Religulous

[(Q)]

Atheism is incompatible with society, if the medieval cult rituals have disappeared, it would probably mean that mankind is extinct.

Ah, so, we remove myth and superstition from our lives and we die?

:roflmao:

 

[S.A.M.]

Yup, since progress requires faith. Where doubt will sit and wither, faith can move mountains.

 

[(Q)]

Yup, since progress requires faith. ...faith can move mountains.

Excellent sermon from the pulpit, Sam. Well done.

Please note that science does not move mountains, but it does help provide you with everything just this side of living in a cave.

 

[S.A.M.]

I do, I also note that a medieval atheist would have looked at stars and seen nothing, while a thiest would see hidden mysteries of the universe.

 

[(Q)]

I do, I also note that a medieval atheist would have looked at stars and seen nothing, while a thiest would see hidden mysteries of the universe.

Were you paid to say that or are you just stupid?

 

[S.A.M.]

You're the one who moans about evidence. Thats the evidence. An athiest would probably curse the darkness, wonder where he would sleep and how to get his next meal, why would he be interested in irrational things like star gazing? Thats the kind of thing people with no work i.e. monks and friars did. Or sadhus, or Islamic scholars.

 

[S.A.M.]

You're the one who moans about evidence. Thats the evidence. An athiest would probably curse the darkness, wonder where he would sleep and how to get his next meal, why would he be interested in irrational things like star gazing? Thats the kind of thing people with no work i.e. monks and friars did. Or sadhus, or Islamic scholars. And they got other delusional people [like kings and churches and other people who venerated them] to fund their enterprise. How would an atheist generate any of the above? On what basis? His good looks?

 

[(Q)]

You're the one who moans about evidence. Thats the evidence.An athiest would probably curse the darkness, wonder where he would sleep and how to get his next meal, why would he be interested in irrational things like star gazing? Thats the kind of thing people with no work i.e. monks and friars did. Or sadhus, or Islamic scholars. And they got other delusional people [like kings and churches and other people who venerated them] to fund their enterprise. How would an atheist generate any of the above? On what basis? His good looks?

 

[S.A.M.]

This thread seems to have stopped being about Religulous and started being about S.A.M. This isn't acceptable if you want to continue to have a discussion. I temporarily closed this thread, but by the time you've read this far, it should be opened again. If its to remain open, please take a moment to read the rest of this post.

I would like to point out that while S.A.M. was right that the most brutal regimes in recent history were also atheistic ones, there is much to be said about the motivations of these regimes. While it's easy to find genocides, mass-killings, and murders that are conducted with express and explicit religious motivations, there are no examples of democides that were conducted expressly or explicitly in the name of "atheism."

Neither Stalin, nor Pol Pot have given any historical, sociological or anthropological evidence that their democides were conducted because of atheism. Indeed, this makes no philosophical sense to begin with.

Still, this topic is always the elephant in the room with atheists, who are easily offended when the religious bring it up. And well they should be. We should all be cognizant of the power of ideology as well as religion. Its all too easy for the skeptic and the reasoned who happen to be atheists to blame religion for global atrocities, but I think we ignore the fact that these atrocities were committed by people who were human first, and religious or atheist second. And, while I stand by my statement that it's far easier to find examples of the religious who kill for religious motivations that atheists who kill expressly for atheism, I think we must also be careful what we wish for.

In the absence of religion, why do we think ideology might not exist and that this ideology might not be fucked up? Don't get me wrong. I speak out against religion and vociferously at times. There's too much that the religious do in the name of their religions in order to attempt to impose their beliefs on others. But don't think for a minute that human nature is informed by religion and ideology. It isn't. In the absence of religion, ideology will emerge and human nature has shown us that it's rarely peaches and cream.

I temporarily closed this thread for a moment so I could type a response with effort to get this back on topic. I'm not opposed to splitting the thread at about this point if the discourse is to remain on the current digression, but I also think that this digression has a bit to do with Maher's point with Religulous, so I'd rather like it to remain intact. I'd also rather not like to delete the off-topic posts above, such as calling for S.A.M.'s "demotion."

Her demotion isn't going to happen and I'm glad she takes the time to post here because, believe it or not, she forces atheists to carefully think their arguments before they type if they want to have the appearance of seeming cogent. If you allow yourself to get into a flame-war with her, then you've lost. And, as an atheist, you've demonstrated nothing to those that aren't sure which side of the theist/atheist "war" they should be. And there are a lot of people that fit this bill.

Religulous was intended to be funny. But Maher, the kook that he is, has a point that I think was important: are these the people we allow to have the nuclear codes? Maher took cheap shots, tricked people out of their interviews, carefully edited their responses to be funny/nutty, etc. But he's forcing us to look carefully at who we give the power to in our nation (in this case the U.S., but shouldn't the same hold true for any nation where the people have any sort of influence or power?).

If we aren't careful and if we don't pay attention, we're going to not just let the kooky-theists get the nuclear codes, but the kooky-irreligous. An atheist-ideologue would be just as bad in my book.

So, yeah, S.A.M.'s continued arguing that "Stalin/Pol Pot were atheists and killed more ..." is annoying. But it's supposed to be. They may not have killed so many because of atheism, but they were atheists who had fucked up ideologies. That's an elephant in the room that cannot be ignored.

Thank you Skin

I appreciate your clarifying my stand.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Yup, since progress requires faith. Where doubt will sit and wither, faith can move mountains.

I disagree; progress requires ambition.

Or, perhaps I should quantify your statement; progress requires faith in oneself or one's team (folks involved in the particular effort you might be alluding to when you say progress). Progress does not require any faith in any deity.

 

[S.A.M.]

You can say that, but I don't see any society that has been established by atheists. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Enterprise-D]

This is an irrelevant argument because this is an appeal to tradition.

Merely because theists have established the majority of societies and (booming voice) "it has been so forevermore"...does not make it the ideal or even correct stance. I don't care about the reason why past atheists did not establish a separatist colony; merely that theists as they have developed now (and in the recent past) do not deserve the power that the currently wield and continue to muster unchallenged.

 

[S.A.M.]

Merely because theists have established the majority of societies

Not majority. All. Can you name one society established without religion?

 

[Balerion]

Not majority. All. Can you name one society established without religion?

The United States of America, and every Western nation that does not endorse a religion. Is there religion present within the society? Yes. But the nation was not founded on religion, nor was it created because of religion. You can count the "God" references all you like, this nation was not established based on or because of religion.

If you are looking for an entirely atheistic society, of course there isn't one, much in the same way that there isn't an entirely theistic society.

 

[S.A.M.]

The American society was not built by the founders [most of whom were mass murdering fanatics anyway] but by the religious people who made it up. All social structures are defined/governed by religion and the most theistic societies have the longest survival rate. In fact, historically, the farther a society moves from religious values, the quicker it disintegrates

 

[Enterprise-D]

Not majority. All. Can you name one society established without religion?

I don't have to. You are appealing to tradition. Merely because (you claim) all societies were established with religion does not mean this is the best way, the only way, or that we have to accept it at all for future development.

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't have to. You are appealing to tradition. Merely because (you claim) all societies were established with religion does not mean this is the best way, the only way, or that we have to accept it at all for future development.

No I'm appealing to common sense

Trend-> more religious society survives and spreads, less religious society stops reproducing and disintegrates

 

[Balerion]

The American society was not built by the founders [most of whom were mass murdering fanatics anyway] but by the religious people who made it up. All social structures are defined/governed by religion and the most theistic societies have the longest survival rate. In fact, historically, the farther a society moves from religious values, the quicker it disintegrates

I disagree. They may have brought their religion with them, but I don't think their society was built on religion itself.

Also, can you cite some examples of societies that moved away from their religious values that disintegrated quicker than those that haven't? I'd really like to hear this, because it has no basis in fact.

 

[Enterprise-D]

No I'm appealing to common sense

Trend-> more religious society survives and spreads, less religious society stops reproducing and disintegrates

This does not make it less of a fallacy. An appeal to tradition fallacy is committed when your statement depends on age incorrectly. A method of subjective governance or societal origin definitely cannot be granted merit merely because it is uncontested, or even that it has granted longevity. As you say, there's no atheist society to compare with, therefore you cannot claim superiority simply because there's no reference point!

Indeed you are incorrect that a religious society survives and spreads; more so is that it conquers and infects (much like a virus), until a more powerful one destroys the first. Many or most religious societies of the past have warred each other to oblivion.

 

[SnakeLord]

the most theistic societies have the longest survival rate

Sorry, can I ask for some details and clarification for this statement? Thanks in advance.