Quote of the Day

_{Barry Arrington

April 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Some [men] kill because their faiths explicitly command them to do so, some kill though their faiths explicitly forbid them to do so, and some kill because they have no faith and hence believe all things are permitted to them. Polytheists, monotheists, and atheists kill – indeed, this last class is especially prolifically homicidal, if the evidence of the twentieth century is to be consulted. Men kill for their gods, or for their God, or because there is no God and the destiny of humanity must be shaped by gigantic exertions of human will . . .

Men will always seek gods in whose name they may perform great deeds or commit unspeakable atrocities . . . Then again, men also kill on account of money, land, love, pride, hatred, envy or ambition.

Does religious conviction provide a powerful reason for killing? Undeniably it often does. It also often provides the sole compelling reason for refusing to kill, or for being merciful, or for seeking peace; only the profoundest ignorance of history could prevent one from recognizing this. For the truth is that religion and irreligion are cultural variables, but killing is a human constant.

David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions, 12-13

Can anyone possibly doubt that these claims are true. They are practically self-evident. Thus, the currency of the “religion is the cause of all violence” dogma currently fashionable among the new atheists is all but inexplicable on rational grounds.

Comments

----Allen: "BTW, if you think taxes are not extorted through the use of deadly force, try not paying yours and see if the guy who eventually comes to take your house and other property away from you has a gun on his hip." Yes, indeed. The Internal Revenue Service is the business end of liberal compassion.StephenB_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Allan MacNeill writes: “BTW, if you think taxes are not extorted through the use of deadly force, try not paying yours and see if the guy who eventually comes to take your house and other property away from you has a gun on his hip.” Dang Allan. You and I may not agree very often on these philosophical issues, but I think we would be fast friends on fiscal issues. ;-)Barry Arrington_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

vjtorley, It may be counter-intuitive but it is my understanding that Europe has stricter abortion laws than the U.S., and is far less weird about public displays of religion. I remember visiting Slovakia not long after the wall came down and seeing blatantly Christian memorials-- built under the communists -- that would have been prohibited by the courts here. Further it is my understanding that in many European countries -- such as Sweden and the U.K. -- they start the school day with prayer.tribune7_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Re: angryoldfatman I didn't ignore the other two quotes. I addressed both of them in my post #50, and neither of them supported your argument. I'm not even sure what to say about all the personal attacks against me in the rest of your post. I'm a layman too, yet somehow I still have time to read books, and I like to think that I am intellectually honest enough to avoid criticizing authors that I haven't read. It blows me away that you're still hammering away at this point and yet you still admit that you have no clue about what any of these authors actually wrote.DanSLO_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

---David Kellogg: "StephenB, do you want, in hazel’s words, “to really understand an alternative view,” or do you merely want to “prove such an alternative view . . . invalid”? Your answer suggests the latter." David, go to the back of the class with Hazel. To review again: View #1, (My view:) [A] Humans are made in the image and likeness of God, therefore, [B] they have human dignity, therefore, [C] they deserve to live and should not be murdered. [D] [That includes unborn babies] View #2, (Hazel's view:) [A] ???????????????????therefore [B] Humans have inherent dignity, therefore, [C] they ought not to be murdered. [D] [Does that include unborn babies?] I am not, therefore, refusing to understand Hazel's position; I am asking for her to ARTICULATE IT. That means filling the blanks named [A} and [D} Are we clear now? I would also be interested in hearing about your position on the matter, or do you prefer only to scrutinize and never be scrutinized?StephenB_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

For those that do not accept a congenital basis for atheism I recommend "Born That Way" by William Wright. There is no longer any question about which is the more important, Nature or Nurture. Nature wins hands down. That is why that book in on my side board under "Important Books." I have another side board listing entitled "Darwinian Sorcery." There you will find Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb including After the Bar Closes, richarddawkins.net, EvC, The Evolution List, The Loom and others. The only way to deal with Darwinians is to respond to them with thigh-slapping hilarity, just as Adam Sedgwick did when he read Darwin's book On the Origin of Species, hot off the presses! "The one thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history." Anonymous?JohnADavison_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

I should also qualify my statements about Buddhism by noting that the version of Buddhism that I have practiced for most of my life is Zen Buddhism, Rinzai sect. And, as I have already noted in previous threads, I have been a member of the Ithaca Monthly Meeting of Friends ("Quakers") for more than 30 years. Also, neither Zen nor Friends practice prohibit anyone from being members of other religions nor holding "unorthodox" beliefs, so long as those beliefs do not directly contradict the generally accepted precepts of Zen and Friends practice.Allen_MacNeill_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

I left out a word in my preceding post. "However, I do think that a fair-minded person would conclude that the sociological case against religion is a weak one." Sorry.vjtorley_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Barry, This is just an opinion, but I am convinced it is useless to try to reason with homozygous Darwinians like Allen MacNeill. You would have just as much luck with P.Z. Myers, Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. Those cowards are afraid to even show their faces outside their own personal little ghettos. They are also MacNeill's heros judging from his blogroll. The other recommendation I offer is to stop allowing anonymous blowhards from commenting. If they had anything of real value to present they would be using their real names. I don't allow that kind of intellectual cowardice on my weblog any more. It is the bane of rational communication and should never have been condoned in the first place. Comments from unknown sources shouldn't even be acknowledged. I say delete them and those anonymous blowhards that respond to them. If that policy were enforced theyall would soon stop behaving as they do. All they really want is to see their pathetic little egos expressed in the ephemeral world of cyberdumb. They are pathetic. Just some thoughts.JohnADavison_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

iconofid
Then, if we look amongst the western countries, the United States has the highest level of theism. It also has the highest percentage of its population in prison, and the highest murder rate amongst those remaining outside. So, having visited Sweden and having lived for some years in France, I wonder how dire these inevitable consequences of the “atheist worldview” are?
I think you must be referring to the study, Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies by Gregory Paul. You should know that Paul's research has been critiqued by Gerson Moreno-Riano, Mark Caleb Smith, and Thomas Mach in their article, Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health and also by George H. Gallup, Jr. in his article, Dogma Bites Man and by Scott Gilbreath in his article From our bulging “How not to do statistics” file. On the social benefits of religion, the article, Bird's Eye (God & Faith in our society and impact on personal lives) by Karl Zinsmeister, makes a sociological case for the benefits of religion. Although not a scholarly article, it certainly offers food for thought. The article discusses areas such as substance abuse, marriage and family life, sexual behaviour, altruism, health and happiness. Whereas the study by Gregory Paul compared sociological data between different First World countries (a procedure which is fraught with peril, as social conditions vary widely between different nations, and some countries lag behind others in terms of social trends), this report examined one country (the USA) and cited studies supporting the conclusion that socially aberrant behaviour correlated with lack of religiosity. In the interests of fairness, I should say that one major limitation of Zinsmeister's article is that there are no references in the article to the studies he cites. Curious readers might want to email Zinsmeister. I have visited Sweden and France and very much enjoyed staying in both countries. (I also enjoyed back-packing around 34 states of the USA in three months, back in 1994/95, when I had nothing to guide me except my Greyhound bus schedule and my "Let's Go USA" travel guide!) However, I do think that a fair-minded person would conclude that the sociological case religion is a weak one. Iconofid, I assume your comment about babies being born atheists was a facetious one. After all, babies are born lacking a "theory of mind," too (see http://www.interdisciplines.org/coevolution/papers/1 ). Allen MacNeill (#168): thanks for your kind remarks.vjtorley_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

No, but I’m also a Libertarian, so I don’t think that any organization should have “public” funding, if by “public” you mean “money extorted from others through the use of deadly force”. I agree 100 percent, and you are right that tax money is collected through deadly force.tribune7_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Shinto and Buddhism bear about as much relationship to each other as Protestantism and poker. And to stay on point, they are the religions of Japan, which you are citing as an example of a place with a low murder rate that has not been historically subject to the 6th Commandment. “And Buddhism certainly teaches that there is hell and heaven if you will, and that murder is evil.” . . .Buddhism most certainly does not teach any such thing. There is no “heaven” or “hell” in Buddhism, Well, I'm not going to claim to be an expert in Buddhism but googling +buddhism +hell gets you 1.49 million hits and this definition seems to be a standard one:
25. The concept of Hell(s) in Buddhism is very different from that of other religions. It is not a place for eternal damnation as viewed by 'almighty creator' religions. In Buddhism, it is just one of the six realms in Samsara [i.e. the worst of three undesirable realms]. Also, there are virtually unlimited number of hells in the Buddhist cosmology as there are infinite number of Buddha worlds.
Again, to stay on point, the idea is that there is a revealed spiritual punishment for Buddhists who commit murder. I’m not suggesting this, I’m stating it as a simple fact; there is no such thing as an “eternal soul” in Buddhism. Again, I'm not going to claim expertise in Buddhism. It has always been my understanding the one's soul is reborn until one reaches Nirvana. It looks like I'm wrong, and I'm happy to be corrected.tribune7_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

For the record, I too tend to disagree with some of what Richard Dawkins writes, partly because I think he is arguing by assertion rather than on the basis of evidence, and partly because I think that his definition of evolution (i.e. that it ultimately reduces to changes in gene frequencies) is fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, I believe that the trend in current evolutionary theory is away from the Dawkins/"modern synthesis" definition of genetic evolution and towards a version more compatible with Gould's (and Darwin's) version of phenotypic evolution.Allen_MacNeill_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

mauka, whoever that is and I am sure we will never know. "Pepsi Cola hits the spot, twelve full ounces that's a lot" is hardly from the thirties. I am sure it is familiar to most adults. ____________________________________ Hazel, whoever that is and I am sure we will never know. I became a Roman Catholic at the age of seventy and I was never an atheist at any time in my entire life. Atheism is a congenital deficiency disease for which no cure is yet available. So is political liberalism. I have concluded from my over half century in the halls of academe that they sre probably pleiotropic effects of the same hereditary defect. Speaking as a scientist, any person who is so out of touch with reality as to deny even the PAST existence of an unknown number of what we now call Gods, is in my mind a fool. The notion that life spontaneously originated and then evolved is absurd on the face of it. I thought Pasteur had laid that insanity to rest long ago, as had Redi and Spallanzani long before him. That it still persists in the minds of congenital atheists (Darwinians) is one of the great mysteries of the Twenty-first century. It is hard to believe isn't it? Not at all. It is displayed right here for all to see. I love it so!JohnADavison_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

For those who are interested in what genuine evolutionary psychologists think about this issue, here are some direct quotes from Richerson, P. & Boyd, R. (2006) Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, University of Chicago Press, ISBN #0226712125, 342 pages:
"Culture is crucial for understanding human behavior. People acquire beliefs and values from the people around them, and you can't explain human behavior without taking this reality into account....Culturally acquired ideas are crucially important for explaining a wide range of human behavior — opinions, beliefs, and attitudes, habits of thought, language, artistic styles, tools and technology, and social rules and political institutions."
and
"Culture is part of biology....Much evidence suggests that we have an evolved psychology that shapes what we learn and how we think, and that this in turn influences the kind of beliefs and attitudes that spread and persist. Theories that ignore these connections cannot adequately account for much of human behavior. At the same time, culture and cultural change cannot be understood solely in terms of innate psychology. Culture affects the succes and survival of individuals and groups; as a result, some cultural variants spread and others diminish, leading to evolutionary processes that are every bit as real and important as those that shape genetic variation. These culturally evolved environments then affect which genes are favored by natural selection. Over the evolutionary long haul, culture has shaped our innate psychology as much as the other way around."
My only quibble with the latter quote is that I would reword the next-to-last sentence to read: "These culturally evolved environments then affect which heritable phenotypes are favored by natural selection.Allen_MacNeill_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

To all and sundry: I sincerely apologize for the length of time it usually takes for my comments to appear, and for the fact that the numbers which I refer to are often incorrect. I write my comments almost immediately, but it sometimes takes several hours to more than a day for some of them to emerge from moderation (and some never do). Please understand that I am not purposefully ignoring your comments, nor am I deliberately scrambling my references to comment numbers. I have asked several times to be taken off moderation, so far to no avail.Allen_MacNeill_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Just for fun: I toss these two into the pot: 1] Hawthorne on ethics and evolutionary materialist atheism (the relevant kind): >> Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action. (This is just the standard inferential scheme for formal deontic logic.) We've conformed to standard principles and inference rules of logic and we've started out with assumptions that atheists have conceded in print. And yet we reach the absurd conclusion: therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time.>> [Here] 2] my own summary for training purposes: >> . . . [evolutionary] materialism [a worldview that often likes to wear the mantle of "science"] . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance. But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance ["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning ["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism].) Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited! Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic . . . . In Law, Government, and Public Policy, the same bitter seed has shot up the idea that "Right" and "Wrong" are simply arbitrary social conventions. This has often led to the adoption of hypocritical, inconsistent, futile and self-destructive public policies. "Truth is dead," so Education has become a power struggle; the victors have the right to propagandise the next generation as they please. Media power games simply extend this cynical manipulation from the school and the campus to the street, the office, the factory, the church and the home . . . . >> [here] Just for fun GEM of TKI PS: Jerry, add in the personalisation of the need for power and the highly machiavellian tendencies.kairosfocus_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

For the record, I'm an atheist who is not a Dawkins fan in regards to his thoughts on atheism and religion. Don't throw us all into the same bag.hazel_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

As to which candidates I vote for, I tend to support those whose positions are closest to the positions I believe in. During the last election cycle that was Dr. Ron Paul, but when he wasn't nominated and chose not to run for POTUS (and the Libertarian Party put up a jerk with no real Libertarian credentials or history), I made my choice on the basis of which candidate I thought would be better for the nation in the long run. Who that was is none of your business (nor anyone else's), at least until the secret ballot is repealed in America.Allen_MacNeill_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

In #180 tribune7 asked:
"...do you believe that organizations that perform abortions should receive public funding."
No, but I'm also a Libertarian, so I don't think that any organization should have "public" funding, if by "public" you mean "money extorted from others through the use of deadly force". BTW, if you think taxes are not extorted through the use of deadly force, try not paying yours and see if the guy who eventually comes to take your house and other property away from you has a gun on his hip.Allen_MacNeill_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

DATCG wrote:
"I wonder how many members [the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League] have? I’m glad it exist. But I doubt it is 1% of Judeo-Christian organizations size."
Might that be because thee are many more Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Mormons than atheists/agnostics? As for the number of atheists that I know who are members of the organizations that you list, I don't know. I find that most people I know do not push their beliefs on me, and so I don't really know what organizations they support (or don't support). As for myself, I support the American Friends Service Committee (the service arm of the Society of Friends/Quakers, of which I am a long-time member). Friends are very pro-life (including an absolute stand against the death penalty under any circumstances), but they are also committed to personal, usually silent, non-coercive witness for our beliefs. Does that answer your question?Allen_MacNeill_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Allen, just curious but do you believe that organizations that perform abortions should receive public funding.tribune7_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

pardon the lost blockquote above comment.DATCG_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

And, of course, Buddhism does indeed have an absolute prohibition against murder, which in many cases extends to all sentient beings. That's why most Buddhists try to be strict vegetarians (although some of us backslide at times...)Allen_MacNeill_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

StephenB said, "On the other hand, when the heat is on, that is when the real philosophy of life comes out. That’s when we say, “I’m personally opposed, but……… we must kill for the “greater good.” How many atheists do you know who will defend the life of an unborn baby?" Good question. This does not appear to be a personal attack. Allen said,
"All of the atheists I know would do this..." And I ask, do what Allen? Can you expand? For example, fight to elect Pro-Life judges? Vote for pro-life candidates? Give money to pro-life organizations? "All" of the atheists you know would do these things or some of them to protect the unborn? Protest in front of abortion clinics? March on Washington DC? What do you mean by the words, "would do this" Allen? Lets not make it personal. Fighting for the rights of the unborn is not limited to your peronal experience. It is a much larger picture and you know the issues. So, what would "all" the atheist do? And how many do you know that have done the list I gave you? Majority of atheist I know Allen won't do jack for the unborn. However, if it is their child and they desire to have a baby, yes, that is much different and they'll fight with all their life for the survival of their baby. If they want it. But thats much different than fighting for another innocent life, isn't it Allen? I just want to be clear on what "all" your atheist friends do support, besides a personal experience that you mention.
"So, stephenB, got any more self-righteous character assassination up your sleeve, or are you simply going to repeat the same baseless and insulting garbage over and over and over again?"
Actually, it appears you are the one who is attacking Stephen. He merely asked a simple question about atheist you might know. As have I asked you simple questions that are not personal, but about what actions atheist take. I'll say it again. All agnostics or atheist I've known, with the exception of one, would not fight for the unborn. And I was quite surprised this person did. Frankly, your experience with "all" the atheist you know, fighting for the rights of "other" unborn, ifnot in their family is an anamoly. Whereas Christians are all over the place depending upon diverse issues such as denominations or church attendence. Are your friends members of the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life Organization Allen? Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League I wonder how many members they have? I'm glad it exist. But I doubt it is 1% of Judeo-Christian organizations size. What do you think Allen?
DATCG_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

In #173 tribune7 wrote:
"There is certainly a “divine” something in Shinto and that includes teaching murder to be a sin."
Shinto and Buddhism bear about as much relationship to each other as Protestantism and poker. In Shinto there are literally billions of "gods" (referred to as "kami"). In Buddhism there are absolutely no gods of any kind. Strictly speaking, therefore, Buddhism is an atheist religion. Only people whose definition of religion excludes everything except the Abrahamic religions would fail to grasp this point.
"And Buddhism certainly teaches that there is hell and heaven if you will, and that murder is evil."
Buddhism most certainly does not teach any such thing. There is no "heaven" or "hell" in Buddhism, nor is there anything like the Platonic Greek/Christian "soul". Try reading virtually any introduction to Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism, and be "enlightened" as to this point.
Further, “enlightenment” does not come from some material source.
On this point (and only this point) I completely agree.
You’re not suggesting Buddhism denies an eternal soul
I'm not suggesting this, I'm stating it as a simple fact; there is no such thing as an "eternal soul" in Buddhism. Indeed, one of the "pillars" of Buddhism is the concept of anatman, Sanskrit for "no soul". According to Buddhist metaphysics, our perception of a "soul" is an illusion; clinging to that illusion is the source of human suffering ("dukha"), which manifests itself in the endless field of cause and effect ("karma") which has its origin in chaos ("anika").
"...or is unspiritual are you?"
That depends on what you define as "spiritual". If by "spiritual" you mean "having an immortal soul", then the answer is yes, Buddhism is relentlessly "non-spiritual". However, if by "spiritual" you mean "with reference to non-material things" then the answer is no: that which the Buddha points to is beyond all materialistic distinctions.
"And you really, really aren’t suggesting we abolish the 6th commandment, are you?
Not at all; what I'm suggesting is that the mere existence of the 6th commandment has virtually no bearing on whether people murder or not. What makes people do what they do is a complex blend of innate and learned (i.e. "cultural") tendencies. What I and other evolutionary psychologists are interested in is just exactly what are these tendencies, how do they develop in the life of individuals and their societies, what environmental and genetic forces contribute to them, and (if we can figure these things out) what can we do about it?Allen_MacNeill_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

DanSLO @ 81 wrote:
If you really think that 5 minutes of Googling gives you enough perspective to criticize an entire movement, I don’t know what to say.
It's a movement now? I've been told one of the great things about atheism is that it's non-conformist, free-thinking, and liberating, without all that nonsense of groupthink and "movements". As far as the five minutes go, I'm a layman who earns a living doing (something close to) real work. I don't have the time nor inclination to write 150 page, deeply researched essays for every wet-behind-the-ears Dawkins lapdog who'll just ignore them anyway and regurgitate their masters' pabulum.
As someone else pointed out, one of the people you quoted is not even an atheist - Kimball is a Baptist minister.
And as I said earlier, his book is a favorite among the new atheists because of its wonderful message that "more wars have been waged, more people killed, and these days more evil perpetrated in the name of religion than by any other institutional force in human history". And it's very telling that you studiously ignore the other two quotes and don't address any of the other points I made. (By the way, this is the part of the script where you say I didn't make any points - or at least any worth addressing.)angryoldfatman_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

In #154 Clive Hayden wrote:
"The laws of cultural evolution are nothing more than the laws of individual discernment, which is only the outcome of evolutionary standards. So my statement that all things that are known are only known on an individual level is exactly correct and true. I’m not the one conflating laws of nature with behavior, but evolutionary psychology should tell you that our behavior is the product of evolution, and thus evolutionary standards."
Please cite an evolutionary psychology text where anything like your ridiculous caricature is asserted. I suggest you start with the following: Buss, D. (2007) Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, Allyn & Bacon, ISBN #0205483380, 496 pages, available here: http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Psychology-New-Science-Mind/dp/0205483380/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240318737&sr=8-1 You could also try: Barrett, L., Dunbar, R., & Lycett, J. (2002) Human Evolutionary Psychology, Princeton University Press, ISBN #0691096228, 464 pages, available here: http://www.amazon.com/Human-Evolutionary-Psychology-Louise-Barrett/dp/0691096228/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240318912&sr=1-1 You might also take a look at: Richerson, P. & Boyd, R. (2006) Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, University of Chicago Press, ISBN #0226712125, 342 pages, available here: http://www.amazon.com/Not-Genes-Alone-Transformed-Evolution/dp/0226712125/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240319172&sr=1-1 And BTW, quoting from an article in a popular magazine does not constitute "evidence" (unless I can do the same when criticizing your position).Allen_MacNeill_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

Allen--Yes. To be very specific, there is no “divine” command in Buddhism not to murder, because there is no “divine” anything in Buddhism. Or are you arguing that Buddhists are, as a group, inclined to be depraved murderers? There is certainly a "divine" something in Shinto and that includes teaching murder to be a sin. And Buddhism certainly teaches that there is hell and heaven if you will, and that murder is evil. Further, "enlightenment" does not come from some material source. You're not suggesting Buddhism denies an eternal soul or is unspiritual are you? And you really, really aren't suggesting we abolish the 6th commandment, are you?tribune7_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

In #170 DATCG wrote:
"The masses bought into Hitlers master race. The masses also bought into Eugenics. Laws were made in America as well. Planned Parenthood was not started with good intentions. It was started at its very foundation as a racist hate-filled belief by its founder in Eugenics. The masses have bought into her agenda without even knowing it."
And these "masses" in Germany and America, they were overwhelmingly atheists, right? That's why they went along with Hitler and Sanger, because it agreed with and reinforced their atheism, right? Odd. I thought that Germany in the 1930s was overwhelmingly Lutheran (with Catholic running a distant second) and that America at the same time was overwhelmingly Protestant (again, with Catholic running a distant second). But, according to DATCG's argument, the overwhelming majority of these Christian "masses" went right along with Hitler and Sanger's atheism (and in America they still do; the majority of Christians support access to contraception and a woman's right to choose, just as Sanger hoped they would). In other words, it seems as if one's religious inclinations have virtually nothing to do with one's behavior. Rather, people do what they are motivated to do, and then use their religion (or lack of it) as a rationalization after the fact. Again, that's why as an evolutionary psychologist I'm interested in finding out why people do what they do, rather than why they say they do what they do (unless I'm interested in the human capacity for self-deception).Allen_MacNeill_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply