One good example is the religious groups oppressed in Europe in the 17th century who came to the "New World" in order to set up new societies where they could treat others the way they had been treated.

I greatly admire people who, instead of thinking When we were in the minority people treated us this way, and we didn't like it, so when we're in the majority we'll treat them that way and see how they like it think instead When we were in the minority people treated us this way, and we didn't like it, so when we're in the majority we'll be careful not to treat others the way we were treated. There are religious people who have behaved that way -- Roger Williams and the Baptists in Rhode Island come to mind, as do William Penn and the Quakers in Pennsylvania. It will be interesting to see whether, when atheists have greater numbers, they will continue to behave with restraint, or whether some will attempt to oppress religious people in the way they feel they were oppressed.

There are many posters here who give me hope that atheists will prove to be better if and when they are in positions of power in society than we religious folks have managed to be. Kitty's daughters are atheists, and I would be delighted to see either of them as a senator, as president, or on the Supreme Court (although relatively few Supreme Court cases deal with rocks, so Kitten might not be interested in such a boring job).

On the other hand, there are atheist posters here whom I wouldn't care to see in such an office. I recall one poster arguing that belief in god was inherently harmful and needed to be expunged. Here's a snippet regarding how he felt belief in god should be treated, from page 5 of the thread "What form of religion isn't harmful?" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1668).

... I do wish that false beliefs were not admitted into debates on public policy. Just as a politician would be ridiculed and lose his power if he publicly made decisions based on astrology, so should the political process exclude (whether by law or convention) people who attempt to make false or even merely unreasonable ideas a basis for public policy.
That was quite a while back, and the poster said later in the thread he was not really calling for the exclusion of religious people from public debate. He simply didn't feel that people should give any credence to anything a believer in god said on any public policy matter... I would be as fearful of an atheist with views like that being in a position to implement them as I am of a christian with views such as Roy Moore holds.

If what you call "strong atheists" must conclude that people who believe in god present a danger to themselves and others, then the fact "strong atheists" have not resorted to physical violence when their beliefs are challenged does not give me great comfort. A great deal of violence can be done through the legal system. People who want to pass a constitutional amendment to deny homosexuals the right to marry may not pose the physical threat that people who want to beat them up with baseball bats do, but they are a threat nonetheless. At present conservative christians have the political clout to act on their threats, and what you call "strong atheists" don't. My hope is that exposure to the good influences of a growing skeptical movement may help the public to reject both such types of irrationality.

fuelair

14th June 2006, 04:04 PM

Anacoluthon64

14th June 2006, 11:50 PM

Perhaps a strong atheist must. What about a rational atheist, though?

...snip...Good post there, Nova Land. Aye, precisely the point I had intended driving at ultimately. Owing to the pervasiveness of god-beliefs, atheism is, I expect, generally arrived at through a process of rational enquiry. If so, there's good reason to further expect that the same rationality will curtail any fanatical impulses.

'Luthon64

elliotfc

15th June 2006, 04:54 AM

You have singularly failed to provide any cogent reason why, of all possible fanaticisms, fervid atheism should be exempt from manifesting violently.

Are adults who are fanatical about crayons violent? How about fanatics of the defunct TV show Get a Life with Chris Elliott?

I don't know why I should assume that all fanatics about things will act violently. So why the heck would I surprised when they don't?

A flawed assumption. Of course I reject all things that follow from the flawed assumption.

If you're interested, prove your assumption. Prove that all fanaticisms ought to manifest themselves violently.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th June 2006, 05:03 AM

Yes, it is interesting that a greatly-outnumbered minority holding a socially-unpopular view would refrain from using violence when their belief was challenged by members of the majority surrounding them.

But their belief is essentially a belief in the absence of something. It is not surprising to me at all. Believing that something does not exist is not a proactive belief. Atheist is inherently a negative word. You've defined yourself as contingent to the theist. That's a humbling thing to do, even if you aren't consciously aware of that.

I don't define myself as an a-neodarwinian, or an a-secularmoralist, or an a-materialist. I believe in something. I think this can lead to more hot-headed reactions, which extends to violence.

Let's take a different group. Some people are against fur, and they get violent about that. Are they defined by what they reject? Certainly. But they can actually put their hands on what they reject. An atheist can't. An atheist rejects something that *doesn't* exist. In a sense it's a wacky thing to define yourself as, if you think about it. Defining yourself in terms of something that doesn't exist. I think this has some serious ramifications, and I suspect one of them is the difficulty of getting violent because of this belief in the non-existent.

It's pretty weird, isn't it? I am something that rejects something that doesn't exist. That's what a self-proclaimed atheist is saying. What parallel can we draw to that?

That's another reason why I'm not surprised by so-called atypical atheistic behavior, or lack thereof. To be an atheist...that's an atypical thing, in and of itself.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th June 2006, 05:18 AM

Good post there, Nova Land. Aye, precisely the point I had intended driving at ultimately. Owing to the pervasiveness of god-beliefs, atheism is, I expect, generally arrived at through a process of rational enquiry. If so, there's good reason to further expect that the same rationality will curtail any fanatical impulses.

'Luthon64

I wish you would have said this 5 posts ago!

Often the *assumption* is made that if you're an atheist, you'd have no compunction about being...nilhilistic, or something. What a daft assumption, eh? Where's the evidence to back that up?

I agree that people generally *become* atheits, and that there is a very personal process that drives that, and that the process is quite rational. Once you're an atheist, several things follow. Coming to grips with morality is probably the biggest one. What of objective morality? Does it exist? Does morality have meaning independent of personal opinion? Being liberated from religious belief doesn't make *any* atheist liberated from morality. This is well understood by all atheists, if not articulated by all atheists. The process of appreciating this and being able to provide a morality, as an atheist, I think is also a very rational process. An atheist tends to be very sensitive about morality. A tad bit...defensive. As in...whaddya mean an atheist doesn't believe in morality or meaning or is free to do anything at all? That's nonsense! I can prove you wrong, or, at least I can provide you with a set-up full of rational thought.

This...sort-of defense mechanism...becomes very important for atheists. I see it all the time, particularly in face-to-face discussion. It becomes *extremely important* for the atheist to articulate morality. In doing so, an atheist appreciates immorality perhaps even more than relgious believers. Atheists who act immorally then, say, in violence or killing, go directly against one of the first things they have to *seriously consider*. The concept of morality.

I think that, by and large, religious believers do not *seriously consider* morality as do atheists. I'd also add that I don't think religious believers have the *need* to seriously consider morality as do atheists.

Thanks for this post. This can further the discussion. The other thing you were on...it was just a blanket assertion that I felt, and still feel, no reason to accept.

-Elliot

Dr Adequate

15th June 2006, 05:47 AM

An atheist rejects something that *doesn't* exist. In a sense it's a wacky thing to define yourself as, if you think about it. Defining yourself in terms of something that doesn't exist. I think this has some serious ramifications, and I suspect one of them is the difficulty of getting violent because of this belief in the non-existent. Whacky? Yes, it's as whacky as "defining yourself" as "unemployed" because you have no job, or "healthy" because you don't have any diseases; or "single" because you have no spouse, or "carefree" because you have no cares, or "solvent" because you have no debts, or ...

I'm an atheist. I have no belief in deities.

elliotfc

15th June 2006, 06:06 AM

Whacky? Yes, it's as whacky as "defining yourself" as "unemployed" because you have no job,

Yes...but umemployed people believe that jobs exist...

or "healthy" because you don't have any diseases;

Yes...but healthy people believe that diseases exist...

or "single" because you have no spouse,

Yes...but single people believe that spouses exist...

or "carefree" because you have no cares,

Yes...but carefree people believe that cares exist...

or "solvent" because you have no debts, or ...

Yes...but solvent people believe that debts exist...

I'm an atheist. I have no belief in deities.

Yes...but atheists believe that gods exist...

Wait a second...

elliotfc

15th June 2006, 06:22 AM

Approximately 1% of the US population is agnostic/atheist. Approximately .20% of the prison population is agnostic/atheist.

There may, or may not be, something to that. Of course it also must be considered that agnostics/atheists tend to have more education, a better standard of living, etc. There is an at-risk population in the general population that doesn't exactly correspond to an at-risk population in the general atheist/agnostic population.

I do think agnostics/atheists, in general, tend to be more...disciplined let's say, on average. I suggest that the at-risk population in the general population may bring down the average.

-Elliot

Anacoluthon64

15th June 2006, 06:23 AM

I don't know why I should assume that all fanatics about things will act violently. So why the heck would I surprised when they don't?

A flawed assumption. Of course I reject all things that follow from the flawed assumption.

If you're interested, prove your assumption. Prove that all fanaticisms ought to manifest themselves violently.It would be helpful, not to mention it being a basic courtesy also, if you stopped putting words in my mouth, so to speak. In particular, I invite you to notice the consistency with which I have qualified "violence" as "conceivable." It would be additionally useful if you applied your grey matter to things, instead of immediately viewing everything as a personal attack and/or as a source of immediately exploitable brownie points.

As for "prov[ing my] assumption," one word: fuh-nat-tee-sizz-umm (http://www.answers.com/topic/fanaticism-zealotry).

English you must learn. Difficult it will be.

'Luthon64

brodski

15th June 2006, 06:25 AM

elliotfc

15th June 2006, 06:26 AM

It would be helpful, not to mention it being a basic courtesy also, if you stopped putting words in my mouth, so to speak. In particular, I invite you to notice the consistency with which I have qualified "violence" as "conceivable." It would be additionally useful if you applied your grey matter to things, instead of immediately viewing everything as a personal attack and/or as a source of immediately exploitable brownie points.

Why do you think I'm taking anything you say as a personal attack?

That's ludicrous. You have not once yet attacked me personally. And since you're a strong atheist, there's not even a chance that you *could* do that.

You're got some pet assertion which I think is daft. Daft I say! If anything it's me doing the personal attacking, not you. Yes, I grant that you can conceive many sorts of things. That's part of my point too.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th June 2006, 06:27 AM

Atheistsbelive that faith exsists, we just don't have faith in Gods.

Oh. So an atheist doesn't reject the existence of God, just rejects having faith in the existence of God?

That's interesting. I like it!

Would the guy who wants me to use my brain matter and learn English consider this to be strong, or weak atheism?

-Elliot

rocketdodger

15th June 2006, 06:54 AM

Fanatic: A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

Are adults who are fanatical about crayons violent?

If they percieve a threat to their crayons, absolutely.

How about fanatics of the defunct TV show Get a Life with Chris Elliott?

I wouldn't trust them alone in a room with the fox executives.

I don't know why I should assume that all fanatics about things will act violently.

Because being a fanatic is contingent upon lack of reason when it comes to following a cause. Without applying reason, every alternative outlook is a percieved threat. How do unreasonable humans respond to threats? The same way all animals do -- attack.

Anacoluthon64

15th June 2006, 07:03 AM

You're got some pet assertion which I think is daft. Daft I say!Aah, now I finally get it. You have an opinion that you can neither relinquish nor defend coherently. How droll, me thinking that there's any chance of penetrating obtuseness of that magnitude.

Sorry mate, I don't operate that way. Carry on having fun without me.

'Luthon64

Elind

15th June 2006, 07:53 AM

So are they atheists or not? On the one hand, "we do not describe ourselves as atheists". On the other hand, "We do not "worship" anything, whether it is "God" or any other unproven pie in the sky entity."

It seems as if this discussion tends toward defining atheist, as if that is in question. I've always thought it simple. No belief in a deity that plays a role in the universe. I could imaging that something in a lab somewhere caused the Big Bang in some experiment, but I wouldn't consider that a deity just for that reason.

Just because someone doesn't appear to follow what we think religious principles should be, doesn't mean we can call them atheist. Only that person is in a position to say so, and I'm of the opinion that Hitler never did, or I'm quite sure it would one of the most common quotes ever mentioned.

And nobody, certainly not me, has ever said that all atheists have to be nice.

brodski

15th June 2006, 08:03 AM

Oh. So an atheist doesn't reject the existence of God, just rejects having faith in the existence of God?

That's interesting. I like it!

Would the guy who wants me to use my brain matter and learn English consider this to be strong, or weak atheism?

-Elliot
One who states that "I have no faith in god" is an atheist, one who sates that "I have no faith in god AND there is no god" is a strong atheist. A weak atheist would argue that "I have no faith in god, and there is no credible evidence for god outside of faith, therefore I deny the existence of god". For an atheist God comes from faith, as opposed to the religious POV that faith comes from god.

pgwenthold

15th June 2006, 08:31 AM

Just because someone doesn't appear to follow what we think religious principles should be, doesn't mean we can call them atheist. Only that person is in a position to say so, and I'm of the opinion that Hitler never did, or I'm quite sure it would one of the most common quotes ever mentioned.

See the quote I provided eariler in this thread. Something like, "By fighting the Jew, I am doing the work of Almighty God."

I always love the juxtaposition of Hitler and Einstein. Hitler gets called an atheist, despite the fact that he regularly expressed belief in God. Einstein, otoh, gets called a theist because he used the phrase "God does not throw dice," despite the fact that he CLEARLY and inequivocally states that he does not believe in a personal god.

Any little straw to cling to...

Elind

15th June 2006, 08:32 AM

elliotfc

15th June 2006, 11:32 AM

Aah, now I finally get it. You have an opinion that you can neither relinquish nor defend coherently. How droll, me thinking that there's any chance of penetrating obtuseness of that magnitude.

Sorry mate, I don't operate that way. Carry on having fun without me.

'Luthon64

OK, beats having to hear your daft theory repeated ad naseum. -Elliot

Elind

15th June 2006, 08:22 PM

Aah, now I finally get it. You have an opinion that you can neither relinquish nor defend coherently. How droll, me thinking that there's any chance of penetrating obtuseness of that magnitude.

Sorry mate, I don't operate that way. Carry on having fun without me.

'Luthon64

Are you another Aussie? Just curious. They are famous here (a very few anyway).

Dr Adequate

15th June 2006, 09:31 PM

Yes...but umemployed people believe that jobs exist...

Yes...but healthy people believe that diseases exist...

Yes...but single people believe that spouses exist...

Yes...but carefree people believe that cares exist...

Yes...but solvent people believe that debts exist...

Yes...but atheists believe that gods exist...

Wait a second...Ah, you just realized that your reasoning was false. Congratulations, have a lollipop.

The last term should, of course, have been "Yes ... but atheists believe that beliefs in deities exist", as you would have discovered for yourself had you followed your own schema conscienciously.

Yes, atheists believe that beliefs in deities exist. However, we have no such beliefs. Just as the healthy man believes that diseases exist, but has no diseases.

Nova Land

15th June 2006, 09:57 PM

It seems as if this discussion tends toward defining atheist, as if that is in question.Yes. That's because it is in question. See, for instance, the thread I linked to previously (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42180) in which RSLancaster and chanileslie debate what the meaning should be. Both are reasonable people, but the two of them were unable to come to agreement.
I've always thought it simple.So did RSL and chani. So have a lot of people who have argued this out. Unfortunately they still haven't been able to agree on which simple definition to use.
No belief in a deity that plays a role in the universe.Yes. But that still leaves the question: a lack of belief in god, or disbelief in god? The two are not the same.
Just because someone doesn't appear to follow what we think religious principles should be, doesn't mean we can call them atheist. Only that person is in a position to say so...
Ah. That sounds as if you're saying the person has to consider themself an atheist to be one. So are you of the opinion that, even though the Church of the Creator folks do not believe in any god, and consider god a "pie in the sky" notion, that they are not atheists? Or have I misunderstood you?

Nova Land

15th June 2006, 10:17 PM

There is a similar problem with the word feminism as there is with the word atheism. So many people have sneered at and made fun of feminists that many young women have been heard to say I am not a feminist, but... and then go on to describe beliefs which sound remarkably like feminism. But they have the image that to be a feminist means one is a humorless man-hating extremist -- and by that definition, they know they are not feminists, so they reject the label.

Similarly, some people (especially on the right) may associate atheism with extreme left-wing beliefs. Hence, even though they do not believe in a god, they do not want to be lumped in with atheists. That may be what is at play with the World Church of the Creator folks. Despite the fact that they do not call themselves atheists, they sound like atheists to me.

One reason I bring them up, apart from illustrating a point I was making earlier, is that their beliefs are remarkably similar to Hitler's. They, like Hitler, reject a lot of what they see in religion as superstition, and "worship" what they believe is reality. They have a rather warped view of what reality is -- but so do many other atheists. I know atheists (or people who describe themselves as atheists, and do not believe in a god) who believe in pyramid power, ghosts, near-death experiences, homeopathy, and numerous other things which I find in conflict with my perception of reality. Holding rational beliefs is not a requirement for being an atheist.

So if the World Church of the Creator folks are atheists (even though they prefer not to call themselves by that label), then it is quite possible Hitler was an atheist as well. If the Church of the Creator folks are not atheists, then Hitler almost certainly wasn't, either -- but a lot of other people (whom some on this forum are trying to claim as atheists) will have to be excluded as well.

SirPhilip

16th June 2006, 01:06 AM

They have a rather warped view of what reality is -- but so do many other atheists. I know atheists (or people who describe themselves as atheists, and do not believe in a god) who believe in pyramid power, ghosts, near-death experiences...Near death experiences, surely those aren't woo? They can be reproduced just by driving on I-95 during rush hour. ;)

Nova Land

16th June 2006, 01:45 AM

Near death experiences, surely those aren't woo? They can be reproduced just by driving on I-95 during rush hour. ;)
Right you are! I was typing a bit quickly so didn't express that as clearly as I perhaps could have. The thing which one atheist friend believed, and tried to convince me of on a number of occasions, was that the out-of-body experience people often report having during a near-death experience was not simply a feeling that one had travelled outside one's body but an actual astral journey.

elliotfc

16th June 2006, 04:14 AM

Ah, you just realized that your reasoning was false. Congratulations, have a lollipop.

The last term should, of course, have been "Yes ... but atheists believe that beliefs in deities exist", as you would have discovered for yourself had you followed your own schema conscienciously.

Yes, atheists believe that beliefs in deities exist. However, we have no such beliefs. Just as the healthy man believes that diseases exist, but has no diseases.

This is an excellent point, hadn't thought of it this way before.

I do know that many atheists say that God does not exist, but that is different from saying one has no belief in the existence of God.

Maybe that goes back to strong/weak atheism. In fact, I think that some atheists may refer to your last paragraph as agnosticism.

Edit to add...my dictionary says that an atheist is one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God. So you have two species right there.

I won't completely back off from what I asserted earlier. *THE EXISTENCE OF GOD*. That's the issue. Whether you deny it, or disbelieve it. It's still a tricky issue. It's still different from the concept of being sick. Being sick is a real thing that we experience. Personally, if I did deny, or did disbelieve, in the existence of God, I would be averse to defining myself *contingent* to the existence of God. I'd probably go with agnostic. But that's just me.

-Elliot

Trantor

16th June 2006, 07:56 AM

This is an excellent point, hadn't thought of it this way before.

I do know that many atheists say that God does not exist, but that is different from saying one has no belief in the existence of God.

Maybe that goes back to strong/weak atheism. In fact, I think that some atheists may refer to your last paragraph as agnosticism.

Edit to add...my dictionary says that an atheist is one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God. So you have two species right there.

I won't completely back off from what I asserted earlier. *THE EXISTENCE OF GOD*. That's the issue. Whether you deny it, or disbelieve it. It's still a tricky issue. It's still different from the concept of being sick. Being sick is a real thing that we experience. Personally, if I did deny, or did disbelieve, in the existence of God, I would be averse to defining myself *contingent* to the existence of God. I'd probably go with agnostic. But that's just me.

-Elliot

Reading thru these definitions of Strong Atheist, Weak Atheist, and Agnostic, has me thinking about my own beliefs. I generally don't give that much thought. My own beliefs go something like this: I accept all that science has confirmed, all the way back to the Big Bang. I believe the evidence shows that the Universe began with the Big Bang. I however, don't know what actually made the Big Bang happen, or know what set things in motion before that time. Is it possible that the Big Bang and the creation of our Universe has a higher purpose that we at our level of understanding don't comprehend? My answer is - Maybe. Is everything that has taken place, some kind of plan by a higher form of intelligence? I don't know, there is no evidence one way or another, so again I say - Maybe. If God is out there, HE/She/It set things in motion and doesn't seem to be concerned with personal management.

I would generally classify myself an Agnostic.

Elind

16th June 2006, 02:03 PM

Ah. That sounds as if you're saying the person has to consider themself an atheist to be one. So are you of the opinion that, even though the Church of the Creator folks do not believe in any god, and consider god a "pie in the sky" notion, that they are not atheists? Or have I misunderstood you?

Yes, that is what I happen to think. Others can tie themselves in knots over it if they wish; I don't.

As to the "Church of Creator" folks, it sounds to me that they are atheists if that is what they say. Just because a woowoo group finds comfort in surrounding themselves with ritual that resembles religion, doesn't mean they can't be atheists. I never said ALL atheists had to be really smart, or sane for that matter.

Dr Adequate

18th June 2006, 01:50 PM

Personally, if I did deny, or did disbelieve, in the existence of God, I would be averse to defining myself *contingent* to the existence of God. But so am I averse to this, of course. Rather, I define my religious beliefs with reference to the fact that I have no belief in God..

If I did deny, or did disbelieve, in the existence of God ... I'd probably go with agnostic.It would seem strange to deny the existence of God and then claim to be agnostic rather than atheist.

I do know that many atheists say that God does not exist, but that is different from saying one has no belief in the existence of God.

Maybe that goes back to strong/weak atheism. In fact, I think that some atheists may refer to your last paragraph as agnosticism.

Edit to add...my dictionary says that an atheist is one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God. So you have two species right there. Well, there is an epistemological question here as well as a theological one.

I take a strong empirical line on epistemology. For me, the following statements are equivalent:

* I have looked under my bed for evidence of tigers, and I have no evidence that there are tigers under my bed..
* I have looked under my bed for evidence of tigers, and I have evidence that there are no tigers under my bed.
* I do not believe that there are tigers under my bed.
* I believe that there are no tigers under my bed.
* I deny that there are tigers under my bed.
* There are no tigers under my bed.

When I say "equivalent", I mean that each means no more and no less than the other. Although I have arranged them in such an order that they sound more and more definite, a man who legtimately and with good cause can make the first claim can make the last, and vice versa : because, from an empiricist viewpoint, there can be no stronger statement supporting the last statement than the first.

In particular, the statements you offer seem to present a distinction without a difference. When you write "Many atheists say that God does not exist, but that is different from saying one has no belief in the existence of God" --- then I disagree. If I would say that I have no belief in the existence of tigers under my bed, then I would say that tigers under my bed don't exist, and vice versa: there are no circumstances under which I would affirm the one but not the other.

In the same way, you make a distinction between those who "deny" and those who "disbelieve" in the existence of God. Well, if I disbelieve in the tigers under my bed, then, if I am truthful, I will also deny that there are tigers under my bed, and vice versa.

As for the word "agnostic", I would reserve the word for those who see arguments on both sides and feel unable to resolve the conundrum. Here's an example :

"I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty."

This is honest agnosticism. By contrast, the man who merely says "I have no evidence for God, but he might conceivably exist, therefore I am an agnostic," either has confused ideas about epistemology or is a moral coward.

elliotfc

18th June 2006, 06:19 PM

But so am I averse to this, of course. Rather, I define my religious beliefs with reference to the fact that I have no belief in God..

Ummm...this is tricky because this is so hypothetical...if I were something like an atheist/agnostic, I don't think I could say this. Belief in God? Which God? A God with all the toppings? Can any extant perception of God possibly be equivalent to the reality of God, or a God?

What I would do is say several, or dozens of, pointed statements like...if God existed he wouldn't become a human being, or couldn't because that's absolutely insensible, so I would reject all Gods who would do such a thing.

But here I'm merely combatting with theories of God in circulation. What about ones that haven't been thought up yet? What about ideas of God absent of what we would equate to personality?

Good post, but I go eat ice cream now and come back later.

-Elliot

Elind

18th June 2006, 07:12 PM

But so am I averse to this, of course. Rather, I define my religious beliefs with reference to the fact that I have no belief in God..

A good post, compared to some of yours:rolleyes:

However I do think the issue always tends to be overcomplicated. If something sentient created the universe, or caused it to be created (slight difference there, but irrelevant) then it doesn't follow that that is a god to be worshipped even though it may be one defintion of a god. We have have no way of knowing in any case.

What is important in our short lives is whether we believe there is a god "watching us" and smiling when we worship (or saying "sucker"), or if there is no such being and we are on our own, to make of it what we can.

The latter is an atheist.

Nova Land

19th June 2006, 02:54 AM

Well, there is an epistemological question here as well as a theological one.

I take a strong empirical line on epistemology. For me, the following statements are equivalent:

* I have looked under my bed for evidence of tigers, and I have no evidence that there are tigers under my bed..
* I have looked under my bed for evidence of tigers, and I have evidence that there are no tigers under my bed.
* I do not believe that there are tigers under my bed.
* I believe that there are no tigers under my bed.
* I deny that there are tigers under my bed.
* There are no tigers under my bed.

When I say "equivalent", I mean that each means no more and no less than the other...
In the case of tigers and my bed, I agree that the statements you have listed above are roughly equivalent. But that is because of a special circumstance in the example you created. I live in rural Tennessee, where tigers are not normally found (outside zoos) and for one to somehow turn up, get into my room, and get under the bed -- all without leaving a trace of evidence -- would be extraordinary. So for all practical purposes, the statements I have no reason to believe there is a tiger under my bed and I believe there is not a tiger under my bed are the same.

But let's consider an example where that circumstance doesn't hold. Suppose, for instance, that my toothbrush goes missing. I have no reason to suspect it would be under the bed, since that is not where I normally put it, nor is it somewhere the toothbrush would easily migrate to. Therefore the statement I have no reason to believe that my toothbrush is under the bed is quite reasonable. I don't think it is under the bed is also a reasonable statement -- meaning roughly the same as the first statement.

But what about I know that the toothbrush is not under the bed or I deny that the toothbrush is under the bed? No, those are not the same. Having no reason to believe something is not the same as having reason to believe something is false. Confusing the two often leads to errors where people adamantly maintain something can't be true which later on does turn out to be true.

If I do a thorough search under the bed and do not see a toothbrush, that provides evidence it is not there. At that point, it is reasonable to disbelieve that the toothbrush is there. Prior to the search, it was reasonable to lack belief, but unreasonable to disbelieve.

A person may have no reason to believe something (in which case it is reasonable to maintain as the default position a lack of belief in that something) but that is not the same as knowing to a reasonable certainty the thing in question is false. That is why it is reasonable to be an agnostic on some questions (I have no reason to believe this is true, so I don't particularly believe in it) and an atheist on others (I have reason to believe this is false, so I disbelieve in it.

In life, there are many cases where it is reasonable to disbelieve (rather than simply lack belief), and there are many cases where it is reasonable to simply lack belief (rather than go further and disbelieve). It is a useful distinction to understand. Lacking belief, and disbelieving, are quite different.

Dr Adequate

19th June 2006, 03:18 AM

This is exactly why I specified the condition that I have looked under the bed and so am not simply ruling out the presence of tigers a priori.

Nova Land

19th June 2006, 03:30 AM

This is exactly why I specified the condition that I have looked under the bed and so am not simply ruling out the presence of tigers a priori.
Yes. I agree that in the example you have created all the statements you list are roughly equivalent. What I am saying is that this does not hold true for all examples.

My point is that lacking belief and disbelieving are not necessarily the same. It is possible to create examples in which this difference is apparent, and that is what I was attempting to do.

Do you disagree that, in the example I offered, the statements are no longer equivalent? Because, to me, it is clearly reasonable to lack belief the toothbrush is under the bed (until evidence is provided that it is) but it is clearly unreasonable to disbelieve that the toothbrush is under the bed (until evidence is provided that it isn't).

elliotfc

19th June 2006, 09:31 AM

It would seem strange to deny the existence of God and then claim to be agnostic rather than atheist.

When you say "I deny the existence of God", you're thinking of something in particular...or in general...that other people would understand in particular...or general. Agnostic, to me, implies that the whole notion is outside of my paygrade. I would still, however, express disbelief or rejection in particular God theories.

In the same way, you make a distinction between those who "deny" and those who "disbelieve" in the existence of God.

My dictionary makes that distinction, or, offers both possibilities. Are they equivalent? I think denial and disbelief are related, but different things. I can deny something yet believe it. I can disbelieve something yet accept it.

This is sensible in other examples...I've typed through several but deleted them because they seem pretty banal.

As for the word "agnostic", I would reserve the word for those who see arguments on both sides and feel unable to resolve the conundrum.

You gave an example of honest agnosticism and it's a good one.

I offer that someone can be skeptical enough where he/she thinks the whole conversation is too specific, in regards to a topic that couldn't possibly be decided in tangible specifics. Such a person can appreciate and consider all arguments, may even have opinions about all of them, yet still remain agnostic out of honest skepticism and the certainty that the topic is of a species where certainty is not possible.

Then there's the other thing I've offered...a person preferring not to define themselves as believing in, or disbelieving, something that is either imaginary or impossible to find. Yes, in this case atheism does take a stand, and the aganostic may find such a stand either unimpressive or limiting.

-Elliot

Dr Adequate

19th June 2006, 03:40 PM

But here I'm merely combatting with theories of God in circulation. What about ones that haven't been thought up yet? What about ideas of God absent of what we would equate to personality? I think of this as the "left leg defense". Who am I to say what "God" means? Maybe ... maybe "God" means "my left leg". Then ... then there is a God. And it's attached to my crotch! What a fool I've been with my dogmatic atheism!

But this is merely to shift the meaning of the word "God", not to make a theological discovery.

To take the particular hypothesis you put forward, I don't see how a "God" without a personality could be distinguished from a law or force of nature.

Dr Adequate

19th June 2006, 03:43 PM

My dictionary makes that distinction, or, offers both possibilities. Are they equivalent? I think denial and disbelief are related, but different things. I can deny something yet believe it. Can you truthfully deny something yet believe it?

I can disbelieve something yet accept it. What?

You gave an example of honest agnosticism and it's a good one. The source is Darwin, BTW. Odd to think of him putting forward the Argument From Design ...

Dr Adequate

19th June 2006, 03:48 PM

Yes. I agree that in the example you have created all the statements you list are roughly equivalent. What I am saying is that this does not hold true for all examples.

My point is that lacking belief and disbelieving are not necessarily the same. It is possible to create examples in which this difference is apparent, and that is what I was attempting to do.

Do you disagree that, in the example I offered, the statements are no longer equivalent? Because, to me, it is clearly reasonable to lack belief the toothbrush is under the bed (until evidence is provided that it is) but it is clearly unreasonable to disbelieve that the toothbrush is under the bed (until evidence is provided that it isn't). True: in circustances where you haven't looked to see whether X is the case, lacking belief that X is the case is a weaker state than disbelieving X.

Perhaps for clarity I should have prefixed every term with "I have looked under my bed for evidence of tigers, and ... "

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 06:16 AM

I think of this as the "left leg defense". Who am I to say what "God" means? Maybe ... maybe "God" means "my left leg". Then ... then there is a God. And it's attached to my crotch! What a fool I've been with my dogmatic atheism!

But this is merely to shift the meaning of the word "God", not to make a theological discovery.

It's a bit too ridiculous to consider. The leg is completely contingent and devoid of creativity. God has to, at the very least, be at the top of some hierarchy. I was thinking more like...the "Big Bang" itself being God, as some theistic scientists suggest.

To take the particular hypothesis you put forward, I don't see how a "God" without a personality could be distinguished from a law or force of nature.

Well, it would be a nonrepeatable or singular law/force of nature.

-Elliot

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 06:18 AM

It's a bit too ridiculous to consider. The leg is completely contingent and devoid of creativity.

Oh yeah, I hope your left leg doesn't take this remark personably.

-Elliot

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 06:22 AM

Can you truthfully deny something yet believe it?

Well, there's the kicker, the word truthfully. I merely suggested that denial and disbelief are two different things.

As for disbelief, yet acceptance...I can not believe my daughter when she says she didn't eat the candy bar on the kitchen table, yet I can accept her denial. I can not believe a country when it says it has no WMD, yet accept their denial (unless I'm the current president of the USA). As an investigator of steroids in baseball, I can not believe a player when he says he didn't take steroids, yet accept their denial. Again, these are all rather banal.

-Elliot

Dr Adequate

20th June 2006, 10:38 AM

I did say :

In the same way, you make a distinction between those who "deny" and those who "disbelieve" in the existence of God. Well, if I disbelieve in the tigers under my bed, then, if I am truthful, I will also deny that there are tigers under my bed, and vice versa. As for "accept", I took you to mean "accept as being true".

Dr Adequate

20th June 2006, 10:40 AM

Well, there's the kicker ... Are we talking about my leg again?

Nova Land

20th June 2006, 01:12 PM

... Perhaps for clarity I should have prefixed every term with "I have looked under my bed for evidence of tigers, and ... "I think you have misunderstood what I am saying. (It's quite possible I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say, as well.)

There are two points I am trying to make. They are:
(1.) Lack of belief and disbelief are not the same.
(2.) There are times when disbelief is reasonable, but there are also times when lack of belief is reasonable and disbelief is unreasonable.

The first point, whether lack of belief and disbelief are the same, is what I thought you were trying to demonstrate with your tiger example. If so, I believe there is a crucial error in your logic. What you have demonstrated is that it is possible to create an example where lack of belief and disbelief are the same. But the point in dispute is not whether the two can be the same -- it is whether they must be the same. So what matters is not whether an example can be constructed where they are the same but whether an example can be constructed where they are not the same. I believe I have done so in the example I presented. You do not need to defend your example; you need to show the flaw in mine.

The reason why your tiger example works as a case where, for a reasonable person, lack of belief and disbelief are equivalent, is (a) because the chances of a tiger being under the bed are extremely small, and (b) if there were one under the bed it would be fairly easy to detect. Therefore it is possible to look under and be reasonably clear that there is no tiger there. In this case, lack of evidence gives clear cause not only for lack of belief (the default position for a reasonable person when sufficient evidence for belief is lacking) but for disbelief as well.

But in everyday life, this is frequently not the case. With small everyday objects, such as a toothbrush -- or a ring, or keys, or a slip of paper -- it is quite possible they have migrated under the bed, and quite possible that merely looking under the bed will not detect them. They might, for example, be underneath or behind another object. While simply looking under the bed is adequate to dispose of the tiger-under-the bed possibility, an actual search is required to dispose of the toothbrush-under-the-bed possibility -- and that may require crawling under the bed, or moving the bed. Given that this will be inconvenient, and given that there may be other places which are more likely to hold the missing object and which are easier to search, searching under the bed may not be a top priority. And until that careful search is carried out, it is reasonable to lack belief that the missing object is under the bed, but it is unreasonable to disbelieve that the missing object is under the bed.

This kind of situation comes up fairly frequently in life. Very often, and for a wide variety of reasons, it simply is not possible to carry out good tests. And even in the cases where it is possible to carry out tests, there is a period of time before those tests are carried out. It is during that period when lack of belief and disbelief are most likely to be distinctly different -- and when it is most important for skeptics, if we are ever to gain wider acceptance by the public at large, to appreciate and respect that difference.

The person who disbelieves simply because there is not evidence to believe is not practicing skepticism. It is as non-skeptical to disbelieve without adequate grounds as it is to believe without adequate grounds. Unfortunately, that is the view that much of the public holds -- that skeptics are people who are antagonistic to unproven things.

For example: in the 1950s the Soviets launched satellites into space. In 1961 they claimed to have put a man into space. This was an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. And, over time, this evidence was forthcoming. But in the initial days, it would have been quite reasonable for a person to take a wait-and-see attitude -- to withhold belief (i.e. to lack belief) until the evidence was in. It would not, however, have been reasonable to disbelieve -- to claim that the Soviet claim was a hoax. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=12690) Disbelief is itself a claim (that the claim being made is false) and requires supporting evidence.

The question of intelligent life on other planets is another example. As yet, we have no evidence that there is intelligent life on planets other than earth, and it is unlikely we will be able to carry out tests on planets outside our solar system any time soon. A default position of lack of belief is reasonable; a position of blind disbelief, on the other hand, is as unreasonable here as a position of blind belief.

Global climate change is third example. Some people feel we do not yet have enough data to establish whether climate change is occurring, whether human activity is a significant contributing factor, whether the change (if it is real) poses any significant threat to human life and well-being, and (if so) whether there are feasible measures which could be taken to reverse or lessen those harmful effects. If someone feels the data is inconclusive, a default position of lack of belief (I am not yet convinced that global climate change is real / is human caused / is a significant problem) is reasonable. A position of (disbelief (Global warming is a fraud, and those who believe in it are liars or idiots) is not; it is a separate claim, requiring separate evidence.

The difference between lack of belief and disbelief is real, and there are numerous matters where this difference is significant. That is the point I am making. What point are you making, and how are we in disagreement?

Nova Land

20th June 2006, 01:14 PM

I see that earlier in the thread there were attempts to address this question (whether lack of belief and disbelief are distinct) in terms of formal logic. I'm more comfortable trying to illustrate my point with examples, but for those who prefer formal logic here is the point made that way.

(1) A is the set of people who hold the belief that something-X exists. People in this set believe.

(2) B is the set of people hold the belief that something-X does not exist. People in this set disbelieve.

(3) Not-A is the set of people who do not hold the belief that something-X exists. People in this set lack belief.

The set Not-A includes people who are undecided about the existence of X, or who have no opinion on the existence of X. If you asked them, do you believe in X? they would answer No -- which puts them in Not-A rather than in A. But these people do not disbelieve in the existence of X; if you asked them Do you believe that X does not exist? they would answer also No. Therefore it is possible to be a member of Not-A without being a member of B.

B is a subset of Not-A. Anyone who belongs to B belongs to Not-A, but not everyone who belongs to Not-A belongs to B.

Therefore, lack of belief and disbelief are not the same thing, and it is possible for a person to lack belief without disbelieving.

Dr Adequate

20th June 2006, 10:53 PM

I think you have misunderstood what I am saying. (It's quite possible I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say, as well.)

There are two points I am trying to make. They are:
(1.) Lack of belief and disbelief are not the same.
(2.) There are times when disbelief is reasonable, but there are also times when lack of belief is reasonable and disbelief is unreasonable.

The difference between lack of belief and disbelief is real, and there are numerous matters where this difference is significant. That is the point I am making. What point are you making, and how are we in disagreement?I understand you fine. My schema only applies when one has looked for the evidence, as I have explained. If I have looked under the bed for tigers, then lack of belief, and disbelief, in the tigers under my bed stand on the same empirical basis.

When one has no information, that is a different case. If I see a guy in the street with whom I have no acquaintance, then it would be true to say that I "lack belief" that his name is Jack, but stretching it to say that I actively "disbelieve" it.

Dr Adequate

20th June 2006, 11:04 PM

It's a bit too ridiculous to consider. The leg is completely contingent and devoid of creativity. God has to, at the very least, be at the top of some hierarchy. I was thinking more like...the "Big Bang" itself being God, as some theistic scientists suggest. Who?

In any case, this would seem to be a blatant example of left-leggism. At least my left leg exists in the present. If the Big Bang was God, then there is no God now ... or am I meant to worship the continuing expansion of space? The background microwave radiation? The laws of General Relativity, and their prophet Einstein?

It's not enough to point out that the Big Bang nearly has one of the attributes that people ascribe to God. So does my left leg --- it's alive.

"I know that my left leg liveth ... at the name of my left leg every knee shall bow ... "

Silly, isn't it?

Nova Land

21st June 2006, 12:32 AM

I understand you fine. My schema only applies when one has looked for the evidence ...
Not quite. I think that greater precision of language is called for here. It is not simply that evidence has been looked for that is required to make your schema applicable; it is also that strongly determinative evidence has been found.

In many cases, this simply is not possible. You are free to look as hard as you wish for evidence of intelligent life on other planets, for example, but we are not at present able to see under that bed clearly enough to determine if the tiger (intelligent alien life) is there.

When one has no information, that is a different case.
Likewise, you are much too imprecise when you say when one has no information. That implies an all or nothing situation -- either one has found enough information to settle the matter, or one has no information. But it is not simply in the relatively few cases where we have no information that your schema doesn't apply. It is also in the much larger number of cases where we have information but not enough information.

And even in cases where your schema will apply -- the cases where we are able to run a test, such as looking under a bed, and where the test is sufficient to reach a clear determination of whether something is under the bed or not -- there is going to be a period of time between when the question arises and when we are able to conclude the test, during which we have inadequate information for a determination. So in all cases, even those where your schema applies, there will be a period of time when lack of belief is distinct from disbelief.

Phrasing it the way you do it makes it sound as if it is only in cases with no information -- a fairly rare circumstance -- that lack of belief will be distinct from disbelief. That's why it is important to be clear that cases with no information are simply a small subset in the much larger category of cases with insufficient information.

Careless wording such as in your post could give people the misimpression that lack of belief and disbelief being distinct is the exception. In reality it is not the exception but the rule.