Bertrand Russell on Religion

[serenity]

The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. (W.N.C.p23)

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown, and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death.... Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look round for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the Churches in all these centuries have made it. (W.N.C.p22)

[FlyingGuineapig]

OK, I'll bite...

...We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. (W.N.C.p23)


It would seem that Russell is arguing that a world without religion would be better off than our current one. He's so bold as to say that any such attempt would be better than what we have today. He also provides a handy definition by which he would measure the "goodness" of such a world: knowledge, kindliness, and courage.

Since we can't construct complete worlds to perform such an experiment (not to mention "worlds" has numerous possible definitions that could apply here), let's work with what we got - societies. We should expect to be able to compare the very worst of societies without religion to the very best of societies with religion, and find those without "better" than those with.

Offhand, the only societies which have "removed" religion that I can think of have been communist - Russia, China, North Korea, and Cuba (again, somewhat in line with Russell's socialist beliefs). Now, some folks may argue that seperation of Church and State "removes" religion, but let's not go down that rathole at this moment - it's pretty clear that nations which seperate the two have never erradicated religion, and in fact, tend to be more religious than not.

So, anyone want to argue that that the worst of these societies is still better than the best that the free world can offer?

[serenity]

It would seem that Russell is arguing that a world without religion would be better off than our current one. He's so bold as to say that any such attempt would be better than what we have today. He also provides a handy definition by which he would measure the "goodness" of such a world: knowledge, kindliness, and courage.

Since we can't construct complete worlds to perform such an experiment (not to mention "worlds" has numerous possible definitions that could apply here), let's work with what we got - societies. We should expect to be able to compare the very worst of societies without religion to the very best of societies with religion, and find those without "better" than those with.

Offhand, the only societies which have "removed" religion that I can think of have been communist - Russia, China, North Korea, and Cuba (again, somewhat in line with Russell's socialist beliefs). Now, some folks may argue that seperation of Church and State "removes" religion, but let's not go down that rathole at this moment - it's pretty clear that nations which seperate the two have never erradicated religion, and in fact, tend to be more religious than not.

Russell is writing here in the generalist philosophical tradition; he is making no detailed prescription, but rather writing a think-piece. It’s as if you were to write a piece claiming that rape and murder were banes to society (basic truisms…as I believe Russell’s points are), and then were castigated for not giving us a proper solution. Your criticism is simply not appropriate to this particular piece, I don’t think.


I wouldn’t expect you to know this, since I didn’t post it, but Russell has accommodated the Soviet et al problem into his general ideas on atheism. Soviet (and Chinese, etc) evil springs from religious sensibilities; the State is God, the State’s laws are holy edicts, severely punishable if not followed, and the faith in the Communist regime is PRECISELY akin to religious faith.

Also—and I agree with him wholeheartedly—this religious faith applies to patriotism in the West as well. That’s why Americans can support gangsters and torturers and killers, and justify their every action; because it in fact has nothing to do with their actions. They support the policy (at least foreign policy), period. (That is, if Bush had decided, say, NOT to attack Iraq, the war advocates would, for the most part, be as utterly convinced of the rightness of not going in as they currently are OF going in. This is not “loyalty to Bush”…it’s not even the partisanship that’s at issue. It’s adherence to dogma as given by the powerful State, precisely as in the soviet Union. It’s servility to power.)




So, anyone want to argue that that the worst of these societies is still better than the best that the free world can offer?


It’s not about “the free world”—incredible that you see Russell’s piece as a vote for Communism against the West. He despised the Communist states, because he despised the misuse of power.

At any rate, like I said, his ideas still apply, because he would consider Communism a religion, springing from precisely the same sad human weaknesses.


By the way, we are not "the free world." Only a totalitarian could think so.

[FlyingGuineapig]

OK, guess I'm a totalitarian - no worries, I've been called worse. :)

So, let's reject the Communist societies as being religious in their hatred of religions, and hence contaminated.

That leaves us with what as practical examples of societies which have been religion-free? Surely if it's inevitable that they will be successful, there must be some examples....

As a bit of a pragmatist, I'm not overly interested in truisms which have no applicability to reality.

[serenity]

So, let's reject the Communist societies as being religious in their hatred of religions, and hence contaminated.


This seems a wilful misreading of what I said. It’s not a matter of being “contaminated,” because it’s intrinsic and endemic. A forever-religious society, like Russia, obviously does not drop its ingrained habits of religion, religion’s profound cultural and social effects, simply by outlawing formal recognition of the religion. Especially not when the State itself demands religious obedience.

This IS a truism, whether you recognize it or not. Strangely enough, your argument about the irreligious nature of the Soviet Union—as if such a thing were even possible, which it isn’t—demands a view of religion as trivial, surface, and lacking influence, and so easily banished from consciousness by simple legal fiat.

The culture remained religious; that’s not even arguable, I don’t think. That they “officially” renounced it is totally irrelevant to this.

That leaves us with what as practical examples of societies which have been religion-free? Surely if it's inevitable that they will be successful, there must be some examples....

Really? There assumed success demands they already exist? Why? Are people prone, by nature or something, to create the most successful possible societies? This has no logic to it.

Again, it’s as if a critic of rape is asked to “prove” rape is bad, by pointing out a society where it doesn’t exist.

As a bit of a pragmatist, I'm not overly interested in truisms which have no applicability to reality.


The truism, which is in fact incontrovertibly applicable to reality, is that religion is based on faith—that is, it is designed to avoid observable evidence, which is why science has harmed its power (thankfully). The truism is that religion has caused massive problems, and that there is no appreciable evidence that it’s purported benefits—say, warm and fuzzy feelings for adherents—outweighs the atrocities.

You don’t argue the truisms, but rather pretend they don’t exist. Of course they’re truisms.

And, again, the usual, by-rote and unthinking answer—that irreligious societies have tended towards brutality—is completely false, since (as you yourself admit, thus tacitly agreeing with me and contradicting yourself) they actually have never existed, in China, SU, or elsewhere.

[FlyingGuineapig]

So...any examples? From your ending, it appears that you don't believe there has ever been an irreligious society. I can't think of any examples either.

Coming up with truth-functions on empty sets and labeling them "truisms" isn't much of an accomplishment. You seem rather certain of them - almost religously certain, since you have no evidence and are taking them purely on faith.

Ironically, you seem rather agitated at me for not sharing this faith in "truisms" you can produce no evidence to support.

Oh well, not only am I a totalitarian, I'm a heretic too.

[serenity]

So...any examples? From your ending, it appears that you don't believe there has ever been an irreligious society. I can't think of any examples either.


No, I’m as certain as we can be, with limited knowledge, that no such society has existed in the history of civilization as we know it…at least.

Again, I don’t see how this rates for anything. I cite an author who appears to be claiming that no religion might produce a superior society. Your answer to this? Since none has existed, it probably isn’t true.

Zero logic at all. Because again, this line of thinking insists that we see all of society’s ills—I mean those which have always been present, in every society—as preferable to their theoretical diminishment, solely because they’ve always been around.

Religion is one such ill, in my opinion. So we’ve always been religious. So what? We’ve always been killers and torturers too.

And of course, everything from the direct harnessing of electrical power, to space travel, to the radical knowledge that women are intellectually equal to men once seemed impossible as well. (Opposed by religious authorities, not so incidentally). I’m not being facetious; I’m quite serious.

To claim, as you appear to be doing, that religion’s necessity or inevitability is proven by its ubiquity is precisely the same (also religiously-based) claim that since the poor have always been with us, poverty is a natural, even a good, thing. It is exactly the same sort of monumental ignorance that plagues us on a global level.

Coming up with truth-functions on empty sets and labeling them "truisms" isn't much of an accomplishment.

To what “empty sets” are you referring? That we demonstrate religion’s evils, as concrete fact, while illustrating its benefits only as abstract personal pleasures of subjective (and frankly dubious) merit?

You don’t think that’s a truism? Then I beg of you: refute it.

You seem rather certain of them - almost religously certain, since you have no evidence and are taking them purely on faith.

You think so? So…there’s no evidence that religion has caused terrible harm? And there’s plenty of evidence of the good its done us, a good that looks rationally superior to what might happen in its absence?

You continue to refrain from addressing any of this, insisting I offer nothing, even after I offer it. You, on the other hand, have produced not even the beginnings of an idea with which to buttress your refutation…except for the Communist totalitarians, an idea easily discredited as we’ve seen.

Ironically, you seem rather agitated at me for not sharing this faith in "truisms" you can produce no evidence to support.

I apologize for this; it was the result of your debating with me while refusing to substantively make any attempt at any point I’ve raised.

p.s. I"m also not "religiously certain"; I'm aware that I could be wrong about pretty much everything I "know."

It is the religious people who hold the chimera of certainty...not the atheists.

[FlyingGuineapig]

For someone who quotes Bertrand Russell so much, I'd have expected you to have gotten the "empty set" comment. "Proving a negative" mean anything? Hmm, judging from your other comments, probably just a triade about the unjustice of the Iraq war. As for poverty, isn't that a relative term? How can you eliminate a relative comparison? (Yeah, I think that one's going to go right past you too. Oh well). And I recall a somewhat recent board topic about the "Prove that religion hasn't caused more suffering than it's worth" - went nowhere.

Anyways, for someone with a handle like "Serenity", you sure get grumpy when someone doesn't play the game your way.

I'd recommend a study of Buddhism to help manage your anger at the universe. It's non-deitistic, so you don't have to worry about it offending your agnostic sensibilities. Write up a few lines on how the Four Noble Truths apply to the second paragraph of this post, and then we can play again. I can even explain the empty set comment if I need to - I just don't feel like playing teacher unless necessary/

[serenity]

For someone who quotes Bertrand Russell so much, I'd have expected you to have gotten the "empty set" comment.

But I'm no expert on Bertrand Russell, and aside from some random quotes (from which this thread topic began), have in fact read a grand total of two Russell essays, including the one that gave me my signature below. I know nothing of his "real", evidently sophisticated philosophy, or of Russell's Paradox, or any of it. Even to call me a novice would be overstating the case.



"Proving a negative" mean anything?

Well, it's not that I expect you to "prove" anything; I asked if you might rebut what appears to me a sensible hypothesis: that religion has done us more trouble than good. Of course it's not provable either way: this is an impossible standard which you personally could not achieve outside of hard sciences, presumably. (I'm to be held to a higher standard, it would seem.) All I ask is for some hypothesis of your own, which rationally rebuts me; one which claims that we're better off with religion than without.

And for the third time in a row, you assiduously avoid the issue, choosing instead to raise the attack level, and reaching for a tone of "world weary wisdom[sic]."


Hmm, judging from your other comments, probably just a triade about the unjustice of the Iraq war.


Since you are an educated man and clearly no stranger to debate, that this is a little piece of condescending disingenuousness plainly does not escape you. Obviously I'm opposed to the Iraq war (an unremarkable stance, a mere joining of majority opinion on this particular matter); but my timid exploration of a long-felt atheism of course is not a "tirade about the injustice of the Iraq war." If the one or two comments I make on this matter somehow magically informs and is emblematic of the rest--if, as you suggest, this whole thing has been about the Iraq war, bizarrely concealed withing a post about religion--you're going to have to explain yourself.

As it stands, this remark is a non-sequiter, and I suppose was meant to be.

As for poverty, isn't that a relative term? How can you eliminate a relative comparison? (Yeah, I think that one's going to go right past you too. Oh well).


Now why would you think that would "go right past me"? "Too," yet? (Since words have meanings, and are more than simple ammunition for you to smugly belittle opponents, perhaps you might enlighten me about what other diamonds of wisdom you've mined for my benefit, and which have passed over me as I stare slack-jawed in confusion.)

Of course poverty is a "relative term," by definition. I suppose you think this clever, and it would be pitiable if you were trying to be serious, rather than evincing a quiet desperation (concealed in the usual way) to "win" a debate. But if you had ever lived in actual poverty, you would not give such a profoundly irrelevant response. It is commonly pointed out that more than half the world lives in poverty. While it's legitimate to try to discover what we mean by this, it is (as you well know, guineapig) mendaciously dishonest to pretend that poverty does not exist as an objective fact.

OK...so now you want me to "prove" that poverty is real, and not just some meaningless "relative" value judgement?

Seriously?

Because it's a relative term, we can't really assert that it exists?

That too is relativism, flyingguineapig.


And I recall a somewhat recent board topic about the "Prove that religion hasn't caused more suffering than it's worth" - went nowhere.

Ah, well then, that finishes it. It's not worth talking about (though you've kept up debating it here anyway, perversely enough). QED.

Anyways, for someone with a handle like "Serenity", you sure get grumpy when someone doesn't play the game your way.

First, I chose the name for precisely that reason. And I don't really suppose that you are a flying fat rodent. But again, even on the most trivial of matters, you believe I should be held to a higher standard.


I'd recommend a study of Buddhism to help manage your anger at the universe.


I'm not angry at the universe, I'm a happy and extremely lucky man who gets mildly exercised at anonymous strangers during internet political debates.

And no, you actually wouldn't recommend any such thing, as you aren't being sincere, but rather passive-aggressive...much in the way that an angry Christian will hiss, "I'll pray for you," when of course they plan to do no such thing. I suppose that's your lamentable religious sensibilities getting the better of you.

If you had any real interest in the subject you espouse here, you wouldn't expend effort trying to belittle others, now would you?

It's non-deitistic, so you don't have to worry about it offending your agnostic sensibilities.

In a subtle but very real way, I believe you take this debating game more seriously than I do. Hopefully you know what I mean here.


Write up a few lines on how the Four Noble Truths apply to the second paragraph of this post, and then we can play again. I can even explain the empty set comment if I need to - I just don't feel like playing teacher unless necessary/

Thank your. I'm glad you are confident in your self-evidently firm grasp of things, and I appreciate your abrasive teaching method, which pretends to mild cruelty and insufferable self-regard, but no doubt with an altruistic purpose.

You highly-educated people tend towards that character flaw which an apologist for religious superstition should be able to appreciate: vanity, a too well-developed sense of your own intellectual sophistication.

My own suggestion to you, and meant in a faintly friendlier manner than yours, is to embrace a hint of humility. Is there not a place for this among the Four Noble Truths?

[DRMIZER]

[QUOTE]When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. I couldn't agree more.
A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. (W.N.C.p23) Literal interpretation of the bible has retarded the progress of this world with respect to science and cures to horrible diseases. . . .All for the namesake of the scriptures. This is shameful.
Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown, and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death.... Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look round for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the Churches in all these centuries have made it. (W.N.C.p22) YES!

[julierep]

My hypothesis is that religion free society would have a negative impact. Why? Because, like Bertrand points out, and as many non christians feel, that religion gives you a fear. A fear of sinning. A sin would be anything unacceptable to God, which, pretty much, is unacceptable to most societies. So getting rid of religion would, in the eyes of Bertrand, only produce non fearing people that would not worry about cause and effect. Thats millions more people who, without religion, may commit more crime.

[Dangerrmouse]

My hypothesis is that religion free society would have a negative impact. ...

So making people behave morally for fear of punishment "in the afterlife", is better than them doing so because it is simply the proper thing to do?

[julierep]

So making people behave morally for fear of punishment "in the afterlife", is better than them doing so because it is simply the proper thing to do?

Well speaking as a Christian, this is not the case. I dont do things out of fear I do them because I know they are right. However, as Bertrand points out fear, it kinda contradicts his belief of it being a better world. How do you come to the hypothesis that this can happen even if one thinks someone acts morally out of fear? If he really has studied this (which obviously he hasnt) then I would think he could at least come up with something better than this.

[brainpan]

Well speaking as a Christian, this is not the case. I dont do things out of fear I do them because I know they are right.Well golly gee shucks, you just went and threw your entire premise right out the window! Apparently, a knowledge of right and wrong, in and of itself, is sufficient after all. :)

[julierep]

Well golly gee shucks, you just went and threw your entire premise right out the window! Apparently, a knowledge of right and wrong, in and of itself, is sufficient after all. :)

How do you know for sure society would have knowledge of right and wrong? Also note that there are thousands of people who have turned their lives around (from alcoholism to anything violent) because of religion. Even with the knowledge already there of right and wrong, religion gave them that extra support. And you can take that to the bank!! :)

[brainpan]

Because societies always have a concept of right and wrong. In fact, a humanist point-of-view tends to be superior to religiously-inspired morality. You just don't find humanism lending support to slavery, torture, and murder, you have to consult religious scripture for that.

As to your "take it to the bank" statement, I think I'll file it in the trash instead. People find inspiration from many sources, which only appear to be external. It doesn't matter if they meditate, pray, or take placebos. The effect is the same in all cases.

[julierep]

Because societies always have a concept of right and wrong. In fact, a humanist point-of-view tends to be superior to religiously-inspired morality. You just don't find humanism lending support to slavery, torture, and murder, you have to consult religious scripture for that.

As to your "take it to the bank" statement, I think I'll file it in the trash instead. People find inspiration from many sources, which only appear to be external. It doesn't matter if they meditate, pray, or take placebos. The effect is the same in all cases.

Wow, didnt realize you became the utmost superior in this subject. So you know that there would be a concept of right and wrong without religion? You are the first to say that without a shadow of a doubt. Let me ask you, where did you find your superior intellegance? :rolleyes: Was it from the voices in your head or was it from your faith in the unknown? My guess, it was the voices. You can file whatever you want in the trash, but without any support of your claim, I suggest you take the time to think about the evidence against you.

[Dangerrmouse]

... religion gave them that extra support. And you can take that to the bank!! :)

The bank does not accept replacement crutches as collateral.

[julierep]

The bank does not accept replacement crutches as collateral.

Its clear you have nothing to dispute what Ive said.

[Dangerrmouse]

You said alcoholics benefited from substituting their alcoholic crutch for a religious one.

[julierep]

You said alcoholics benefited from substituting their alcoholic crutch for a religious one.

What I said, in other words was, that they turn from a life of misery and shame to one of peace and tranquility. Still, there is no evidence against what I have said, I see.

[Dangerrmouse]

If you make assertions it is for you to supply evidence for them, at a similar level to the claim.

[julierep]

If you make assertions it is for you to supply evidence for them, at a similar level to the claim.

The assertion is the obvious. For you to say that morality was established long before religion, I would say it is you that would need to back up the claim.

[Dangerrmouse]

The assertion is the obvious. For you to say that morality was established long before religion, I would say it is you that would need to back up the claim.

"the obvious" is anything but, considering that you appear to agree with me.
Well speaking as a Christian, this is not the case. I dont do things out of fear I do them because I know they are right. ...

Please clarify.

You could also indicate where I said what you assert that I said, as I do not recall making such a strong statement.

[julierep]

"the obvious" is anything but, considering that you appear to agree with me.
Your assertion is that you agree with Bertrand, in which he has no evidence, only offering up his opinion. No, I dont agree with you, and I have laid out the case against it.


Please clarify.

You could also indicate where I said what you assert that I said, as I do not recall making such a strong statement.

You dont recall making this statement? Its only a few posts up.

So making people behave morally for fear of punishment "in the afterlife", is better than them doing so because it is simply the proper thing to do?

To which I replied I dont do things out of fear, I do them because I know they are right.

[Dangerrmouse]

So "doing so because it is simply the proper thing to do?" becomes " morality was established long before religion,"????

How so?

I think I'm beginning to see how the interpretation of the bible works....it means what you want it to.

[julierep]

So "doing so because it is simply the proper thing to do?" becomes " morality was established long before religion,"????

How so?

I think I'm beginning to see how the interpretation of the bible works....it means what you want it to.

No. You put your question underneath a different quote, which was what I thought you were asking.

Let it be known that "you" is a general term. What I am saying is that if you believe that morality was around before religion, which Im sure this is what you think since you are arguing against me, then it would be up to you to provide evidence of something that you know is impossible to do.

[Dangerrmouse]

No. You put your question underneath a different quote, which was what I thought you were asking.

Let it be known that "you" is a general term. What I am saying is that if you believe that morality was around before religion, which Im sure this is what you think since you are arguing against me, then it would be up to you to provide evidence of something that you know is impossible to do.

You completely lost me with your first sentence.

Now you (specifically) claim to know what I am thinking? mmmm.....

My statement stands for itself. Religious belief is immaterial to the knowledge of right or wrong. As to which came first, neither can be proven or known.

[sub_zer0]

You completely lost me with your first sentence.

Now you (specifically) claim to know what I am thinking? mmmm.....

My statement stands for itself. Religious belief is immaterial to the knowledge of right or wrong. As to which came first, neither can be proven or known.

How do you know what is right or wrong if you don't have somebody or something telling you?

[julierep]

Now you (specifically) claim to know what I am thinking? mmmm.....

My statement stands for itself. Religious belief is immaterial to the knowledge of right or wrong. As to which came first, neither can be proven or known.

How can you make this statement and then say you dont know which one came first? Right and wrong is based on morality. So in order for you to make the claim that it is immaterial, then you must be able to answer the question of which came first, which youve clearly stated that you dont know.

[Dangerrmouse]

You are conflating morality with religious belief. They exist independently of each other. It is possible to behave morally from choice, as you yourself said, and not necessarily from religious dogma.

[julierep]

You are conflating morality with religious belief. They exist independently of each other. It is possible to behave morally from choice, as you yourself said, and not necessarily from religious dogma.

But it is morality that teaches us right from wrong. It doesnt have to be independent of each other in order for you to have a choice. And yes, that is what I have been saying all along. Religion doesnt take away your choice. But how do you behave morally from choice, as you subscribed to above? This, I do not follow.

[Dangerrmouse]

Our understanding of the meaning of the word "morality" seems to differ.

Rather than "teaching" anything, morality for me, is a set of codes of appropriate behaviour. Some of these are common to all cultures, suggesting that these behaviours are beneficial to the complex social interactions of daily life.

[julierep]

Our understanding of the meaning of the word "morality" seems to differ.

Rather than "teaching" anything, morality for me, is a set of codes of appropriate behaviour. Some of these are common to all cultures, suggesting that these behaviours are beneficial to the complex social interactions of daily life.

Where did these "set of codes" come from?

This is exactly the question at hand. Bertrand says that life would be better without religion. And this is exactly what I was responding to. Losing religion would/could mean (depending on what you believe) devastation. It is then obviously absurd to make the conclusion that Bertrand makes.

[Dangerrmouse]

[QUOTE=julierep]Where did these "set of codes" come from? QUOTE]

They may well have evolved. Religion not necessary.


What is your idea of the meaning of "morality"?

[julierep]

[QUOTE=julierep]Where did these "set of codes" come from?

They may well have evolved. Religion not necessary.

Sure, if that is what you believe, but as I was making comment about Bertrands opinion, it is absurd for him to make the observation of the world being better without religion, since there is no evidence that without religion there would be morals.

What is your idea of the meaning of "morality"?

Clearly knowing what is right and wrong, and this is based in morality. Right and wrong is derived from morality.

[Dangerrmouse]

Losing religion would/could mean (depending on what you believe) devastation. It is then obviously absurd to make the conclusion that Bertrand makes.

But if one believes that organised religion functions by fostering dependency on the organisation and the supernatural, then "Losing religion" would/could be a beneficial emancipation, allowing the individual to become independent, standing tall, and acknowledge credit for their own efforts, without the need to give thanks, or tithes to an imaginary being.

[julierep]

But if one believes that organised religion functions by fostering dependency on the organisation and the supernatural, then "Losing religion" would/could be a beneficial emancipation, allowing the individual to become independent, standing tall, and acknowledge credit for their own efforts, without the need to give thanks, or tithes to an imaginary being.

Well, all he would need to do is ask someone of religion if it functions as he believes. One question, one answer. Instead, he makes his claim without any research.

[Dangerrmouse]

Instead, he makes his claim without any research.

On what research do you base this claim?

[brainpan]

How do you know what is right or wrong if you don't have somebody or something telling you?The same way wolves, crows, and elephants know. Social animals create complex codes of conduct.

[brainpan]

So you know that there would be a concept of right and wrong without religion?Modern atheistic societies never abandoned the concept of right and wrong. In fact, they sometimes seem as interested in the subject as devoutly religious societies.
Was it from the voices in your head or was it from your faith in the unknown?I'll never cease to be amused by theists who attack unbelievers with accussations of theism. :D
You can file whatever you want in the trash, but without any support of your claim, I suggest you take the time to think about the evidence against you.Is it really honest for you to appeal to evidence, julierep? Time and again you dismiss evidence and logic in discussions about religion, you don't get to argue from both sides of the fence.

Just the same, there is plenty of evidence to support my claim. The fact of the matter is placebos have been shown to be as effective as prayer in healing the sick. It's all about instilling a positive attitude in a patient, and it doesn't seem to matter if it comes from meditation, placebos, or prayer.

Since you're suddenly interested in evidence again, I'll wait here, as patiently as I can, while you produce what must be numberous scientific studies that prove prayer produces miraculous results.

[neo of the mind]

Because societies always have a concept of right and wrong. In fact, a humanist point-of-view tends to be superior to religiously-inspired morality. You just don't find humanism lending support to slavery, torture, and murder, you have to consult religious scripture for that.

As to your "take it to the bank" statement, I think I'll file it in the trash instead. People find inspiration from many sources, which only appear to be external. It doesn't matter if they meditate, pray, or take placebos. The effect is the same in all cases.

Nazi Germany was based on humanism. A perfect example of it. I seem to recall that slavery, torture and murder were a part of that movement....same could be said about all of the Communist regimes in the same time frame to current.

[JoeR]

Nazi Germany was based on humanism.

:lol:

If anything Nazi Germany was the polar opposite of humanism. Instead of an assumption in the value of human life, it assumed a lack of value in certain kinds of lives. Naziism certainly didn't promote free thought or rationality, thats for sure.

[brainpan]

Notice that he fine-tuned that message with an edit. God only knows what the original looked like, but I'm sure it was a doosy. ;)

[neo of the mind]

Notice that he fine-tuned that message with an edit. God only knows what the original looked like, but I'm sure it was a doosy. ;)

Yeah, what a doosy. I added "same could be said about all of the Communist regimes in the same time frame to current.".

Sorry, it wasn't what you expected. :rolleyes:

I will though concede that my definition of a Humanist was in relation to Atheists, which is what I consider Nazism to partly adhere to.

[sub_zer0]

Yeah, what a doosy. I added "same could be said about all of the Communist regimes in the same time frame to current.".

Sorry, it wasn't what you expected. :rolleyes:

I will though concede that my definition of a Humanist was in relation to Atheists, which is what I consider Nazism to partly adhere to.

Indeed, the Nazi's applied a type of social Darwinianism to the grand scheme of things according to Hitler. The Nazi's were strong the Jews were weak, let the strongest survive, of course the Jews won, ;p.

[JoeR]

Indeed they did, which is why social darwinism was rejected.

[sub_zer0]

Indeed they did, which is why social darwinism was rejected.

I guess you don't see the problem with that whole scenario and evolution, do you?

[JoeR]

Social Darwinism was as much a perversion of science as the Spanish Inquisition was a perversion of religion.

[sub_zer0]

Social Darwinism was as much a perversion of science as the Spanish Inquisition was a perversion of religion.

True, do you think Hitler believed in evolution?

[JoeR]

What does that matter? :rolleyes:

[brainpan]

True, do you think Hitler believed in evolution?No need to guess at the beliefs of Hitler, let's get it right from the horses mouth.

"In the life of nations, what in the last resort decides questions is a kind of Judgment Court of God.... Always before God and the world the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills."

-Adolf Hitler

[brainpan]

More from Hiter! Praise Jesus!

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people."

-Adolph Hitler

[brainpan]

Let's have one more! Glory!

"We are determined, as leaders of the nation, to fulfill as a national government the task which has been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our conscience, and our Volk.... This the national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our Volk. It will preserve and defend the foundations upon which the power of our nation rests. It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our Volk and state, under its firm protection....May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our Volk."

-Adolph Hitler

[Dangerrmouse]

That kinda killed it. Where's the "witty" riposte from the apologicians? I hope after all this time, it's a doozy!

[heel31ok]

More from Hiter! Praise Jesus!

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people."

-Adolph Hitler
They discovered "deep distress" alright.

[heel31ok]

That kinda killed it. Where's the "witty" riposte from the apologicians? I hope after all this time, it's a doozy!
what do you want ? The man gave himself what he knew was coming to him. Many will say Lord,Lord!But God will say depart from me ... I never knew you.
Or "I hear you knockin but you can't come in!"

[serenity]

Brainpan scored a trifecta, that's pretty impressive. And I see no one has managed to even attempt to argue Brainpan's response(s)...because of course he's correct.

I can't believe we're now blaming the atheists for Hitler, too!

Selectively, dishonestly, shamelessly. :(

[neo of the mind]

Brainpan scored a trifecta, that's pretty impressive. And I see no one has managed to even attempt to argue Brainpan's response(s)...because of course he's correct.

I can't believe we're now blaming the atheists for Hitler, too!

Selectively, dishonestly, shamelessly. :(


The works of Hitler showed that he was far from a Christian and closer to a person that thought they would not have to account for their actions. I gave quotes to show he was not a Christian, you guys show quotes to the contrary.

It's not going to change anybody's mind...keep thinking he was a Christian if you want to and I will still consider him an Atheist not because of what he said or wrote BUT BY HIS ACTIONS, which is really what none of us can dispute. Unless you want to deny that to.

[sub_zer0]

The works of Hitler showed that he was far from a Christian and closer to a person that thought they would not have to account for their actions. I gave quotes to show he was not a Christian, you guys show quotes to the contrary.

It's not going to change anybody's mind...keep thinking he was a Christian if you want to and I will still consider him an Atheist not because of what he said or wrote BUT BY HIS ACTIONS, which is really what none of us can dispute. Unless you want to deny that to.

Most definately. The things in which he said but never acted on, as in a Christian life, and the fact that people actually believe what Hitler said instead of what he did shows they bought the propaganda he is spewing.

I cannot believe I am hearing people say Hitler was a Christian or even trying to equate the two. Those doing this obviously have no concept of what a Biblical Christian is all about and again are trying to mis-represent Christianity by all means.

[Dangerrmouse]

Remember Pascal's Wager?

"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction."

-Blaise Pascal

[heel31ok]

Remember Pascal's Wager?

"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction."

-Blaise Pascal
I remember Doug Paschal.

[Dangerrmouse]

You liken a celebrated philosopher to an ex football jock. That gives an insight to your posting style. ;)