That pretty much sums it up...

[jgiffin]

An ethos of intolerance to anyone who is not you breeds nothing worth claiming my friend, and rubbing peoples noses in things isn't better either.

Dude, I just wanted to give you props for a semi-obscure reference to an 80s action movie. I love the David Banner call-back, too. Seriously. I'm not even joking; call me a nerd but I like that stuff.

Your response, however, is vaguely accusatory of moral solipsism. Fair enough but, I hope, not descriptive of anything I've expressed. That's a position Bohr would characterize as "not even wrong." Your original, much better, point seems to be that the religiously-inclined do bad things in the name of religion and the atheistically-inclined do bad things in the name of atheism. I think that's close. However, most of the latter don't take action out of atheism, per se, but some different positive motivation incongruous with religion. Atheism at, is core, is essentially a negative belief. It's difficult to get a positive act from a negative cause. More likely, they're motivated by another false idolatry. But it's all the same: on the larger scale, it seems better to judge the act, not the motivation.  Yeah, this all gets back to the utilitarian vs. Kantian argument but, ultimately, they're more opposed philosophically than practically.

Anyway, that's a long way from where I started. I just hope you hang around, post more stuff, and don't take anything posted by me or these other hosers too seriously.

[Hominid]

More likely, they're motivated by another false idolatry

Pls expound on this.

[amogorilla77]

Jgiffin my original point was the whole point. Like you say, good people do good things bad people do bad things and they will always use what tools they have at hand such as systems like religion and science which is all I wanted to say, but I can get a little Monkish (Tony Shalhoub not Gregorian chant) when you start citing things which makes me read and if it seems like you are picking and choosing the stuff you like and omitting the rest then I am going to question and it doesn't just apply to the atheist or religious call yourself Roger rabbit for all I care if you make me search then I am going to search to death and if I find that you are picking and choosing than I am going to question. I am 100% sure people lose faith as I am 100% sure people gain and maintain faith  and are also undecided in things, that is the nature of humanity. We are fickle beings who need affirmation in the things we believe from time to time even if it is only perceived that is more than enough to keep us going and if we don't have that affirmation then we go the other way or we convince ourselves that we are being tested because we can't imagine the world any other way. I didn't mean to give the perception of finger pointing. I meant to make the point of good to good and bad to bad the rest is just slight of hand meant to dazzle and confuse so that you take the bait. I take everything seriously as it is learning, but I hold onto learning only. The whole idea of taking offense at someone because they don't see as me is totally useless and given no hold because to give it hold is to keep from growing. And please don't equivocate the statement of taking all things seriously as meaning there is a stick where the sun don't shine. I party hard and never sweat the small stuff my friend. I appreciate the props and sorry if it felt like I was on the attack. I don't attack I chillax. A moment of anger is a lifetime of love lost so be not angry, but take merriment in those around you drink the drinks, dance the dances, and party on! until next time stay thirsty my friends.(props to Dos equis for one of the best coined phrases.)

[Hominid]

I'm done.

[BikerDude]

OK I grant that I should probably take Hominid's lead here but...

The problem I have with the term "in the name of religion" is that it dismisses the direct effect of scripture.
When southern states pointed to the bible as a defense for slavery and when they continually insisted that "God was on their side" it was the direct effect of scripture.
The same holds true of Homophobia and Misogeny and a host of other common social difficulties.
To say that people are doing this "in the name of religion" is to abstract it away from a direct cause and effect that seems to me to be obvious. The beliefs behind these things are implicit in the words. Not some abstract relationship. To say that they are using this as a tool is in my opinion to add nuance where none exists. It is no coincidence that we see Islamic suicide bombers while we don't see Buddhist suicide bombers. This is a direct effect of scripture that glorifies martyrdom. And to point out that this relationship is not the only factor is in my opinion irrelevant.

The old "good people do good things, bad people bad things" saying is incomplete. It continues "in order to get good people to do bad things you need religion". Of course it's simplistic. I'd include nationalism, racism and a number of other motivations. But to those other causes we do not apply a different standard. There is no one insisting that things are being done "in the name of Nazi'ism" or "in the name of Pol Pot'ism" or "in the name of the White power movement". In these cases we just see that people are motivated by bad ideas. And if someone were to suggest that we should respect Nazi's because a person might have a more nuanced reading of Mein Kampf would be laughable.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRDKf43o9tQ

[BikerDude]

Oh man, I dig me some Bertrand. Seriously. Greatest philosopher of the modern age. The philo-posers after him spouted infinite pools of irrelevancies. I'm looking at you, Lewis, Wittgenstein, and Derrida...

Russell was capable of great wisdom. But his views could be remarkably callous.
His position was that he saw no problem with the way that Europeans (to be Americans) eradicated the indigenous peoples.

By a "war of colonization" I mean a war whose purpose is to drive out the whole population of some territory and replace it by an invading population of a different race. Ancient wars were very largely of this kind, of which we have a good example in the Book of Joshua. In modern times the conflicts of Europeans with American-Indians, Maories, and other aborigines in temperate regions, have been of this kind. Such wars are totally devoid of technical justification, and are apt to be mor ruthless than any other war. Nevertheless, if we are to judge by results, we cannot regret that such wars have taken place. They have the merit, often quite fallaciously claimed for all wars, of leading in the main to the survival of the fittest, and it is chiefly through such wars that the civilized portion of the world has been extended from the neighborhood of the Mediterranean to the greater part of the earth?s surface. The eighteenth century, which liked to praise the virtues of the savage and contrast them with the gilded corruption of courts, nevertheless had no scruple in thrusting the noble savage out from his North American hunting grounds. And we cannot at this date bring ourselves to condemn the process by which the American continent has been acquired for European civilization. In order that such wars may be justified, it is necessary that there should be a very great and undeniable difference between the civilization of the colonizers and that of the dispossessed natives. It is necessary also that the climate should be one in which the invading race can flourish. When these conditions are satisfied the conquest becomes justified, though the actual fighting against the dispossessed inhabitants ought, of course, to be avoided as far as is compatible with colonizing. Many humane people will object in theory to the justification of this form of robbery, but I do not think that any practical or effective objection is likely to be made.

[jgiffin]

More likely, they're motivated by another false idolatry

Pls expound on this.

Just that people are generally more motivated to act by what they believe in, not what they disbelieve. Take your pick of the -isms: socialism, relativism, capitalism, liberalism. I had a couple beverages. The false idolatry thing sounded good but the old testament connotation didn't come across as ironic as I had hoped. I'm also now thinking Hegel would say the positive/negative motivation is false. They define each other in a sense. I dunno, maybe it was a dead end.

[Hominid]

I was just curious - it seemed like you were accusing atheists of lacking integrity, assuming their motivations are based on falsities.  Maybe I took it out of context.

EDIT:  This was meant for jgiffin.

[amogorilla77]

I understand your point. I know you think that I am just saying that because I don't end it there, but it isn't the effect of scripture, as I see it, it is not about scripture alone all words have power. And religion can make good men do bad things not because it is religion but because of the power of belief, and belief is not singularly held by the religious, but by all. You want good people to do bad things then you manipulate their beliefs. You become a distinguished member of their community and give them half truths feed them only the parts that justify their bad behaviors vindicating them of their guilt so they can go home happy. So when you say scrutinize and question I am on board. It is written in the scriptures as well(not just Christian) and even if it wasn't, for a seeker of wisdom and truth to stop and say "well heck it says so right in this one book right here no need to go further." proves them a fool in disguise. I would rather apologize to God or man for not taking them at their word than be the man I detest most. And if anyone ever feels as if I am crotchety then they should know that it is not a crotchetiness because of them but myself because I can picture myself becoming the monsters I hate and that completely bites. Which is why I will take knowledge from where ever I can find it be it the Bible, Koran, Vedic text, Zen, Buddha, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Ghengis Khan, Roman Empire, Scientific America, Atheist, Polytheist, Monotheist, Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Naruto, G.I. Joe, Heman, Voltron, etc.... No need to go further you can see were this is going. Knowledge is everywhere you just need to look. 

[jgiffin]

Such wars are totally devoid of technical justification, and are apt to be mor ruthless than any other war. Nevertheless, if we are to judge by results, we cannot regret that such wars have taken place.

BD: Sure, it's callous position but not irrational or unfounded. I'd maybe quibble at calling what happened with the american indians, at least on the whole, a "war" but the outcome was the same. That excerpt from Russell does sort of condone a soft social Darwinism. I'm okay with that.

Hom: I'm sure some atheists lack integrity; but probably no more than any other group.  I'm somewhere between an atheist and an anti-theist, myself.

Amo: Yeah, religion is no different than other belief structures that way. We're seeing a lot of it on the political and social science scenes now.

[amogorilla77]

jg the common denominator to them all is people. People who abuse knowledge, the people who support those people which is a mixture of personality types, and people who have an idea and want their ideology to be correct so badly because no one wants to be the one who was so blinded by the certainty of their beliefs only to be proven wrong. Which is why I am always right ha,ha,... Just kidding. I am a there are more things in heaven and earth kind of guy. 

[BikerDude]

Such wars are totally devoid of technical justification, and are apt to be mor ruthless than any other war. Nevertheless, if we are to judge by results, we cannot regret that such wars have taken place.

BD: Sure, it's callous position but not irrational or unfounded. I'd maybe quibble at calling what happened with the american indians, at least on the whole, a "war" but the outcome was the same. That excerpt from Russell does sort of condone a soft social Darwinism. I'm okay with that.

Hom: I'm sure some atheists lack integrity; but probably no more than any other group.  I'm somewhere between an atheist and an anti-theist, myself.

Amo: Yeah, religion is no different than other belief structures that way. We're seeing a lot of it on the political and social science scenes now.

I guess it's a personal choice. I'm sort of amazed that anyone would take the position that Russell's comments about the treatment of Indigenous people in any way justified. But well Wow!

As far as integrity. I think as a group the atheists by definition are less likely to be credulous.
If a person is duped into something for completely cynical purposes does that mean that they lack integrity or they are fools?
Functionally the effect is the same.
In my experience when people decide that they care whether or not their beliefs are capital "T" true is when they become atheists. The very act of becoming an atheist is usually a statement on the person's views of beliefs being true or not.

Beyond that in my own personal experience (other's may vary) when I think of the most dishonest people I've had the displeasure of knowing they were also religious. At least they claimed to be. And I believe they truly believed it themselves. But I think the very concept of "truth" is a bit hazy in that realm. And when I say dishonest I don't mean unintentionally dishonest. Hypocritical.  I mean open their mouth and move their lips and say things that they know are untrue for purely personal reasons.

[jgiffin]

I guess it's a personal choice. I'm sort of amazed that anyone would take the position that Russell's comments about the treatment of Indigenous people in any way justified. But well Wow!

We can disagree on this one, BD, and I'll concede it's not exactly a dude-like position. But Russell had other thoughts that were certainly dude-ish. Take, for example, his essay "In Praise of Idleness."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lfb8mlIe9I

(I couldn't find one in Russell's voice - you can skip the 30 second Star Trek scene at the start but I kinda like it). It's a persuasive, if incomplete, criticism of the ways in which work, reward, civilization, and morality have interacted (or, if you prefer, been manipulated) over thousands of years resulting in the current distinctly inequitable, distasteful, and less than optimum state. He ends up somewhat close to a position  RevGM has taken on this forum (at least they're similar to my ear). I ultimately disagree with both Russell and Rev, though, because neither have quite explained how all this excess productive capacity and/or time will be fairly apportioned. It seems likely to result in more work for the most qualified members of society and more leisure time for the remainder.

[BikerDude]

I guess it's a personal choice. I'm sort of amazed that anyone would take the position that Russell's comments about the treatment of Indigenous people in any way justified. But well Wow!

We can disagree on this one, BD, and I'll concede it's not exactly a dude-like position. But Russell had other thoughts that were certainly dude-ish. Take, for example, his essay "In Praise of Idleness."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lfb8mlIe9I

(I couldn't find one in Russell's voice - you can skip the 30 second Star Trek scene at the start but I kinda like it). It's a persuasive, if incomplete, criticism of the ways in which work, reward, civilization, and morality have interacted (or, if you prefer, been manipulated) over thousands of years resulting in the current distinctly inequitable, distasteful, and less than optimum state. He ends up somewhat close to a position  RevGM has taken on this forum (at least they're similar to my ear). I ultimately disagree with both Russell and Rev, though, because neither have quite explained how all this excess productive capacity and/or time will be fairly apportioned. It seems likely to result in more work for the most qualified members of society and more leisure time for the remainder.

He's a complicated person for sure. Difficult to pin down. For instance his earlier quotes about the treatment of the American Indians  seems to be at odds with his statements about Palestinian Refugees.
He also said something to the effect that "if killing all the Jews in Europe would bring lasting peace then by all means kill all the jews."
Of course he was making the very point that killing Jews would not bring peace. But he was uniquely capable of dropping nuclear bomb type controversial statements.

Lord Bertrand Russell addressing an international conference in 1970, wrote the following:

"The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was ?given? by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East".

"Message from Bertrand Russell to the International Conference of Parlimentarians in Cairo, February 1970." Reprinted in The New York Times, Feb. 23, 1970.

He's multifaceted for sure.

[BikerDude]

You want good people to do bad things then you manipulate their beliefs.

Unless the beliefs don't require any manipulation and are on face value "bad" or "evil".
That is in my opinion one of the ways that religion "makes good people do bad things" or capable of doing bad things.
By loading all the sugar coated stuff up into the same dumpster with the fire and brimstone and insisting that it all is the "word of God" you define belief to include things that don't need to be manipulated at all in order to motivate really bad things.
I'm sure that for instance in "moderate" Muslim countries people are 99% motivated by just the "good stuff".
But when you poll them on the nasty "death to the infidel" type things, a majority still show support. In a country like Egypt which was generally viewed as semi moderate religiously you still get like 60 or 70 percent of people saying that the penalty for leaving the faith should be death. The packaging of the good with the bad seems to be a cunning strategy of carrot and stick type thing. Most people get their commitment from one part but end up feeling obliged to support all the nasty stuff as a result of their commitment. Most don't act on it but the effect is still in service of the Fundamentalist evil fucks. If it weren't for the stepping stone of a moderate version of the faith the average person couldn't be radicalized. Moderates don't talk about the difficult nasty stuff on a day to day basis but when pressed they feel duty bound to support even the worst parts. That is the ticking bomb that religion presents. In good times it's all rosy but when things go bad look out. The means to an end are right there under the surface waiting to come out. Don't forget Hitler's first training and his earliest ambition was to be a priest. He and even Stalin (who was an Atheist but also trained to a priest) knew how to push those buttons. And IMO the buttons are built in for the very purpose. If you only teach the nice stuff what do you do when you need an army?


Never waste a chance to post a video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgwN2ZvzBSk