Last edited by a moderator:
Sam Harris: Religions Are Failed Sciences
- Thread starter Ken Morgan
- Start date
OP
OP
One of the four horsemen
Big Don
Sr. Grandmaster
2: militant or crusading zeal
Why does atheism and/or agnosticism need evangelism?
Why does atheism and/or agnosticism need evangelism?
That's a good video Ken Morgan. A 5 minute video can be a great starting point to conversation, debate and even argument. I have to say that science is a great way to help us understand how God makes the universe work.
***********A FEW WORDS OF CAUTION*************
1) POSTING THIS VIDEO MAY LEAD SOME ON THE STUDY TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE ISLAMAPHOBIC. (not me)
2) POSTING THIS VIDEO MAY LEAD PEOPLE TO COMPLAIN THAT YOU ARE NOT EXPRESSING YOUR OWN IDEAS AND THEY MAY ASK THAT YOU BE BANNED FROM THE SITE AS A TROUBLE MAKER. (not me)
**********END OF A FEW WORDS OF CAUTION********
***********A FEW WORDS OF CAUTION*************
1) POSTING THIS VIDEO MAY LEAD SOME ON THE STUDY TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE ISLAMAPHOBIC. (not me)
2) POSTING THIS VIDEO MAY LEAD PEOPLE TO COMPLAIN THAT YOU ARE NOT EXPRESSING YOUR OWN IDEAS AND THEY MAY ASK THAT YOU BE BANNED FROM THE SITE AS A TROUBLE MAKER. (not me)
**********END OF A FEW WORDS OF CAUTION********
OP
OP
How so?
I see an informal de facto leadership of sorts having emerged in the past decade or so within the atheist movement, one with money, intellect, and no longer willing to sit idle while religions and other charlatans push their agenda on the populace. It’s past time to hold religion and its leaders responsible.
OP
OP
Big Don
Sr. Grandmaster
Proselytizing for atheism is no less annoying to people than door to door religion salesmen. Honestly, I have more respect for someone who will go out and tell people what he believes than for someone, like Bill Maher, who is an anti-religion bigot. Were he to restrict his hatred to ONE particular religion, he'd be a bigot and widely reviled. (Look around the Study, I'm sure you can find an example...) Since he fires his anti-religion bile with a wide spread, he is "enlightened"? What a crock. I don't see religious people, aside from the Westboro jackasses running around screaming "You're all going to hell!" But, if you look around the Study again, you will find MANY examples of people belittling those who are religious. Cracks like "Invisible man in the sky..." etc aren't anything less than anti-religious bigotry, but, it is so common, it is largely ignored. I have NEVER mentioned my personal religious beliefs or lack thereof anywhere online, because, they are (or aren't
) just that, my personal beliefs. I don't feel the need to ram them down anyone's throat or rub them in anyone's face.
Last edited:
Me neither, thanks for a good OP Ken.
I think while the premise of the video may well be true, I think I would take the view that organised religions are failed (or perhaps not so) systems of jurisprudence initiated to keep their believers in line. I think that organised religions have given us much of our legal bedrock upon which we have built our modern law.
On that basis, I think the only true athiesm would disavow that legal bedrock simply because it encourages humanity to be what it is by default not: loving and civilised. We are animals. A highly evolved (with a small e
) species yes and but nonetheless we are animal in our biological makeup.
I propose that the true athiest should live as did our plain-dwelling antecedents, hunting, gathering and killing competitors who would try to wrest our scarce resources from our bloody hands. This is our true nature as humans told in the circulation of our almost societally defunct hormones.
To believe we are (at our base level) in some way more enligntened than this is almost to take on the mantle of some kind of orthodox religious piety. Therefore, be a true athiest and not some semantically correct one - eschew piety, accept our true animal nature far from any notion of the paraphernalia of mythical deities and strive to have our religion-engendered laws repealed, Jenna
On that basis, I think the only true athiesm would disavow that legal bedrock simply because it encourages humanity to be what it is by default not: loving and civilised. We are animals. A highly evolved (with a small e
) species yes and but nonetheless we are animal in our biological makeup. I propose that the true athiest should live as did our plain-dwelling antecedents, hunting, gathering and killing competitors who would try to wrest our scarce resources from our bloody hands. This is our true nature as humans told in the circulation of our almost societally defunct hormones.
To believe we are (at our base level) in some way more enligntened than this is almost to take on the mantle of some kind of orthodox religious piety. Therefore, be a true athiest and not some semantically correct one - eschew piety, accept our true animal nature far from any notion of the paraphernalia of mythical deities and strive to have our religion-engendered laws repealed, Jenna
fangjian
Black Belt
I think while the premise of the video may well be true, I think I would take the view that organised religions are failed (or perhaps not so) systems of jurisprudence initiated to keep their believers in line. I think that organised religions have given us much of our legal bedrock upon which we have built our modern law.
On that basis, I think the only true athiesm would disavow that legal bedrock simply because it encourages humanity to be what it is by default not: loving and civilised. We are animals. A highly evolved (with a small e
I propose that the true athiest should live as did our plain-dwelling antecedents, hunting, gathering and killing competitors who would try to wrest our scarce resources from our bloody hands. This is our true nature as humans told in the circulation of our almost societally defunct hormones.
To believe we are (at our base level) in some way more enligntened than this is almost to take on the mantle of some kind of orthodox religious piety. Therefore, be a true athiest and not some semantically correct one - eschew piety, accept our true animal nature far from any notion of the paraphernalia of mythical deities and strive to have our religion-engendered laws repealed, Jenna
Saying that 'Atheists should behave like our ancestors millions of years ago', is silly. Our civilization, ethics, morals, etc. are all part of our evolution. This is our nature. Just because we don't believe that 'gods and goddesses transmitted morals into each of our brains', doesn't mean we have to 'act like Australopithecines now'. We are Apes, yes. However, we are apes that realized the value of working with other apes for similar goals. So this is our nature.
OP
OP
We gave our morality to religion; religion did not give it to us.
The judeo –christian religions have been around for only a few thousand years, prior to them we still had writing, art, theatre, democracy, clothing, marriage, adoption, charity and dozens of other things that can make us moral. Religion was our creation, hence it will have our core values. To say that religion gave us our morality is to say that for the tens of billions of people who have existed and have died since the existence of our species 200000 years ago, were immoral barbarians because they didn’t have our or any religion. I’m sure these people loved their children, their spouses, shared resources and laughed.
It is the nature of all primates to fight territorial wars, to fight over mates, to look after family, to look after the tribe, to love, to share resources and to work together. It has been that way arguably for a few millions years of development of all primates. It is what we are.
The judeo –christian religions have been around for only a few thousand years, prior to them we still had writing, art, theatre, democracy, clothing, marriage, adoption, charity and dozens of other things that can make us moral. Religion was our creation, hence it will have our core values. To say that religion gave us our morality is to say that for the tens of billions of people who have existed and have died since the existence of our species 200000 years ago, were immoral barbarians because they didn’t have our or any religion. I’m sure these people loved their children, their spouses, shared resources and laughed.
It is the nature of all primates to fight territorial wars, to fight over mates, to look after family, to look after the tribe, to love, to share resources and to work together. It has been that way arguably for a few millions years of development of all primates. It is what we are.
cdunn
2nd Black Belt
I think while the premise of the video may well be true, I think I would take the view that organised religions are failed (or perhaps not so) systems of jurisprudence initiated to keep their believers in line. I think that organised religions have given us much of our legal bedrock upon which we have built our modern law.
On that basis, I think the only true athiesm would disavow that legal bedrock simply because it encourages humanity to be what it is by default not: loving and civilised. We are animals. A highly evolved (with a small e
I propose that the true athiest should live as did our plain-dwelling antecedents, hunting, gathering and killing competitors who would try to wrest our scarce resources from our bloody hands. This is our true nature as humans told in the circulation of our almost societally defunct hormones.
To believe we are (at our base level) in some way more enligntened than this is almost to take on the mantle of some kind of orthodox religious piety. Therefore, be a true athiest and not some semantically correct one - eschew piety, accept our true animal nature far from any notion of the paraphernalia of mythical deities and strive to have our religion-engendered laws repealed, Jenna
And yet, despite the solemn declaration of so many holy books that this is God, and his words are law, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; we have an economic system that is directly and deliberately built around the idea of coveting; and I cannot remember the last time I saw a teenager stoned to death for disobeying his parents.
The only thing atheism provides us with is that we are responsible for ourselves, and that there is no God to prostrate ourselves to, either for guidance or forgiveness. Humanism helps us understand a rational basis for behaving like decent, civilized people. We are animals - but altruism is a part of ourselves. We are animals - but we have broad communication, reason, and culture. We are animals - but we are what we choose, as well.
Thank you.
Though a substantial part of that has been handed to you through the mechanisms of orthodox religions, irrespective of where those morals as you put it may have originated. Our nature is still that of the plain dweller. Yes, the environs are for most of us vastly different and but our chemical makeup remains the same.
My point however is not that. My point is that since much of our law has been inherited through the doctrines of various religions, mostly Christianity in westernised nations, as a true athiest, one should disavow these things in favour of our true animalistic natures.
By way of example, your children are (like those in Norway recently) gunned down mercilessly by some maniac on a spree. You are inconsolable with anger. They are dead. You will never see, hear or feel them again. So, why - without citing or referencing religion-borne morals, why is is wrong for you to kill the man who is subsequently convicted of their murder?
fangjian
Black Belt
'Much of our laws' ? What laws in your opinion are from religious doctrine?
So the scenario is: A person gunned down my kids, and I in return killed him. Well did I kill him right after he killed my kids? Or did I stalk him, months later, and put a sniper round in his dome while he was being escorted by police? Or is he 'still a fugitive', but I knew where he was so I got to him and took care of things like Dexter Morgan would?
Omar B
Senior Master
Ethics and morality don't need religion to exist. In fact, the need to write down in a neat little list what is right or wrong seems to me to be there for people who can't wrap their head around such concepts. Yeah, it serves the guy who needs it written down that he must respect another man's right to life and property to exist within a society of men.
Religions serve their purpose, but I would caution about tieing them to ethics and morality. It's not anarchy was all there was before the wagging finger and the list of rules.
Religions serve their purpose, but I would caution about tieing them to ethics and morality. It's not anarchy was all there was before the wagging finger and the list of rules.
cdunn
2nd Black Belt
Negatively:
Perpetuation of the vengance cycle puts my own life at risk. Counter-punishment may also be asserted by legitimate authority in order to interrupt this cycle. This is something observed in far more than just human life
Death, in the absence of a Hell, provides for no further punishment of the perpetrator - he will not suffer in any meaningful fashion.
More positively:
Humans have, as part of our broad band communication suite, an unusually well developed empathy, built in to our ability to learn and socialize. We readily project our anguish onto others, and are thus more unlikely to inflict this upon the relatively innocent family of the killer, once the immediate rage has passed.
We recognize that a life is irreplacable; it belongs to the liver of that life. We do not take it, because it is not ours to take.
Meanwhile:
Exodus 21:12 "Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death."
Quran 2:178 "O you who believe, equivalence is the law decreed for you when dealing with murder - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female. If one is pardoned by the victim's kin, an appreciative response is in order, and an equitable compensation shall be paid. "
In Hinduism, though i don't have the time to chase down the holy writ:
"According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors: 1) a poison giver, 2) one who sets fire to the house, 3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, 4) one who plunders riches, 5) one who occupies another's land, and 6) one who kidnaps a wife. Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors. Such killing of aggressors is quite befitting for any ordinary man,..."
I like what Jenna has to say. Without a civilizing influence each generation comes out a barbarian, someone else pointed that out somewhere. The atheists can make any claim they want about religion and ethics but there is no way to untangle the effect of religous teaching on the development of a moral society. You would need to take children and raise them somewhere with absolutely no reference to the moral codes currently influencing our society. Try that first, and then see what happens.
