Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Retired
retired moderator
#76 Old 29th Sep 2010 at 1:56 AM
Name something, anything, that doesn't have physical existence. Even ideas are manifested physically in the mind and on paper. We don't really have any way of assessing whether non-physical things exist. We just have to totally suspend our judgement.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Advertisement
Scholar
#77 Old 29th Sep 2010 at 2:12 AM
Um. Yes. That's what I m saying, have said; we cannot know the nature of deities one way or the other. They are unobservable and unknowable. They may be real, they may not be. They could have some form of manifestation, or they could be merely representative.

The truth is unknowable to us. That has always been my position.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Retired
retired moderator
#78 Old 29th Sep 2010 at 5:44 AM
Well, the "truth" isn't unknowable to us. We have a lot of evidence that is very consistent. We can probably go out of a limb and say tables aren't invisible, purple gorillas in disguise... ...we could take that one step further and say, "It certainly doesn't appear that there are gods or a god." Which is not to say there are not. Just that we're best assuming there are not given the total lack of evidence. Purple gorillas? Nah. Gods? Nah.

Well... ...maybe. We'd need some evidence first.

And yet, you are a theist. Seems an impossible position to hold without at least saying also: "My beliefs are a pretty fiction."

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Scholar
#79 Old 29th Sep 2010 at 7:17 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
"Even if something is true, it is useless to the rest of humanity without justification." - that is not true though. Though I guess that depends at how you look at "justification." Many stories are not real, are known to not be real, but nonetheless are far from useless.


You'll have to be more specific.

Quote:
"there is nothing to distinguish you from a crazy person." Then let me be insane and throw me into the stockades! I'd rather be crazy than be anything but myself!


It's your choice whether you want to try to fit social expectations or not. Some social expectations are very purposeful and beneficial, others not so much. The expectation of evidence when making a claim is something that I see as a beneficial social expectation. There is a fine line to walk between fitting in and doing/believing what you think is right. Other people can often be a good compass to judge the sanity of your ideas, though it's best to not rely completely on everyone else, as people are fallible and it is possible for a large number of people to have a wrong belief. This is something of a separate discussion, though.

Quote:
"Would you prefer to live in a world where people accept what they are told without question?" No. But we do not live in such a world. Only partially is the world, and every person out there, like this. No one ever completely like this lest they have mental problems. And in that case, they're not really good as a standard.


We live in a world where people use reason in some of their thought processes and follow blind faith in others. If you use reason when determining the qualities of the world around you, why would you selectively ignore reason when it comes to whether or not you believe in divine beings? What is so different about them that they have two entirely separate rule sets in so many people's minds?

Quote:
"I will once again quote Aristotle: "it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." If you don't ask for rigid evidence before accepting an idea, you will be unable to avoid believing in falsehoods." - that is not what that quote means. It does not mean "do not accept an idea without evidence for it."

What it means is to tolerate another point of view, with respect, even if you do not accepting the opposing idea.


I wasn't reiterating the meaning of the quote in that sentence, I was building upon it. The quote isn't exactly about tolerance, so much as it is about keeping an open mind until you have examined the reasoning/evidence. It means not to shut down an idea instantly, but to consider whether it might be true. It doesn't mean that you must tolerate all other views. There are some views that it is best not to tolerate. If someone tells you that it is okay to steal from people, that is a view it is best not to tolerate. Even tolerating unevidenced beliefs can be a problem, as those views can lead to wrong just as easily (if not moreso) than the aforementioned case of theft. In practice, I am tolerant of the religious beliefs of my friends, but ideally it is best to convince people to use logic.
Scholar
#80 Old 29th Sep 2010 at 11:30 AM
@kiwi

You can only assume the "truth," never know it. There is no evidence for gods. There is no evidence against gods. Or, rather, more like the monotheistic God as paganism works differently and many deities are, well, what I'm just about to say down below.

"And yet, you are a theist. Seems an impossible position to hold without at least saying also: "My beliefs are a pretty fiction." - well like I said to Oaktree, my deities may well be nothing more but representations of natural forces and human concepts. Real or not, they certainly are regardless. So either way, natural forces exist and human concepts exist and the gods, if they do not have some form of manifestation, exist as personification of those elements.

@Oaktree

1. In what way? Nothing is ever truly useless, regardless if its fact or fiction. It always has an influence on something, somewhere.

2. If I was making claim of something material, then yes, evidence would be beneficial. If I had said, "I discovered a new drug that could help treat cancer," I had better live up to it, otherwise, I would be lying. But I'm not making a material claim, or a scientific one.

3. Because that is not the fault of religion itself. If anything, I'd say that is more the fault of organized religion; specifically, Catholicism. Hundreds of years ago, the Islamic nations were a cultural wellspring of knowledge and science. It did not end because of their religion, it ended through invasion of another, who destabilized the region. Then as Catholicism spread, so did, of course, their views on such practices as being heretical. Of course blind faith probably has always existed, sure. But I think it was the Catholics and the Vatican that really pushed the blind faith thing into a point where to be religious meant to disregard everything but religion. It was partially a power-move. If you kept people from learning about the world and the universe, then their only reliance would be on God, and who held the word of God? The Vatican. They were essentially seen as the hand of God and had incredible power. It was to their benefit to keep people in the dark.

The thing is though, is there is no "reasoning" when it comes to deities. There is simply no evidence or anything in favor or against. Yes yes, I've heard the counter before of fantastical creatures being real, etc. But that's missing the point. Those creatures, they are physical beings; of course you need evidence for their existence. Deities are not necessarily physical, as I have said before. Claims of material existence need evidence. Claims of the abstract, well, that's a bit tougher as there is and never will be evidence. Because it's something not existing in a material way. An idea, a thought, doesn't become a real thing just upon its creation. If I imagine a pie, and say there is a pie in front of me, it doesn't simply pop out of thin air. In that case, yes, evidence is necessary. But rather, you're asking, well, instead, I'll reverse rolls. It's liking me asking you, "prove I am thinking of pie right now."

4. I have to disagree. I do not see how it is about "until you have examined the reasoning/evidence." There is no reference to such within it. Simply "keep an open mind even if you disagree." But I don't see how that directly translates to "if there is evidence." It means, well, even if you disagree, at least be thoughtful on what they are saying.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Top Secret Researcher
#81 Old 29th Sep 2010 at 11:52 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
The thing is though, is there is no "reasoning" when it comes to deities. There is simply no evidence or anything in favor or against.


I think individuals do come to their own conclusions based on "evidence", however theists and non-theists have a differing opinion on what should be considered as valid evidence. Theists may consider a feeling or personal experience as valid evidence whereas a non-theist requires measurable evidence.
Retired
retired moderator
#82 Old 29th Sep 2010 at 12:12 PM Last edited by kiwi_tea : 29th Sep 2010 at 12:25 PM.
Quote:
There is no evidence for gods. There is no evidence against gods.


Nekowolf, what you're saying is equal to: "There is no evidence for invisible purple gorillas hiding disguised as tables. There is no evidence against invisible purple gorillas hiding disguised as tables."

On one fundamental level these statements are both absolutely true. There is no way to prove there are not invisible purple gorillas hiding in our tables. No way at all.

But we assume, due to the complete lack of evidence, that these gorillas don't exist. It's the only sensible stance. Bear in mind these aren't physical gorillas.

If your religion is just a representation - a Just So Story - what on Earth do you gain from it? What does it add to descriptions of the world? Unsubstantiated consciousnesses? Unsubstantiated prescriptive forces?

Isn't the only thing you gain prejudice? Aren't you, yourself, the loser in this illogical transaction?


@simbalena "evidence" is defined by the OED as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". Facts are "a thing that is known or proved to be true". Feelings are so incredibly fallible, it is almost impossible to call a "feeling" or a single subjective sense a "fact" or "information". Feelings are "hunches". They're a good starting point to look for evidence, so long as they're not taken too seriously.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Scholar
#83 Old 29th Sep 2010 at 2:15 PM
@simbalena - I certainly do not disagree with that. People definitely do that, yes. But I was pointing out the simple fact that, in the end, it's all moot. Because, the answer is inconclusive.


@kiwi

That again? Look, you can feel a table. You can see it, you can move it, you can dissect it, take it apart, cut it in half. That is the biggest flaw of your analogy, always has been.

You are placing a physical reality onto something that is not. Or at the very least, something that we have no idea if it is. There is evidence against that analogy; because we have tables, and they are physical things. We can easily study a table down to its atomic anatomy.

We cannot do the same to deities. Even if it's a gorilla-like deity. In which case, would likely be a cultural thing; though essentially all religion is, at least at birth.

EDIT: If it was an invisible gorilla-god, and it was disguised as a table, and we can physically inspect a table down to its molecular structure, then that means the deity has form and is, therefore, real. But regardless of what you say, the question is - how would we know? We can't. The thing is though is you are using something so absurd, and while I see your point, it does not necessarily apply within the context of the idea of deities not being physical entities.

And what I gain from it? Well to break it down, Nature could be seen as, hm, what's a good word? Magical. I don't mean that literally, though. But more like if you saw a gorgeous sight, such as mountains and forests and such. I mean, yes, you can understand all the intricacies of the science behind it, but that doesn't make it any less incredible.

Or take the Judeo-Christian God. Why delegitimize science for the sake of their long-standing views of God's creation? If anything, if I was in that position, the fact that God could create a system so absolutely, incredibly, complex and advanced would be even more awe-inspiring of God's ability.

I'll be blunt. From my personal experience arguing with atheists, what I have seen in most of them, they only look through the lens of a singular perspective. Generally the idea that science and religion are exclusive to each other, and that God made everything in accordance to popular belief within the monotheistic religious community. Granted, I did say it is the popular belief, yes. But not the only belief. And religion itself isn't necessarily at fault, but rather its practitioners who taint it with their will and morals and etc.

I firmly believe in science. A few billion years ago, dust, rock, and other materials circled our young Sun and collected together through its gravity, eventually forming into a growing clump, which eventually grew into the young Earth. As it ever-so-slowly cooled, eventually, either something came riding down on a meteorite, or amino acids were created on the Earth (as we have been able to create them before), or whatever. Point being, eventually, bacteria was created on the Earth. It eventually grew into small single-celled organisms. Those grew into multi-celled organisms. Those grew into more complex organisms. And it pretty much went from there through the next billion or so years until we finally end up here through evolution, which is incredibly tiny changes with new generations that take a few million years to actually morph into a somewhat new creature, although there really isn't any clear point of time where this actually happens, unless you look at the fossils from a few million years before the present time.

I know how it all works, and I believe in it. My religion does not interfere with it. Religion and science are not exclusive to each other. Science and certain philosophies are what are exclusive. The condemning of scientific thought isn't coming from, say, God himself. It's coming from people. People who don't want to know anything else, or people who want the power they have held firm so they shut out the rest as it could potentially disturb that hierarchy through revolution. You must not forget the history of religious culture. Monotheism is a powerful tool for monarch to use, and manipulation into a religious culture that benefits them, especially the Vatican, was very much prevalent during those elder times.

As for what I get out of it? Hm. Now that is a good question. Comfort, for some reason. Not the kind you have where, "oh this is just God's plan," no. But more like acceptance of a part of me. Perhaps, in a way, it's something to look to. Not necessarily for morals, no, though I do agree with the Nine Noble Virtues (though they're rather generic, I mean, who would be opposed to honesty or hospitality or courage?). Sort of like how even people who are not very religious, when fall on hard times, may look to God.

If you feel you do not have to strength, look to Thor. If you need creativity, you can look to Odin or Bragi. To Freyja for love. That is not to say that you should expect some kind of divine intervention, no, but you can still turn to them for motivation or inspiration.

So no. I do not see my self as a loser at all. I embrace science, I embrace my faith as well. You may see me as being the loser in the scheme of things, but I certainly do not see myself in such a way, and definitely do not feel like it. I would be a loser, however, if I was to be someone I am not.

EDIT2: I do an edit, and already I have a Disagree? Hm, I'm beginning to think I'm being disagreed against simply by name. But whatever.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
#84 Old 29th Sep 2010 at 3:08 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
@Oaktree

1. In what way? Nothing is ever truly useless, regardless if its fact or fiction. It always has an influence on something, somewhere.


If you can make use of a scientific principle that you discover but can't justify, then it may have some use. If you can't justify it, though, you aren't really adding to the body of human knowledge and you're not likely to have too many people believe you and use your scientific discovery.

Quote:
2. If I was making claim of something material, then yes, evidence would be beneficial. If I had said, "I discovered a new drug that could help treat cancer," I had better live up to it, otherwise, I would be lying. But I'm not making a material claim, or a scientific one.


So you're saying that, as long as the claim you make has nothing to do with physical reality, it is okay to make a baseless claim? What about the concept of truth? Most people want to believe truth, whether it is directly observable to them or not. People can't know that something is true without some form of justification.

Quote:
3. Because that is not the fault of religion itself. If anything, I'd say that is more the fault of organized religion; specifically, Catholicism. Hundreds of years ago, the Islamic nations were a cultural wellspring of knowledge and science. It did not end because of their religion, it ended through invasion of another, who destabilized the region. Then as Catholicism spread, so did, of course, their views on such practices as being heretical. Of course blind faith probably has always existed, sure. But I think it was the Catholics and the Vatican that really pushed the blind faith thing into a point where to be religious meant to disregard everything but religion. It was partially a power-move. If you kept people from learning about the world and the universe, then their only reliance would be on God, and who held the word of God? The Vatican. They were essentially seen as the hand of God and had incredible power. It was to their benefit to keep people in the dark.

The thing is though, is there is no "reasoning" when it comes to deities. There is simply no evidence or anything in favor or against. Yes yes, I've heard the counter before of fantastical creatures being real, etc. But that's missing the point. Those creatures, they are physical beings; of course you need evidence for their existence. Deities are not necessarily physical, as I have said before. Claims of material existence need evidence. Claims of the abstract, well, that's a bit tougher as there is and never will be evidence. Because it's something not existing in a material way. An idea, a thought, doesn't become a real thing just upon its creation. If I imagine a pie, and say there is a pie in front of me, it doesn't simply pop out of thin air. In that case, yes, evidence is necessary. But rather, you're asking, well, instead, I'll reverse rolls. It's liking me asking you, "prove I am thinking of pie right now."


Actually, the Catholic church was relatively accepting of scientific ideas until the Protestant Reformation. They were certainly corrupt at points, and they became harsher on the sciences when their authority was threatened by the Protestant Reformation, but overall, the Catholic church has historically been relatively reasonable about scientific truth.

The Protestant sects, on the other hand, believe specifically that faith is the answer. They focus on the idea that faith in Jesus alone will get you into Heaven. Christian fundamentalism developed out of Protestantism.

I'm not trying to defend the Catholic church, as there was a lot wrong with it, but I was correcting your history for the sake of correctness.

Quote:
4. I have to disagree. I do not see how it is about "until you have examined the reasoning/evidence." There is no reference to such within it. Simply "keep an open mind even if you disagree." But I don't see how that directly translates to "if there is evidence." It means, well, even if you disagree, at least be thoughtful on what they are saying.


Aristotle believed there is objective morality. If you believe that there is objective morality, you cannot tolerate philosophical claims that are opposed to your own. He was a proponent of virtue ethics, which said that it was best to have traits that are moderate points between two vices (for example, cowardice and foolhardiness). If someone told him that it is best to be foolhardy, he would have disagreed in the end, though he would have considered the reasoning of the person making the claim.
Scholar
#85 Old 29th Sep 2010 at 3:48 PM
1. I see what you are saying, at least. I really don't have any more discussion for it, as the "truth" of religion, I find, to be rather irrelevant to the practice, and that by trying to define what is "true" is folly.

Which, coincidentally, plays into #2. People can try to find the "truth," but will never find it. My point was, is I am not claiming what I am saying is the "truth" or the "one path" or any of that. I would say that by you saying there are no deities is just as baseless as me saying there is the possibility. Which has always been my position, never a direct yes or no. Because, a "yes" or a "no" is to claim knowledge unattainable to us right now.

3. Thank you.

4. I'll have to get back to that later. I would bust out my philosophy book to read up more on Aristotle and virtue ethics, but I'm a bit busy right now with other things. Sort of going back and forth between stuff.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
#86 Old 29th Sep 2010 at 8:37 PM
Nekowolf: I agree that we can't know most things for certain, but what I have been attempting to get across throughout the argument is that some things are more likely to be true than others. To quote Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Scholar
#87 Old 29th Sep 2010 at 8:56 PM
Oh I know that. It just seems to me that, something of which is reality is unknown, and of which can be interpreted in different ways, probability tends to become... hmm. Tricky. I guess you could say.

EDIT: As a generality. Of course, when you break it down into different, say, categories, things become a bit easier.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Retired
retired moderator
#88 Old 30th Sep 2010 at 1:24 AM
It's not tricky. You just have to consider that your beliefs are exactly as probable as every other possible set of proposals about metaphysics. So the probability of guessing right about a metaphysical scheme (if a metaphysical world even exists) is so infinitesimal it hurts my head to even think about it. It's like trying to imagine the likelihood that Voltaire will kill me in my sleep tonight with a vinegar bottle, but much, much, much more difficult.

And, literally, there's as much chance of your stories about metaphysics being right as there is that a metaphysical purple gorilla inhabits each and every table.

I just don't, personally, see what you get out of making such an impossibly impossible stab in the dark. Isn't the world magical enough all by itself? Do you think nature is prescriptive, by the way? Do you believe there are things that nature demands we should or should not do? Often at the vaguer level of spirituality, that's how conflicts with science arise, so I'm curious.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Theorist
#89 Old 30th Sep 2010 at 2:25 AM
More importantly, in my mind, is that I really don't understand why religious folks have this necessity of their moral teachings being writ large in the universe. Religion is interesting enough, even to me as an atheist, that I don't see why anyone would need for it to be "real" to get something out of it. I've never been shy about popping into all sorts of religious institutions or been that guy that said no to an invitation to observe someone's ceremonies no matter how much I disagree with them. On some level if religious people would just say "It makes me happy" I'm perfectly fine with that. There are crazier things out there that people can have as hobbies. But it rarely ends there, and when it doesn't end there it's...sad. And oppressive to others. And anti-science.
Forum Resident
#90 Old 30th Sep 2010 at 2:51 AM
Quote: Originally posted by kiwi_tea
Do you believe there are things that nature demands we should or should not do?
I don't think the majority of mankind cares. We've tried to make nature our bitch since we thought "agriculture" was a fun idea. Nature gave us legs, but we wanted to move faster. Now we can get anywhere on Earth in a matter of hours. We are synthesizing life, we are mimicking the Sun, we've built machines that think faster than we can, etc.

Nature's a wimp. Nature gave us the platypus. Nature is about as authoritative as a babysitter telling you to not eat all of the Pop-Tarts.
Scholar
#91 Old 30th Sep 2010 at 3:03 AM
@kiwi

And just as probable as everything you say, because my view of what deities could be is broad. Unless you want to argue nature and human concepts do not exist altogether. But that's me, personally. I cannot say the same for others.

It may well simply be personification, like you see in literature. And no, I do not think Nature has a consciousness.

@mistermook

"I really don't understand why religious folks have this necessity of their moral teachings being writ large in the universe" - if I'm understanding it correctly, I agree.

"I don't see why anyone would need for it to be "real" to get something out of it" - I agree with this, also.

"religious people would just say "It makes me happy" - my faith makes me happy. I'm more than willing to admit that. I have no intention to push it on others; it's mine alone, and while I'm open to teaching more about it, I have absolutely no interest to attempt to convince anyone to convert to anything. Let them figure themselves out for themselves.

@Element Leaf

Nature is more powerful than that. It can completely wipe us out with a few changes. It's very powerful, and very sensitive. Just because we have come much much closer in matching it doesn't mean it should ever be underestimated. To underestimate it is to invite disaster.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Forum Resident
#92 Old 30th Sep 2010 at 3:17 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
@Element Leaf

Nature is more powerful than that. It can completely wipe us out with a few changes. It's very powerful, and very sensitive. Just because we have come much much closer in matching it doesn't mean it should ever be underestimated. To underestimate it is to invite disaster.
If we're talking about the Earth alone, then you may be right. Oh the other hand, we have the capability to wipe out all life from the face of the Earth if we chose to. Nature could have killed us off with a disaster long ago, but we're everywhere now. To be honest, the only thing that can destroy humanity now is something out-of-this-world or ourselves. I question which is more likely, but that's a debate for another thread.

Nature isn't a thing, a person or a collective. It's a mathematical formula. Formulas can be improved and modified.

I can assure you something, though. If we continue to exist, we will progressively 1-up nature as often as possible. One of these days we'll wake up and say "Eh, nice Universe, but we could do better. We could sell it at thirteen cents a square light-year, too!".
Scholar
#93 Old 30th Sep 2010 at 10:56 AM
I don't know. Perhaps. But while we understand it, we still can't quite figure it all out. There are still things we do not see that occur, unexpected events or complications, much like surgery.

But I don't mean it'll kill us all; it doesn't need to. Look at Katrina, or Haiti. Those are natural, as well. Granted, they were not defended against what occurred, but that's my point. If we take things for granted, or underestimate them, we could get complacent and lazy in protecting ourselves from the BIG cataclysms, such as Category 5 hurricanes and 7 or 8 point Richter earthquakes.

EDIT: That's not to say that that's what happened specifically in those regions, rather, they are examples of what happens when you don't have the proper, or even lacking, protection against such disasters.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Inventor
#94 Old 30th Sep 2010 at 11:54 PM
I thought this might have a place here in this thread. This article discusses how the more you know (about religion) the less you believe.

The Meming of Life
Scholar
#95 Old 1st Oct 2010 at 12:12 AM
Except that it's almost entirely about Christianity in its various forms, as the rest were generally too small of a size. Plus I heard about it earlier: Mormons knew quite a bit about their own religion, and Jews were about even with atheists.

As one person pointed out on, I want to say it was Keith Olbermann but maybe I'm wrong, and interesting trend (among the Christians) seems to be the older that particular denomination, the less knowledgeable.

So really, it's not about "the more you know about religion, the less you believe." And more about "Christians don't know very much about their own faith."

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Retired
retired moderator
#96 Old 1st Oct 2010 at 2:06 AM
I don't know. Jewish is often a bit like "lapsed Catholic". Nearly all the Jewish people I know are atheists, but they identify as Jewish all the same. The figures are still very interesting, but we mustn't confuse correlation with causation. It's likely that atheists and agnostics know more simply because they have given much more thought to the infinite number of possible metaphysical schemes they might choose.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Scholar
#97 Old 1st Oct 2010 at 2:20 AM
Actually, the possibility I heard is, to be quite frank, I think a bit more...reasonable.

That many grew up in religious surroundings, and actually paid attention to what was being said.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Inventor
#98 Old 1st Oct 2010 at 2:53 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
Actually, the possibility I heard is, to be quite frank, I think a bit more...reasonable.

That many grew up in religious surroundings, and actually paid attention to what was being said.

Yes, that is true, that most people are brought up in some form of religion, and paid attention, and some asked questions, and then asked more questions, then explored other options.... and some asked more questions and did more research.....
Lab Assistant
#99 Old 2nd Oct 2010 at 11:07 AM
Many non-religious people say that religion has lead to the deaths of several people. If they think they're innocent then they should know what atheism has also caused. The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China would be a good example.

Everyone lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens.
Scholar
#100 Old 2nd Oct 2010 at 11:37 AM
Now here is where I make a stand for the atheists.

You're wrong. Now, of course, my feelings is that you should generally blame individuals and institutions rather than religion itself.

Stalin wasn't as he was because of atheism. And the evils of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were for political reasons; perhaps some religious reasons, yes; they were about power; and they were about threats of the nation.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
 
Page 4 of 19
Back to top