the Bible

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting Haunted from 15:38, 8th May 2007
I can ridicule goverments, I can ridicule businesses, I can ridicule any organisation or any politian or CEO or footballer or any person.
Why is religion off limits exactly?

Since theology has no substance whatsoever; absolutely nothing to stand on. Then all I can do to criticise it is mock it. To point out just how ridiculously absurd it all is with no apologies.

It seems like arrogance, but I liken it to the same feeling that would be present when you are trying to explain to a mental patient that he simply isn't Ghengis Khan, no matter how strongly he believes it.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
- Thomas Jefforson

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

Except, of course, that Thomas Jefferson would not have considered religion - not a specific religion, but the entire concept - an unintelligible proposition.

But I have to ask you, what exactly do you lose as a result of the belief of others in a Higher Power? What do you gain by mocking it? In the modern secular world, I can't imagine any substantial answer to either question, so I'd say that if religion isn't your cup of tea, you ought to just leave well enough alone. Going out of your way to antagonise other people just isn't very nice, frankly.

I heard on the news today that a woman here, in the US, is very upset because she got a disposable coffee cup from a Starbucks that had a religious quote on it. She's upset enough that it made the national news. I do not understand why she is so upset. Surely the presence of the quote doesn't affect the taste of the coffee, nor does it imply that she has to agree with it in order to conduct business with Starbucks. When she's done with her coffee, she is quite capable of throwing the cup away - most likely just the same as she does with any other disposable cup - and never paying it any further mind. It just simply isn't worth getting upset about.

Now, if Starbucks were to say, "We're going to start charging non-Christians more for their coffee" - that would be something worth getting upset about and I'd be the first one in line to protest.

Let's take another example: My state, Indiana, retired it's license plate design (license plates are the tags with numbers and letters that identify vehicles in the US). We did not have a replacement design chosen yet, so they quickly developed an interrum design while the decision process played out. The interrum design has, in great big white letters on a blue background, the statement "In God We Trust".

Now, if you know American money at all, you know that this statement is printed on our currency, so there's nothing original about it. However, after the furor last year over the Pledge of Allegiance making reference to God, and the constant controversy over Ten Commandments monuments in county government buildings throughout the country, it doesn't take a genius to realise that the state government is using this traditional phrase to make a political point and thumb its nose at organisations like the ACLU and Indiana's counterpart the ICLU.

I don't mind "In God We Trust" on our money. I don't mind "one nation, under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance. I don't mind that the Congress begins each session with a prayer. I don't mind these things because we are a majority Christian country, because they don't hurt anyone, and because they are all diffused by tradition to the point of being bywords and relatively meaningless in a religious sense - in the case of the Congressional prayer it dates back further than Congress, to the Constitutional Convention.

But revising the state's license plate is blatantly provocative. It's picking a fight and it's using my religion for a political purpose. It is true that I believe in God and all that entails, but I also believe in a secular society. I believe in the seperation of Church and State, not just for the protection of the State, but also for the protection of the Church. The earliest and strongest supporters for the seperation were the various churches in early America in order to protect themselves and their members from state over-regulation... a point that seems to go unremembered in American politics today.

My overall point, though, is that there is a time when religion and quasi-religious sentiment need to be put in their place, and a time to get upset at 'religion'. When religion is being used for some other political purpose, which often seems to be the case in the US by a party which shall go nameless *ahem*, or when persons try to use religion to attack and reduce the freedoms of others, then it is right and proper to be angry and upset and to demand change. But if that isn't happening, I don't see any reason why any rational person would waste time being angry with faith. It doesn't gain them anything, it doesn't redress some grave injustice, and it doesn't change anything. So why bother tilting at windmills?

[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting Gubbins from 13:32, 2nd May 2007
Not to mention Constantine's editing process.

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

Constantine was just playing in amateur hour. If you really want to get your hackles up, take a look at the Carolingian impact on the development of the early Church.

[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[Gubbins]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 21:52, 8th May 2007
If you really want to get your hackles up, take a look at the Carolingian impact on the development of the early Church.

Not finding anything to raise hackles here... unless you count teaching people Latin, which admittedly is enough to get a lot of peoples' hackles up.

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

[Haunted]

Jefferson was known to be intensely critical of relgion and christianity in particular.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus"
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, July 30, 1816

But thats besides the point.

what exactly do you lose as a result of the belief of others in a Higher Power?

Perspective. You immediately claim to know it all and you castrate your ability to observe and reason without predisposition to an answer. It makes you more gullible and you (or anyone, a preacher say) can use your conviction to justify almost anything.

"March 1993: Michael Griffin, allegedly a member of Rescue America, killed Dr. David Gunn outside an abortion clinic. Griffin's lawyers claimed that Burt had brainwashed Griffin into committing the killing. (There is a consensus among mental health professionals that this sort of "Manchurian Candidate" programming is impossible). Griffin was convicted and given a life sentence."

"July 1994: Paul Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and leader in Defensive Action killed a physician and bodyguard outside another abortion clinic; he wounded the wife of the bodyguard. He was sentenced to both life imprisonment on federal charges, and execution on state charges."

"August 1994: Five KKK groups demonstrated adjacent to an abortion clinic in Melbourne FL. They were opposed to abortions given to whites; they encourage abortions to persons of other races. They named Hill their hero of the month."

It would take an eternity to go through all such examples.
I could've just as easily picked suicide bombers.
Extreme examples I agree. But all caused ultimately by a belief in a higher power.

Killing another human (should) go against your better judgement, but somehow its ok if it's in the name of God.

Religion fosters fanaticism.

What do you gain by mocking it?

Hopefully converts. If you can successfully point out to someone just how ridiculous what they believe is then maybe theres hope for them. I see no need to be sensitive about it. It's exactly like telling a child there's no Santa Claus. You don't pause to consider the possiblity because you know its just a pack of lies, and you simply point out to the child how ridiculous it is. Some children of course, have trouble accepting this, some part of their universe has just been exposed as a lie.

You can argue that religion brings a certain comfort to peoples lives that science cannot. It doesn't make it true of course.
If you had cancer would you rather the doctor lied to you to keep you blissful?
Some people would and thats their choice.
That doesn't give them a right to go around preacher their "truth" to the world though, especially not to children who are vulnerable to such ideas. Of course we should teach about religion and of faiths, they are a part of our culture. Though I would hope that with the right education eveyrone would be able to see the world as it really is.

But if that isn't happening, I don't see any reason why any rational person would waste time being angry with faith. It doesn't gain them anything, it doesn't redress some grave injustice, and it doesn't change anything. So why bother tilting at windmills?

It is happening. As long as there is sheep there will be shepherds to manipulate them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fagcldVp3Vo

And it is a grave injustice. You are conditioning people to reject observable reality in favour of some invisible force that you have convinced yourself that exists.

Does it change anything? If it convinces just one person to open their eyes then yes it has changed something. Of course, scathing attacks can also strengthen some peoples conviction (they may see it as a 'test', a great trump card that) sadly.

Poor old John imagine a world without a religion. Maybe one day.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Frank]

Quoting Haunted from 23:49, 8th May 2007

To be honest, I don't see why religion is the 'behind it' cause for evil in good people. As Weinberg seems to have said: Good people do good things, bad people do bad things.

Bad people can do good things and good people can do bad things. Weinberg, speaking on something that (at least to me) seems to be entirely irrelevent to his position as a Nobel Laureate in Physics, seems quite simply incorrect (or perhaps: inconclusive) in that statement.

Postulating that religion is the root cause of badness and ill-reason in people is no worse than religious manipulative shepherds waxing lyrical about the evils of

It all makes people lose perspetive. Hell, why not ban emotion? *

Well, speaking properly in relation to your (Haunted's) arguments, I'd be more inclined to simply say "pish posh" to you and note that your beef isn't with religion, but people simply being lazy when it comes to thinking things through. If it weren't religion it'd be TV. If it isn't TV it'd be celebrities. If it weren't celebrities it might just be whoever is quick enough to take initiative and assert themselves as a leader.

When dealing with, to put it mildly, pig-ignorance and religion, I think humour is only a suitable defence. If someone is throwing religion at you to tell you you're evil/silly/abominable/whatever then mockery and ridicule is a sound (and sanity-preserving) defence. But to go out and move on the offensive against such 'sillyness'(ie ignorance/stupidity and religion as a crutch), I cannot see how it would be at all effective or productive. Sanity preserving, perhaps, but still something I'd find myself (from a detached perspective) loathe to use in a productive manner against an argument. Defending my position, sure, if it is needed. But not to attack with. Seems a bit...iffy.


* As it happens, I'm rather interested in this statement. When push comes to shove, I don't think it's a bad idea. The amount of times love/lust/hatred/compassion/sympathy has got in the way of making proper and beneficial decisions, I can't count! But then, when you consider a question like this I inevitably also ask myself things like "Why bother with life?", and what brings it back, to me, is the very idea of love, happiness, hatred, sorrow...all that jazz. I, as an emotional being, just wouldn't want to make the jump to being devoid of emotion. But if you were to ask the unemotional me? I doubt I'd complain! I doubt I'd miss it a jot! I also doubt it'd still be the same me...pseudophilosophically speaking!

So when looking at the idea of 'a world without religion' I'd be far more likely to go the whole hog and agree with a world without emotion, far sooner tha I'd settle for a half measure like lose religion, lose music or lose fiction. Interestingly, however, there is a bit of, I assume, scientific curiosity inside me that wonders what I'd be like if I were devoid of (or had utterly minimised/controlled) sexual/lovey desires. That is: If I could simply chose when and who to start liking, when to 'need' lovey-emotional attention and when to simply not give a damn. I always half-suspected I'd be much happier that way. The other half of me suspects it's a silly notion!



[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[Haunted]

I don't like the way your suggesting that emotion is simply "one-up" from religion. I would not consider removing emotion being the next logical step from removing religion.

As a physicist, Steve Weinberg has, I believe, a better perspective on the real world than the average joe, though perhaps not morality, granted. I still think he makes a valid point. And yes without religion there will still be bad people (Stalin was an atheist) but the point of his soundbite was that it takes religion for good people to justify bad deeds.

Postulating that religion is the root cause of badness and ill-reason

I never said it was the root of evil, I have perhaps suggested that it is a path to it.

evils of

The comparison of religion to music and video games is ludicrous. People do not blow themselves up because they saw it in GTA.
Music and games do not dictate how you should live your life, they do not threaten your immortal soul with hellfire.

It all makes people lose perspetive

If a game can truly make you lose perspective, well, you can always turn it off without fear of reprisal from it.

If it weren't religion it'd be TV. If it isn't TV it'd be celebrities.

How many people do you know that would kill or give their lives because TV or a celebrity told them to? Again, TV/celebrities do not dictate (not really) how you are supposed to live and they do not threaten you with damnation if you do not obey them.

I am not going out my way to attack religion. I am not outside their churches handing out leaflets or knocking on their doorsteps with the "good news".
However, with a 2006 poll* showing that 55% of americans believe the "God created man in their present form less than 10,000 years ago", then something simply has to be done to curb the madness. 55%!
Incidentally, a 1998 survey shows that only 7% of the US National Academcy of Scientists only just believe in God nevermind creationism.**
A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that 97% do not believe the world was created in six days and 80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve!*
So luckily this problem isn't so bad in the UK, though there are, I believe, some questionable faith schools in existence.

Religion always prays on the weak minded and those who are unable to defend themselves intellectually. This is not to say that all theists are weak minded simply that, I would argue, those of a weaker mentality are more susceptible to such dogma.

It is my firm opinion that the costs of religion far outway the benefits (benefits, that I believe can be provided by humanist philosophy).

*http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
**http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

EDIT: forgot to end on a zinger of a quote.

"I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue."
- Bertrand Russell

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[LonelyPilgrim]

Well, Haunted, first, I asked you what you lose as a result of other people's belief and you responded by saying that people who believe lose perspective. I'll get to that assertion in a moment, but first I want to point out that it doesn't answer the question that I asked. So I'll ask again in a more ridiculous way: What, exactly, has religion ever done to YOU?

Also, I never said that Jefferson didn't criticise religion, I know full well that he did. What I said is that Jefferson would never ridicule the entire concept of religion as such. The quote you originally drew from, and then expanded on is Jefferson saying that ridicule is an appropriate response to the assertions of trinitarian religion, which *I* assume, coming from him, is a reference to Roman Catholicism. That is still a far cry from saying that ridicule is an appropriate response to any form of religion, which is what *you* are saying.

Find me a quote where Jefferson is mocking or ridiculing religion as such, and not just merely criticising it and I'll back down on this, but as it stands now you simply shouldn't use Jefferson's specific statement in regards to a specific belief as justification for your attack on all belief. That's stretching his words way beyond their meaning.

It would take an eternity to go through all such examples.
I could've just as easily picked suicide bombers.
Extreme examples I agree. But all caused ultimately by a belief in a higher power.

Killing another human (should) go against your better judgement, but somehow its ok if it's in the name of God.

Religion fosters fanaticism.

Anything which people believe in can foster fanaticism. It doesn't have to be religion. Irrational faith can be placed in otherwise rational ideals. Certainly Lenin and his followers in the Soviet Union didn't have religious faith as a guiding principle. Neither did the Nazis. And yet, both the Soviets and the Nazis *taken individually* are responsible for more mass murder and human suffering than any religion in the history of the world.

When the American Constitution was being debated and written, there was a concern expressed by some of the delagates that democracy, taken too far, would leave the people without perspective and prone to be misled by anyone with a gift for oratory and leadership into doing things they would not do, if they could take a moment and think rationally. They would do this, because of faith in the democratic ideal. This was why, originially, only the House of Representatives would be elected by the people. That system has changed, and the Senate and the President are directly elected (sort of, in the case of the President) now, and I would argue that the quality of American political leadership has suffered somewhat as a result of those changes.

Let's take the case of suicide bombers, which you briefly mentioned. The Tamil Tigers were the first terrorist/national liberation group to utilize suicide bombing, and they remain the leaders in numbers of attacks and the development of methodologies. Their conflict has nothing to do with religion. It is entirely a case of nationalism.

Even in Palestine, the other leading center of suicide bombing (at least before the invasion of Iraq) I would argue that nationalism and the payments made to surviving family members of bombers do far more to facilitate attacks than does religion.

The point I'm trying to make, and which Frank already made, is that the problem of people being easily duped into doing harmful things, of being conditioned to act inhumanely toward other people... this is not a problem of religion. The problem lies in human nature itself. If you take away religion, people find other things to lose themselves in, other ways to lose perspective, other ways to convince themselves that it's ok to slaughter each other.

There is no religious element in the decision of the sweat shop owner to work his child-workers to death. There was no religious element in the decision to go to war in WWI. There was no religious angle to the dropping of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is no religious plot when con-men set up a pyramid scheme to deprive unwary investors of their hard earned incomes by buying shares in a widget factory or whatnot.

You can argue that religion brings a certain comfort to peoples lives that science cannot. It doesn't make it true of course.
If you had cancer would you rather the doctor lied to you to keep you blissful?
Some people would and thats their choice.
That doesn't give them a right to go around preacher their "truth" to the world though, especially not to children who are vulnerable to such ideas. Of course we should teach about religion and of faiths, they are a part of our culture. Though I would hope that with the right education eveyrone would be able to see the world as it really is.

But you don't see the world as it really is. No one does. It is the height of arrogance to even attempt to claim that you do. We all view things through the lens of our culture, our education, our upbringing, our experiences, and our fundamental beliefs. You don't have any more right to tell someone what to believe than a priest does. Which leaves us, as a society (or societies since every society has to make this choice) with only three choices - we let everyone say what they want, we let no one say what they want, or we draw some unjust and arbitrary line - on one side of which are approved ideas and on the other taboos.

Now, I firmly believe in the first of those choices. You are entitled to your beliefs, and if you insist on mocking religion, then I can't, and don't want to be able to, force you to stop. But I can still make my point that it isn't very nice of you. I can still make my point that you are tilting at windmills or barking up the wrong tree or any other aphorism that means a fools errand that I wish.

And it is a grave injustice. You are conditioning people to reject observable reality in favour of some invisible force that you have convinced yourself that exists.

Well, I'm not asking anyone to reject obserbable reality - I'm still a child of the Enlightenment, after all. I simply don't believe that observable reality can be equated with the sum totality of existence. And certainly the 'invisible force' that I, and most Christians I know and associate with, believe in is not inconsistent with observable reality. There are some crazy people out there who believe things that reasonable people, even reasonable people of faith, realise can not be, but you shouldn't lump all of us together into that particular pot.

You are, in effect, arguing that since you can't just look around and physically see God, He must not exist. And as a rational person, I have to accept the possibility that you are correct. I don't believe you are, but you may be and I acknowledge that. But your position takes just as much faith as mine does, in some ways. You are assuming that 'what you see is what you get'. The only reason to believe that is because it is more comfortable than accepting the possibility that there may be more than meets the eye to the universe. Strictly speaking, there is no logical reason to assume that what you see even exists, as any first year philosophy student can tell you. On some level, we are all relying on faith to get through our day, the only question is faith in what.




[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[Science is Fun]

Quoting Haunted from 15:38, 8th May 2007
I can ridicule goverments, I can ridicule businesses, I can ridicule any organisation or any politian or CEO or footballer or any person.
Why is religion off limits exactly?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

Hey ... every one knows that you can make fun of some religions but not others. What religions you can make fun of is determined by Christians ... like Scientology for example
Good thing we have them around to define whats ok to make fun of and what isn't

[Science is Fun]

Funny thing they are passing an expansion on hate crime legislation in the U.S. right now to include those of different sexual orientations . A lot of conservative Christians are complaining that it discriminates against Christians becouse it punishes them for for discrimintatins agianst homosexuals.

They honestly don't see the irony in this

[Science is Fun]

I really think this will clear things up for a lot of people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LAZgcC3jgo

[Haunted]

What, exactly, has religion ever done to YOU?

personally? Nothing. Does it follow that since it does not affect me personally that I should stay quiet and let it continue to be, as I see it, an oppressive force holding back the human race?

As for Jefferson, he was a self confessed Deist. Which, arguably, is as close to atheism as any free thinker got in those days. He was critical of religion, but not perhaps faith itself.

Find me a quote where Jefferson is mocking or ridiculing religion as such, and not just merely criticising it

Being the politician he was I doubt such a quote exists.
Again, besides the point.

Anything which people believe in can foster fanaticism

I have not said otherwise. Though when people do get fanatical about things other than religion they are deemed "mentally ill" by society.

Blind patriotism can be just as destructive as blind faith.

Let's take the case of suicide bombers, which you briefly mentioned. The Tamil Tigers were the first terrorist/national liberation group to utilize suicide bombing, and they remain the leaders in numbers of attacks and the development of methodologies. Their conflict has nothing to do with religion. It is entirely a case of nationalism.

Never said all suicide bombers did it for religious reasons. As I've said, blind nationalism/patriotism can be manipulated and turned into something just as bad. Though the Tamil Tigers have been responsible for ethnically cleansing muslims.

Even in Palestine, the other leading center of suicide bombing (at least before the invasion of Iraq) I would argue that nationalism and the payments made to surviving family members of bombers do far more to facilitate attacks than does religion.

Such offers only serve to sweeten the pot. If the potential bombers were not being led to believe that there is a paradise filled with virgins for them, then they would be very reluctant to strap tnt on.

conditioned to act inhumanely toward other people... this is not a problem of religion

I never said the problem was unique to religion. Though there are plenty of times when national interests have been backed up by pastors and preists to convince people that it is the right thing when the reality may be far from it.

If you take away religion, people find other things to lose themselves in, other ways to lose perspective, other ways to convince themselves that it's ok to slaughter each other.

Bad people will do bad things, that much is universal. With proper education (and not teaching religious falsities) I believe people can be kept from losing perspective and with proper moral philosophy teaching the mindset that says its ok to be immoral can be educated otherwise.
Religion is still, arguably, the most powerful tool for justification of evil.

There is no religious element in the decision of the sweat shop owner to work his child-workers to death. There was no religious element in the decision to go to war in WWI. There was no religious angle to the dropping of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is no religious plot when con-men set up a pyramid scheme to deprive unwary investors of their hard earned incomes by buying shares in a widget factory or whatnot.

Again, I never said it is the cause of all the worlds ill's. Ridding the world of religion will not suddenly make everything peachy, there are plenty of other problems to solve.

But you don't see the world as it really is

I am speaking purely materially. I know why the tides move, I know why the sun sets, I know why I am here.

fundamental beliefs

By fundamental do you mean that which you have alwayd had intrinsically? Something which you didn't gain, nothing anyone told you? I don't think there is such a thing as 'fundamental' belief (morals perhaps, but that is different). There is that which you have been told, sometimes you are told to accept it. Why do christians parents have christian children?

You don't have any more right to tell someone what to believe than a priest does.

I would argue that scientists have this right, they are the ones who bring the real knowledge of the universe to the people, thus they have the 'right' to tell you and to point out any errors you have made.

But your position takes just as much faith as mine does

I have to disagree. There is no evidence whatsoever for a higher power, therefore I conclude that there is no higher power. Replace the words higher power in there with the words fairies or FSM or Zeus etc.
You position is to conclude there is a higher power. The burden of proof is on you. Just because Gods existance cannot be outright disproven does not mean that his existance is equally probable. The more we learn about the universe the more increasingly unlikely it is for a God to exist. If you have even the slightest proof of the existence of anything supernatural then I will retract everything. Until then, you have to accept that all the knowledge we have points distinctly at a total lack of higher power.

it is more comfortable than accepting the possibility that there may be more than meets the eye to the universe

. Why is a godless universe with physical mysteries still not completely understood more comfortable than one with a higher power watching over me and, if I'm good, will let me in the nice place?

I would much rather live in a universe with a God. The promise of eternal paradise would be enough of a bribe for me to do anything that God would tell me.
I'd quite happily settle for eternal damnation than simply ceasing to exist, it sounds much more interesting.

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
- Isaac Asimov

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Mr Comedy]

Quoting Haunted from 23:49, 8th May 2007
Religion fosters fanaticism.

That is a ludicrous statement. Nailing fanaticism to the door of religion is a outright fallacy.
If we look at the major conflicts of the 20th Century, and fantatical dictatorships, these are overwhelmingly caused by atheists. I take the Nazi Holocaust a case in point.

...all caused ultimately by a belief in a higher power.

Errant nonsense. The point is that extreme actions such as fanaticism, mass murder, ethnic cleansing etc are justified under any banner of cause, and that one generally appeals to a higher authority to add legality.
For example, fantacists appeal to the ideas of state, national identity, religion, or any other raft of ideas that will unify people behind their cause.

I will not stand for the argument that religion somehow breeds and encourages fanatical behaviours. As this cannot be demonstrated in any form of statistics apart from a few examples then you cannot use this as a coherent point of argumentation.
I'll happily hear arguments that you have about organised religion, but unfortunately this one doesn't hold water.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[Mr Comedy]

Quoting Haunted from 23:49, 8th May 2007
Religion fosters fanaticism.

That is a ludicrous statement. Nailing fanaticism to the door of religion is a outright fallacy.
If we look at the major conflicts of the 20th Century, and fantatical dictatorships, these are overwhelmingly caused by atheists. I take the Nazi Holocaust a case in point.

...all caused ultimately by a belief in a higher power.

Errant nonsense. The point is that extreme actions such as fanaticism, mass murder, ethnic cleansing etc are justified under any banner of cause, and that one generally appeals to a higher authority to add legality.
For example, fantacists appeal to the ideas of state, national identity, religion, or any other raft of ideas that will unify people behind their cause.

I will not stand for the argument that religion somehow breeds and encourages fanatical behaviours. As this cannot be demonstrated in any form of statistics apart from a few examples then you cannot use this as a coherent point of argumentation.
I'll happily hear arguments that you have about organised religion, but unfortunately this one doesn't hold water.

And where has your intolerance of rape, mass murder, ethnic cleansing etc come from? In an atheistic society there is no moral standpoint to come from, as there is no universal higher power. If Bin Laden wants to denotate Westerners, bully for him. That's his personal choice, and can't be invalidated. Similarly, if an Amazonian tribe still practises cannibalism, then that's just fine. It's their culture's value code, and I'm all for it. The Incas sacrificed children, and that's just fine. Hitler's Nazi Germany thought that gassing thousands of Jews was a national level solution. Well done them. Their culture, their value codes. That's the only possible justification for morals in an atheistic society, isn't it?

Or do you have a coherent athesistic argument why they shouldn't do whatever they feel like?
As quotes are the order of the day, try this one for size:

""Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and can't really get rid of it."
C.S Lewis

(edited for formatting)
[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung
[/quote]

[Haunted]

Hitler was a Catholic, and the bible doesn't seem to have much problem with genocide.
Stalin didn't murder those people in the name of atheism.
Bad people will do bad things.

..all caused ultimately by a belief in a higher power.

Errant nonsense.

You take this out of context. Suicide bombers and those whom killed the abortion doctors believed they were doing God's work and they believed they would ultimately be rewarded for it.

I've admitted that religion isnt the sole cause of fanaticism. Though they don't get referred to pyschotherapists as often as those whom are fanatical about non-religious things.

I will not stand for the argument that religion somehow breeds and encourages fanatical behaviours.

Southern preachers used the Bible to justify slavery by claiming Africans were descendants of Abraham's sinful son.

During the Crusades, "pagans" and "heretics" who would not convert to Christianity were murdered.

Can you argue that religion isn't being used to promote intolerance to homosexuals today?

EDIT: you added more

In an atheistic society there is no moral standpoint to come from, as there is no universal higher power

.

So religion is a precurser for morality?
I wonder how our caveman buddies got on back in the day? (I trust you accept evolution).
Are you saying that if there was no god you'd be happy with a bit of rape and murder? Why not, theres no punishment after death for it eh?
Or perhaps it is possible that some fundamental morals are hard-wired into our brains because those cavemen that were nice to each other survived better than those who didn't?
[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Mr Comedy]

Can you argue why these actions are unacceptable in an atheistic framework?
Saying bad people will do bad things is only fair enough if you have a moral reference point to determine between right and wrong.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[Haunted]

Excellent quote, honestly.

The origin of morality is an interesting subject. Would we be moral without religion?
Yes, I absolutely wholeheartedly believe so.

You are correct when you say there is no ultimate power to answer to from an atheistic point of view. Therefore why aren't all atheists evil?
Simple, human nature. There is an intrinsic moral code within everyone. Probably as a result of cooperation leading to better survival back in the day.
The philosophies of humanism are worth a read.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Mr Comedy]

Quoting Haunted from 09:42, 9th May 2007

So religion is a precurser for morality?

I would argue that the existence of a God is the basis for morality.

(I trust you accept evolution).

Actually, no I don't, but that's an aside.
I find historial events in the geological record such as the Cambrian Explosion wholly inconsistent with the theory of evolution.

Are you saying that if there was no god you'd be happy with a bit of rape and murder? Why not, theres no punishment after death for it eh?

Absolutely, I'm all for it. In an evolutionary framework my sole purpose is to reproduce and die. The only 'purpose' that I fufil is to pass on my genetic makeup to the next generation. That's what evolution is all about - survival of the fittest. I reckon I should get as many of my genes out there as possible. If that's via rape, who are you to condemn me? Evolutionary theory positively condones the idea.

Or perhaps it is possible that some fundamental morals are hard-wired into our brains because those cavemen that were nice to each other survived better than those who didn't?

Nonsense. Are you honestly trying to tell me that cavemen or any other type of human are subject to a different law? Rape, fighting and killing of lesser rivals are prevalent in the animal kingdom. This ensures that the strongest genome prevails. Why is this different outside the animal kingdom, which we evolved from? When did this seismic shift happen, and why? What does evolution have to do with being nice? This is also true of the human race, and what we see in the so-called 'savage' tribes before we opened them up to Western thinking. The strongest male was the one who was privileged enough to spread his genes around.

Morals being hard-wired in? It doesn't make sense in an evolutionary context, unless you are trying to justify creation of humans as seperate from the rest of the animal kingdom. If this is the direction you are going in, you are walking down a dangerous path for an atheist, my friend.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn[/quote]

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[Haunted]

(Evolution deals only with how life changes, NOT how it originated, thats abiogeneis, which is I trust the issue you have with the sudden appearance of the fossil record?)
Well ok. I trust you accept that genetic traits can be passed generation to generation?

Absolutely, I'm all for it. In an evolutionary framework my sole purpose is to reproduce and die

I find this hard to accept. If the world proved tomorrow that there is no God you would instantly start killing and raping indescriminately?
That's 'errant nonsense.'

Historically though, evolution has worked on producing biomachines that are better adapted to surviving (in their respective enviroments). So yes, a successful organism is one that reproduces the most.
Now, is that reason enough for to justify rape? Would you not worry about the swift reprisal you would get? Of course not.

We as humans have acheived self awareness and can choose to overule our basic instincts. Why? Because we want to. We want to live in a world where everyone gets along (is there an arguement against this?). We enjoy good company of other sentients and we would not desire to deliberately upset them because we do not wish to be alone. Intrinsic desires.

Survival of the fittest is not a moral code.

Rape, fighting and killing of lesser rivals are prevalent in the animal kingdom

Only in the lesser species. Monkeys have demonstrated plenty of altruistic traits. So have dolphins and elephants. A troop of monkeys is more successful at surviving if they work together. As Dawkins said, its the genes that are selfish, not the gene carrying machine.

so-called 'savage' tribes before we opened them up to Western thinking

.
Now thats offensive. Are you honestly claiming that all tribes are barbaric savages with no moral code? And that they are barbaric because we haven't brought God to them yet?

Morals being hard-wired in? It doesn't make sense in an evolutionary context

A group of organisms that cooperate will have have a better chance at survival than a group that doesn't. Ergo, altruistic traits will live on.

you are trying to justify creation of humans as seperate from the rest of the animal kingdom

As I said there are examples of altruism in species other than humans, so I see no conflict.

(as an aside, Intelligent design or young earth creationism?)

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

(Evolution deals only with how life changes, NOT how it originated, thats abiogeneis, which is I trust the issue you have with the sudden appearance of the fossil record?)
Well ok. I trust you accept that genetic traits can be passed generation to generation?

Absolutely, I'm all for it. In an evolutionary framework my sole purpose is to reproduce and die

I find this hard to accept. If the world proved tomorrow that there is no God you would instantly start killing and raping indescriminately?
That's 'errant nonsense.'

Historically though, evolution has worked on producing biomachines that are better adapted to surviving (in their respective enviroments). So yes, a successful organism is one that reproduces the most.
Now, is that reason enough for to justify rape? Would you not worry about the swift reprisal you would get? Of course you would.

We as humans have acheived self awareness and can choose to overule our basic instincts. Why? Because we want to. We want to live in a world where everyone gets along (is there an arguement against this?). We enjoy good company of other sentients and we would not desire to deliberately upset them because we do not wish to be alone. Intrinsic desires.

Survival of the fittest is not a moral code.

Rape, fighting and killing of lesser rivals are prevalent in the animal kingdom

Only in the lesser species. Monkeys have demonstrated plenty of altruistic traits. So have dolphins and elephants. A troop of monkeys is more successful at surviving if they work together. As Dawkins said, its the genes that are selfish, not the gene carrying machine.

so-called 'savage' tribes before we opened them up to Western thinking

.
Now thats offensive. Are you honestly claiming that all tribes are barbaric savages with no moral code? And that they are barbaric because we haven't brought God to them yet?

Morals being hard-wired in? It doesn't make sense in an evolutionary context

A group of organisms that cooperate will have have a better chance at survival than a group that doesn't. Ergo, altruistic traits will live on.

you are trying to justify creation of humans as seperate from the rest of the animal kingdom

As I said there are examples of altruism in species other than humans, so I see no conflict.

(as an aside, Intelligent design or young earth creationism?)

"An itinerant selfish gene
Said ‘Bodies a-plenty I’ve seen.
You think you’re so clever
But I’ll live forever.
You’re just a survival machine.'"
- Richard Dawkins

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Gubbins]

Ok, I've got a lot to catch up on...

I'd agree with Haunted that religion allows the believer to lose perspective. Throughout history, the progress of science has been held back, predominantly by the Christian church and its beliefs - Galileo and others were imprisoned for their admonishment of the geocentric solar system; we are still having debates about whether Darwinian evolution is the accepted science today, when scientific method is quite clear-cut on this (whether you believe it or not is another matter); not to mention the impact that the insistence the Universe is only 6000 years old has had on estimating the age of the Earth and the scale and age of the Universe.

Furthermore, if one accepts the (hypothetical) situation that there is no form of higher power, then the amount of time and money that individuals put into religion could undoubtedly be used more fruitfully.

I would also be happy to accept that religion has the potential to nurture fantatics. People who would otherwise be quite happy noting down train numbers can be convinced to blow themselves up in a holy war.

I think the statistics for religious belief Haunted has quoted are somewhat extreme examples. Just to prove we can all quote Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationsh ... nd_science
See especially section 3.

LonelyPilgrim: the suicide attacks in Palestine may not be facilitated entirely by religion, but it remains a large component of the driving forces. Besides, were it not for religion, the state of Israel likely would not exist anyway. The same argument can be applied to Northern Ireland and many other places in the world with 'troubles': religion is a compounding issue that help accelerate the process.

To make a mis-quote: Religion does not kill people, fanaticism kills people. But religion is a tool used by fanatics to further their ends. Does that mean we should ban religion? No. Does that mean that religion is the only all-good, all-shining beacon of hope and sense and hope in this world? Clearly not, but some continue to believe that it holds all the answers.

Haunted: re: African-Americans / Crusades, etc., you forgot to mention the Spanish Inquisition.

Mr Comedy: concerning moral standpoints, one could argue that the atheistic moral standpoint is the one that best benefits human society. Altruism has been seen in several different primates (see, e.g. Warneken et al., Science, 2006) and most other comparatively intelligent species, such as dogs, dolphins and elephants. (Reading on, I see Haunted has already made this point, but it stands).

Believing in one thing or another is a personal choice. However, it is interesting to view how ideas and beliefs have changed throughout the ages. Taking the example of Western society, we see that since the dawn of modern scientific method, we have stopped believing in mermaids and witchcraft, we have stopped viewing comets and earthquakes as signs of the impending apocalypse, we have stopped believing in a physical presence for Heaven and Hell, we have stopped believing that the Sun goes round the Earth, we have proved beyond scientific uncertainty that the Earth and Universe are several thousand million years old and that humans evolved from other creatures.

Does this mean science is a new religion? By definition, it does not. Does it have all the answers? Again, as science is the pursuit of knowledge and truth, yes.

Science is saying that we no longer have to accept things on blind faith: we need to look at the world without preconceptions and figure out what is really happening, because all religions can't be right. If that leads to a discovery of God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies or a chocolate teapot orbiting Mars, so be it. So far, the evidence is against it, and with the history of reduction to ridicule of many tenets of (certainly Christian) religious belief, I wonder where, and indeed if, that process will end.

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.