Girl dragged behind van at Christian boot camp [Archive]

Wolfman

11th August 2007, 01:42 PM

Does anyone still doubt that religion is child abuse?
Breach of Rule 8 removed.

First, this does not represent all religions, it represents one religion. Second, this doesn't represent all the people within that one religion, in fact most Christians would object to this as completely wrong. Third, atheists are just as capable of doing such things as theists are.

Honestly, as an atheist, I'm ashamed of the grossly anti-intellectual attacks launched against theistic beliefs, based on gross generalizations and completely unwarranted exaggerations like this one.

Do you think that an atheistic "boot camp", run by 100% atheists seeking to rehabilitate or train young people in a highly disciplined manner, would somehow be magically immune to having abusive idiots like this in charge? If so, you're a very sadly naive and misinformed individual. And if you're going to argue, "but it is worse because they believe they are doing god's will", or some other such thing, let me point out that by far the majority of Christians would be just as adamant in condemning this behavior as non-Christians would.

If someone took the isolated example of a few atheists who were racist, or who beat their wives, or any other such activities, and used this to "prove" that atheists are immoral and evil, we'd easily condemn such accusations as being without merit and entirely illogical.

There are tons of legitimate arguments against theistic belief systems; it is a shame that we have idiots who engage in idiotic arguments like this, that give theists legitimate cause to criticize and condemn atheists.

triadboy

11th August 2007, 01:42 PM

It's better to be dragged for God, than tired with Satan.

Spiro

11th August 2007, 01:45 PM

Surely even Christians need to set standards. You can't have people falling behind. God may be love but that doesn't mean you can't tie physically inadequate people behind vehicles when you want them to run faster. Love is never having to say you give a darn about your creation. Put as many drunks as possible behind the wheel so you can suffer little children to come to heaven. Will somebody ever get a grip on the complete idiocy that's called religion??!

mijopaalmc

11th August 2007, 01:49 PM

Yes, but in a different subforum.

Steve S.

Sorry, I started off awful defensive, but I was generalizing the responses that some other posters have had to various religious manipulations of children (e.g., telling them to question evolution) to this thread. There seems to be a group of people here that seek to generalize everything done by a relatively small group of religious extremist to every religious person.

I apologize though for using the the distinct lack of context in this thread to make assumptions about what the poster thus far were saying about religion in general.

Katana

11th August 2007, 01:49 PM

While I will ask that Wolfman contain his comments to attacking flaws in arguments rather than in arguers, I will echo some of his bafflement at how this can be considered representative of all religions or religious people.

It is representative of the two sick jerks who did this to this poor girl. Perhaps, they are reflective of the culture of this boot camp, so it is to be condemned along with them if that's true.

But taking this as an example through which to condemn all religions or religious people seems strange to me.

mijopaalmc

11th August 2007, 01:56 PM

Breach of Rule 8 removed.

First, this does not represent all religions, it represents one religion. Second, this doesn't represent all the people within that one religion, in fact most Christians would object to this as completely wrong. Third, atheists are just as capable of doing such things as theists are.

Honestly, as an atheist, I'm ashamed of the grossly anti-intellectual attacks launched against theistic beliefs, based on gross generalizations and completely unwarranted exaggerations like this one.

Do you think that an atheistic "boot camp", run by 100% atheists seeking to rehabilitate or train young people in a highly disciplined manner, would somehow be magically immune to having abusive idiots like this in charge? If so, you're a very sadly naive and misinformed individual. And if you're going to argue, "but it is worse because they believe they are doing god's will", or some other such thing, let me point out that by far the majority of Christians would be just as adamant in condemning this behavior as non-Christians would.

If someone took the isolated example of a few atheists who were racist, or who beat their wives, or any other such activities, and used this to "prove" that atheists are immoral and evil, we'd easily condemn such accusations as being without merit and entirely illogical.

There are tons of legitimate arguments against theistic belief systems; it is a shame that we have idiots who engage in idiotic arguments like this, that give theists legitimate cause to criticize and condemn atheists.

Wolfman,

It would do you well to find other things that I have written of this subject to see what my position actually is on this topic. I understand that the object of the sarcasm was a little ambiguous, but I was mocking people who make the gross generalization from what religious extremists do to what all religious people do.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=985641) is a list of threads in which I have written on the "religion is child abuse" meme. I think it is relatively easy to figure out from a cursory scan of posts where I stand on the issue.

Dancing David

11th August 2007, 01:56 PM

Would this even be posted on any of the JREF forums if it had occurred at a boot camp run by the sheriff's department?

Yes, we have discussed such things before. You really don't read many threads here do you?

Malachi151

11th August 2007, 02:09 PM

Katana

11th August 2007, 02:13 PM

I lot of research has been done on the psychology of this. There is a definite influence in all religions of the idea of "divine sanction". Obviously not all people adopt such views, but studies have shown that statistically speaking, people are more likely to engage in abusive or violent behavior if they believe that doing so is God's will or serves a divine purpose.

The belief that "God is on your side" tends to increase the level of violence that people are willing to perpetrate on others.

This is an established fact.

Well, that stands to reason, doesn't it?

If you're violent and you believe in God, and you think that God sanctions your violence, then you're more likely to be violent. All we need to do is to look at the Middle East to see the effects of that.

mijopaalmc

11th August 2007, 02:14 PM

Yes, we have discussed such things before. You really don't read many threads here do you?

Oh really? Where?

A search (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=985652) for sherif* boot camp only turns up one other thread, which is on Novus Spiritus, which is not run by a sheriff's department. So if there are threads about law enforcement abuses of children at "tough love" organizations they do not contain the words "sheriff" or its variant forms, "boot", or "camp".

In other words, I have read more threads than you think I have not seen any on sheriff department boot camp, and there don't seem to be any at least with the keywords that would immediately link it to this thread.

JoeEllison

11th August 2007, 02:18 PM

Ahhh, we've got Ann Coulter's "fact checker" in this thread. Sweet!

Katana

11th August 2007, 02:20 PM

Ahhh, we've got Ann Coulter's "fact checker" in this thread. Sweet!

:confused:

JoeEllison

11th August 2007, 02:25 PM

I lot of research has been done on the psychology of this. There is a definite influence in all religions of the idea of "divine sanction". Obviously not all people adopt such views, but studies have shown that statistically speaking, people are more likely to engage in abusive or violent behavior if they believe that doing so is God's will or serves a divine purpose.

The belief that "God is on your side" tends to increase the level of violence that people are willing to perpetrate on others.

This is an established fact.

We're supposed to pretend that this isn't true of Christians... and often we're told this by people who are convinced that Islam(and only Islam) is inherently violent. The reality is that any of these belief systems can lead to this sort of behavior, and in large part seem designed to lead to this.

baron

11th August 2007, 02:25 PM

This is one of the most pathetic threads I've ever seen on this board.

JoeEllison

11th August 2007, 02:31 PM

:confused:
Sorry... political inside joke, I guess.

Coulter liked to claim that no one in the mainstream media ever discussed certain issues, by loading the LexisNexis search engine in ways that guaranteed no hits, and then claimed that her failure to get a hit was proof that no hits existed.

mijopaalmc kind of pulled the same thing, at least as I saw it. When Dancing David posted that we've discussed this sort of thing before, I saw it as him saying that we've discussed people in authority being abusive, and the very narrow search mijopaalmc attempted seemed intentionally narrow, in order to pretend that his position was valid.

I'm sure there are threads on Abu Ghraib, which would certainly count as a discussion of this sort of thing, in a secular setting.

Katana

11th August 2007, 02:34 PM

Sorry... political inside joke, I guess.

Coulter liked to claim that no one in the mainstream media ever discussed certain issues, by loading the LexisNexis search engine in ways that guaranteed no hits, and then claimed that her failure to get a hit was proof that no hits existed.

mijopaalmc kind of pulled the same thing, at least as I saw it. When Dancing David posted that we've discussed this sort of thing before, I saw it as him saying that we've discussed people in authority being abusive, and the very narrow search mijopaalmc attempted seemed intentionally narrow, in order to pretend that his position was valid.

I'm sure there are threads on Abu Ghraib, which would certainly count as a discussion of this sort of thing, in a secular setting.

Ah, thank you for the explanation.

ETA: I know I asked for the clarification, and I appreciated it. However, I'm sorry, but it is my duty to remind you to wage battles against arguments rather than arguers. Thanks. :)

mijopaalmc

11th August 2007, 02:34 PM

:confused:

Oh, he doesn't like the fact that I told him and others that if they were skeptical about what individuals without qualifications in scientific fields, especially evolutionary biology, say about those scientific fields, then they should probably be skeptical about what Dawkins say about religion as Dawkins does not have qualification in religion, even in its secular study*. Instead of choosing to engage me in reasoned debate, he has chosen to misrepresent my statements (e.g., claiming that I said that Dawkins couldn't "have an opinion on religion") and make ad hominem attack (e.g., "Ann Coulter's fact checker").

*This is in part relevant to the discussion in this thread because those who claim that religion (most often not accompanied by any modifier or reference to a specific event) is child abuse seem to draw their support from Dawkins' writings, regardless of whether or not he actually said those things.

JoeEllison

11th August 2007, 02:39 PM

Oh, he doesn't like the fact that I told him and others that if they were skeptical about what individuals without qualifications in scientific fields, especially evolutionary biology, say about those scientific fields, then they should probably be skeptical about what Dawkins say about religion as Dawkins does not have qualification in religion, even in its secular study*. Instead of choosing to engage me in reasoned debate, he has chosen to misrepresent my statements (e.g., claiming that I said that Dawkins couldn't "have an opinion on religion") and make ad hominem attack (e.g., "Ann Coulter's fact checker").

*This is in part relevant to the discussion in this thread because those who claim that religion (most often not accompanied by any modifier or reference to a specific event) is child abuse seem to draw their support from Dawkins' writings, regardless of whether or not he actually said those things.*grins*

Pull the other one, dude. I didn't even remember that thread until you brought it up. No offense, but none of this matters to me enough to remember what must seem to you to be major issues.

At least you recognize that it is bad to be like Ann Coulter... points in your favor!:D

Foster Zygote

11th August 2007, 02:43 PM

Sorry... political inside joke, I guess.

Coulter liked to claim that no one in the mainstream media ever discussed certain issues, by loading the LexisNexis search engine in ways that guaranteed no hits, and then claimed that her failure to get a hit was proof that no hits existed.

mijopaalmc kind of pulled the same thing, at least as I saw it. When Dancing David posted that we've discussed this sort of thing before, I saw it as him saying that we've discussed people in authority being abusive, and the very narrow search mijopaalmc attempted seemed intentionally narrow, in order to pretend that his position was valid.

I'm sure there are threads on Abu Ghraib, which would certainly count as a discussion of this sort of thing, in a secular setting.

Doesn't she do the "blank and blank and blank" search instead of the "blank or blank or blank"? I remember reading that that's how she loads her search parameters to assure that they are too specific to turn up relevant results.

Katana

11th August 2007, 02:43 PM

Ahem, keep it on topic, mijopaalmc & JoeEllison.

:wackyskeptical:

mijopaalmc

11th August 2007, 02:44 PM

*grins*

Pull the other one, dude. I didn't even remember that thread until you brought it up. No offense, but none of this matters to me enough to remember what must seem to you to be major issues.

At least you recognize that it is bad to be like Ann Coulter... points in your favor!:D

Sorry to be touchy, but in the five months since I joined the board, I have seen my argument consistently misrepresented despite repeated clarification. I do consider the whole "religion is abuse" meme to be quite serious because it crops up in people who consider themselves to be rational and to be acting rationally when they make that charge.

Foster Zygote

11th August 2007, 02:56 PM

Would this even be posted on any of the JREF forums if it had occurred at a boot camp run by the sheriff's department?

As the camp exists to serve a religious purpose I would say that this event is perfectly appropriate for discussion on this sub forum. While I don't feel that this alleged crime is typical of Christianity in North America it certainly represents some of the worst of religiously justified abuse.

Katana

11th August 2007, 03:01 PM

As the camp exists to serve a religious purpose I would say that this event is perfectly appropriate for discussion on this sub forum. While I don't feel that this alleged crime is typical of Christianity in North America it certainly represents some of the worst of religiously justified abuse.

Wearing devil's advocate hat: Except that I didn't see anything in the article suggesting that it was their religious beliefs that made them think that this was justified. What about the deaths at those juvenile boot camps in Florida run by the state? What was their justification?

I just don't see evidence that their religion came into play in justifying this.

What's sad (and could be pointed out) is that, presumably, they were "religious" given their participation in this camp, yet they still acted as they did.

Somehow, I see that as a different argument/issue.

kerikiwi

11th August 2007, 03:12 PM

While I don't feel that this alleged crime is typical of Christianity in North America it certainly represents some of the worst of religiously justified abuse.

The people who tend to this kind of behaviour may well be attracted, in the first place, to environments that allow them to exhibit that behaviour. So you are right in saying the abuse is religiously justified, even though it is not (necessarily) religiously based.

geni

11th August 2007, 03:28 PM

The people who tend to this kind of behaviour may well be attracted, in the first place, to environments that allow them to exhibit that behaviour. So you are right in saying the abuse is religiously justified, even though it is not (necessarily) religiously based.

The Marquis de Sade and Ian Brady would beg to differ.

Foster Zygote

11th August 2007, 03:29 PM

Wearing devil's advocate hat: Except that I didn't see anything in the article suggesting that it was their religious beliefs that made them think that this was justified. What about the deaths at those juvenile boot camps in Florida run by the state? What was their justification?

I just don't see evidence that their religion came into play in justifying this.

What's sad (and could be pointed out) is that, presumably, they were "religious" given their participation in this camp, yet they still acted as they did.

Somehow, I see that as a different argument/issue.

Good point. I very much doubt that many ,if any, people expected this sort of abuse to be inflicted on the children at the camp. It may well be that those involved were acting strictly on their own. But the article also states that Flowers is the camp director and that he is alleged to have tied the rope to the girl himself. Even if the religious institution running the camp is utterly appalled by the actions of the director and the counselor they still bear responsibility for the actions of their employees. The state of Florida as a whole may not have intended that children die at their facilities but ultimately the state is still responsible for the welfare of the children at its facilities. I think the event shows not so much the "evils of religion" as it shows that religion is no guarantee of moral behavior, but I still feel the individual religious institution operating the camp is liable for the abuse.

Katana

11th August 2007, 03:48 PM

Good point. I very much doubt that many ,if any, people expected this sort of abuse to be inflicted on the children at the camp. It may well be that those involved were acting strictly on their own. But the article also states that Flowers is the camp director and that he is alleged to have tied the rope to the girl himself. Even if the religious institution running the camp is utterly appalled by the actions of the director and the counselor they still bear responsibility for the actions of their employees. The state of Florida as a whole may not have intended that children die at their facilities but ultimately the state is still responsible for the welfare of the children at its facilities. I think the event shows not so much the "evils of religion" as it shows that religion is no guarantee of moral behavior, but I still feel the individual religious institution operating the camp is liable for the abuse.

Certainly, it shares in the responsibility along with the two jerks. No disagreement here.

Achán hiNidráne

11th August 2007, 03:59 PM

And they call themselves Love Demonstrated Ministries?

:jaw-dropp

Well, right-wing Christians have a hard-on for that whole "tough love" thing.

Achán hiNidráne

11th August 2007, 04:00 PM

Does anyone still doubt that religion is child abuse?

I don't doubt it.

No sarcasm there, either.

Malachi151

11th August 2007, 04:01 PM

I think the event shows not so much the "evils of religion"

I disagree. The problem with religiosity is that it embodies people with the idea that they can do no wrong. This is a psychological issue and it doesn't even matter what the religion is or what the teachings of the religion are.

People become filled with the idea of "I'm a follower of God, therefore what I do is right. Whatever I do is right, because I am Godly."

Values can become defined differently for highly religious people, such that actions are viewed as good or bad not in relation to the results of the actions, but in relation to how the individual perceives that God judges the action, and in relation to how the individual perceives his own "holiness". If a person believes that they are in tune with values of God, then they can begin view all of their actions as justified regardless of anything else, because their "moral compass" becomes completely internalized and is no longer calibrated to externalities.

The individual internalizes their own sense of divine justice, which almost always defines all external modes of judgment as inferior or corrupt.

That, indeed, is the danger of religion, and that, indeed, is what I believe was at work here. It's very similar to "group think", except in this case the "group" consists of you and "God" (which is ultimately just your own alter-ego) thus you become a group within yourself.

geni

11th August 2007, 04:23 PM

I disagree. The problem with religiosity is that it embodies people with the idea that they can do no wrong.

No. It is quite hard to come up with a system where you can do no wrong. Relgious systems tend to define things in terms of right and wrong rather firmly

This is a psychological issue and it doesn't even matter what the religion is or what the teachings of the religion are.

The differing actions of various relgious groups would suggest otherwise.

People become filled with the idea of "I'm a follower of God, therefore what I do is right. Whatever I do is right, because I am Godly."

Yes but that is not takeing the position that you can do no wrong. Such a system would define rejecting god as wrong.

Values can become defined differently for highly religious people, such that actions are viewed as good or bad not in relation to the results of the actions, but in relation to how the individual perceives that God judges the action, and in relation to how the individual perceives his own "holiness".

Swap the word god with something else and you have the ethical system of rather a lot of the planet.

If a person believes that they are in tune with values of God, then they can begin view all of their actions as justified regardless of anything else, because their "moral compass" becomes completely internalized and is no longer calibrated to externalities.

You can get there through materialism and Nihilism just as well.

The individual internalizes their own sense of divine justice, which almost always defines all external modes of judgment as inferior or corrupt.

That would be the Übermensch.

Achán hiNidráne

11th August 2007, 04:34 PM

The problem with religiosity is that it embodies people with the idea that they can do no wrong.

Indeed. Now matter how you slice it, these "boot camps" and the nuts who run them are a manifestation of mainstream Christianity, just as abortion clinic bombers grew out of mainstream religious obligations to reproductive freedom, just as bans on same-sex marriage grew from the mainstream intolerance toward homosexuals, just as Discovery Institutes legal shenanigans to defeat science are borne from the mainstream belief in Creationism.

In religion, the only difference between the "moderate" and the "extremist" is that the former hasn't killed anyone in the name of his faith...

...yet.

mijopaalmc

11th August 2007, 04:43 PM

In religion, the only difference between the "moderate" and the "extremist" is that the former hasn't killed anyone in the name of his faith...

...yet.

And you criticize religion for being stunningly intolerant?

You ever stop to think that the vast majority of religious adherents (including extremists) have not killed anyone?

quixotecoyote

11th August 2007, 04:46 PM

You can get there through materialism and Nihilism just as well.

Nihilism I can see. For materialism you'd have to show your work.

geni

11th August 2007, 04:51 PM

Indeed. Now matter how you slice it, these "boot camps" and the nuts who run them are a manifestation of mainstream Christianity,

Nyet. Mainstream Christianity does not run that kind of camp. You can tell by the fairly small percentage of the US landmass covered by prisons.

just as abortion clinic bombers grew out of mainstream religious obligations to reproductive freedom,

They grew out of a few random nut cases.

just as bans on same-sex marriage grew from the mainstream intolerance toward homosexuals,

No. Bans on same sex marriage surface due to the difference between potentialy child bareing unions and not potentialy childbearing unions. The Greeks clearly took the position that there were important differences between a pederastic relationship and marriage.

Roman society while accepting reletionships between those of the same sex did not legaly allow marrage been those of the same sex (significant because roman law influnced latter european law).

You appear to be suffering from rather a narrow world view.

just as Discovery Institutes legal shenanigans to defeat science are borne from the mainstream belief in Creationism.

YEC isn't mainstream

In religion, the only difference between the "moderate" and the "extremist" is that the former hasn't killed anyone in the name of his faith...

...yet.

The only difference between a moderate athiest and Ian Brady is that the former hasn't killed anyone yet.

geni

11th August 2007, 05:03 PM

Nihilism I can see. For materialism you'd have to show your work.

The argument from materialism would be along the lines of:

Ethics do not exist. You can exain the universe any way you like and you will not find one particle of ethics.

So with the removal of ethics and thus any wider code of correct behaviour an internal moral code becomes supream.

There is then no reason to adopt any moral code other than:

Right=what I want to do
Wrong=what I don't want to do.

Now englightened self interest may keep such a person in line to an extent (they don't want to go to prision) but if they are not too bothered by prision or really want to kill someone you have a problem.

Of course a person may want to minimise suffering so such a moral code is not per se a problem but it does provide a way to get to a position where you can view anything you do as justified (which no objective ethics how can you say something someone else does is wrong?).

Achán hiNidráne

11th August 2007, 05:11 PM

And you criticize religion for being stunningly intolerant?

You can't be intolerant toward intolerance, and religion is one of the primary sources of that.

You ever stop to think that the vast majority of religious adherents (including extremists) have not killed anyone?Have you ever asked me if I cared?

Go ahead... ask me.

Skeptic Ginger

11th August 2007, 05:19 PM

...I didn't see anything in the article suggesting that it was their religious beliefs that made them think that this was justified....I just don't see evidence that their religion came into play in justifying this.Much as I love to Evangelical bash, I didn't see any of the 'this is what God wants' claims here either.

It took me a while to find but here's their web site. (http://www.christian-bootcamp.org/index.htm) The founders are a retired Air Force husband and wife.

In a 1998 news article, Christian Boot Camp for teen girls puts faith first (http://www.texnews.com/1998/religion/bootcamp0809.html).For most, attendance was voluntary. Others had no choice; their parents or minor crimes such as truancy put them there. It's a gushing article claiming you put bratty gang tending kids in for 32 days and all their upbringing is erased and they become grateful little angels when they return home. :rolleyes: I'm skeptical. I imagine it could be helping some kids though. Except this is way over the line. Makes you wonder if their discipline progressed to violence over time or if it was there from the beginning.

...What's sad (and could be pointed out) is that, presumably, they were "religious" given their participation in this camp, yet they still acted as they did.....I have never seen evidence that convinces me the claims of the Christian religion being all love thy neighbor is true. It seems to me there is the same mix of good and evil in church as in the society the religious people came from. In other words I haven't seen a lot of evidence other than perhaps aiding the recovery of substance abuse and the accompanying decrease in violence, that church changes people. If you are violent you become a violent Christian.

mijopaalmc

11th August 2007, 05:21 PM

You can't be intolerant toward intolerance, and religion is one of the primary sources of that.

Have you ever asked me if I cared?

Go ahead... ask me.

Spoken like a true bigot.

You are painting with a huge brush, much in the same way that religious extremists do. You have labeled all religious people similarly regardless of the way they actually behave or what they actually believe.

Why can't you see that?

Mojo

11th August 2007, 05:32 PM

I am not aware of this being one of the tenets of any faith.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1632874.stm

They even took it to the ECHR on the grounds that it was a tenet of their faith.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2570565.stm

Achán hiNidráne

11th August 2007, 05:34 PM

Nyet. Mainstream Christianity does not run that kind of camp. You can tell by the fairly small percentage of the US landmass covered by prisons.

Do a Google search on "Christian boot camps." I found three on the first page alone.

They grew out of a few random nut cases.

No, they grew out of mainstream Christians screaming and yelling that "Abortion Is Murder" for 40 years. You cant keep calling a OB/GYN a "murderer" before someone decides to play the Vigilante for Christ.

No. Bans on same sex marriage surface due to the difference between potentialy child bareing unions and not potentialy childbearing unions. The Greeks clearly took the position that there were important differences between a pederastic relationship and marriage.

Roman society while accepting reletionships between those of the same sex did not legaly allow marrage been those of the same sex (significant because roman law influnced latter european law).

You appear to be suffering from rather a narrow world view.

No, in this culture the objections toward homosexual marriage, and homosexuality in general, from the Laws of Moses to the Defence of Marriage Act, are religious. Using appeals to the majority or tradition doesn't cover up that fact.

Who's the one one with a narrow world view, homophobe?

YEC isn't mainstream

YEC, OEC? Six of one half a dozen of the other. The second you inject "God" into scientific questions on the origins of life, the universe, and everything, you're a stinking Creationist.

The only difference between a moderate athiest and Ian Brady is that the former hasn't killed anyone yet.

One sicko who fancied himself an atheist doesn't condemn anyone else who has the brains not to believe in god.

Christianity, on the other hand... Well, all you have to do is crack open a history book to find out that cruelty is an inherent quality of that filthy little faith.

Darth Rotor

11th August 2007, 05:38 PM

Spoken like a true bigot.

You are painting with a huge brush, much in the same way that religious extremists do. You have labeled all religious people similarly regardless of the way they actually behave or what they actually believe.

Why can't you see that?
Some folks think that wearing blinders is a good fashion choice.

DR

Achán hiNidráne

11th August 2007, 05:38 PM

Spoken like a true bigot.

Spoken like a true Christian. An example:

Christian: "Homosexuals are an abomination before the Lord!"

Me: "No they're not, you bigot!"

Christian: "I'm not a bigot! I'm following the tenants of my faith. No, YOU'RE the bigot for attack my beliefs!"

Incivility removed

Darth Rotor

11th August 2007, 05:43 PM

Spoken like a true Christian. An example:

Incivility removed
You just broke the irony meter.

By the way, Mal Reynold's character trait of atheism due to traumatic loss of faith is hardly a parallel to your narrow minded bile, Mark.

Not shiny.

DR

vincent1555

11th August 2007, 05:45 PM

I disagree. The problem with religiosity is that it embodies people with the idea that they can do no wrong. This is a psychological issue and it doesn't even matter what the religion is or what the teachings of the religion are.

People become filled with the idea of "I'm a follower of God, therefore what I do is right. Whatever I do is right, because I am Godly."

Values can become defined differently for highly religious people, such that actions are viewed as good or bad not in relation to the results of the actions, but in relation to how the individual perceives that God judges the action, and in relation to how the individual perceives his own "holiness". If a person believes that they are in tune with values of God, then they can begin view all of their actions as justified regardless of anything else, because their "moral compass" becomes completely internalized and is no longer calibrated to externalities.

The individual internalizes their own sense of divine justice, which almost always defines all external modes of judgment as inferior or corrupt.

That, indeed, is the danger of religion, and that, indeed, is what I believe was at work here. It's very similar to "group think", except in this case the "group" consists of you and "God" (which is ultimately just your own alter-ego) thus you become a group within yourself.

Those who live in glass houses... Atheists and materialistic philosophies can cause just as many atrocities as theists. Stalin and Communist Russia had virtually no regard for individual human life and they slaughtered far more innocent people than even Hitler. As for Hitler (regardless of whether he was in fact an atheist) it is undisputed that the Nazi philosophy was strongly based on Nietzshce who started from the premise that "God is dead." As bad as they are religious extremists almost always have conversion as the goal of their violence, for Nazis it was annihilation. So can we please stop saying that a belief in God makes someone more likely to engage in extremism. "I am superior and there is no God to oppose me" is just as good an excuse to commit violence as " it is the will of God"

Achán hiNidráne

11th August 2007, 05:54 PM

Incivility removed

For an internet forum for an organization founded by a man who champions atheism, the JREF boards seem infested with them.

Why don't you Incivility removed just put on some animal skins, stick a bone through your nose, and register at Rapture Ready or WorldNet Daily where you belong?

The civilized folks are talking here.

mijopaalmc

11th August 2007, 06:03 PM

Spoken like a true Christian. An example:

Incivility removed.

And you can take your misrepresentations and lies and shove them.

I never said anything about homosexuals being evil or even about how it was not OK to criticize any person or group that says so. I did however say that you were painting with a large brush and that such overgeneralization is the mark of a bigot because it vastly oversimplifies the world. You essentially ignored that there is a diversity of belief on homosexuality in many different Christian denominations. The fact that there has been almost constant controversy about the ordination and marriage of homosexuals since at least the late 1990's demonstrates that there are individuals, however late in coming, who are seeking to effect change in these organizations. Therefore, you simply cannot apply you "homophobic Christian" stereotype to all Christians. To do so only marks you as a bigot.

vincent1555

11th August 2007, 06:16 PM

Incivility removed.

For an internet forum for an organization founded by a man who champions atheism, the JREF boards seem infested with them.

Why don't you Incivility removed. just put on some animal skins, stick a bone through your nose, and register at Rapture Ready or WorldNet Daily where you belong?

The civilized folks are talking here.

According to the the opening line of the welcome letter to new members "The Forum was opened in August 2001 for people to 'Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe.'" Some of us do not feel a need to only associate with people who will merely parrot our own beliefs back at as. There is nothing like talking with people who think differently to preserve one's intellectual honesty and learn new things. That is why I am here, perhaps you should try some good Christian boards for the same reason. Though if the infestation is as bad as you say, perhaps that will not be necessary ;)

Skeptic Ginger

11th August 2007, 06:40 PM

According to the the opening line of the welcome letter to new members "The Forum was opened in August 2001 for people to 'Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe.'" Some of us do not feel a need to only associate with people who will merely parrot our own beliefs back at as. There is nothing like talking with people who think differently to preserve one's intellectual honesty and learn new things. That is why I am here, perhaps you should try some good Christian boards for the same reason. Though if the infestation is as bad as you say, perhaps that will not be necessary ;)Some of us are trying to have a real conversation.

(BTW, there are a few less arguments on some Christian BBs because they ban everyone who disagrees.)

Malachi151

11th August 2007, 07:21 PM

As for Hitler (regardless of whether he was in fact an atheist) it is undisputed that the Nazi philosophy was strongly based on Nietzshce who started from the premise that "God is dead."

Nonsense. The Nazis were an ultra-religious cult by the way, and banning atheism was one of the very first things that Hitler did.

See my articles on Nazism for references:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_fascism.htm

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

I would certainly never claim that "atheists are without flaws", people are people.

Deep religiosity is simply ONE FACTOR, out of many, that can lead to this type of behavior, that doesn't mean its the only factor, but it is one of the factors.

Besides, the 20th century Communist movements took on many characteristics of a religion, in both good and bad ways. The Communist movements became like religious movements and tapped into many of the same psychological aspects of group dynamic.

mijopaalmc

11th August 2007, 07:41 PM

Some of us are trying to have a real conversation.

Did you notice how Mark dismissed everyone who disagreed with him as a Christian and therefore a vested interest?

Now that's really conducive to conversation!:rolleyes:

I'm not trying to justify any thing anyone else has said or done, just pointing out that you seem to be being a little bit selective in your criticism.

prewitt81

11th August 2007, 07:44 PM

I will reiterate Katana's earlier admonition. Attack the argument, not the person making it. This is a public warning.

Skeptic Ginger

12th August 2007, 03:02 AM

Did you notice how Mark dismissed everyone who disagreed with him as a Christian and therefore a vested interest?

Now that's really conducive to conversation!:rolleyes:

I'm not trying to justify any thing anyone else has said or done, just pointing out that you seem to be being a little bit selective in your criticism.I wasn't criticizing anyone Mijo, I was ignoring the tiff going on in this thread. And I see no reason to get involved in it.

I fight plenty of battles in this forum. The one going on in this thread is not one I care about.

geni

12th August 2007, 03:08 AM

Do a Google search on "Christian boot camps." I found three on the first page alone.

There are about 2 billion christians on this planet. 3 bootcamps is not mainstream.

No, they grew out of mainstream Christians screaming and yelling that "Abortion Is Murder" for 40 years. You cant keep calling a OB/GYN a "murderer" before someone decides to play the Vigilante for Christ.

Nyet. In the UK we have had claims that killing people is murder for a few thousand years. Outside some incerdents in northan Irland vigilantes are not very common.

No, in this culture the objections toward homosexual marriage, and homosexuality in general, from the Laws of Moses to the Defence of Marriage Act, are religious. Using appeals to the majority or tradition doesn't cover up that fact.

Your explanition as to why Pre-chritistian romans (and greeks) would care what some random jew said will be interesting.

Of course the atheist soviet state viewed homosexuality as a western disease but there you go.

Who's the one one with a narrow world view, homophobe?

Withdraw that acussation.

YEC, OEC? Six of one half a dozen of the other. The second you inject "God" into scientific questions on the origins of life, the universe, and everything, you're a stinking Creationist.

Which scientific law does "A god created the universe" clash with?

One sicko who fancied himself an atheist doesn't condemn anyone else who has the brains not to believe in god.

Why? Those are the standards you are applying to christianity.

Christianity, on the other hand... Well, all you have to do is crack open a history book to find out that cruelty is an inherent quality of that filthy little faith.

Oh cristianity does quite well with a few million dead here and there. But for shear numbers you have to credit athism. Oh it started late didn't really get going untill the 20th centery but once it got going I mean wow. Stalin alone racks up 10 million. Pretty good going for a first attempt. But it gets even better Mao manages to top the Taiping Rebellion. Christianities ultimate kill total and Mao comes along and tops it.

In one century athism has managed to top christianities kill total. Will it be able to keep it up? Hard to say.

geni

12th August 2007, 03:20 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1632874.stm

They even took it to the ECHR on the grounds that it was a tenet of their faith.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2570565.stm

That isn't pulling someone along behind a truck. Obviously there have been some groups with some fairly interesting tenets of faith such as the Thuggee.

cybermanikan

12th August 2007, 03:41 AM

Katana

12th August 2007, 05:11 AM

Temporal Renegade

12th August 2007, 05:35 AM

General question:

Why do you think Christians (or any religion, for that matter) need 'boot camps' to instill faith in people who obviously already believe (otherwise, they wouldn't even be there in the first place)? Summer camps and retreats I can understand, but why something whose name conjures up images of regimented discipline and excessive hard work, to 'bring them closer to God'?

Just seems a little too harsh to me.

Mojo

12th August 2007, 05:50 AM

That isn't pulling someone along behind a truck.

Not specifically, but they were certainly claiming that their religion requires physical punishment.

mijopaalmc

12th August 2007, 05:56 AM

Temporal Renegade

12th August 2007, 06:01 AM

Why do you think that sheriff department needs boot camps to instill the rules of law in "troubled" teens?

Troubled teens go to these camps as an alternative to actual jail time; if they don't complete the time in the camp, they don't have the option of going home, they get sent to jail.

If a Christian kid goes to a Christian boot camp, and can't complete the activities, they should be able to go home, not be physically punished.

Malachi151

12th August 2007, 06:08 AM

As much invective as has been thrown about here... it is another anecdotal example in line with more experimental evidence on how religious and political topics psychologically evoke emotional responses. As critical as I am of religion I can't see the van incident as indicative of religious thinking. I would be much more likely to see this as yet another example of Zimbardo's findings of authority sadism (Stanford Prison Experiment; also of interesting note Zimbardo's recent commentary on the Abu Ghraib incident).

One thing that can happen, in extreme cases, is religious thinking *could* support such authority driven violence (e.g., Jim Jones). In general I think religion is no protection against such acts but I can't see such flaws being attributed generally without a line of reasoning--and definately not to people who simply claim to be religious. Such behavior is, thankfully, an extreme of human nature and not a norm.

Again I disagree.

#1) There are many cases of this type of behavior linked to religion where the actors are individuals acting on their own outside of any other kind of pressure from other people. For example, the Christian guy a few years back who shot and killed his dorm roommate because he was an atheist. For example abortion clinic doctor killers who often cook up and carry out their plans on their own at no one else's urging, etc.

#2) It's not that religion "could" support authority driven actions, authority IS AN INTEGRAL PART of religion. Religion and authority go hand-in-hand, and I argue that religion evolved from authority power structures.

My view is that religion evolved from leader worship, and evolved into institutions and and modes of thinking that not only enable leaders to gain more control over followers, but that really enable followers to become more effective followers. In other words, this evolution was not just top down, it was also bottom up, as there are advantages for some people to simply being followers. People who have poor judgment or little understanding of the world are actually better off following other people and dedicating themselves to doing what other people tell them to do, meaning that there can be advantages to being a follower when an individual has poor personal skills, they are better off letting other s think for them (in an evolutionary sense).

If you can gain more resources, more access to mates, and gain a higher social status by becoming a follower than you can by doing your own thing or thinking for yourself, then there is an advantage to being a follower. So, the evolution social structures in humans, and other social animals, isn't simply top down driven by the dominant members, it is also bottom up, driven by, for lack of a better word, "inferior" members.

Religion is very much a part of that group dynamic, and it probably the most powerful representation of it. God has "evolved", driven largely by selection forces from the "inferior" members, who are seeking a "perfect leader".

"God" is the idealized leader that followers want, he has become detached from reality, and is thus no longer subject to the shortcomings of real human leaders. This is why "God" is so powerful and people react to "God" like the ultimate authority figure.

When we talk about cases like that of Mao and Stalin, we see that they also engendered a "godly type" of leader persona, and thus really the same exact dynamics were at work as the dynamics that we talk about when we talk about religion.

mijopaalmc

12th August 2007, 06:10 AM

Troubled teens go to these camps as an alternative to actual jail time; if they don't complete the time in the camp, they don't have the option of going home, they get sent to jail.

If a Christian kid goes to a Christian boot camp, and can't complete the activities, they should be able to go home, not be physically punished.

Not always. I'm sure what percentage of programs are represented of day time television, but many of them accept "students" whose parents "just can't control" them and who haven't necessarily entered any part of the juvenile justice system.

Temporal Renegade

12th August 2007, 06:22 AM

Not always. I'm sure what percentage of programs are represented of day time television, but many of them accept "students" whose parents "just can't control" them and who haven't necessarily entered any part of the juvenile justice system.

But, neither camp should have to resort to physical abuse to get their message across to the 'campers'.

Ichneumonwasp

12th August 2007, 06:44 AM

I'm not entering most of this, but there are some stunningly wrong statements bandied about in this thread.

it is undisputed that the Nazi philosophy was strongly based on Nietzshce who started from the premise that "God is dead."

Just absolutely wrong. First of all the starting point of Nietzsche's philosophy was not "God is dead". His philosophy was atheistic, but "God is dead" was a very different comment on European culture, not a statement of atheism. The Nazis were not strongly influenced by Nietzsche either. They had their own brand of lunacy that borrowed some of Nietzsche's language but used virtually none of his actual ideas. Nietzsche would, most likely, have been appalled by the Nazis. For the most part the Nazis were not atheists, so to draw any parallel between Nietzsche, the Nazis and atheism is simply wrong-headed.

One of what I think was Nietzsche's mistakes was an over-reliance on the "Overman" idea (however one sees his use of it, which is not entirely clear to anyone). Many think that the Nazis used this idea to push their agenda, but whatever it was that they thought, it wasn't Nietzsche's idea of the "Overman". This "creature", whether he was supposed to represent a new stage in human evolution or whatever, was a highly moral character, not one who would round up any group of humanity and burn them in ovens. The morality of this creature was simply not the "humble" morality of the "slave", which Nietzsche viewed in fairly negative tones. And it was not a "whatever I say goes" sort of morality either. It was based in a life-affirming ethos. Even though Nietzsche argued against Aristotelean viewpoints this ethics was actually somewhat similar to the endgame of The Nichomachean Ethics (a guide to human flourishing) without the teleological underpinnings of that work.

The argument from materialism would be along the lines of:

Ethics do not exist. You can exain the universe any way you like and you will not find one particle of ethics.

So with the removal of ethics and thus any wider code of correct behaviour an internal moral code becomes supream.

There is then no reason to adopt any moral code other than:

Right=what I want to do
Wrong=what I don't want to do.

Again, simply, utterly wrong.

The argument would rather be:

The universe does not prescribe an ultimate ethical code. So we are left to our own internally generated ethical behavior, which is the force by which we, as a species, were able to survive in the first place. Humans live in large groups because of our ability to think morally. The propensity for morality is an integral part of our psyche, as is evident when looking at societies cross-culturally where we see many of the same ethical ideas promulgated. Morality is not, therefore, whatever any one person thinks it is, but rather a system of rule based behavior integral to humans as a means of cohabitation. Private morality is as meaningless as private language. Language exists as a means of communication, which implies other parties. Morality exists as a rule based system for us to live together, a system that each of us inherits genetically and socially and which we internalize. By its very nature, it must be social in origin, not individual.

Please leave the straw man characterizations by the wayside.

Ichneumonwasp

12th August 2007, 07:20 AM

Woops, sorry, I just saw your post #59 which pretty much qualifies what I objected to below and negates my whole post. Oh, well.

#1) There are many cases of this type of behavior linked to religion where the actors are individuals acting on their own outside of any other kind of pressure from other people. For example, the Christian guy a few years back who shot and killed his dorm roommate because he was an atheist. For example abortion clinic doctor killers who often cook up and carry out their plans on their own at no one else's urging, etc.

There are many cases of this type of behavior not linked to religion. And, as in all arguments, negative evidence counts more than positive evidence. This is human behavior, not strictly religious behavior. Though, I agree, religions are probably more prone to this type of behavior.

#2) It's not that religion "could" support authority driven actions, authority IS AN INTEGRAL PART of religion. Religion and authority go hand-in-hand, and I argue that religion evolved from authority power structures.

I agree with the first statement but not completely with the second. Yes, authority is an integral part of religion; it is part of its structure. As such, religious groups are prone to this sort of behavior. But so are all authoritarian structures.

I do not agree that religion evolved (solely, if such was implied) from authority power structures, at least not any more than any other human cultural activity. The evolution of religions is undoubtedly very complex, and I think it is a disservice to suggest that it has a single origin point. Like other "strong ideas" there is more likely a group of needs that mesh together to create what we see as religious behavior. Looking form the inside, the primary thrust of religious life and behavior is the idea of the sacred. This is not primarily an idea born of authority. It can certainly be viewed through a hierarchical lens -- the sacred being the ultimate aim of reverence.

My view is that religion evolved from leader worship, and evolved into institutions and and modes of thinking that not only enable leaders to gain more control over followers, but that really enable followers to become more effective followers. In other words, this evolution was not just top down, it was also bottom up, as there are advantages for some people to simply being followers. People who have poor judgment or little understanding of the world are actually better off following other people and dedicating themselves to doing what other people tell them to do, meaning that there can be advantages to being a follower when an individual has poor personal skills, they are better off letting other s think for them (in an evolutionary sense).

Could it not be just as likely that religions, growing within a hierarchical species, used authority to gain power rather than growing from power relations to begin with? Or, are you making a distinction here between religious institutions and religious feeling? Religious feeling, or desire for the sacred, could have a different origin and be integral to who we are, but religious institutions are primarily a power relation?

If you can gain more resources, more access to mates, and gain a higher social status by becoming a follower than you can by doing your own thing or thinking for yourself, then there is an advantage to being a follower. So, the evolution social structures in humans, and other social animals, isn't simply top down driven by the dominant members, it is also bottom up, driven by, for lack of a better word, "inferior" members.

Religion is very much a part of that group dynamic, and it probably the most powerful representation of it. God has "evolved", driven largely by selection forces from the "inferior" members, who are seeking a "perfect leader".

No argument there. (meaning I agree with you, not that you don't have an argument)
But I think this is the reason why we are a social species. Religion is one aspect of our social lives, so it bears all the imprint of our socialization ability.

"God" is the idealized leader that followers want, he has become detached from reality, and is thus no longer subject to the shortcomings of real human leaders. This is why "God" is so powerful and people react to "God" like the ultimate authority figure.

When we talk about cases like that of Mao and Stalin, we see that they also engendered a "godly type" of leader persona, and thus really the same exact dynamics were at work as the dynamics that we talk about when we talk about religion.

OK, but this view of God as remote and detached from reality is relatively new on the scene and was not a part of man's original religious experience. For the Greeks and Egyptians, the gods were part of the created order with no real original creator. Stuff just happened and the gods were part of what happened, then they worked to create the rest. But they were not remote and detached from reality. They were part of the original reality, that part that we could not explain, like forces of nature. We owed them reverence because they could squash us. The original Judaic religion seems to be similar with god being a tribal deity that was part of the created order and only later becoming a distant, detached "entity", just as El became more detached when Ba'al worship increased.

As for the leader cults, while that is undeniably a part of the 20th century phenomenon I still think that the process was more complex. Much of it can be explained based on Milgram's experiments, but I think there is also an ideological underpinning that is part of religious life and the 20th century "utopias". When we think that humans are perfectible (and Christianity thinks this as much as they deny it -- let's build a perfect city and God will come back), then we are prone to view any amount of suffering as permissible to reach that ultimate goal. Kill a few Jews and we get the perfect society, kill a few intellectuals while we return to the land and become "truly human" and you see a rationale for the horrors of Nazi Germany and the Killing Fields.

So, while I agree with you, I think the processes are more complex than a single explanation can offer.

mijopaalmc

12th August 2007, 07:31 AM

But, neither camp should have to resort to physical abuse to get their message across to the 'campers'.

But they often do and are not-so-often criticized for it.

The point is that many people here are all too eager to attribute the violence visited upon this girl solely too religion while overlooking the same abuses committed by similar secular organizations.

Ichneumonwasp

12th August 2007, 07:40 AM

But they often do and are not-so-often criticized for it.

The point is that many people here are all too eager to attribute the violence visited upon this girl solely too religion while overlooking the same abuses committed by similar secular organizations.

Be careful now. I don't necessarily think that is what is going on at all. In fact, I would bet that most would agree that secular organizations are also prone to such abuses. When I went back to look Malachi certainly does.

The criticism offered against religious institutions is basically an "internal critique" -- holding religious institutions up to the standards that they insist others keep. There is a long history of such criticism. Herbert Marcuse and others of the Vienna School subjected Nazi Germany and the U.S. to similar critiques. The U.S. can be easily critiqued from the standpoint of liberty since it espouses liberty as its prime directive but does not live up to that standard (or had not lived up to that standard in the past).

Similarly, this sort of critique is levelled at religious institutions because they hold up as a standard "perfect behavior" or "love your neighbor as yourself" and when they are not able to meet the standard they espouse they are subject to ridicule. Most secular institutions do not pretend to "love your neighbor as yourself" and so are not subject to the same sort of internal critique.

geni

12th August 2007, 07:49 AM

The universe does not prescribe an ultimate ethical code. So we are left to our own internally generated ethical behavior, which is the force by which we, as a species, were able to survive in the first place.

Irrelivant. Materialism places no value on the existance of the human species although of course it doesn't stop you from doing so if you wish.

Humans live in large groups because of our ability to think morally. The propensity for morality is an integral part of our psyche, as is evident when looking at societies cross-culturally where we see many of the same ethical ideas promulgated.

Humans have the ability to think beyond their ah instincs. Materialism has no issues with someone choseing to do this.

Morality is not, therefore, whatever any one person thinks it is, but rather a system of rule based behavior integral to humans as a means of cohabitation.

No that would be ethics.

Private morality is as meaningless as private language.

Not at all. Someone is free to chose as to if they think their thoughts are moral or not.

Language exists as a means of communication, which implies other parties.

Not it does not. Otherwise we would have to accept the existance of Lingua Ignota as proof of existance of a god.

Morality exists as a rule based system for us to live together, a system that each of us inherits genetically and socially and which we internalize.

No again you are talking about ethics.

By its very nature, it must be social in origin, not individual.

You would argue that it is imposible for an isolated sentiance to invent a form of morality?

Please leave the straw man characterizations by the wayside.

Please stop trying to impose Humanism on Materialism.

blobru

12th August 2007, 07:53 AM

... As critical as I am of religion I can't see the van incident as indicative of religious thinking. I would be much more likely to see this as yet another example of Zimbardo's findings of authority sadism ... In general I think religion is no protection against such acts but I can't see such flaws being attributed generally without a line of reasoning--and definately not to people who simply claim to be religious. Such behavior is, thankfully, an extreme of human nature and not a norm.

Well put, cyber-. This seems unaffiliated cruelty; IMO the culprit here is the "boot camp philosophy", not Christianity. Boot camps for problem teens are organized around all-powerful authority figures: leaders trained to verbally abuse, withhold food and sleep, until they get 'results'... aka brainwashing. Of course the leaders believe what they're doing is moral, and often in these camps even physical abuse, here dragging a girl behind a van, is rationalized as for her own good. Such work must attract more than its share of sadists too, possibly like the two in the OP.

Dancing David

12th August 2007, 07:55 AM

I lot of research has been done on the psychology of this. There is a definite influence in all religions of the idea of "divine sanction". Obviously not all people adopt such views, but studies have shown that statistically speaking, people are more likely to engage in abusive or violent behavior if they believe that doing so is God's will or serves a divine purpose.

The belief that "God is on your side" tends to increase the level of violence that people are willing to perpetrate on others.

This is an established fact.

Just out of curiosity could you point me in the direction of that research?

Checkmite

12th August 2007, 08:00 AM

People who blame religion for the actions of a few select boneheads are like people who blame video games and rock music for the actions of a few select boneheads. Both groups are horrendously wrong.

Dancing David

12th August 2007, 08:01 AM

Oh really? Where?

A search (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=985652) for sherif* boot camp only turns up one other thread, which is on Novus Spiritus, which is not run by a sheriff's department. So if there are threads about law enforcement abuses of children at "tough love" organizations they do not contain the words "sheriff" or its variant forms, "boot", or "camp".

In other words, I have read more threads than you think I have not seen any on sheriff department boot camp, and there don't seem to be any at least with the keywords that would immediately link it to this thread.

I was thinking more 'child abuse'?

And you are quite right the 'boot camp death' search will turn up only adult stories. There was a story last year or two where a child died at a texas boot camp run by a subcontractor for the local sherrif that was not run by christians, I thought that was discussed here as well.

But if you look at 'child abuse' it is not limited to threads only about christians.

School discipline is also a popular thread topic. (Hand cuffing 5. yo, etc. are all about secular abuse or lack thereof)

Post script:

Although I did a search yesterday, I have to admit that it certainly looks as though the forum has a definite bias towards reporting stories about child abuse and religion.(Probably 50% or greater.) I am having a hard time finding the one about the death of the kid at the boo0t camp or the other ones about choke holds, I will keep looking.

I think that it may be in the search function not turning up archived stories like this one about the tasering at ucla. For example 'library taser' or 'ucla library' did not turn up this thread until i did it on the google option.

http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-68867.html

Damien Evans

12th August 2007, 08:29 AM

baron

12th August 2007, 08:41 AM

Just out of curiosity could you point me in the direction of that research?

I'd also be interested in seeing those studies

Ichneumonwasp

12th August 2007, 08:53 AM

Irrelivant. Materialism places no value on the existance of the human species although of course it doesn't stop you from doing so if you wish.

Materialism, in a strictly literal sense, places no value anywhere. It has nothing to do with human ethics, if you only look from the vantage point of the universe. To suggest that anyone derives an ethics from materialism, from the vantage point of the universe, is silly. No one does that.

But, a purely material explanation of the universe can lead to values being placed by material objects -- us. We value. We value because of the way that we are built and because of our socialization.

Humans have the ability to think beyond their ah instincs. Materialism has no issues with someone choseing to do this.

Oh, good, then you see that your entire argument is a load of bunk? That individual self-interest and a private morality is not the necessary outcome of a materialist view of the universe?

Not at all. Someone is free to chose as to if they think their thoughts are moral or not.

Well, of course people are free to choose, at least within the confines of what we call "free will". That is completely beside the point. Ethics, however, is not created de novo through individual free choice without precursors.

An individual who chooses a particular idiosyncratic ethic is an egotist. This is not a consequence of materialism. A theist can also be an egotist and decide on a personal form of morality (this is in contradistinction to the idea that morality arises for the purpose of an individual, which was my original point -- this does not happen, just as language did not arise for the purpose of individuals but for group communication). You would, most likely, simply say that person is wrong. Someone who buys into a materialist philosophy could also cry foul for anyone claiming an idiosyncratic moral code. The standard of right and wrong is simply different.

Not it does not. Otherwise we would have to accept the existance of Lingua Ignota as proof of existance of a god.

Saying that language exists for the purpose of communication does not imply that an individual cannot derive an individual instance of a personal language for private conversation between two parties (but there will always be two parties). That "language" could serve the purpose of fantasy. But we do not communicate with each other through individual language and we do not speak to ourselves through individual, personal language. I can call any gibberish a personal language but it serves no purpose really. Moral codes are purposeful. They exist for the purpose of interpersonal intercourse just as language exists for the purpose of interpersonal communication.

It matters not whether the other end of the conversation is real or fantastical for the lingua ignota. I could create a language for the purpose of speaking to invisible 35 foot malodorous trolls who live on the head of pin in my garage. That language exists for the purpose of speaking to these "creatures" even if it is me only thinking that I am talking to something that isn't really there.

The whole idea of a lingua ignota only proves my point (except that it isn't my point, it's Wittgenstein's). It isn't necessary for the other interlocutor to exist, only for someone to think it exists. This "language" is not purely personal. Hildegard didn't think she was speaking to herself. She didn't create a personal language for the purpose of speaking to herself. She thought she was speaking to divine presence. Twins occasionally create their own language that no one else can understand. But that language is created for communication between two parties, not individuals speaking to themselves.

Morality exists in the same way. People can make individual choices, but moralities exist for the purpose of human interaction.

You would argue that it is imposible for an isolated sentiance to invent a form of morality?

What would be the point? It would serve no purpose. An individual sentient being would just do what it does. If it created a set of rules to live by this would simply be a set of individual rules that it created for the purpose of a game. That would not be morality. Morality, by its very definition, is a code of behavior for the purpose of humans living together in groups. It is meaningless to speak of a purely individual morality.

Please stop trying to impose Humanism on Materialism.

Why? What in the freakin' world do you think the origin of morality is, anyway? It is now and always has been a means for humans to live together. To suggest that materialism necessarily results in personal morality is simply stupid. This isn't what we see in the real world and it isn't a consequence anyway.

If you take things literally, a material universe has no value. Without value there is not morality. So a materialist has no morality because there is no value inherent to the universe. But that is not what we see. Valuation is an integral part of who and what we are, and our ethical systems derive from us discussing our valuations and working out how to live together.

quixotecoyote

12th August 2007, 09:00 AM

The argument from materialism would be along the lines of:

Ethics do not exist. You can exain the universe any way you like and you will not find one particle of ethics.

So with the removal of ethics and thus any wider code of correct behaviour an internal moral code becomes supream.

There is then no reason to adopt any moral code other than:

Right=what I want to do
Wrong=what I don't want to do.

Now englightened self interest may keep such a person in line to an extent (they don't want to go to prision) but if they are not too bothered by prision or really want to kill someone you have a problem.

Of course a person may want to minimise suffering so such a moral code is not per se a problem but it does provide a way to get to a position where you can view anything you do as justified (which no objective ethics how can you say something someone else does is wrong?).

Materialism does not reject the existence of abstract concepts. Given that that basic misunderstanding (he said generously) is at the root of your argument, I don't see the need to dismantle the rest.

Malachi151

12th August 2007, 09:09 AM

Katana

12th August 2007, 09:10 AM

People who deny that religion influences people actions are boneheads.

Who is doing that?

Ichneumonwasp

12th August 2007, 09:14 AM

Just out of curiosity could you point me in the direction of that research?

If you think about it Stanley Milgram's studies fit here. While not specifically concerned with religion, they did explain this effect regarding authority.

Religious belief in the absolute correctness of a view is just one kind of authority.

geni

12th August 2007, 09:28 AM

Materialism, in a strictly literal sense, places no value anywhere. It has nothing to do with human ethics, if you only look from the vantage point of the universe. To suggest that anyone derives an ethics from materialism, from the vantage point of the universe, is silly. No one does that.

Prove it. In any case you can get some fairly simular results from the vantage point of self (I matter the rest of the species does not).

But, a purely material explanation of the universe can lead to values being placed by material objects -- us. We value. We value because of the way that we are built and because of our socialization.

We can chose not to.

Oh, good, then you see that your entire argument is a load of bunk? That individual self-interest and a private morality is not the necessary outcome of a materialist view of the universe?

I didn't say it was I said it could be. Much the same is true for nihilism.

Well, of course people are free to choose, at least within the confines of what we call "free will". That is completely beside the point. Ethics, however, is not created de novo through individual free choice without precursors.

However you can reject ethical systems should you wish to do so.

An individual who chooses a particular idiosyncratic ethic is an egotist.

So what?

This is not a consequence of materialism.

The position is however not logicaly incositiant with materialism.

A theist can also be an egotist and decide on a personal form of morality (this is in contradistinction to the idea that morality arises for the purpose of an individual, which was my original point -- this does not happen, just as language did not arise for the purpose of individuals but for group communication). You would, most likely, simply say that person is wrong.

In what sense? I could say that the action are not legitimate under the ethical code I subscribe to. But wrong would suggest it is posible to derive an objective ethical code. Given that we are yet to find a carrier particle for ethics it would appear that such a code would be outside the bonds of science for the time being.

Someone who buys into a materialist philosophy could also cry foul for anyone claiming an idiosyncratic moral code. The standard of right and wrong is simply different.

"The standard" there is no evidence that there is a single standard.

Saying that language exists for the purpose of communication does not imply that an individual cannot derive an individual instance of a personal language for private conversation between two parties (but there will always be two parties). That "language" could serve the purpose of fantasy. But we do not communicate with each other through individual language and we do not speak to ourselves through individual, personal language. I can call any gibberish a personal language but it serves no purpose really.

Single user lanaguages are useful in that they potentialy provide a fairly secure way of storeing data.

Moral codes are purposeful. They exist for the purpose of interpersonal intercourse just as language exists for the purpose of interpersonal communication.

Killing someone is a form of interpersonal intercourse as is genocide.

It matters not whether the other end of the conversation is real or fantastical for the lingua ignota. I could create a language for the purpose of speaking to invisible 35 foot malodorous trolls who live on the head of pin in my garage.

I'm afariad you live in the wrong centry. That kind of thing was only popular in the court of the first Queen Elizabeth.

Morality exists in the same way. People can make individual choices, but moralities exist for the purpose of human interaction.

Yes but this does not in any way define what the moral code should be. "What I want to do is right what I don't want to do is wrong" still allows for human interaction

What would be the point? It would serve no purpose. An individual sentient being would just do what it does. If it created a set of rules to live by this would simply be a set of individual rules that it created for the purpose of a game. That would not be morality. Morality, by its very definition, is a code of behavior for the purpose of humans living together in groups. It is meaningless to speak of a purely individual morality.

You reject the idea that you can have moral duty to non sentiant beings?

Why?

Because materialism doesn't need it.

What in the freakin' world do you think the origin of morality is, anyway? It is now and always has been a means for humans to live together.

So ants have a moral code?

To suggest that materialism necessarily results in personal morality is simply stupid.

Every system will result in a personal morality of sorts. Many will insist that the system is constant with an external ethical code but of course materialism does not.

This isn't what we see in the real world and it isn't a consequence anyway.

We see it from time to time.

If you take things literally, a material universe has no value.

A bit hard to see how you would take materialism non literaly.

Without value there is not morality. So a materialist has no morality because there is no value inherent to the universe.

No a materialist is free to put a value on things. However they must also accept that these values are arbitrary.

But that is not what we see. Valuation is an integral part of who and what we are, and our ethical systems derive from us discussing our valuations and working out how to live together.

That is irrelivant to my initial statement.

quixotecoyote

12th August 2007, 09:37 AM

Prove it. In any case you can get some fairly simular results from the vantage point of self (I matter the rest of the species does not).

Prove a philosophical viewpoint, and a negative to boot? Are you serious?

We can chose not to.

Anyone can choose anything in any system. So what?

I didn't say it was I said it could be. Much the same is true for nihilism.

And for any other system, making the statement meaningless.

However you can reject ethical systems should you wish to do so.

Anyone can choose anything in any system. So what?

In what sense? I could say that the action are not legitimate under the ethical code I subscribe to. But wrong would suggest it is posible to derive an objective ethical code. Given that we are yet to find a carrier particle for ethics it would appear that such a code would be outside the bonds of science for the time being.

Once again you refer to the bizarre belief that materialism cannot deal with abstract principle, that there must be a 'carrier particle' . I already corrected you regarding this.

"The standard" there is no evidence that there is a single standard.

There are whole disciplines devoted to studying the varying standards and how they form.

Yes but this does not in any way define what the moral code should be. "What I want to do is right what I don't want to do is wrong" still allows for human interaction

Until the rest of the humans you are interacting with gain enough force to stop you. Meaning that is not an optimal solution.

Checkmite

12th August 2007, 10:10 AM

People who deny that religion influences people actions are boneheads.

Let me know if one comes by.

It's very simple: naturally violent people will choose to associate with violence, and revel in violent things. That doesn't mean everybody who plays Grand Theft Auto, listens to Motley Crue, or believes in some kind of God is abusive or homicidal.

This is sort of funny in a way, since it sometimes seems that some people who will be absolutely first to condemn blaming violence on video games have no compunction when it comes to blaming violence on religion.

geni

12th August 2007, 10:13 AM

Prove a philosophical viewpoint, and a negative to boot? Are you serious?

You chose to make the claim you back it up or withdraw it.

Anyone can choose anything in any system. So what?

No. The say catholic world view does not allow you take the position that human life has zero value. Such a position is inconsistant with the catholic world view.

And for any other system, making the statement meaningless.

No because I was argueing agaist the position that it was only posible under certian systems.

Anyone can choose anything in any system. So what?

No plently of systems limit the choices you can make without steping outside the system.

Once again you refer to the bizarre belief that materialism cannot deal with abstract principle, that there must be a 'carrier particle' . I already corrected you regarding this.

It can deal with it it just places no intinsic value on it.

There are whole disciplines devoted to studying the varying standards and how they form.

So you conceed the point that there is more than one standard thus your intial statement was incorrect?

Until the rest of the humans you are interacting with gain enough force to stop you. Meaning that is not an optimal solution.

Depends if you view being stoped by force as a problem or even likely. In any case nihilism runs into much the same issue.

Ichneumonwasp

12th August 2007, 10:36 AM

Since you seem only to want to gainsay and not discuss, let's put this into the few categories left for actual discussion.

However you can reject ethical systems should you wish to do so.

Anyone can reject any ethical system whether a believer or non-believer, a materialist, idealist, dualist, whatever. This isn't a meaningful statement as far as this discussion goes.

Your initial claim was that a materialist can logically take the position that an individual morality (morality is only what I like and what I don't like) as likely as any other, or just as good as any other. From the point of view of the universe, of course he can. But moralities don't exist from the point of view of the universe, so the point is moot. As far as humans are concerned, individual moralities do not work.

Egoism is not a valid ethical system for a culture. As should be evident to you now, purely private moralities are nonsensical. If you do not quite get that concept then go back and read the previous posts.

Ethical systems are, by definition, behavior systems for interactions between individuals. They are not purely private. I hope we can lay that topic to rest.

Because of the fact that individuals conflict with one another, no moral system can be purely individualistic. To even speak of a moral system we must agree on a set of ground rules. Ethics is the study of that set of ground rules on which we agree (or disagree).

We can agree to a moral code based on "Bob". Whatever Bob says goes. But if we do not fundamentally agree from the outset to abide by Bob's dictates, then we cannot speak of morality according to Bob. We create the standard by which the morality works by agreeing that Bob is the ultimate arbiter. This is precisely what cultures do. We are socialized to a standard. That is how we can speak of morality. People doing whatever they want is not morality.

What you seem to be speaking about is that there is no absolute measure as far as the universe is concerned. No one doubts that. But the absence of an absolute as far as the universe is concerned does not mean that all moralities are created equal. Some work better than others. That is why no one completely lives by the "whatever I say goes" rule. If they try to they will be rejected by other members of the community. So, in other words, yes there is a reason why the choice "whatever I like is good and whatever I don't like is bad" is not a logical choice for any moral actor even absent an absolute moral center.

In what sense? I could say that the action are not legitimate under the ethical code I subscribe to. But wrong would suggest it is posible to derive an objective ethical code. Given that we are yet to find a carrier particle for ethics it would appear that such a code would be outside the bonds of science for the time being.

False dilemma. If there is no objective, absolute ethical code then morality is not possible? No. "Wrong" does not imply an objective ethical code from the standpoint of the universe. It does imply that we can derive an ethical code that we can agree upon. That someone may disagree and try to argue that he simply follows another ethical pattern won't work from the vantage of our agreed upon ethical framework.

Single user lanaguages are useful in that they potentialy provide a fairly secure way of storeing data.

Cite me one example of a purely private language. I would really like to hear of this chimera.

Yes but this does not in any way define what the moral code should be. "What I want to do is right what I don't want to do is wrong" still allows for human interaction

Not consistent human interaction that we can all agree upon as a society and that allows us to live together. Living together is the reason for morality.

You reject the idea that you can have moral duty to non sentiant beings?

How you arrived at that conclusion from what I wrote is totally beyond me. A single actor in the universe can decide on any number of rules that it wants, but this is not morality; that is just playing. We can always devise a set of rules that we agree upon that includes or does not include non-sentient beings. But that is a set of rules that derives from our interaction.

So ants have a moral code?

Who said that? Ants have a means of interaction. We have a means of interaction. It does not follow that all means of interaction meet the criteria for what we call a moral code. But there is a sense in which ants do have a moral code, yes. Behavior that falls outside the norm can be "punished" with death if it disrupts a colony. We probably cannot speak of decisions here in the same sense that we make decisions, but it serves the same purpose.

Ants do not agree upon a way of being. They have a genetic heritage that allows them to work together. We have a similar genetic heritage that allows us to work together, but it is not written in stone. We must agree upon the rules that we follow. Ants do not do that. It depends on where you draw the line between the nature/nurture issue as to what you call morality or a moral code. In other words, this is a definition issue.

We see it from time to time.

We see what? A consistent moral system based on "what I like"? Where? There are occasional individuals who are completely selfish, but they are not part of the moral universe that others share.

No a materialist is free to put a value on things. However they must also accept that these values are arbitrary.

Name a value that is not arbitrary and we can talk about it. If God puts a value on things, those values are arbitrary from some perspective. The values we place on emotions, things are not arbitrary from our perspective. They are part and parcel of who and what we are. It doesn't matter if those values are arbitrary from the universe's perspective.

That is irrelivant to my initial statement.

No, actually it is not. That we have a basis for valuation from within us is integral to why you are so wrong. We share many valuations. We, as a species, share in valuing life. That is why we agree on moralities that value life. There are always individuals that may lack this valuation, but is because morality is not and cannot be purely individual (even by its definition), that we can securely say as a society that we do not want to live with sociopaths.

Ichneumonwasp

12th August 2007, 10:39 AM

Prove it. In any case you can get some fairly simular results from the vantage point of self (I matter the rest of the species does not).

Prove what? That in a purely material universe there is no value? Please define what it is that I am to prove? This was your original starting position, so I think it is to you that the proof devolves.

Ichneumonwasp

12th August 2007, 10:44 AM

No. The say catholic world view does not allow you take the position that human life has zero value. Such a position is inconsistant with the catholic world view.

Are you saying that it is physically impossible for a Catholic to deny the value of life? People can violate the rules of their systems. Your statement up above is meaningless unless you were simply stating that rules violations are possible.

Were you denying that a rule is even possible without an absolute? So, all games are impossible? I'm sorry, but your argument seems completely muddled to me.

quixotecoyote

12th August 2007, 10:46 AM

You chose to make the claim you back it up or withdraw it.

Certainly. I shall embark on a study to question each inhabitant of Earth to see if anyone derives an ethics from materialism, from the vantage point of the universe.. Of course I'll need significant funding for travel expenses, as well as for research into background conditions that could give false positives or negatives. When you come up with the funding, let me know. If I'm feeling generous at the time I might encourage you to spend it on a critical thinking class instead, so that you may learn about burdens of proof and when it is inappropriate to demand proof of a negative.

No. The say catholic world view does not allow you take the position that human life has zero value. Such a position is inconsistant with the catholic world view.

According your own precedent, i now demand you check with every Catholic in the world to make sure none of them take the position that any human life has zero value. I bet some of them have found a way to work that into the catholic worldview, but you never know. Maybe we can share our travel budget.

No because I was argueing agaist the position that it was only posible under certian systems.

For a narrowly defined system with no analogue in the real world, sure. But I'm not that into mental masturbation.

No plently of systems limit the choices you can make without steping outside the system.

And those systems find the people inside are masters at rationalization and system expansion.

It can deal with it it just places no intinsic value on it.

What's the big deal about intrinsic value? Why isn't value enough? Value doesn't have to passed down from on high to be meaningful, especially because there's no evidence to suggest that any of it is.

So you conceed the point that there is more than one standard thus your intial statement was incorrect?

I don't know what claim you are referring to. There are many moral standards held by different societies, yet from any mutually agreed on set of ethical principles, evaluation of the integrity of those morals are possible.

Depends if you view being stopped by force as a problem or even likely. In any case nihilism runs into much the same issue.

While I don't understand why you are so hung up on nihilism, one person rejecting all accepted moral and ethical systems to promote one of pure selfisness would not get a stamp of approval from a materialist philosopher.

Incidentally, are you aware this forum has a built in spellcheck feature?

Malachi151

12th August 2007, 10:53 AM

Let me know if one comes by.

It's very simple: naturally violent people will choose to associate with violence, and revel in violent things. That doesn't mean everybody who plays Grand Theft Auto, listens to Motley Crue, or believes in some kind of God is abusive or homicidal.

This is sort of funny in a way, since it sometimes seems that some people who will be absolutely first to condemn blaming violence on video games have no compunction when it comes to blaming violence on religion.

Who said anything about "everybody". There isn't anything in the world (except death and taxes) that affects everybody, duh. That doesn't mean that said things don't affect people.

What you said is like saying "Claiming that cigarettes cause cancer is stupid, because there are people who smoke cigarettes and don't get cancer."

And anyway, here is one of the studies on this subject:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2983119

Does believing that "God is on our side" make it easier for us to inflict pain and suffering on those perceived to be our enemies? If we think God sanctions violence, are we more likely to engage in violent acts?

The answer to both those questions, according to new research, is a resounding "yes," even among those who do not consider themselves believers.

Beth

12th August 2007, 12:23 PM

Materialism does not reject the existence of abstract concepts.

I've heard that, but I have real trouble with understanding it. It seems to me that materialism cannot accept the existance of something that has no physical properties, such as an abstract concept. It's a mystery to me how a materialistic philosophy can be reconciled with the reality of abstract concepts. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Ichneumonwasp

12th August 2007, 02:03 PM

Checkmite

12th August 2007, 02:57 PM

Who said anything about "everybody". There isn't anything in the world (except death and taxes) that affects everybody, duh. That doesn't mean that said things don't affect people.

What you said is like saying "Claiming that cigarettes cause cancer is stupid, because there are people who smoke cigarettes and don't get cancer."

No, what I said is like saying "Claiming that video games cause violence is stupid, because there are people who play video games that don't commit violence". The difference is that an actual cause-effect relationship between cigarette smoking and cancer has been established, even though some aren't as susceptible. We can even go further, and explain in excruciating detail exactly which elements and substances interact with which structures and body parts to produce cancer.

There is no such causative relationship between religion and violence. Nonviolent people are going to remain nonviolent, and violent people are going to be violent, no matter how religious they get. They may choose to focus on parts of religion they feel justify violence, just as violent people may choose to buy shoot-em-up games; but that's as far as the relationship goes.

Temporal Renegade

12th August 2007, 02:59 PM

But they often do and are not-so-often criticized for it.

The point is that many people here are all too eager to attribute the violence visited upon this girl solely to religion while overlooking the same abuses committed by similar secular organizations.

Religious or secular, it still isn't right, whether it's reported or not.

qayak

12th August 2007, 03:06 PM

Would this even be posted on any of the JREF forums if it had occurred at a boot camp run by the sheriff's department?

Well, I didn't belong to the JREF at the time but I know I was involved in several discussions when young people were killed in government run boot camps which led to debates over the success rates of US -vs- Canadian boot camps. So, to answer your question, yes, it would have been posted.

The question now is: Do you think that because it happened in a religious boot camp that it shouldn't be reported?

qayak

12th August 2007, 03:15 PM

But they often do and are not-so-often criticized for it.

The point is that many people here are all too eager to attribute the violence visited upon this girl solely too religion while overlooking the same abuses committed by similar secular organizations.

Completely false. Please show how abuses were overlooked when committed by secular organizations.

Beth

12th August 2007, 03:34 PM

If you don't mind my interjection......

One problem arises from thinking that abstract concepts are things because the word "concept" is a noun. But they are not. The "mental realm" exists (if we can properly use that word) as an action, so it would make more sense to speak of abstract concepts as verbs, as actions.

What is "running"? It is an action, a relation of different parts through time.

What is thinking? It is also an action that arises through the opening and closing of semipermeable ion channels in particular sequences.

Abstract concepts do not exist as entities, per se, but they can be recreated over and over by recreating the sequence of actions necessary to make them. Running does not exist as an entity either.

If you think about it, this is somewhat similar to Aristotles conception of "form" which he conceived as necessarily inherent in particular objects. It isn't properly speaking a "thing", but rather an action of development that is an integral "part of all things". For us, the "form" consists in the interactions of DNA turning various genes on and off and interacting with that environment as well as the greater surrounding environment.

Thanks for the attempt to explain it to me; unfortunately I've heard this type of argument before but do not find it convincing. Not all abstract concepts can legitimately be considered verbs. For example consider numbers, functions, and other mathematical entities. They are certainly abstract concepts. But it does not make sense to me to think of them as representing actions. How does '2' represent an action? How does '0'? How does infinity?

It really is a puzzlement to me how a materialistic philosophy can admit to the existance of abstract concepts. It is perhaps the main reason I am not a materialist.

Slimething

12th August 2007, 03:39 PM

Completely false. Please show how abuses were overlooked when committed by secular organizations.

Mijo has overlooked the fact that he can start threads if he ever chooses to. To make him feel better, I, Slimething, promise to post the next instance that child abuse occurs at an atheist-run boot camp to convert/confirm kids to atheism. :rolleyes:

I'm amazed that those who do not see the inculcation of kids into errant theology as abuse. That abuse directly leads to abuse of others in the name of the chosen deity. Perhaps dragging this kid behind a van is not a clear cut example but, certainly, the murder of women accused of witchcraft in third-world countries would be a more direct example. So, mijo and people like him, run to other threads to complain about us meanies but cannot refute the fact that most religions offer a very fertile ground for rationlization of abuse of others. That is not to say that most adherents do so but the evil ones do.

Ichneumonwasp

12th August 2007, 03:40 PM

Thanks for the attempt to explain it to me; unfortunately I've heard this type of argument before but do not find it convincing. Not all abstract concepts can legitimately be considered verbs. For example consider numbers, functions, and other mathematical entities. They are certainly abstract concepts. But it does not make sense to me to think of them as representing actions. How does '2' represent an action? How does '0'? How does infinity?

It really is a puzzlement to me how a materialistic philosophy can admit to the existance of abstract concepts. It is perhaps the main reason I am not a materialist.

They don't represent actions. The idea "2" is an action that arises from neural activity (you will have to forgive the impreciseness of the language because our language is not really set up to handle this concept very well). As such, you cannot point to it anywhere because, properly speaking, it does not exist anywhere except in the action of those neurons.

So, in thinking of the number 2 it would make more sense if we spoke not of "2" as a noun, implying a "thing" but of "2ing" (which could roughly be conceived as invoking the idea of "2").

By the way, I do not consider myself, properly speaking, a "materialist" because I have no idea what matter is. For all I know it is a creation of the mind of God. The only issue I care about in this sort of debate is that we don't lose ourselves improperly in philosophy of mind issues (or misrepresentations of ethics).

Malachi151

12th August 2007, 04:10 PM

No, what I said is like saying "Claiming that video games cause violence is stupid, because there are people who play video games that don't commit violence". The difference is that an actual cause-effect relationship between cigarette smoking and cancer has been established, even though some aren't as susceptible. We can even go further, and explain in excruciating detail exactly which elements and substances interact with which structures and body parts to produce cancer.

There is no such causative relationship between religion and violence. Nonviolent people are going to remain nonviolent, and violent people are going to be violent, no matter how religious they get. They may choose to focus on parts of religion they feel justify violence, just as violent people may choose to buy shoot-em-up games; but that's as far as the relationship goes.

No, its the same thing. Studies have ALSO shown that violent video games Do affect people's behavior with a tendency towards making them more violent.

Does that mean that everyone how plays violent video game is going to go out and shoot people? No. Does everyone who smokes cigarettes get cancer and die? No.

What we are talking about are tendencies across multiple subjects.

Everyone has their story about their grandma that smoked until she was 98 and got hit by a bus, that doesn't negate the fact that cigarettes cause cancer.

Likewise, just because the level of violence typically exhibited by deeply religious people in a civilized society doesn't regularly rise to the level of physical abuse doesn't mean that some change in psychology and level of acceptance of violence and attitudes towards are not altered by deeply religious sentiments.

Ichneumonwasp

12th August 2007, 04:13 PM

Everyone has their story about their grandma that smoked until she was 98 and got hit by a bus

Thank you for bringing up such a painful subject again. While you're at it would like to pour lemon juice in my new paper cut?:D

Beth

12th August 2007, 04:16 PM

They don't represent actions. The idea "2" is an action that arises from neural activity (you will have to forgive the impreciseness of the language because our language is not really set up to handle this concept very well). As such, you cannot point to it anywhere because, properly speaking, it does not exist anywhere except in the action of those neurons.

So, in thinking of the number 2 it would make more sense if we spoke not of "2" as a noun, implying a "thing" but of "2ing" (which could roughly be conceived as invoking the idea of "2").

I'm sorry, but I don't think it is a problem with impreciseness of our language but a problem with materialism. Mathematics is, in essence, a language designed to allow us to deal with abstract concepts in a precise way. So one could consider all of mathematics as a huge complex of abstract concepts that all fit together.

To claim that abstract concepts are not 'things' but actions defined as patterns of neuronal activity seems, well, a ridiculus convolution of definitions made solely in order to preserve the materialistic philosophy. I find it easier to simply accept that there exist a certain class of objects (ideas, concepts, etc.) which have no physical properties and that, therefore, a materialistic philosophy does not provide adequate descriptions of the world I live in.

qayak

12th August 2007, 04:27 PM

Mijo has overlooked the fact that he can start threads if he ever chooses to. To make him feel better, I, Slimething, promise to post the next instance that child abuse occurs at an atheist-run boot camp to convert/confirm kids to atheism. :rolleyes:

Here are a couple from the recent past. None of them got a free ride.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/05/05/bootcamp.death/index.html

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/11/campfear.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/11/BAG10HMJF41.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

http://healthresources.caremark.com/topic/bootcamp

http://departments.bloomu.edu/crimjust/pages/articles/boot_camps.htm

mijopaalmc

12th August 2007, 04:35 PM

Mijo has overlooked the fact that he can start threads if he ever chooses to. To make him feel better, I, Slimething, promise to post the next instance that child abuse occurs at an atheist-run boot camp to convert/confirm kids to atheism. :rolleyes:

I'm amazed that those who do not see the inculcation of kids into errant theology as abuse. That abuse directly leads to abuse of others in the name of the chosen deity. Perhaps dragging this kid behind a van is not a clear cut example but, certainly, the murder of women accused of witchcraft in third-world countries would be a more direct example. So, mijo and people like him, run to other threads to complain about us meanies but cannot refute the fact that most religions offer a very fertile ground for rationlization of abuse of others. That is not to say that most adherents do so but the evil ones do.

And once again, Slimething, you are making a hast generalization from extreme instances of religious abuse to all instances of religion. I don't need to decry every instance where it is clear that a religious organization has abused or is abusing children in order to criticize you, qayak, and articulett for insisting that religion is child abuse.

Ichneumonwasp

12th August 2007, 04:35 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't think it is a problem with impreciseness of our language but a problem with materialism. Mathematics is, in essence, a language designed to allow us to deal with abstract concepts in a precise way. So one could consider all of mathematics as a huge complex of abstract concepts that all fit together.

To claim that abstract concepts are not 'things' but actions defined as patterns of neuronal activity seems, well, a ridiculus convolution of definitions made solely in order to preserve the materialistic philosophy. I find it easier to simply accept that there exist a certain class of objects (ideas, concepts, etc.) which have no physical properties and that, therefore, a materialistic philosophy does not provide adequate descriptions of the world I live in.

Then you're stuck in dualism with all its attendant problems. There is no means for such "ideas" to interact with the material realm.

Speaking in terms of neural activity is the only way that one could possibly make sense of mental processes, so I'm not sure what your objection to that is. I haven't tried to resturcture defintions, but to ground the concept within the proper arena and make sense of it within a material framework.

The issue with imprecise language to which I referred concerns not issues with mathematics, but in the way we speak of how neurons "produce" mental concepts. Or in saying that neural activity "is" the concept. Some folks are pedantic about the issue and try to draw direct parallels between two sets of nouns and draw exact equivalency between those nouns. But what really seems to be going on is that these "concepts" are not precisely (meaning that they do not have actual existence as anything). They "exist" in the action of the neural processing in the same way that a "2" exists in the processing of a computer and can be manipulated by the computer activity. This is not to draw a direct parallel between computers and human brains, only the "mental activity" can be spoken of in the same way.

Invariably what arises next is the issue of feeling when computers are spoken of, and let's just let it go that we do not have precise explanations for human feeling or emotions, but we do know more than most people will allow.

Before simply dismissing the ideas as odd I think it makes more sense to try to understand them.

mijopaalmc

12th August 2007, 04:45 PM

Here are a couple from the recent past. None of them got a free ride.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/05/05/bootcamp.death/index.html

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/11/campfear.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/11/BAG10HMJF41.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

http://healthresources.caremark.com/topic/bootcamp

http://departments.bloomu.edu/crimjust/pages/articles/boot_camps.htm

Show me that any of these were discussed on JREF with the same fervor and outrage about the ideology expressed by the administrating organization and I will withdraw the comment.

I do realize that I failed to adequately clarify what I meant; I was referring specifically that secular organizations that run similar boot camps to enforce social conformity (not that I think it is wrong to try to get teens to obey the law but it is still enforcement of social conformity) and how it doesn't seem that these organization are criticized for their ideologies when similar abuses occur. Rather, it is the actions that is criticized. I admit that I probably made a hasty generalization when I couldn't find anything about sheriff-run boot camps, but it is that closest analogous secular organization and therefore is the most ripe for comparison.

Ichneumonwasp

12th August 2007, 04:50 PM

Before simply dismissing the ideas as odd I think it makes more sense to try to understand them.

Sorry Beth, that was unfair of me.

I simply cannot make sense of dualism, so opt for monism. I don't pretend to know what monism is correct and don't particularly care. Whatever the ultimate nature of reality, it is pretty dang weird.

I simply have too much experience with "mental phenomena" as a result of neural action to jettison the concept. Turn off the brain and you turn off the mind. I don't see any reason to invoke dualism, and I don't see any way to deal with its very real and very big problems.

Ichneumonwasp

12th August 2007, 04:55 PM

Show me that any of these were discussed on JREF with the same fervor and outrage about the ideology expressed by the administrating organization and I will withdraw the comment.

I do realize that I failed to adequately clarify what I meant; I was referring specifically that secular organizations that run similar boot camps to enforce social conformity (not that I think it is wrong to try to get teens to obey the law but it is still enforcement of social conformity) and how it doesn't seem that these organization are criticized for their ideologies when similar abuses occur. Rather, it is the actions that is criticized. I admit that I probably made a hasty generalization when I couldn't find anything about sheriff-run boot camps, but it is that closest analogous secular organization and therefore is the most ripe for comparison.

That was very big of you, Mijo.

I don't think you will ever see the same reaction though. Everyone is aware of the ideological bias here. There are similar biases elsewhere in the opposite direction. The best we can do is discuss this kid of stuff and open minds a bit. Truth arises through dialectic.

qayak

12th August 2007, 05:16 PM

Show me that any of these were discussed on JREF with the same fervor and outrage about the ideology expressed by the administrating organization and I will withdraw the comment.

I don't know that they were. If so, I didn't participate. I do that think you are being unreasonable. The one boot camp story posted to the forum happens to be about a religious based one and you make it sound like we are ignoring all others. In fact, boot camp stories as a whole have been ignored.

I do realize that I failed to adequately clarify what I meant; I was referring specifically that secular organizations that run similar boot camps to enforce social conformity (not that I think it is wrong to try to get teens to obey the law but it is still enforcement of social conformity) and how it doesn't seem that these organization are criticized for their ideologies when similar abuses occur. Rather, it is the actions that is criticized. I admit that I probably made a hasty generalization when I couldn't find anything about sheriff-run boot camps, but it is that closest analogous secular organization and therefore is the most ripe for comparison.

Fair enough and I think you have some valid points. I hope you will read the links I posted because they are very disturbing and far worse than what the teen in the religious camp suffered.

I think the "law and order" platform of many politicians has led to the abuses in correctional boot camps. They were ill conceived and why they are allowed to continue is beyond me. 25 years later, we are still having young teens die in this manner. . . mind boggling!

The one thing I question though. Why would anyone think that this boot camp model was a good idea to get teens to believe in god? It is a model build on negative feedback. "Do what we want you to or we will beat you."

In the correction's model, they are at least punishing actions but in the religious model, they are punishing thought. "Believe in god, or we will beat you."

P.S.- I think it would be very interesting to discuss all the cases of abuse in boot camps, regardless of affiliation.

Slimething

12th August 2007, 05:52 PM

And once again, Slimething, you are making a hast generalization from extreme instances of religious abuse to all instances of religion.

I try not to make hast generalizations but sometimes I can't help it. And, no, if you read what I wrote, now and back then, there is no generalization. The prolongation of bad theology is accomplished, in essence, by lying to kids/adults, as the case may be. The practice is problematic because it entitles the bearer to a litany of false excuses for acting in a sociopathic manner. Religion doesn't make them act out. It just makes it much easier. IOW, people who may be steered towards getting psychiatric aid are, instead, coddled as "god-fearing" or pious.

Most of my friends are religious and they are great people. But they are not great people because of their religion.

I don't need to decry every instance where it is clear that a religious organization has abused or is abusing children in order to criticize you, qayak, and articulett for insisting that religion is child abuse.

What? :confused: Wouldn't decrying child abuse in religious institutions be strengthening our position, not yours? And, again, religion is not child abuse. The inculcation of children into false belief systems is child abuse. Haven't you gotten that distinction yet?

Checkmite

12th August 2007, 05:56 PM

No, its the same thing. Studies have ALSO shown that violent video games Do affect people's behavior with a tendency towards making them more violent.

I'd like to be pointed in the direction of that research.

Katana

12th August 2007, 05:58 PM

I'd like to be pointed in the direction of that research.

Agreed, and please provide evidence that demonstrates more than correlation.

Beth

12th August 2007, 06:24 PM

Then you're stuck in dualism with all its attendant problems. There is no means for such "ideas" to interact with the material realm. No, they don't really interact do they?

Speaking in terms of neural activity is the only way that one could possibly make sense of mental processes, so I'm not sure what your objection to that is. I haven't tried to resturcture defintions, but to ground the concept within the proper arena and make sense of it within a material framework. Well, the problem for me is that neural activity just isn't, well, sufficient. I guess that at bottom, I believe that the concept of '2' exists with or without human brains to conceptualize it via our neural processes, just as the earth exists with or without human beings to populate it and perceive it via our neural processes.

The issue with imprecise language to which I referred concerns not issues with mathematics, but in the way we speak of how neurons "produce" mental concepts. Or in saying that neural activity "is" the concept. Some folks are pedantic about the issue and try to draw direct parallels between two sets of nouns and draw exact equivalency between those nouns. But what really seems to be going on is that these "concepts" are not precisely (meaning that they do not have actual existence as anything). They "exist" in the action of the neural processing in the same way that a "2" exists in the processing of a computer and can be manipulated by the computer activity. This is not to draw a direct parallel between computers and human brains, only the "mental activity" can be spoken of in the same way. Okay, but does '2' exist outside of computer activity or human neural activity. I think materialism leads us to conclude that no, it doesn't and I just can't get behind that belief. I believe it does exist independently of computers and humans, although I think that qualifies as a belief without evidence.
Invariably what arises next is the issue of feeling when computers are spoken of, and let's just let it go that we do not have precise explanations for human feeling or emotions, but we do know more than most people will allow.

Before simply dismissing the ideas as odd I think it makes more sense to try to understand them.
Yes, that's why I posted what I did. Thanks for the explanation.

Sorry Beth, that was unfair of me.

I simply cannot make sense of dualism, so opt for monism. I don't pretend to know what monism is correct and don't particularly care. Whatever the ultimate nature of reality, it is pretty dang weird. I can understand that. I simply cannot make sense of materialism, but I don't know that dualism is correct. We're in agreement that at it's most basic, fundamental level, reality is really weird.

I simply have too much experience with "mental phenomena" as a result of neural action to jettison the concept. Turn off the brain and you turn off the mind. I don't see any reason to invoke dualism, and I don't see any way to deal with its very real and very big problems.

Well, I didn't mean to invoke dualism, but it may be unavoidable when I reject materialism. As far as the turn off the brain turn off the mind argument goes, when you turn off the computer, you turn off the software too. I don't see that being incompatible with dualism. The hardware and the software are not the same thing at all.

Ichneumonwasp

12th August 2007, 06:48 PM

Beth,

You're a Platonist? I guess we must agree to disagree then. Just so you know, there are very, very serious problems with that position. As in, where do these concepts reside in the radical absence of humans?

That view absolutely requires a diety or some other form of wooness in which concepts can exist outside of minds as unattached Forms. Then, again, you are stuck with the interaction problem. Monism at least holds the possibility of an explanation.

Good luck.

quixotecoyote

12th August 2007, 06:54 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't think it is a problem with impreciseness of our language but a problem with materialism. Mathematics is, in essence, a language designed to allow us to deal with abstract concepts in a precise way. So one could consider all of mathematics as a huge complex of abstract concepts that all fit together.

To claim that abstract concepts are not 'things' but actions defined as patterns of neuronal activity seems, well, a ridiculus convolution of definitions made solely in order to preserve the materialistic philosophy. I find it easier to simply accept that there exist a certain class of objects (ideas, concepts, etc.) which have no physical properties and that, therefore, a materialistic philosophy does not provide adequate descriptions of the world I live in.

Ichneumonwasp is taking a different approach than I would in explaining it, so let me have a try.

Materialism is a belief that physical matter of varying kinds (and by extension energy) is the basis of reality and there is no actual entities outside of that.

What that ends up meaning is that the mind is a phenomenon the comes from a working body and brain, destroy those and you destroy the mind.

Thoughts, ideas, beliefs, numbers, and other abstracts are phenomena of the mind. There is not a thing called love, love is an emotion or feeling. There is not a thing called 2, it is a type of mental classification tool.

If you can point to a 'thing' and say "This is love" and be pointing to an actual object consisting solely of a property called love you would change my mind. However when people do that, they point towards people acting on feelings of love, objects made as a result of feelings of love, or sacrifices made because of feelings of love. There is no separate entity called love that people call upon.

It is the same with all other emotions.

Numbers are a little different because if I write down 2, that is a 2. The number two is both an abstract concept and a concrete numeral. It is also a property of other matter. V V Before this sentence their are two "V"s. 2 Is a property of the V's (or this text if you prefer to look at it that way.

quixotecoyote

12th August 2007, 06:59 PM

Ichneumonwasp:

Just FYI, I can get behind monism to the extent of Physicalist Monism, which is essentially materialism wearing a different hat. It's quite a broad term.

qayak

12th August 2007, 07:20 PM

I'd like to be pointed in the direction of that research.

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

http://www.fradical.com/New_studies_on_violent_video_games.htm

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/isu-ppt040407.php

Beth

12th August 2007, 08:07 PM

Beth,

You're a Platonist? I'm a mathematician. There are some concepts in mathematics that seem to me to be the embodiment of the platonic ideal. I don't know enough about philosophy to be definitely a platonist or anything else though.

I guess we must agree to disagree then. Just so you know, there are very, very serious problems with that position. As in, where do these concepts reside in the radical absence of humans? A very good question. Where does the idea of '2' reside in the radical absence of humans? I don't know, but I think concept of 2 is independent of human beings to think of it.

That view absolutely requires a diety or some other form of wooness in which concepts can exist outside of minds as unattached Forms. Then, again, you are stuck with the interaction problem. Monism at least holds the possibility of an explanation.
I'm not sure a deity is required, but certainly there are problems with both approaches. Monism seems to require believing that concepts such as '2' doesn't exist unless there is something thinking about it and that seems rather silly to me.
Good luck.

Thanks. I doubt I'll solve any existentencial questions to anyone's satisfaction but my own, but it would be nice to resolve them to my satisfaction.

Dancing David

12th August 2007, 08:38 PM

People who deny that religion influences people actions are boneheads.

Could you link to the research please?

Dancing David

12th August 2007, 08:41 PM

If you think about it Stanley Milgram's studies fit here. While not specifically concerned with religion, they did explain this effect regarding authority.

Religious belief in the absolute correctness of a view is just one kind of authority.

that is not what Malachi said.

I agree with you about the materialism and ethics however and believe that game theory can be applied to ethics and morals.

Dancing David

12th August 2007, 09:01 PM

I've heard that, but I have real trouble with understanding it. It seems to me that materialism cannot accept the existence of something that has no physical properties, such as an abstract concept. It's a mystery to me how a materialistic philosophy can be reconciled with the reality of abstract concepts. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Uh don't get stuck there please that is the 'how can a thought think about thinking' line.

In materialism the grounds for valid explanations lie in the evidence.

If we posit that we are not Brains in Vats (which can not be proved and is a moot point), then we can posit that there is a validity to observational sensations and perceptions.

Thoughts are brain experiences that are categorizations of the sensations and perceptions, as the brain develops there is an ability called abstraction that develops along with language. It is the assignment of an arbitrary category to external sensations that lead to perception. "The grass is green." is a relation of an abstract *green* to perceptual patterns of an abstract *grass*. *green* and *grass* are abstracted concepts at a very fundamental level, they are generalizations of categories, they are assigned to many different perceptions of green and the structures called grass. They are directly relatable to another creature that can communicate through pointing. But they are still abstract concepts separate from the actual sensations and perceptions of the visual sensation of green and the very complex set of sensations that leads to the label 'grass'.

This is true for all 'abstracted' concepts, they are conventions of language agreed upon through context and observation. idiomatic usage of terms is a good example of an abstracted concept that has meaning in a group and through context and observation. A student of mine may say "We kicked back and was chillin but after the call I said lets bounce."

Meaning they were hanging out and relaxing and then he said "Let us go" after the phone call. In this case there are four uses of an idiom, the 'call' means a phone call : not a vocalization but an abstraction of the conversation, kicked back meaning relaxed or engaged in an entertainment like watching TV : not a movement of the foot, chillin means relaxing and having a good time (not to be confused with cronk: a really good time): not using refrigeration or ice, and bounce means to initiate a change of place; not the elastic recoil of an object.

But there does not need to be some magic place where plato concepts are stored for the use of abstracted language and concepts. We have the evidence that our brains are structured to sort and categories data and that some of the categories can be rather general and removed from the concrete example. (Circular can be applied to objects that are not circles, it is an associative use meaning 'like a circle') Abstracted thoughts are internal communication using internal symbols that usually refer to the symbols used in conventional language.

Therefore abstracted thinking and communications are a product of categorization, association and contextual learning, either internally or between members of a set.

Dancing David

12th August 2007, 09:18 PM

Malachi151;

the study you link to says that people who were told that the rape story was in the bible applied a louder sound to the other test subject than those who were told that the story was in an 'ancient scroll'. the researcher then makes an unsubstantiated conclusion that the justification of violence by god would lead to the increase in aggression.

That would need to be tested for validity. there is the concept called cognitive dissonance and it could be that there are other ways that the results of the study could be concluded.

A. The effect is from the religious sanctioning of violence by god or one of his prophets.

B. The effect is from an authority figure sanctioning violence, one could argue that the same effect might happen with a secular authority.

C. The effect could be from the use of the word 'Jewish' and the anti-semitic bias of the students.

These are at least three of the situations that would need to be controlled for the study to conclude if the results were the result of religious sanction, authoritative sanction or 'rape by a minority' bias.

Jorghnassen

12th August 2007, 09:38 PM

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

http://www.fradical.com/New_studies_on_violent_video_games.htm

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/isu-ppt040407.php

Interestingly enough, the vast majority of those studies are by the same 2-3 authors. I'd like to see some corroboration by an independent party...

ponderingturtle

13th August 2007, 06:26 AM

I am not aware of this being one of the tenets of any faith.

True the only proper punishment in the bible for disobediant children is stoneing them to death.

ponderingturtle

13th August 2007, 06:43 AM

No. Bans on same sex marriage surface due to the difference between potentialy child bareing unions and not potentialy childbearing unions. The Greeks clearly took the position that there were important differences between a pederastic relationship and marriage.

Bullm, if this where true then why could my grandfather get married at 75 to a similarly aged woman? That is not a potentialy childbearing union, and homosexual unions are more likely to have children than they are.

It is bigotry plain and simple, why do you think it is such a major issue in so many religions when they have homosexual clergy? That is clearly about procreation as well I guess.

ponderingturtle

13th August 2007, 07:03 AM

People who blame religion for the actions of a few select boneheads are like people who blame video games and rock music for the actions of a few select boneheads. Both groups are horrendously wrong.

There is not an exact mapping. Because video games and music rarely claim such absolute moral authority as religion does, and label people in such as way as to brand them immoral to strong degrees.

ponderingturtle

13th August 2007, 07:13 AM

Dancing David

13th August 2007, 08:02 AM

If religion can not make people violent, then culture must not be able to as well, becuase religion is such a large part of many cultures.

So as culture can not make people more violent, then we are left to assume that the higher rates of violent crime in the african american comunities are based on innately violent tendencies in these individuals.

Where is the flaw in my rational?

Um poverty (IE socio economic status) and prevalence of violence are very high coorelates of violence?

I think that except in the case where the religion is co-opted by the political powers then religion reflects culture, just like other media.

ponderingturtle

13th August 2007, 08:11 AM

Um poverty (IE socio economic status) and prevalence of violence are very high coorelates of violence?

So this is a marked down turn in recent decades in economic fortunes of African Americans putting them lower than ever on the economic ladder. They where doing so much better before the 1960's as evidenced by the lower violent crime rates?

I think that except in the case where the religion is co-opted by the political powers then religion reflects culture, just like other media.

How can you separate religion and culture? Was the Spanish inquisition a religious or a cultural phenomena?

Beth

13th August 2007, 10:58 AM

[Ichneumonwasp is taking a different approach than I would in explaining it, so let me have a try. Okay. Thanks for giving it a try. Sorry if I come across as argumentative, but I find it easier to explore ideas by thinking of reasons why they don't work.
Materialism is a belief that physical matter of varying kinds (and by extension energy) is the basis of reality and there is no actual entities outside of that. Yes, that’s pretty much my understanding of materialism
What that ends up meaning is that the mind is a phenomenon the comes from a working body and brain, destroy those and you destroy the mind. Okay. When you destroy a computer, you also destroy the software and data the computer contains. If there are no other copies of the software and data, you have destroyed them as well.

Thoughts, ideas, beliefs, numbers, and other abstracts are phenomena of the mind. There is not a thing called love, love is an emotion or feeling. There is not a thing called 2, it is a type of mental classification tool. Here’s where I run into difficulty. The idea that intangibles, i.e. abstract concepts, are phenomena of the mind just seems wrong to me. To say that the concept of numbers, like ‘2’ or ∞ are solely a product of the mind just doesn’t hold water for me. If I can presume the earth existed before there were people to perceive it, why can’t I presume the concept of ‘2’ existed before there were people to perceive it?

If you can point to a 'thing' and say "This is love" and be pointing to an actual object consisting solely of a property called love you would change my mind. However when people do that, they point towards people acting on feelings of love, objects made as a result of feelings of love, or sacrifices made because of feelings of love. There is no separate entity called love that people call upon.

It is the same with all other emotions. I prefer to avoid examples based on emotions such as love. I’d prefer to keep with mathematical constructs for now.

Numbers are a little different because if I write down 2, that is a 2. The number two is both an abstract concept and a concrete numeral. Let's stick with the abstract concept, not the concrete numeral. There are, after all, different symbols that humans have created to represent this concept and I'm not referring to any of them. It is also a property of other matter. V V Before this sentence their are two "V"s. 2 Is a property of the V's (or this text if you prefer to look at it that way.

This is basically going back to the idea that ‘2’ is not a noun but, unlike Ichneumonwasp who would claim that such nouns really ought to be verbs, you are claiming they ought to be an adjective. Again, I don’t think the problem is with the grammatical classification, but with the idea that in order to be part of reality a thing must have physical properties.

Consider other adjectives that might apply to those V’s. They also possess a color – black. What is black? Is it a noun as well as an adjective. Black, the noun, has certain physical properties. I think those properties relate to the wavelengths of light reflected or absorbed (not my area). Since light is physical phenomon, it’s quite reasonable to accept that ‘black’ is a concept that possesses physical properties and thus, according to the materialistic philosophy, can be considered part of ‘reality’.

But I don’t see what physical properties can be assigned to the concept of the number ‘2’, hence it seems to me that the materialist viewpoint must reject ‘2’ as being part of reality and this seems absurd to me. Claiming that the ‘2’ doesn’t exist as a ‘thing’ but only as an property of other things or as a thought process in human beings seems equally absurd. I don’t think the concept of ‘2’ would vanish if the human race disappeared any more than the earth would vanish.

Another example: it's quite reasonable to argue that the laws of gravity are purely a mental construct, a mathematical model that humans have devised to represent reality. So would you say that Issac Newton invented his laws of gravity or discovered them?

Beth

13th August 2007, 12:59 PM

Uh don't get stuck there please that is the 'how can a thought think about thinking' line. No problem. That’s not my issue with materialism.

In materialism the grounds for valid explanations lie in the evidence. Okay.

If we posit that we are not Brains in Vats (which can not be proved and is a moot point), then we can posit that there is a validity to observational sensations and perceptions. Okay.

Thoughts are brain experiences that are categorizations of the sensations and perceptions, as the brain develops there is an ability called abstraction that develops along with language. It is the assignment of an arbitrary category to external sensations that lead to perception. "The grass is green." is a relation of an abstract *green* to perceptual patterns of an abstract *grass*. *green* and *grass* are abstracted concepts at a very fundamental level, they are generalizations of categories, they are assigned to many different perceptions of green and the structures called grass. They are directly relatable to another creature that can communicate through pointing. But they are still abstract concepts separate from the actual sensations and perceptions of the visual sensation of green and the very complex set of sensations that leads to the label 'grass'. Okay. I’m with you so far.

Here is where I differ. I’m snipping your example for brevity and because I think it is irrelevant to the issue I have with materialism.
But there does not need to be some magic place where plato concepts are stored for the use of abstracted language and concepts. I’m not concerned about there being some magic place where platonic concepts are stored anymore than I am concerned about there being some subatomic particle that stores information about gravity. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Clearly, we don't know with certainty one way or the other at this point. My problem with materialism is that it seems to me that certain abstract concepts are ‘real’ in the sense that they exist whether or not there are minds thinking of them. Does the concept of ‘2’ or more generally the concept of numbers go away if there is no consciousness thinking about them?

Therefore abstracted thinking and communications are a product of categorization, association and contextual learning, either internally or between members of a set. For the sake of argument, let’s assume this statement is true. (I’m not sure I agree, but I’ll it give some thought.) It seems to me that the materialist view would imply that such abstractions are not part of reality since they have no physical properties, which seems obviously wrong to my sensations and perceptions of such abstractions.

kiwimac

13th August 2007, 02:46 PM

Dancing David

13th August 2007, 05:17 PM

So this is a marked down turn in recent decades in economic fortunes of African Americans putting them lower than ever on the economic ladder. They where doing so much better before the 1960's as evidenced by the lower violent crime rates?

Oh, really cogent response there turtle! Let’s see the violence rate against the AA population has risen to 50% of all homicides. You think that SES is not correlated with violence. Whatever.

Yeah that’s right it is related to the african american churches.

Do you have any data that says violence is not related to poverty?

How can you separate religion and culture? Was the Spanish inquisition a religious or a cultural phenomena?

Did I say you can separate religion and culture ? I said religion is a medium that reflects culture .

Gee I wonder what would be a good example of religion co-opted to the political structure lets see, witch trial yup, the second estate, yup, torture of political opponents yup. That’s right the goal of the inquisition was never political, it was always religious.

"Pull the other one it has bells on it."

Dancing David

13th August 2007, 05:24 PM

I’m not concerned about there being some magic place where platonic concepts are stored anymore than I am concerned about there being some subatomic particle that stores information about gravity. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Clearly, we don't know with certainty one way or the other at this point. My problem with materialism is that it seems to me that certain abstract concepts are ‘real’ in the sense that they exist whether or not there are minds thinking of them. Does the concept of ‘2’ or more generally the concept of numbers go away if there is no consciousness thinking about them?

How can a concept exist outside of internal or external communication.

The '2' is a symbol. It is a cipher for a counting of units. What else would 'two' be, how can it exist outside of a brain. Please to give an example :)

Can 'up' exist without a frame of reference in a phenomenal experience?

For the sake of argument, let’s assume this statement is true. (I’m not sure I agree, but I’ll it give some thought.) It seems to me that the materialist view would imply that such abstractions are not part of reality since they have no physical properties, which seems obviously wrong to my sensations and perceptions of such abstractions.

They do have physical properties as ascribed to them by the symbols of communication used by an organic brain.

When evidence comes to the contrary I will consider it.

How did you learn of the number '2'. Was it taught to you?

quixotecoyote

13th August 2007, 10:48 PM

. If I can presume the earth existed before there were people to perceive it, why can’t I presume the concept of ‘2’ existed before there were people to perceive it?
...

Consider other adjectives that might apply to those V’s. They also possess a color – black. What is black? Is it a noun as well as an adjective. Black, the noun, has certain physical properties. I think those properties relate to the wavelengths of light reflected or absorbed (not my area). Since light is physical phenomon, it’s quite reasonable to accept that ‘black’ is a concept that possesses physical properties and thus, according to the materialistic philosophy, can be considered part of ‘reality’.

But I don’t see what physical properties can be assigned to the concept of the number ‘2’, hence it seems to me that the materialist viewpoint must reject ‘2’ as being part of reality and this seems absurd to me. Claiming that the ‘2’ doesn’t exist as a ‘thing’ but only as an property of other things or as a thought process in human beings seems equally absurd. I don’t think the concept of ‘2’ would vanish if the human race disappeared any more than the earth would vanish.

Another example: it's quite reasonable to argue that the laws of gravity are purely a mental construct, a mathematical model that humans have devised to represent reality. So would you say that Issac Newton invented his laws of gravity or discovered them?

Ok, with your new examples to work with I think I'm about to say something insightful, so brace yourself.

There's two separate issues we are talking about. The possibility of a concept and the concept itself. I think you are conflating the two.

Light with a wavelength 475 nm will exist whether humans exist to see it or not. The possibility of calling that wavelength blue will exist whether humans currently exist to call it that or not. However, at no point is there a 'blue' that exists apart from the label humans have placed on it. There was always the possibility, but blue is the label that humans put on that wavelength. So no humans, no label, thus no blue.

An apple sitting next to another apple can exist whether humans exist to count them or not. The possibility of calling that configuration of apples 2 will exist whether humans currently exist to count them or not. However, at no point is there a '2' that exists apart from the label that humans put on that configuration. So no humans, no label, thus no 2.

Gravity will exist whether humans exist to model it or not. The possibility of humans modeling will always exist whether humans currently exist to understand it or not. However at no point will a model of gravity exist apart from a human creating that model. So no humans, no model.

This assumes that there aren't any sentient aliens about of course.

One more illustration. A Hrunk is a quadrupedal amphibian with two heads who lives on the moon. Before I created the concept of a Hrunk, that concept did not exist. When everyone who reads this dies or forgets it, the concept will cease to exist. There is always the possibility of someone recreating the concept, but there there is no reason to think that the concept of a Hrunk gains a life of it's own and hides in another dimension waiting for someone to call it back.

articulett

14th August 2007, 12:33 AM

I think the underlying deference and protection makes religionists do a lot more egregious things and blind themselves to it far more readily than secular groups...they believe in "higher truths" and "higher laws".

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
US physicist (1933 - )

I can't believe how the apologists rush in to defend religion as though someone said ALL religion every time anyone posts something awful done in the name of religion-- the same people... every time! They seldom even comment on the post--they are too busy making those who criticize religion into the "bad guys" rather than the people who drag kids behind cars and the like in the name of "god".

Religion gets a special pass that we don't give to other groups promoting unverifiable scams and promises of happily ever after-- religionists begin believe their own story... they go unchecked--see our silence as deference and proof that they are answering to higher laws... Sure, not all of them drag kids... but all religions claim to be answering to higher laws and to "know" higher truths--like what the creator of the universe wants. If you cover for one, you cover for the system. If you know it's a crock, why would you want people to continue inflicting it upon others to the detriment of those others and the people who have to live on the planet with them?

When people defend religion because not all religion is bad, I feel like they are ignoring the fact that all religion claims that faith is a good way to know something. It isn't. All religions make claims about higher truths and afterlives that they have no evidence for. And all religions promote the idea that people are good just for "believing" a certain unbelievable story. It's madness. Why are people so quick to defend religion when nobody said ALL religion... and when no religion has any evidence showing it to be more true than any other religion. Religion is not necessary for morality and secular societies show greater health.

I turn the tables on you apologists and accuse you of sticking up for ALL religion, no matter how vile--including the one's that drag kiddies behind cars. You stick up for the big lie and ignore all egregious acts done in it's name.

articulett

14th August 2007, 12:43 AM

Let me know if one comes by.

It's very simple: naturally violent people will choose to associate with violence, and revel in violent things. That doesn't mean everybody who plays Grand Theft Auto, listens to Motley Crue, or believes in some kind of God is abusive or homicidal.

This is sort of funny in a way, since it sometimes seems that some people who will be absolutely first to condemn blaming violence on video games have no compunction when it comes to blaming violence on religion.

Maybe that's because people drove airplanes into buildings because Allah told them too... they've killed abortion doctors, started holy wars, stoned people to death, accused them of being witches, tortured people, and killed themselves for their religions-- all the while exclaiming their beliefs and praising their god while doing so. I'm not sure anyone does that for a video game... but then I am pretty good at seeing the difference between a game and a supposed directive from the creator of the universe that determines if you'll live happily ever after or suffer for eternity. Last I checked, grand theft auto wasn't offering 72 virgins and the hijackers weren't praising their game consoles as they immolated themselves and others.

What has religion done to your mind that you see them both as similar. I don't think video games are claiming to have higher truths where non-belief leads to damnation and suffering is part of some divine "plan".

I only hope that you are very young to have such simplistic views.

Oh--and violent scriptural passages increase aggression too: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660199036,00.html
(originally published in Nature http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070305/full/446114b.html)

articulett

14th August 2007, 02:46 AM

It's the more secular societies that have the least violence. Violent scriptures increase aggression. I can think of a lot of atrocities committed in the name of god. In fact, I think everyone who believes that Andrea Yates sent her children to heavenly bliss (whereas, had they lived they may have sinned enough to go to hell) is inadvertently responsible for keeping these harmful notions alive and unquestioned.

When has anyone every ordered a mass action or violence of any sort over something they didn't believe in. Aren't all regimes and boot camps etc. organized over beliefs or ideals people have in common. The bible has that thing about "spare the rod, spoil the child" which some interpret as god condoning corporeal punishment... heck, god endorses it... he asked Abraham to kill Isaac--he's a rather bloodthirsty guy.

The religious apologists are so ready to call non believers bad without evidence and so ready to dismiss the egregious acts of religion by pretending that any criticism is a blanket indictment of all.

They pretend that religion has nothing to do with these acts even when the people committing the acts say they are doing god's will or some other religious nonsense. What wouldn't you do if you believed your ETERNITY was at stake-- really believed it? Why would anyone compare that to video games.

I am disgusted at how people endlessly look the other way --because they must think that religion is good in some way or necessary or something-- they defend it at every turn--rush to disassociate good religions from radical ones--avoid commenting on the religious aspects of the story or deny it completely and then make non believers or those who would criticize religion into bad guys.

Mijo, you are blind to your idiocy, hypocrisy, arrogance, insincerity, failure at humor, poor communication, creationist blather, and endless religious apologetics. You aren't really fooling very many people anymore. I am so sick of the apologists common to religions defense on every thread where someone dares to mention something religion does wrong--pretending to be the voice of reason while vilifying those who are on topic, honest, and rightfully pointing out the problems with endless deference to "faith".

articulett

14th August 2007, 02:49 AM

Exorcisms-- another abuse in the name of religion.
Witch hunts too.
And holy wars.
Mass suicide

Secularists never are involved in these egregious acts.

Dancing David

14th August 2007, 07:18 AM

Exorcisms-- another abuse in the name of religion.
Witch hunts too.
And holy wars.
Mass suicide

Secularists never are involved in these egregious acts.

I don't know Amnesty Intl. does not list religion as a motivator for torture and political detention and abuse of prisoners.

There sure is a lot of torture done in the name of politics without religion.

And in fact the witch hunts were very political, with a religous bias aganst women.

JoeEllison

14th August 2007, 07:35 AM

ponderingturtle

14th August 2007, 08:34 AM

ponderingturtle

14th August 2007, 08:36 AM

Oh, really cogent response there turtle! Let’s see the violence rate against the AA population has risen to 50% of all homicides. You think that SES is not correlated with violence. Whatever.

Yeah that’s right it is related to the african american churches.

Do you have any data that says violence is not related to poverty?

Poverty does not explain it, with 12% of the population and twice the national poverty rate, you can not get to 50% of the murders being black on black crime solely with poverty as an explanation.

It must be cultural and as religion is a major cultural institution, violence can be caused by religion.

Beth

14th August 2007, 09:14 AM

Ok, with your new examples to work with I think I'm about to say something insightful, so brace yourself.

There's two separate issues we are talking about. The possibility of a concept and the concept itself. I think you are conflating the two. I understand what you are thinking I’m doing. All I can say is that, no, that’s not the issue for me.

Light with a wavelength 475 nm will exist whether humans exist to see it or not. The possibility of calling that wavelength blue will exist whether humans currently exist to call it that or not. However, at no point is there a 'blue' that exists apart from the label humans have placed on it. There was always the possibility, but blue is the label that humans put on that wavelength. So no humans, no label, thus no blue. Right. If an alien race were to exist, they might not care about our visible light spectrum at all, but give names to different portions of what we term infrared or ultraviolet. But, I can still understand that colors have physical properties – a certain spectrum of the wavelength of lights - and can be said to ‘exist’ from a materialistic point of view.

An apple sitting next to another apple can exist whether humans exist to count them or not. The possibility of calling that configuration of apples 2 will exist whether humans currently exist to count them or not. However, at no point is there a '2' that exists apart from the label that humans put on that configuration. So no humans, no label, thus no 2. This is where I run into difficulty with materialism. I understand that ‘2’ is a label we give to a particular number of items ‘2’. But the idea or concept of 2 still exists. It’s been a while, but my recollection is that it has been established that there are other animals that understand the concept of counting and will know if they are missing one of a set of similar objects. If an alien race were to see the configuration of apples, they would recognize that there were ‘2’ though their label for that number would likely be vastly different from ours.
One more illustration. A Hrunk is a quadrupedal amphibian with two heads who lives on the moon. Before I created the concept of a Hrunk, that concept did not exist. When everyone who reads this dies or forgets it, the concept will cease to exist. There is always the possibility of someone recreating the concept, but there there is no reason to think that the concept of a Hrunk gains a life of it's own and hides in another dimension waiting for someone to call it back. I’m not making myself clear. I’m not saying that all concepts and ideas have an existence of their own. I’m saying that some concepts, such as numbers, seem to me to have an existence separate from whether or not there exist brains such as ours to contemplate them yet have no physical properties of their own.

Try this link for a humorous explanation of what I am fumbling to say.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/certainty.png

How can the existance of universal truths that have no physical properties, such as those found in mathematics, be reconciled with a materialistic view of reality? That's the sticking point for me with materialism.

articulett

14th August 2007, 09:31 AM

I don't know Amnesty Intl. does not list religion as a motivator for torture and political detention and abuse of prisoners.

There sure is a lot of torture done in the name of politics without religion.

And in fact the witch hunts were very political, with a religous bias aganst women.

Yeah... religion always gets a pass-- even when it IS THE motivator. People have learned to blind themselves to it. One bible passage about not "suffering witches" has been responsible for many deaths... and people are still accused of being witches and killed for it-- exorcisms too. Yeah... politics too... but people pretend it's politics or anything else a lot of the time in order to pretend it has nothing to do with religion.

Andrea Yates believed that when she killed her kids she was ensuring their salvation... Her religion taught that if you die before the "age of reason" you go straight to heaven. Who wants to take a chance with your kids' eternity? And the hijackers surely believed they were doing just as god ordered.

Don't confuse what I am saying. I am not saying religion is responsible for all atrocities--I am saying that people go out of their way to avoid implicating religion when it definitely does play a role-- all this to avoid the fact that religion is a lie proffered as some higher truth--even a truth necessary for a "happy eternity". That's pretty manipulative to anyone who believes it... to anyone who thinks that "faith" is necessary for salvation.

If the article had been about abuse at a Scientology camp or a white supremacy camp... the apologists wouldn't be saying not ALL religion... or politics commits atrocities too... or secular people drag kids... or other tagents. They just wouldn't. Religion gets this endless deference (especially christian religion... ) Why? Is there any evidence that it's true or that protecting religion from examination is good for anything. I think that kids molested by pedophilia clergy would think not.

The bottom line is that many horrible things are done in the name of religion, and even on a skeptics forum, people rush in to pretend it has nothing to do with religion or to demonize those who point out the hypocrisy of religion and it's supposed necessity to encouraging moral behavior. Religion makes believers THINK they are more moral without realizing the ugliness they are forever covering for.

If god is great or religion is good for something I would think either could stand up to the scrutiny without the apologists rushing in on a skeptics forum pretending to be the voice of reason and the slayers of those who would dare to speak badly about religion (in general).

For those who think someone is criticizing all religion equally every time they mention harms done in the name of faith are going to be accused of defending all religions equally no matter how vile the acts when they go off on these nutty tangents to keep people from discussing the abuses committed in the name of god.

There are no atheist boot camps or dogmas or admonishments about spoiling children if you don't beat them with rods. The only atheist camp is Camp Quest and I don't think they'll be having child dragging on their agenda. Secular organizations are not governed by invisible entities indistinguishable from schizophrenic delusions--they don't have "higher laws" or make claims about "eternity". They don't encourage the notion that faith and "allegiance to ideals" as being good... nor do they promote belief in witches, demons, or anything so harmful and silly and inhumane. In fact, "belief in belief" is not encourage--rather open inquiry is. There is so much suffering committed in the name of religion and every time anybody says anything about any such abuses, the apologists rush in to minimize religion's role and insert red herrings.

articulett

14th August 2007, 09:49 AM

How can the existance of universal truths that have no physical properties, such as those found in mathematics, be reconciled with a materialistic view of reality? That's the sticking point for me with materialism.

These universal truths describe physical properties... mathematics represents these laws in the human brain just like words represent thoughts and descriptions of the world. I don't understand your sticking point at all. Sure 2 plus 2 always equaled 4 even when humans didn't exist and DNA was in our cells even as primitive folks were imagining creation stories. Of course DNA did was not called DNA until humans came along and math was not represented in the numerical ways we represent it until humans came along. Why would any of this be incompatible with materialism?--"a sticking point"? I never understand peoples' problems with materialism... they always seem manufactured. Reality is what exists whether people know of it or believe in it or not... concepts and consciousness and thinking about reality requires a living brain as far as we can tell. Despite eons of belief, we have no evidence of any kind of consciousness absent a living brain, but lots of evidence of a reality that exists whether a brain is conscious of it or not. Science, like math, is about axioms--things that are true even if nobody is around to verify such truths.

slingblade

14th August 2007, 11:23 AM

cybermanikan

14th August 2007, 12:12 PM

Beth,

Not sure if I can actually be of any help here since Ichneumonwasp, quixotecoyote, Dancing David, and articulett have pretty much summed up my viewpoint. Essentially that is that concepts are human 'creations'. But here are my two cents. I'll try to keep it very simple so I don't waste your time:
I’m not saying that all concepts and ideas have an existence of their own. I’m saying that some concepts, such as numbers, seem to me to have an existence separate from whether or not there exist brains such as ours to contemplate them yet have no physical properties of their own. ... How can the existance of universal truths that have no physical properties, such as those found in mathematics, be reconciled with a materialistic view of reality? That's the sticking point for me with materialism.

Essentially:
1) Mathematical *patterns* (patterns of matter that can include interactions) exist outside of the human brain. The way we perceive these patterns lead to both an empirical and abstract conceptualization of this as *mathematics*; ergo, there is no statements of constructs outside the brain, just the reality those constructs are based upon
2) The reason we might say mathematics is a 'universal truth' is that patterns of order are inherent to any combination of *things* and *actions* and *interactions*
If an alien race were to see the configuration of apples, they would recognize that there were ‘2’ though their label for that number would likely be vastly different from ours.
3) I'm not so sure. After we find even another species that shows sentience we can answer that question. My weak argument is that there isn't an absolute reason another species couldn't formulate mathematics in a different way. Although, with simple constructs like "2" it may be very likely they would. This needn't be a limitation of that specie's perceptive ability, either. In any case the patterns of "matter configuration" do exist outside of human constructs but that's a LOT different than saying the concept does.
Another example: it's quite reasonable to argue that the laws of gravity are purely a mental construct, a mathematical model that humans have devised to represent reality. So would you say that Issac Newton invented his laws of gravity or discovered them?
4) Both, much in the same way I'd say any scientific theory is both. Einstein's theories, for example, didn't so much sweep away Newton's observations as it reformulated another way to model gravity. In both cases, though, there was both observational evidence--and hypothesis--as well as the creation of a description construct.

quixotecoyote

14th August 2007, 12:12 PM

This is where I run into difficulty with materialism. I understand that ‘2’ is a label we give to a particular number of items ‘2’. But the idea or concept of 2 still exists. It’s been a while, but my recollection is that it has been established that there are other animals that understand the concept of counting and will know if they are missing one of a set of similar objects. If an alien race were to see the configuration of apples, they would recognize that there were ‘2’ though their label for that number would likely be vastly different from ours. I’m not making myself clear. I’m not saying that all concepts and ideas have an existence of their own. I’m saying that some concepts, such as numbers, seem to me to have an existence separate from whether or not there exist brains such as ours to contemplate them yet have no physical properties of their own.

Try this link for a humorous explanation of what I am fumbling to say.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/certainty.png

How can the existance of universal truths that have no physical properties, such as those found in mathematics, be reconciled with a materialistic view of reality? That's the sticking point for me with materialism.

I'm only gong to address the area we disagree on and I'm going to lump humans, aliens and thinking animals under the label 'thinker' for ease of reference.

There is no actual difference between the example of light, which you have no problem with, and the example of numbers, which you do.

Things can exist in pairs of 2 without a thinker to count them. You've already said that the label an alien would give them is different than the label a human would give them. Therefore we agree that the actual label '2' is not the independently existing truth. It follows that a label equivalent to '2' is dependent on the underlying reality of one object and another object just as a label equivalent to 'blue' is dependent on the underlying reality of a 475 nanometer wavelength. The labels on both may be different depending on which thinker is expressing them, but both blue and 2 are describing a portion of objective reality.

A Universal Truth is a description of reality that holds true in all instances. There's some argument about whether mathematics qualifies, but lets assume that it does. Mathematics doesn't exist without a mathematician to create it. The truths it creates describe a reality that was there before the description. There is no concept that predates the conceiver, even though the focus of the concept may have. Math is not an exception to this, because math is a label just like 'blue', not a pre-existing universal artifact.

Dancing David

14th August 2007, 12:29 PM

How is a town killing most of their women political?

And just becuase they don't recognise it doesn't mean it does not happen. They just explain the religious motivations away as being something else. Just like you do. You are operating on a defintion that religion can not do that so anything that makes people violent is not a religion. It is basicly a no true scotsman line.

No cause of violence is religious is your falacy.

Um dude thou art most extreme, I said no such thing.

I have not sqaid that religion is not the cause of violence at all. i would say that the fights between the catholics and the Hugenots, Lutherans and Anababtists were almost exclusively religous, although they did have thier political components.

Of course people do excessive things in the name of religion, but often religous violence is motivated by economic and political gain, and from a certain POV that is just as important as the 'religous' motive.

"You are operating on a defintion that religion can not do that so anything that makes people violent is not a religion" is not something i said, i am just pointing out that the political and economic basis is often as strong if not stronger than the religous one. I think the razing of the temple at Ayodha would be a good example of violence that is almost all religous, the razing of the red mosque, not so much.

Myanmar and Russia are two states that practice a lot of terror without the religous motive, as did Chile.

ponderingturtle

14th August 2007, 12:33 PM

Um dude thou art most extreme, I said no such thing.

I have not sqaid that religion is not the cause of violence at all. i would say that the fights between the catholics and the Hugenots, Lutherans and Anababtists were almost exclusively religous, although they did have thier political components.

Of course people do excessive things in the name of religion, but often religous violence is motivated by economic and political gain, and from a certain POV that is just as important as the 'religous' motive.

"You are operating on a defintion that religion can not do that so anything that makes people violent is not a religion" is not something i said, i am just pointing out that the political and economic basis is often as strong if not stronger than the religous one. I think the razing of the temple at Ayodha would be a good example of violence that is almost all religous, the razing of the red mosque, not so much.

Myanmar and Russia are two states that practice a lot of terror without the religous motive, as did Chile.

And where did I say that terror and violence only stem from religion? It was a reaction to how you and others where bending over backwards to discount the violence that religion inspires.

As few actions have single motivations, many here focus on the non religious motives and discount the effect of religion.

Dancing David

14th August 2007, 12:37 PM

Poverty does not explain it, with 12% of the population and twice the national poverty rate, you can not get to 50% of the murders being black on black crime solely with poverty as an explanation.

It must be cultural and as religion is a major cultural institution, violence can be caused by religion.

Where did I say that religion is not involved in violence?
Where did I say that poverty was solely responsible?

Gosh you are soooo over the top.

I said that poverty and the existence of violence are highly correlated.

But tell me Mr. Argues Just to Argue, when I work with a kid who moved down from Chicago and has bullet creases and puncture wounds on him, what role does religion cause in his having been shot in a driveby? Was he shot because he was at church, was he shot because someone at church said to go and shoot him?

I already believe that the culture of indifference is a major contributor to the culture of violence. And as religion reflects culture I am sure that it expresses it somehow.

But be sure to argue just for the sake of whatever reason you like to argue. All in fun.

ponderingturtle

14th August 2007, 12:43 PM

Where did I say that religion is not involved in violence?
Where did I say that poverty was solely responsible?

Gosh you are soooo over the top.

I said that poverty and the existence of violence are highly correlated.

But tell me Mr. Argues Just to Argue, when I work with a kid who moved down from Chicago and has bullet creases and puncture wounds on him, what role does religion cause in his having been shot in a driveby? Was he shot because he was at church, was he shot because someone at church said to go and shoot him?

Now where did I say religion played any role in the violence in the black community?

People where doing a very good job of discounting the role of religion in any and all violence. If you do that, then how can you blame culture, and the only option left is to blame all the individuals. I then applied that idea to modern America.

I already believe that the culture of indifference is a major contributor to the culture of violence. And as religion reflects culture I am sure that it expresses it somehow.

But be sure to argue just for the sake of whatever reason you like to argue. All in fun.

How am I doing that? I posted a statement about how everyone who was saying "well you can't blame X violence on religion", and "Blaming religion is just like blaming video games" You did not seem to take much issue with those exempting religion from any responsibility for the violence it inspires.

Dancing David

14th August 2007, 12:54 PM

Yeah... religion always gets a pass-- even when it IS THE motivator. People have learned to blind themselves to it. One bible passage about not "suffering witches" has been responsible for many deaths... and people are still accused of being witches and killed for it-- exorcisms too. Yeah... politics too... but people pretend it's politics or anything else a lot of the time in order to pretend it has nothing to do with religion.

Sorry that is not what I am saying, I am saying that there is a lot of violence that is not associated with religion. I don't give religion a pass in the least. However jail workers abuse prisoners often without religious motives at all. I am sure to agree that religion plays a part in violence and in many situations is the direct contributor.

But in the witch trial most of the people persecuted in a court were women with money. Why the rest of the suppression of women and the extermination of women occurred is likely to have been religious.

As someone who worked in a DV shelter for three years I am certainly not very kind minded to certain forms of Xianity of islam.

1. Those that say the man is the 'head of the household'.
2. Those that encourage the reconciliation of couples over the safety of the victims.
3. Those whose solution to a DV situation is to say "Lets pray on it shall we.'

I believe that religion is just as culpable of stupidity as any human idea.

Andrea Yates believed that when she killed her kids she was ensuring their salvation... Her religion taught that if you die before the "age of reason" you go straight to heaven. Who wants to take a chance with your kids' eternity? And the hijackers surely believed they were doing just as god ordered.

I understand but I am not sure that the motives of the 9-11 bombers were purely religious, when the wuhabis kill sufis and sunnis it most certainly is. I feel that the political motive of fighting america was equal with the religious.

Don't confuse what I am saying. I am not saying religion is responsible for all atrocities--I am saying that people go out of their way to avoid implicating religion when it definitely does play a role-- all this to avoid the fact that religion is a lie proffered as some higher truth--even a truth necessary for a "happy eternity". That's pretty manipulative to anyone who believes it... to anyone who thinks that "faith" is necessary for salvation.

I agree, I am just saying that political power and economics is usually the culprit as well. Even in Northern Ireland. But there are many purely religious pieces of stupidity as well.

If the article had been about abuse at a Scientology camp or a white supremacy camp... the apologists wouldn't be saying not ALL religion... or politics commits atrocities too... or secular people drag kids... or other tangents. They just wouldn't. Religion gets this endless deference (especially christian religion... ) Why? Is there any evidence that it's true or that protecting religion from examination is good for anything. I think that kids molested by pedophilia clergy would think not.

well very few pagans put their babies in ovens to drive the demons out. if they had I am sure it would be a permanent fixture of Xian news channels.

The bottom line is that many horrible things are done in the name of religion, and even on a skeptics forum, people rush in to pretend it has nothing to do with religion or to demonize those who point out the hypocrisy of religion and its supposed necessity to encouraging moral behavior. Religion makes believers THINK they are more moral without realizing the ugliness they are forever covering for.

Yeah, true. But I was just saying that money and power are the usual suspects.

religion (of the american type) creates a culture of repression, sexual hostility and polarization.

If god is great or religion is good for something I would think either could stand up to the scrutiny without the apologists rushing in on a skeptics forum pretending to be the voice of reason and the slayers of those who would dare to speak badly about religion (in general).

For those who think someone is criticizing all religion equally every time they mention harms done in the name of faith are going to be accused of defending all religions equally no matter how vile the acts when they go off on these nutty tangents to keep people from discussing the abuses committed in the name of god.

Well I did used to foam at the mouth and fall over ranting about the born agains.

There are no atheist boot camps or dogmas or admonishments about spoiling children if you don't beat them with rods. The only atheist camp is Camp Quest and I don't think they'll be having child dragging on their agenda. Secular organizations are not governed by invisible entities indistinguishable from schizophrenic delusions

You haven't met my local school board? :)

--they don't have "higher laws" or make claims about "eternity". They don't encourage the notion that faith and "allegiance to ideals" as being good... nor do they promote belief in witches, demons, or anything so harmful and silly and inhumane. In fact, "belief in belief" is not encourage--rather open inquiry is. There is so much suffering committed in the name of religion and every time anybody says anything about any such abuses, the apologists rush in to minimize religion's role and insert red herrings.

I agree, I made a point a little too fine.

I am not pleased at all with the current slate of republicans and the revivalist mentality of the certain segments of that party.

Dancing David

14th August 2007, 12:57 PM

Yes, but it was slightly more than religious bias. If the Church could find you guilty of heresy, it could attain your property. It was especially dangerous to be a widow of property, as this made you a vulnerable target, to whose aid virtually no one would come. After all, a mere woman should obediently remarry and pass the property on to her new husband and his heirs.

If not that, she should give her property to the church and enter a cloister. If she did not, the church had ways of taking the property and making the widow dead. And the dead do not complain of property rights.

I know, I apologise. I was making too fine a point.

I have written a chapter in a book about that part of DV training. They usually just killed women but they killed the men who defended their wives. it is up there with the worst of the worst.

that is why Giles Correy was pressed to death as well.

articulett

14th August 2007, 02:23 PM

DancingDavid....
Religion and violence are highly correlated... maybe moreso than poverty despite your red herring amnesty international quotes:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01873.x
http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible5.htm
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/consequence.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kenneth_krause/fighting.html
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
http://thewaronfaith.com/bible_quotes.htm
http://www.normalbobsmith.com/hatemail300.html
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lpb1mbaHjGQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=timothy+mcveigh+violence+religion&ots=p7heKh9kKk&sig=hznC52NamrpkxAQfb6GjhCAYQ5Q#PPA45,M1
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162(199807)558%3C88%3ACVIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/more-moral.html
http://jcnot4me.com/Items/evangelical_ath/Christianity_Does_Not_Work_as_Advertised.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070731085614.htm

Religion claims to have truths it does not have... it encourages violence... many times violence that would have occurred if not for religion... it shows no evidence of making people nicer or better or more civilized... it is a thorn in the side of science... it promotes irrational thinking... and it is inflicted on innocent trusting people "for their own good".

Nobody says that religion is the only thing that is to blame-- but can we quit having to defend ourselves every time we notice that it plays a major role in quite a bit of human suffering including the OP?? Until we can talk about the harms of religion without having to run through the apologist brigade, how can we expect to raise consciousness so that fewer people are subject to that which the teenage girl in the OP was subject too. It was WRONG. Even if they think god commanded it-- it's still wrong. People are wrong when they claim to know what god wants. Faith is not a good way to know anything true.

Mijo and Beth jump to defend awful behavior on behalf of Christians with their apologist arguments and vilify those who speak out against such lies without ever commenting on the abuses themselves.

I don't care if ALL religions are bad... I care that we live in a world where people jump to defend all of them every time anyone criticizes one that lies close to home for them. I care that none are true and all claim to have truths. All make claims they cannot support. I care that people defer to them and cover for them automatically just as the Vatican covered for it's pedophile priests-- at the expense of more kids being made ignorant, fearful, and arrogant thanks to religion.

I don't find the religious apologists on this forum to be more moral or insightful or intelligent than those who dare to skewer the sacred cow. I don't think anybody said religion is the only cause of violence or that all religions are equally encouraging of violence-- but people (not you) on this forum seem to hear that any time anyone implicates religion. It's almost like they are blind to the blatantly religious motives or scriptural quotes used to justify violence. Some of the links above are pretty compelling... I just think people do a lot of covering for religion without even realizing they are doing it.

Of course religion isn't the only oppressive force...but when it comes to oppressing women, minorities, nonbelievers, and homosexuals-- they tend to be right there on top promoting the uncivilized behavior and acting as a thorn in the side of science and evidence all along the way.

Is there anything good enough or true enough about it that religion should get some special deference, respect, or semantic cover up? I'm not dissing the believers-- just the self perpetuating memes that are used to justify all manner of fear mongering and abuse.

I'm tired of the idea that there are "higher truths"-- if you believe that or promote that than who are you to say god doesn't want people to drag teenagers behind trucks? or to kill abortion doctors or blow up buildings like Timothy McVeigh did in the name of god? Sure, lots of people are crazy... but crazy and god (or belief in demons) makes for particularly frightening versions of crazy.

JoeEllison

14th August 2007, 02:36 PM

articulett

14th August 2007, 05:20 PM

Is religion the only thing that causes, condones, and/or encourages violence? No.

Is religion one of the things that causes, condones, and/or encourages violence? Yes.

Does it help anyone to pretend otherwise? No.

The desperation to defend and make excuses for religion that people seem to feel... it's depressing to me. It means that people still lose their sense of judgment and their ethical compass when it comes to religion. They dance around the issue, they rationalize everything away... they reject reason and intellect in the name of foolish and harmful fairy tales, for no good reason at all.

My guess is that some people don't realize they are doing it... we are raised in a culture where everything good is said to be due to god and religion and told that it's arrogant to question god... that faith is good. We are told that scriptural platitudes are higher truths that lead to salvation, and that doubt (biting from the tree of knowledge) is bad. And I think we internalize it when we are very young and then become blind and how we learn to never associate religion or god with anything bad-- and how we learn that faith goes with morality... We give god and faith credit for all good lest it be taken away learn to blame humans and non-belief and anything but god or religion for all that is bad.

I think it's insidious... and religions would survive better by encouraging such thought to be sure... and fear of atheism... if they blame all bad on "lack of belief" or "evil" forces that religion can help you battle and promote the meme that "you gotta have faith".

It's not so weird that people do that... but the fact that they do it and then claim they don't and then do it even more... that is weird. The way they are blind to it even when it's in writing and pointed out to them... the way they are blind to their glaring hypocrisy and double standards and seem to not read the words that would clue them in to this bias.

Scientologists don't believe in "chemical imbalances" and at least one person has died under their care while detoxing and doing "natural regimes" in order to become "clear". If someone would have posted that story in the religion section, the apologists would not be running in and pretending that we were talking about ALL religion or that amnesty international has no record of detox leading to death or none of the other nonsense about how it has "nothing to do with religion" or that secular groups can abuse people with antiscience too -- nor all the nonsense people utter here. They should ask themselves why-- and maybe learn that they have been brainwashed in a way they are not aware of. But they won't--instead they'll deny that they are being apologists and demonize those who criticize religion in even more threads as they defend particular religious practices involving religions they hold some degree of allegiance to while swearing that no such bia/deference on their part exists.

Mijo and Beth defend Jesus Camp and creationist museums to while vilifying those who dare to call them on the bigoted lying they are inflicting upon kids. Beth defends it as the government shouldn't tell parents what they can teach their kids... or not all religions are bad.... Mijo will do it by turning the messenger of the story into the bad guy and pretending to understand basic logical fallacies while committing them willy nilly and accusing others of doing so.

It seems that if Jesus is attached, religion can't be blamed in their head... apparently Jesus is real and good and "true Christians" would never do anything bad (and if they did, they would just be re-labled as "not true Christians"). Religion shows no evidence of making people better or more moral. There is lots of evidence that religion produces human suffering in the name of some god or "higher truth" or scriptural dictate. Tons of such evidence. The deference must stop. I don't understand this rush to "protect" religion or religious teachings while ignoring the suffering of it's victims. The former is so nebulous-- the latter is salient, concrete, real people suffering real damage because of peoples' faith in some platitude practice or "directive" from "god".

Temporal Renegade

14th August 2007, 05:34 PM

articulett

14th August 2007, 06:11 PM

Let them vilify me. I still stand by my own convictions on religious matters. I question the existence of a Supreme Being, simply because of all the things I consider to be Non-Evidence of such a Being existing. I don't demand that they or anyone else 'prove' their points to me, as I don't expect them to demand me to 'prove' my points to them. Neither of us will end up convincing the other of our respective beliefs; nor am I interested in even trying.

The only thing circular arguments end up doing, is making you dizzy.

If you want them to vilify you simply speak about something wrong done in the name of Jesus or Christianity... and/or ask, "who says religion isn't child abuse?"-- then they will come at you from every angle accusing you of all sorts of tangential things while avoiding discussing whatever the actual topic is. They pretend to be skeptics or non-religious or the like, but every post belies such claims as far as I can tell. They tend to see themselves as moderate and unbiased despite glaring evidence to the contrary.

quixotecoyote

14th August 2007, 06:24 PM

If you want them to vilify you simply speak about something wrong done in the name of Jesus or Christianity... and/or ask, "who says religion isn't child abuse?"-- then they will come at you from every angle accusing you of all sorts of tangential things while avoiding discussing whatever the actual topic is. They pretend to be skeptics or non-religious or the like, but every post belies such claims as far as I can tell. They tend to see themselves as moderate and unbiased despite glaring evidence to the contrary.

One can be non-religious and still try and defend religion. I'd wager that's the situation for most of the people arguing against you. Further, it's possible to be skeptical and still have blind spots. Bonus points if you can spot the other thread that makes my last sentence mildly hypocritical.

cybermanikan

14th August 2007, 06:51 PM

Again I disagree.

#1) There are many cases of this type of behavior linked to religion where the actors are individuals acting on their own outside of any other kind of pressure from other people. For example, the Christian guy a few years back who shot and killed his dorm roommate because he was an atheist. For example abortion clinic doctor killers who often cook up and carry out their plans on their own at no one else's urging, etc.

#2) It's not that religion "could" support authority driven actions, authority IS AN INTEGRAL PART of religion. Religion and authority go hand-in-hand, and I argue that religion evolved from authority power structures.

My view is that religion evolved from leader worship, and evolved into institutions and and modes of thinking ...
Malachi151:

I pretty much agree with Ichneumonwasp's comments on this but wanted to clarify a few things about my position. Basically, for starters, I think I probably agree with you about the riskiness of any dogmatic ideology to support violent behavior. Whether it be the Spanish Inquisition, Stalin's politics, or US Hegemony strict authoritarian ideologies are ripe for supporting acts of violence against the "them" to which proponents feel opposed. In all cases acts of violence require motive and situation and that's not necessarily always religion.

I agree with some of what you are presenting and wasn't trying to be equivocal about whether religion could be a source of violent power games. I was simply trying to address the specific situation regarding the van. I shy away from categorical statements as cause for a specific case unless there seems to be evidence. The fact that religions can be implicated (sometimes) in acts of violence is because authoritarianism lends itself to that. However, there are plenty of ways to fall prey to such acts without a strictly "religious" ideology playing a part.

Clarification:
1) My first assumption (for the case in point, about the van) was that the evidence suggested an out-of-balance authority relationship, thus my suggestion. Note, again, that not all authority relationships need be religious.
2) I might be suspicious (indeed I am) that the alleged perpetrators' beliefs played a role but this needn't be the case. Evidence would be required for me to feel strongly about this and make an accusation.
3) Lastly, the statement might be made that *the ideology of those who drug the girl, by it's nature, would not provide ample grounds for preventing such actions*. Since I don't know the specifics of their beliefs I can't make a strong comment *about this particular case* without evidence. Nonetheless, the lack of a barrier for committing a crime doesn't mean religion was the ultimate culprit but rather means religion may be a very bad way of figuring out how to behave or ensuring the morality of the believer (in this context).

One of the primary problems I have with religious ideology is that rather than making a clear statement about how to solve how to act it is fairly interpretive and irrational. In addition to that it sets up an automatic adversarial position with countering beliefs. Being as most religions are based on authority and "revelation" believers feel they are following "the correct one".

The believers--or leaders inciting believers--therefore have to throw in a good deal of emotion, faith and interpretation to make any decision to act, good or bad. Since faith isn't the same as reason this is what really scares me about religion. Those who adopt strong motivation from their dogmatism make the attribution error of justifying what they do to an authority when, in fact, the ideology simply doesn't provide a reasonable way to make a choice at all (the easter egg hunt of choosing right from wrong).

One of the other reasons I will seem somewhat ambivalent about accusing a supposedly religious person of acting badly because of religion is that most people don't act this way--they pick and choose when they apply their beliefs. Practicality and common sense, such as they are, prevail in most cases as people essentially aren't extra-prone to violence outside of certain situations. That is why I say such behavior is the exception not the norm--for people not ideologies.

Finally, all in all the murders for food and resources during our history and prehistory might very well outstrip those committed in more organized ideological acts of violence. Still, such acts based on ideology are in my mind inexcusable--perhaps more so--and I applaud all considerations for how to minimize atrocities. But to keep a clear head I can't immediately claim the motivation for an act without evidence.

Fnord

14th August 2007, 07:08 PM

articulett

14th August 2007, 07:22 PM

* GROAN *

I finally got through all of these posts.

IMHO: Only the OP has any real significance, the next 20 or so have some relevance, while all of the rest either re-hash the previous ones, condemn religion, or generally finger-point and try to place blame.

The only people who should be blamed are the two men arrested.

As for religion, abolish them all! While we're at it, let's abolish all institutions of worship, like the various political parties, sports venues, gambling casinos, and gentlemen's clubs! Anything that involves exploiting people's need to believe in something in exchange for money should be obliterated from the face of the Earth.

Over the top? Okay ... I'll go home now. G'night!

Nobody said anything about abolishing religion... another red herring... anything so that religion gets no part of the blame, eh? I prefer mockery and discussion and outing the apologists myself... at least make some people aware of that which they may not be aware of.

Religions claim "higher truths" and to be the key to salvation. This makes them dangerous... beyond "mortal laws" and values. They have no evidence for their claims. As long as people ignore this power of religion and pretend that it's not harmful--the lie festers and more people gain power by claiming to know what god wants. Religion was a factor in the abuse as much as you try to change the topic or pretend that those who say so want to abolish religion or whatever else it is you guys do to avoid having to acknowledge that religion isn't true-- and it can be harmful-- and it may not contribute to morality in any positive way at all.

articulett

14th August 2007, 07:34 PM

One can be non-religious and still try and defend religion. I'd wager that's the situation for most of the people arguing against you. Further, it's possible to be skeptical and still have blind spots. Bonus points if you can spot the other thread that makes my last sentence mildly hypocritical.

I agree for the most part. I suspect most people aren't aware that they are doing it. However, others are clearly dishonest with themselves and/or others regarding their intent or leanings or biases. At least that's my opinion. If a person was not religious and became aware that they were defending some religious practices in a way that they wouldn't defend others for some reason that was more emotional than rational... then they would be grateful to be made aware of such a fact, wouldn't they? But if they were a believer of some sort, they'd go out of their way to avoid even acknowledging the possibility of their bias while vilifying those who accuse them of bias--belief depends on such denial and making of "bad guys". As long as somebody other than "religion" or "Christianity" can be blamed or made to look bad--then the apologist jumps on board to wave their hands and take the focus of religions' involvement.

Not you. I haven't noticed you being apologetic... but Beth and Mijo bring the apologetics to all sorts of threads while failing to ever discuss the topic at hand. Maybe fnord too. Some people cannot admit that religion plays a role in some vile behavior while taking the tiniest anecdote to presume it's good for something or contains some "truths" or value --and that those who say otherwise are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Slimething

14th August 2007, 07:49 PM

The only people who should be blamed are the two men arrested.

Perhaps derision is more important to you than accuracy. Read the OP again.

As for religion, abolish them all! While we're at it, let's abolish all institutions of worship, like the various political parties, sports venues, gambling casinos, and gentlemen's clubs!

Political parties, stadia, casinos, etc are institutions of worship? Maybe you're from Planet X?

Anything that involves exploiting people's need to believe in something in exchange for money should be obliterated from the face of the Earth.

There's a seminal difference between the services you are describing and religion. It starts with a "g". Let's see if you're clever enough to figure it out all by yourself.

JoeEllison

14th August 2007, 07:51 PM

Some people cannot admit that religion plays a role in some vile behavior while taking the tiniest anecdote to presume it's good for something or contains some "truths" or value.

And, as in other threads, the defense of religion against all reason rises to the level of dishonesty for some people... whether it be outright lying or self-deception.

Dancing David

15th August 2007, 06:49 AM

Now where did I say religion played any role in the violence in the black community?

People where doing a very good job of discounting the role of religion in any and all violence. If you do that, then how can you blame culture, and the only option left is to blame all the individuals. I then applied that idea to modern America.

How am I doing that? I posted a statement about how everyone who was saying "well you can't blame X violence on religion", and "Blaming religion is just like blaming video games" You did not seem to take much issue with those exempting religion from any responsibility for the violence it inspires.

I was drawing too fine a point, after my exposure to marxist anthropology I see all interactions as based upon economics and the political power to enforce economics. It was too fine a point.

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 06:59 AM

I was drawing too fine a point, after my exposure to marxist anthropology I see all interactions as based upon economics and the political power to enforce economics. It was too fine a point.

So from that point of view religion and culture would never create violence.

And then how would any disproportionate over representation for the ecconomic level in violent crime be atributed to, if not biology?

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 07:03 AM

* GROAN *

I finally got through all of these posts.

IMHO: Only the OP has any real significance, the next 20 or so have some relevance, while all of the rest either re-hash the previous ones, condemn religion, or generally finger-point and try to place blame.

The only people who should be blamed are the two men arrested.

As for religion, abolish them all! While we're at it, let's abolish all institutions of worship, like the various political parties, sports venues, gambling casinos, and gentlemen's clubs! Anything that involves exploiting people's need to believe in something in exchange for money should be obliterated from the face of the Earth.

Over the top? Okay ... I'll go home now. G'night!

So do you agree with those folks here who say that religion never causes violence? Individuals like Amnesty International as quoted by dancing david, and Joshua Korosi who equated those who blame religion for any particular piece of violence as being just like those who blame video games for violence?

As for this case, we simply do not have the information to have any real idea what role the religious beliefs of the individuals involved in this played, or even if they where effected by others so I can not agree with the idea that you can know for certain that the two arrested are the only ones responsible.

Dancing David

15th August 2007, 07:07 AM

DancingDavid....
Religion and violence are highly correlated... maybe moreso than poverty despite your red herring amnesty international quotes:

Perhaps I mentioned Myanmar and Chile. I didn't quote Amnesty.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01873.x
http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible5.htm
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/consequence.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kenneth_krause/fighting.html
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
http://thewaronfaith.com/bible_quotes.htm
http://www.normalbobsmith.com/hatemail300.html
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lpb1mbaHjGQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=timothy+mcveigh+violence+religion&ots=p7heKh9kKk&sig=hznC52NamrpkxAQfb6GjhCAYQ5Q#PPA45,M1
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162(199807)558%3C88%3ACVIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/more-moral.html
http://jcnot4me.com/Items/evangelical_ath/Christianity_Does_Not_Work_as_Advertised.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070731085614.htm

I agree that religion is often and mostly stupidity, I was drawing too fine a point on the economics and politics of power.

The current greatest evil is allowing people to starve in the name of capitalism, followed by tolerance of oppressive governments in the name of freedom and the widespread notion of treating women and children (as well as adults males) as property. certainly religion is full of bad ideas and marriage of bad politics and bad religion in neo-conservatism is appalling.

Religion claims to have truths it does not have... it encourages violence... many times violence that would have occurred if not for religion...

I suppose, I was saying that there is plenty of violence that occurs for other reasons, even that which is religious on the surface.

it shows no evidence of making people nicer or better or more civilized... it is a thorn in the side of science... it promotes irrational thinking... and it is inflicted on innocent trusting people "for their own good".

And again saying that there are no religious sources of similar evil is not giving religion a pass. It was too fine a point.

Nobody says that religion is the only thing that is to blame-- but can we quit having to defend ourselves every time we notice that it plays a major role in quite a bit of human suffering including the OP??

I will try to be more aware of this in the future.

Until we can talk about the harms of religion without having to run through the apologist brigade, how can we expect to raise consciousness so that fewer people are subject to that which the teenage girl in the OP was subject too.

there are greater evils that all people are exposed too. religion is around number five. But believe me I AGREE! the shame that the Xians put on young women put on women for having sex with young men to horrific especially while they give a pass and a wink to the young men. It was not Eve's eating the apple that caused problems it was Adam's lack of brains.

It was too fine a point.

It was WRONG. Even if they think god commanded it-- it's still wrong. People are wrong when they claim to know what god wants. Faith is not a good way to know anything true.

Yeah, I know I agree. I just that there is so much violence and tolerance for violence that is not based upon religion that I was thinking maybe it was just violence. Ooops.

Mijo and Beth jump to defend awful behavior on behalf of Christians with their apologist arguments and vilify those who speak out against such lies without ever commenting on the abuses themselves.

Quite true, I drew to fine a point. I just see a preponderance of secular violence and sexism in american society.

I don't care if ALL religions are bad... I care that we live in a world where people jump to defend all of them every time anyone criticizes one that lies close to home for them. I care that none are true and all claim to have truths. All make claims they cannot support. I care that people defer to them and cover for them automatically just as the Vatican covered for it's pedophile priests-- at the expense of more kids being made ignorant, fearful, and arrogant thanks to religion.

I would draw to fine a point if I pointed out the power and politics involved.

I sort of hate the Catholic church but I am trying to not give them my energy. I hate the american born agains even more. But I am trying not to give them my power. Bedded with the rich and powerful neo-conservatives they are similar to the Vermacht sleeping with the nazis and the rich of germany.

I don't find the religious apologists on this forum to be more moral or insightful or intelligent than those who dare to skewer the sacred cow.

MMMMM Holy Kabobs Batman!

I don't think anybody said religion is the only cause of violence or that all religions are equally encouraging of violence-- but people (not you) on this forum seem to hear that any time anyone implicates religion. It's almost like they are blind to the blatantly religious motives or scriptural quotes used to justify violence. Some of the links above are pretty compelling... I just think people do a lot of covering for religion without even realizing they are doing it.

Of course religion isn't the only oppressive force...but when it comes to oppressing women, minorities, nonbelievers, and homosexuals-- they tend to be right there on top promoting the uncivilized behavior and acting as a thorn in the side of science and evidence all along the way.

I agree I was drawing too fine a point.

Is there anything good enough or true enough about it that religion should get some special deference, respect, or semantic cover up? I'm not dissing the believers-- just the self perpetuating memes that are used to justify all manner of fear mongering and abuse.

Nope, I just find the current very similar behavior of the neo-conservatives more frightening.

I'm tired of the idea that there are "higher truths"-- if you believe that or promote that than who are you to say god doesn't want people to drag teenagers behind trucks? or to kill abortion doctors or blow up buildings like Timothy McVeigh did in the name of god? Sure, lots of people are crazy... but crazy and god (or belief in demons) makes for particularly frightening versions of crazy.

Gods, demons and angels are hard to tell apart according to Crowley.

Beth

15th August 2007, 08:29 AM

Beth,

Not sure if I can actually be of any help here since Ichneumonwasp, quixotecoyote, Dancing David, and articulett have pretty much summed up my viewpoint. Essentially that is that concepts are human 'creations'. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I don't really have much to add to this subject, but I appreciate hearing your viewpoint.

I'm only gong to address the area we disagree on and I'm going to lump humans, aliens and thinking animals under the label 'thinker' for ease of reference.

There is no actual difference between the example of light, which you have no problem with, and the example of numbers, which you do. I guess we just disagree here. I think there is a fundamental difference between them.

A Universal Truth is a description of reality that holds true in all instances. There's some argument about whether mathematics qualifies, but lets assume that it does. Mathematics doesn't exist without a mathematician to create it. The truths it creates describe a reality that was there before the description. There is no concept that predates the conceiver, even though the focus of the concept may have. Math is not an exception to this, because math is a label just like 'blue', not a pre-existing universal artifact.

This is where I part ways from materialism. I don’t see math as a label of a physical characteristic like ‘blue’. It is not created by a thinker, but has a reality of it’s own that thinkers can discover and explore, just as they can discover and explore the various wavelengths of light. I believe that the concepts of numbers and other mathematical entitities exist whether people believe in them or not - they have an independent existance just as the wavelengths of light exist regardless of whether thinkers are observing the colors. I’m not sure if mathematics are the only abstractions that exist independent of thinkers, but since I do think numbers qualify as things that exists that have no physical characteristics, I'm not a materialist.

I have to agree that numbers don’t interact with our reality, although I certainly interact with numbers and other mathematical abstractions on a daily basis.

Anyway, I appreciate all the explanations on how you manage to reconcile materialism with mathematics, but I simply can't buy into the idea that numbers are created, not discovered.