[The Socktor]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Never heard of Soviets, Algeria, China etc? Or people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Ceausescu etc? Or ever read about Marxism-Leninism etc?

Yes, but so what? they all also weren't addicted to hard drugs; does this mean they committed their crimes in the name of not taking hard drugs?. You could go around killing people who are addicted to them, but that wouldn't be committing crimes in the name of them personally not taking them, it would be committing crimes in the name of opposition to taking hard drugs. Besides, a lot them were just as fanatical about their respective political theories as many religious people are about their religions.

The Marxist philosophy of religion being the "opium of the people" was due to opium-based drugs at the time being used as painkillers/anaesthetics. So basically, what he meant by it was that by taking the "opium" of religion, the masses were effectively sending themselves into a dream world with promises of reward in their supposed next life if they just do exactly as they are told. With this effect, he believed that people were unable to see the problems they face in this life and take action to improve it.

Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Ceausescu and Pol Pot all just seemed to have taken it to another level. They violently tried to get rid of religion. Something I certainly don't advocate (in fact I'm borderline pacifist). As far as I'm aware, even Karl Marx never specified actions like that. I would be breaking the 8th commandment if I were to say I didn't think the world would be better off without religion, but I would consider simply letting it inevitably dwindle as the world's people become more scientifically literate, along with vocal, but again, non-violent opposition to it in it's extreme and fundamentalist forms.

China has always had an atheist majority; the three most common philosophies they have had; Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism are all non-theistic.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people - the Jews, the landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped - have to be eliminated in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is permitted" - Dinesh D'Souza

"The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable" - Sam Harris.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
On top of that, it certainly wasn't religion that caused the last few world wars, or the invasions in the Middle East and so on.

Not quite. But people did often use religion as a recruiting tool to say "go kill a load of Frenchmen/Germans/Brits/Russians/Americans/Japanese people/whatever, your god is on your side!". Also the Japanese Shinto religion did involve worship of the Emperor as a god. Thus, it was considered most honourable to die for him, with rewards in the afterlife. If this belief didn't exist, I doubt we'd have needed to nuke them to get to give up.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
And even those that "drive planes into buildings or blow themselves up", didn't happen by itself either.

Yes, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Still, if everybody just realised that this is the only life they're going to get and there wont be any virgins, pearly gates or Viking warriors to be after their deaths, I really doubt as many people would even bother going to war.

[NeuralGroove]

Usually I reserve my TSR account for posting things that I vainly think are witty or clever, but in this case...

**** Baroness Warsi, she's a moron.

[prog2djent]

A think a sweeping outlook of real secularism needs to sweep accross europe, the Kind Dawkins, Murray and Hitchens advocate. Not the B/S verion the progressives have turned into, the attack on chritianity whilst wrapping up Islam in cotton wool and silencing anyone who criticises them.

I'm an atheist Btw. And oppose all dogmatic and authoritarian religion on its fundamental teachings and influence over society, government or authority.

Pragmatically, some are more 'enlightened' or more leanient that others.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Indeed the UK is going through a threat against extreme secularisation (moreso than Islamification ).

Like anyone cares what a low-grade politician like Warsi says, shes only in front line politics because the conservatives had never had a token female muslim they could claim agrees with their politics.

She should stick to subjects she might have some knowledge on, like the growing extremism in islam and the poor education standards in uk muslim communities

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
Like anyone cares what a low-grade politician like Warsi says, shes only in front line politics because the conservatives had never had a token female muslim they could claim agrees with their politics.

She should stick to subjects she might have some knowledge on, like the growing extremism in islam and the poor education standards in uk muslim communities

Considering she lives in the UK and is "considered" a UK citizen, imo she should be concerned about the social breakdown of the country which lead to things like the London riots.

It might help her fix the descrimination problem about Education in the UK for Muslims -

“Education represents for British Muslims a major area of struggle for equality of
opportunity and assertion of identity. It was over education that Muslims became
increasingly vocal in raising their demands in the early 1980s, and it is where
they have succeeded best in having many of their needs recognised in the face of
controversy and opposition from broad sections of British society” - http://www.fairuk.org/docs/OSI2004%207_Education.pdf

As for you, imo you should be concerned about the Hindu extremism growing in India - 'Behead those who convert Hindus' says senior Indian government offical'

For me, I should be concerned about the british troops killing, raping and destroying lives in the ME which makes it currently more prone to "islamic extremism".

[ceezmad1]

(Original post by adamrules247)
Does that include the government not forcing obligations upon religious organisations that would violate their consciences as it happening in the USA right now?

Tax religions like all other businesses and why not.

[ceezmad1]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Never heard of Soviets, Algeria, China etc? Or people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Ceausescu etc? Or ever read about Marxism-Leninism etc?


Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is permitted"

Dostoyevsky was right, everything is permitted, except the limits we as a society put on each other.

We have used religion to control ourselves, since the dawn of man, maybe we have not evolved to a point where we can do away from being afraid of the gods, spirits etc, but we should get there eventually, not soon, but hopefully before we destroy this earth.

[ceezmad1]

(Original post by prog2djent)
A think a sweeping outlook of real secularism needs to sweep accross europe, the Kind Dawkins, Murray and Hitchens advocate. Not the B/S verion the progressives have turned into, the attack on chritianity whilst wrapping up Islam in cotton wool and silencing anyone who criticises them.

I'm an atheist Btw. And oppose all dogmatic and authoritarian religion on its fundamental teachings and influence over society, government or authority.

Pragmatically, some are more 'enlightened' or more lenient that others.

Forcing atheism does not work, too many superstitions people in the world, education is the best cure for religion.

I would actually teach more religion in school, all religions, and the history on how they came about, factual history.

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by ceezmad1)
Dostoyevsky was right, everything is permitted, except the limits we as a society put on each other.
We have used religion to control ourselves, since the dawn of man, maybe we have not evolved to a point where we can do away from being afraid of the gods, spirits etc, but we should get there eventually, not soon, but hopefully before we destroy this earth.

You don't understand Dostoevsky then.

He, along with atheists such as Nietzsche, recognised there was absolutely no basis for society without God, as Man would no longer have any purpose in life (except for reproducing his DNA, which is not an obligation if the universe is indifferent anyway, any more than bacteria would have a "moral" duty to dodge a squirt of Dettol if they could) or any transcendent source of morals. Even the harm principle ultimately has no metaphysical root without God. There is no reason to continue living and no reason to obey any rule or law, however imposed. Only superficial ones can be given.

Why should I not kill you? If you're just a wet funny-shaped bag of chemicals predestinated by the cosmos to react a certain way and consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon caused by neural activity? Shooting a man dead would be no different to pouring a bottle of acid down a drain. Both getting rid of some meaningless chemicals.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Considering she lives in the UK and is "considered" a UK citizen, imo she should be concerned about the social breakdown of the country which lead to things like the London riots.

It might help her fix the descrimination problem about Education in the UK for Muslims -

“Education represents for British Muslims a major area of struggle for equality of
opportunity and assertion of identity. It was over education that Muslims became
increasingly vocal in raising their demands in the early 1980s, and it is where
they have succeeded best in having many of their needs recognised in the face of
controversy and opposition from broad sections of British society” - http://www.fairuk.org/docs/OSI2004 7_Education.pdf

As for you, imo you should be concerned about the Hindu extremism growing in India - 'Behead those who convert Hindus' says senior Indian government offical'

For me, I should be concerned about the british troops killing, raping and destroying lives in the ME which makes it currently more prone to "islamic extremism".

LOL arnt you also "considered a UK citezen" jsut like Baroness Warsi??- if so why then are you "concerned about the british troops killing, raping and destroying lives in the ME" And not the muslims that have and are trying to plan terrorist attacks in the uk and our allies

And why should I "be concerned about the Hindu extremism growing in India"? Lol

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Considering she lives in the UK and is "considered" a UK citizen, imo she should be concerned about the social breakdown of the country which lead to things like the London riots.

It might help her fix the descrimination problem about Education in the UK for Muslims -

“Education represents for British Muslims a major area of struggle for equality of
opportunity and assertion of identity. It was over education that Muslims became
increasingly vocal in raising their demands in the early 1980s, and it is where
they have succeeded best in having many of their needs recognised in the face of
controversy and opposition from broad sections of British society” - http://www.fairuk.org/docs/OSI2004%207_Education.pdf

And im sure the failures of the muslims community in education in comparison to others is more to do with the fact many muslims also go to islamic techings where they learn counter-intuitive principles about apostacy, inequality of women, stories about devils living in your nose, genies, adam and eve etc

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
And im sure the failures of the muslims community in education in comparison to others is more to do with the fact many muslims also go to islamic techings where they learn counter-intuitive principles about apostacy, inequality of women, stories about devils living in your nose, genies, adam and eve etc

Have you even read the stories of hindu gods? I don't think you want to go there.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Have you even read the stories of hindu gods? I don't think you want to go there.

what has your constant reference to hinduism got to do with this subject - did you convert to a muslim from a hindu or something?

Either way i dont think it affects the fact that the primitive aspects of islamic teaching lowers the education level of muslims in the uk. Why hasnt baroness warsi commented on that?

[ceezmad1]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
You don't understand Dostoevsky then.

He, along with atheists such as Nietzsche, recognised there was absolutely no basis for society without God, as Man would no longer have any purpose in life (except for reproducing his DNA, which is not an obligation if the universe is indifferent anyway, any more than bacteria would have a "moral" duty to dodge a squirt of Dettol if they could) or any transcendent source of morals. Even the harm principle ultimately has no metaphysical root without God. There is no reason to continue living and no reason to obey any rule or law, however imposed. Only superficial ones can be given.

Why should I not kill you? If you're just a wet funny-shaped bag of chemicals predestinated by the cosmos to react a certain way and consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon caused by neural activity? Shooting a man dead would be no different to pouring a bottle of acid down a drain. Both getting rid of some meaningless chemicals.

Yes, that is correct, we are all just electricity any ways, I understand his point and agree, we are all just animals that need to survive, we are no different that Lions or Zebras that have no idea of gods/spirits.

The only limit we humans have are those we place on each other to live in society.

Have you read about human history, we have been killing each other like we are pouring Drano down your toilet since the beginning.

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by ceezmad1)
Yes, that is correct, we are all just electricity any ways, I understand his point and agree, we are all just animals that need to survive, we are no different that Lions or Zebras that have no idea of gods/spirits.

The only limit we humans have are those we place on each other to live in society.

Have you read about human history, we have been killing each other like we are pouring Drano down your toilet since the beginning.

But we do have spiritual ideas, and thus religion, laws, customs, civilisation &c.- because God made us. The problem with Dostoevsky is not his view of naturalism but your belief in naturalism.

[segoviawoods]

Yeah i agree to some extent. Every time a religious person does something bad it's because of their faith...

[ceezmad1]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
But we do have spiritual ideas, and thus religion, laws, customs, civilisation &c.- because God made us. The problem with Dostoevsky is not his view of naturalism but your belief in naturalism.

We have reason and very developed Imagination that is why we created gods and spirits.

Our brain function has developed into this great computer that allows us to analyze all around us, but we also like to come up with solutions so we create answers, by Science or by superstition.

Like you say (not intended) Naturalism can be scary so we created this fantasy (multiple fantasies) world around us to give us comfort.

When we humans are gone form this universe, everything will keep on marching and evolving like it did before we started picking up stones and making tools.

Nothing supernatural about that.

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by ceezmad1)
We have reason and very developed Imagination that is why we created gods and spirits.

Our brain function has developed into this great computer that allows us to analyze all around us, but we also like to come up with solutions so we create answers, by Science or by superstition.

Like you say (not intended) Naturalism can be scary so we created this fantasy (multiple fantasies) world around us to give us comfort.

When we humans are gone form this universe, everything will keep on marching and evolving like it did before we started picking up stones and making tools.

Nothing supernatural about that.

Well as a theist I'm not going to go with that, I say God created Man- not man created God. As for brain function, we know that cognitive processes have a neural correlate but that doesn't disprove God created the brain or that there is a "ghost in the machine", a spiritual component to man beyond our material building blocks. Even Descartes- the strictest dualist in Western philosophy- accepted that the brain had a privileged role in constructing the mind although brain and mind were not synonymous. And that was centuries ago before neuroscience existed. So you aren't going to prove atheism by the fact the brain is capable of inventing the idea of a God, there have been many conceptions of God down the ages and only one can be fully true so the others must be human inventions, that cannot show that none of them are true.

[ceezmad1]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
Well as a theist I'm not going to go with that, I say God created Man- not man created God. As for brain function, we know that cognitive processes have a neural correlate but that doesn't disprove God created the brain or that there is a "ghost in the machine", a spiritual component to man beyond our material building blocks. Even Descartes- the strictest dualist in Western philosophy- accepted that the brain had a privileged role in constructing the mind although brain and mind were not synonymous. And that was centuries ago before neuroscience existed. So you aren't going to prove atheism by the fact the brain is capable of inventing the idea of a God, there have been many conceptions of God down the ages and only one can be fully true so the others must be human inventions, that cannot show that none of them are true.

That is an opinion not a fact.

We still have polytheistic religions (Hinduism) and atheist religions (Buddhism), we can not prove them wrong or right (wrong IMO). But they are just as likely as monotheism.

Now what disproves the gods/spirits to me is the same thing that disproves bigfoot, lack of evidence, perhaps I am wrong and BigFoot is real, but for now everything I know points to me saying BigFoot is not real and I am personally 99% sure of that.

And I will defend my right to make fun of people that believe in BigFoot, but hey maybe they will have the last laugh.

[The Socktor]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
You don't understand Dostoevsky then.

He, along with atheists such as Nietzsche, recognised there was absolutely no basis for society without God, as Man would no longer have any purpose in life (except for reproducing his DNA, which is not an obligation if the universe is indifferent anyway, any more than bacteria would have a "moral" duty to dodge a squirt of Dettol if they could) or any transcendent source of morals. Even the harm principle ultimately has no metaphysical root without God. There is no reason to continue living and no reason to obey any rule or law, however imposed. Only superficial ones can be given.

Why should I not kill you? If you're just a wet funny-shaped bag of chemicals predestinated by the cosmos to react a certain way and consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon caused by neural activity? Shooting a man dead would be no different to pouring a bottle of acid down a drain. Both getting rid of some meaningless chemicals.

To the contrary, look at the world today; countries with atheist majorities are statistically better than those with religious majorities.