Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?

[S.A.M.]

To use your own argument: are all these atheists running around killing everyone? Athiests don't all have the same coda and especially not that about killing people or being mean to religious types; yet religion breeds - inherently - the contempt of other explanatory systems. As an atheist, I can take or leave religion as I choose without any need to convert anyone or oppress anyone for not converting.

How about any theist who goes around killing is actually an atheist, he/she obviously has no scruples, which means he/she does not believe in accounatbility? *thums nose*

No - you show me by detecting an altruistic gene that isn't related to kin-preference or selection. Show me the magic.

I maintain that no evidence exists indicating a genetic basis for moral behaviour. *shows tongue*

And so far, there is no demonstrated requirement for a god to be either responsible for cosmological or evolutionary phenomena; your appeal to falsifiability is a subtle plea to unknowningness - that we cannot demonstrate "no-God", so that there must be one, who does and makes all things. This is silly - we can demonstrate no necessity for a god, and Ockham's Razor then dictates we take the simplest explanation. We might as easily posulate that leprechauns or unicorns exist, because we have no evidence to the contrary; but rather, it is the lack of evidence for their existence that makes us reject the concept.

In that case I reject your rejection as Occam himself indicated that God and belief do not fall under his razor.

I'm still waiting on a response to number four.

 

[Xev]

And so far, there is no demonstrated requirement for a god to be either responsible for cosmological or evolutionary phenomena; your appeal to falsifiability is a subtle plea to unknowningness - that we cannot demonstrate "no-God", so that there must be one, who does and makes all things. This is silly - we can demonstrate no necessity for a god, and Ockham's Razor then dictates we take the simplest explanation.

I think I love you.

(Although The Razor simply suggests, it does not dictate)

 

[iceaura]

And no complex steps? That's not what the Islamic fundies who criticize Darwinian evolution say, in their criticism. ”

There are idiots everywhere

And in all religions, some of these idiots find real support and access to power.

I think you will find even more opposition to and denial of Darwinian theory in the Islamic states right now, based in the clerical authorities, than in the Western ones.

The role of knowledge in "Islam" sounds as wonderful as the role of knowledge in "Catholicism". And when we see clerics referred to as "scholars", we know exactly what is meant by "knowledge", and how it is to be acquired by the faithful and the believers.

 

[GeoffP]

You misunderstand the difference between reason and wisdom. Reason has always been the servant to Wisdom and to be Wise you have by definition to be less egotistical and self absorbed.

Says bloody who? That's absurd. It might be a local, context-specific contradiction to be self-absorbed and wise both in very particular situations, but that makes bugger-all difference to the total consideration of reason. Reason is a capacity for logical thought. That's about all.

I realise that this may be difficult for people nowadays, you Geoff are struggling but fortunately nowhere near to the extent to in which Stryder is...here is a man who is fast disappearing up his own fundament.

uke:

I barf on your ad hominem...don't be upset, it's my abiding sense of wisdom that makes me do so. Reason outside the confines of reason, you know.

I deleted the rest of your response since it was too unhumble to be considered either wise or reasonable. Doing you a favour, like.

 

[S.A.M.]

Does it matter? The point was (as I understand it) to demonstrate that morality is not dependent on religion. Even various models in game theory will demonstrate the value of acting according to the "golden rule."

Only if you think people are being imprisoned for acting on inbred instincts and are hence not accountable for their actions.

 

[S.A.M.]

And in all religions, some of these idiots find real support and access to power.

I think you will find even more opposition to and denial of Darwinian theory in the Islamic states right now, based in the clerical authorities, than in the Western ones.

The role of knowledge in "Islam" sounds as wonderful as the role of knowledge in "Catholicism". And when we see clerics referred to as "scholars", we know exactly what is meant by "knowledge", and how it is to be acquired by the faithful and the believers.

Do you know this to be true? I haven't heard any discussion on it or on abortion or on stem cell research, all of which goes on quite placidly in some of these countries. The only discussions you hear are among those arguing religious interpretation but dialogue on religion is a part of Islam.

 

[GeoffP]

How about any theist who goes around killing is actually an atheist, he/she obviously has no scruples, which means he/she does not believe in accounatbility? *thums nose*

Or that any atheist who runs around killing is really a theist, since he or she is committed to some inexplicable dogma or invisible voices?

I maintain that no evidence exists indicating a genetic basis for moral behaviour. *shows tongue*

Please, Sam: I recognize that my impressive intellect generates natural lustings, but try to contain yourself. If there's no genetic basis for morality, then it devolves even further past mutually advantageous (or balanced) ESSs and into the realm of pure, unfettered Darwinian chaos!

Not that I approve of such a thing.

In that case I reject your rejection as Occam himself indicated that God and belief do not fall under his razor.

Occam's Razor was sharp enough for his dialectic, it seems, but not for his tonsure.

I'm still waiting on a response to number four.

See edit.

 

[S.A.M.]

I looked up current Islamic opinion on evolution:

The topic is currently open for discussion; there is actually very little refutation in mainstream Muslims, Islamic creationism appears to be more rampant where associated with Western creationism.

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=255

 

[S.A.M.]

The last sentence seems to be a bit of a special plead - it's not us, it's the politicians who are using our faith for political gain. This doesn't addresss the issue of why religion has been so vulnerable to such abuse, but it's certainly interesting.

Please show where the areligious have not.

 

[S.A.M.]

Or that any atheist who runs around killing is really a theist, since he or she is committed to some inexplicable dogma or invisible voices?

That explains those baby killing dolphins and murderous chimpanzees.

Oh wait, doesn't immorality have a genetic basis?

Please, Sam: I recognize that my impressive intellect generates natural lustings, but try to contain yourself. If there's no genetic basis for morality, then it devolves even further past mutually advantageous (or balanced) ESSs and into the realm of pure, unfettered Darwinian chaos!

See previous

Occam's Razor was sharp enough for his dialectic, it seems, but not for his tonsure.

Yeah, its nice to pick and choose whatever endorses your opinions.

See edit.

Sorta like Dawkin's God?

 

[Xev]

Please show where the areligious have not.

Oh, I'm not claiming that they don't. We already discussed how Stalin abused Communist ideals to sustain his power. Historically, religion seems a bit more prone to it, but that doesn't prove anything.

It's simply ironic, especially as you have tried to lay the excesses of Communism at our athiestic door and didn't seem that impressed with the argument that athiesm states nothing about such things.

Only if you think people are being imprisoned for acting on inbred instincts and are hence not accountable for their actions.

That doesn't follow. The point was simply to demonstrate the existence of moral behavior in the absence of God.

GeoffP says:

If there's no genetic basis for morality, then it devolves even further past mutually advantageous (or balanced) ESSs and into the realm of pure, unfettered Darwinian chaos!

Not even! Game theory! Game theory! The emergence of moral behavior through the application of logic!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_bargaining_game

Whee!

 

[iceaura]

Do you know this to be true? I haven't heard any discussion on it or on abortion or on stem cell research, all of which goes on quite placidly in some of these countries.

No, I don't - it's based on my contact with evangelical websites designed to familiarize Westerners with Islam, and published interviews with Islamic religious and secular authorities.

Abortion has always gone on "quite placidly" in US fundie communities, among the wealthy. For the poor, more under the thumb of the authorities backed by the church (and vice versa), it's a different story.

Would you say the Islamic cleric featured in Dawkins's video was an aberration, that his opinions are rare or geographically particular?

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh, I'm not claiming that they don't. We already discussed how Stalin abused Communist ideals to sustain his power. Historically, religion seems a bit more prone to it, but that doesn't prove anything.

It's simply ironic, especially as you have tried to lay the excesses of Communism at our athiestic door and didn't seem that impressed with the argument that athiesm states nothing about such things.

And? I merely claimed that atheists are equal if not greater in their propensity to violence, so whither the altruism sans religion?

That doesn't follow. The point was simply to demonstrate the existence of moral behavior in the absence of God.

GeoffP says:


Not even! Game theory! Game theory! The emergence of moral behavior through the application of logic!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_bargaining_game

Whee!

Are you claiming that chimpanzees follow altruism due to logic? i.e. because it is the better choice? Does that mean solitary predators are illogical? Has your theory been tested on animals?

 

[iceaura]

Are you claiming that chimpanzees follow altruism due to logic?

The only claim is that behaviors indistinguishable from human altruism, as well as other moral features, are common in animals that have no obvious religion, belief in a deity, or even (honeybees) cultural transmission.

Game theory does not require logic or reason on the part of players - merely feedback.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, I don't - it's based on my contact with evangelical websites designed to familiarize Westerners with Islam, and published interviews with Islamic religious and secular authorities.

Could you provide some links? I would be interested to see who they are.

Abortion has always gone on "quite placidly" in US fundie communities, among the wealthy. For the poor, more under the thumb of the authorities backed by the church (and vice versa), it's a different story.

I did not realise Muslims were classified as a wealthy fundie society

Would you say the Islamic cleric featured in Dawkins's video was an aberration, that his opinions are rare or geographically particular?

Islamic clergy are an occupation not an authority, Islamic scholars determine what points of view are available and the reasoning behind their views; it is a flexible system with no standard laws except those set by a government. ie everyone is entitled to an opinion of their own as long as they can show a reasoning behind it that indicates it is moral and ethical and as long as it is not illegal according to the laws set by the ruler/government. Hence the view point and influence of any cleric would be determined by his own education and understanding and that of his "followers"; hence there are as many opinions as there are clerics.

 

[Xev]

SAM:

And? I merely claimed that atheists are equal if not greater in their propensity to violence, so whither the altruism sans religion?

Your claim was that the Soviet Union under Stalin was an athiestic state. Not a false claim. Others pointed out that athiesm had very little to do with the gulags and such things, that they were more a product of politicians. You seemed to find this unconvincing, if memory serves, that it was a way of athiesm "getting out of" its purported responsibility.

Correct me if I have misunderstood you.

Now you claim that these specific failings of the Muslim world are due to politicians, not to Islam. You may be totally correct, but the knife cuts both ways.

Are you claiming that chimpanzees follow altruism due to logic? Does that mean solitary predators are illogical?

Nope. I'm claiming that moral behavior can emerge from self-interest. And you don't need to understand something like the Nash bargaining game on an abstract level to understand that your best outcome can coincide with the best outcome for others.
This isn't to claim that game theory or evolutionary game theory or logic or evolution is moral. It is not. It is amoral. But behaviors that we recognize as moral often occur in the absence of God.

-Edit-

I did not realise Muslims were classified as a wealthy fundie society

Some Muslim societies are, neh?
Certainly not all, as Muslims are a diverse group of people sharing only the commonality of having been infected with the "Islam" meme.

 

[S.A.M.]

The only claim is that behaviors indistinguishable from human altruism, as well as other moral features, are common in animals that have no obvious religion, belief in a deity, or even (honeybees) cultural transmission.

Game theory does not require logic or reason on the part of players - merely feedback.

So animals who instinctually defend their young are an example of human morality, but those who kill for fun are not a role model for violence?

Game theory requires the recognition of choice and the understanding of consequences. Has it been tested in animals?

 

[S.A.M.]

the knife cuts both ways.

Actually, that is my point, as in, how do you explain the massacres perpetuated by similar but nonreligious individuals. I personally believe power is its own religion.

Nope. I'm claiming that moral behavior can emerge from self-interest. And you don't need to understand something like the Nash bargaining game on an abstract level to understand that your best outcome can coincide with the best outcome for others.
This isn't to claim that game theory or evolutionary game theory or logic or evolution is moral. It is not. It is amoral. But behaviors that we recognize as moral often occur in the absence of God.

Are they the same though? If you make a choice to lie/not lie, to kill/not kill, are you acting on the same instincts as the chimp who does not kill?

Some Muslim societies are, neh?
Certainly not all, as Muslims are a diverse group of people sharing only the commonality of having been infected with the "Islam" meme.

Oh Bah!

 

[Xev]

Actually, that is my point, as in, how do you explain the massacres perpetuated by similar but nonreligious individuals. I personally believe power is its own religion.

I'll buy that. Maybe not a religion in the conventional sense, but power has as strong a hold on the human imagination.
I'd also argue that much of religion simply is power worship, channeling the desire for an ultimate alpha-male into communal worship of some abstract. The "Pagans" were decently explicit about this - your religion is, imo, a bit less virulent in this regard, being abstract as it is. The Christians also tried to get away from the urge and substitute a pure communal love for a while, but they failed.
The Buddhists probably did the best.
There seems to be some human urge towards submission. I suppose it makes the best sense - why be alpha or omega, and be suffer the ills attendent to dominance or solitude? Best to be a beta, and get a chance at passing on your genes.

Being a loser may be the best strategy.

Are they the same though? If you make a choice to lie/not lie, to kill/not kill, are you acting on the same instincts as the chimp who does not kill?

That's a question for philosophers. I'd say no, but it's irrelevent to the point.

Oh Bah!

That's okay, I've been bit by the nihilist bug.

 

[Atom]

SAM:


Your claim was that the Soviet Union under Stalin was an athiestic state. Not a false claim. Others pointed out that athiesm had very little to do with the gulags and such things, that they were more a product of politicians. You seemed to find this unconvincing

So does anyone one with an iota of historical knowledge.


Perhaps you could tell us how many of the Commandants at both the Gulags and the Concentration camps were practicing Christians at the time?

Then do us all a favour by comparing the percentage to the number of Conscientious Objectors?

Could you then compare the percentages?

Now my bet is that the religious Pacifists far out weighed the religious proclivities of the Prison Guards...what say you?