Religulous

[The Lawspeaker]

-3791007322683758535
Religulous

Bill Maher's take on the current state of world religion.

[Debaser11]

I'll take those nutty Christians in this film over the dangerous Mooslims. It wasn't a bad movie, though. However, I think many of these new atheists have the wrong perspective about religion. We'll never "outgrow" it. And there's no reason that we should be expected to.

I liked Norm MacDonald's reply to this movie. Yes, I know it's Pascal's Wager, but it's still hilarious and in some ways gets at something that I think Bill Maher doesn't understand.

0eKOyI6l03Q

[Aemma]

All I gotta say is:

There's some crazy-ass shit going on out there! :D

Yikes!

Thanks for this My Dutch Uncle! Just finished watching it all. Very entertaining--not sure if that is something to be glad about or not! :D

[The Lawspeaker]

My pleasure. As always: I stumbled upon it by accident. :thumb001:

[Aemma]

I'll take those nutty Christians in this film over the dangerous Mooslims. It wasn't a bad movie, though. However, I think many of these new atheists have the wrong perspective about religion. We'll never "outgrow" it. And there's no reason that we should be expected to.

I liked Norm MacDonald's reply to this movie. Yes, I know it's Pascal's Wager, but it's still hilarious and in some ways gets at something that I think Bill Maher doesn't understand.

0eKOyI6l03Q

I dunno...they all seem pretty fucking nuts to me! :D Pass on the whole lot of them! :P

[Debaser11]

Would you rather live within the Christian domain which gave us Western civilization or the Muslim domain? I think Christian decay will be the death of the West eventually. The two are inseparable despite what Hitchens, Dawkins, and Maher say.

[Aemma]

Would you rather live within the Christian domain which gave us Western civilization or the Muslim domain? I think Christian decay will be the death of the West eventually. The two are inseparable despite what Hitchens, Dawkins, and Maher say.

Well that's a no-brainer if you're only giving me those two options. Of course I'll take a loosely-based Christian secular hegemony over any kind of theocracy, be it Muslim or Christian however.

But had I my druthers, I'd wipe out the whole Abrahamic ideology altogether!

[Debaser11]

Well that's a no-brainer if you're only giving me those two options. Of course I'll take a loosely-based Christian secular hegemony over any kind of theocracy, be it Muslim or Christian however.

But had I my druthers, I'd wipe out the whole Abrahamic ideology altogether!

Yeah, but you can't do that. That's the problem. In my opinion, we lean towards treating religion like an incidental thing that was tagging along with Western progress. I'm certain if you removed Christianity or wiped out the Abrahamic ideology, you'd wipe us out, too. Try to imagine the Greeks or the Romans without their gods. Once Socrates came in and started questioning everything and rationalizing everything and began ridiculing such beliefs, the society began to slowly unravel. The same thing can be observed within the Roman Empire. Christianity gained steam as polytheistic beliefs in Gods began to wane. The society began questioning its values and it unraveled and become susceptible to outside invaders. Christianity rose up from the ashes. If it weren't Christianity, some other belief would have asserted itself and who knows if it would have produced the culture that most of us enjoy and take for granted today?

(That's what I feel like Maher and other secularists ignore. We can see today how secularist Europe is quickly decomposing.)

[Aemma]

Yeah, but you can't do that. That's the problem. In my opinion, we lean towards treating religion like an incidental thing that was tagging along with Western progress. I'm certain if you removed Christianity or wiped out the Abrahamic ideology, you'd wipe us out, too. Try to imagine the Greeks or the Romans without their gods. Once Socrates came in and started questioning everything and rationalizing everything and began ridiculing such beliefs, the society began to slowly unravel. The same thing can be observed within the Roman Empire. Christianity gained steam as polytheistic beliefs in Gods began to wane. The society began questioning its values and it unraveled and become susceptible to outside invaders. Christianity rose up from the ashes. If it weren't Christianity, some other belief would have asserted itself and who knows if it would have produced the culture that most of us enjoy and take for granted today?

(That's what I feel like Maher and other secularists ignore. We can see today how secularist Europe is quickly decomposing.)

But I don't mean to treat religion as an incidental thing however. Believe me I don't--religion is never incidental. I'm all too aware of that. I'm not saying throw out the baby with the bathwater either. My comment about requesting a non-Abrahamic hegemony is more a reflection of my own religious and cultural beliefs than anything else. :) No worries.

I'm not so sure we'd lose ourselves though if Christianity were no longer a factor. Western-based Scientism seems to be doing quite well and it has been filling that ever-increasing void more than we realise. But there are other options out there too which work in tandem with Western-based Scientism and the legacy of Thought left us by our forebears imo. :)

But in the end I'd rather the Devil-I-know (and whose ancestors helped create) than the Devil-I-Don't-Know and have no cultural nor spiritual stake in. Indeed.


Truth be told, Bill Maher got a lot of stuff wrong in his presentation, esp. about Christian theology. He was coming at it from a political-entertainer's pov as opposed to a more above-board serious one so I will cut him some slack. ;)

It was entertaining. The odd insight was offered. But in the end, what can one really say? It's Bill Maher! :D

I'd still watch it again though.

[Debaser11]

I'm just pessimistic. But I don't think my pessimism is unfounded. No civilization seems to sustain itself long term as a secular society. It's weak. It's uncertain. It's relativist. It's uninspired. I very much buy Nietzsche's argument about perspectivism and nihilism resulting from the loss of a universal perspective that comes from God. Science can't give a civilization a universal moral perspective, which is essential.

The will to power is stronger within the sides that have religious conviction. We can live for a while off the fumes of Christianity so to speak (though Europe may not the way it's going). But I think even if we did hold out a bit, our civilization will continue to be a rather uninspired civilization much like Rome was during its last days. I don't think we can all go find God again, either. So I very much see decline but not much can be done.

[Aemma]

I'm just pessimistic. But I don't think my pessimism is unfounded. No civilization seems to sustain itself long term as a secular society. It's weak. It's uncertain. It's relativist. It's uninspired. I very much buy Nietzsche's argument about perspectivism and nihilism resulting from the loss of a universal perspective that comes from God. Science can't give a civilization a universal moral perspective, which is essential.

The will to power is stronger within the sides that have religious conviction. We can live for a while off the fumes of Christianity so to speak (though Europe may not the way it's going). But I think even if we did hold out a bit, our civilization will continue to be a rather uninspired civilization much like Rome was during its last days. I don't think we can all go find God again, either. So I very much see decline but not much can be done.

We may not be able to find "God" anymore, no. And I don't think we should. But gods (and all that I mean to imply by this--and this will come across as extremely cryptic unless you know that I am Folkish and Heathen :D), now that's a different kettle of fish altogether. :) And I contend that we don't need to have an uninspired civilization. It's up to us to make it inspiring, no? And within the circle that I frequent, many of us have taken heed to the true need to reacquaint ourselves with such inspiration. And instead of decline, most of us see not defeat but an opportunity to create a more authentic Western European/Occidental/Germanic/Pan-Germanic/Celto-Germanic/pick-one-or-all way of Being.

Question though: why is a "universal moral perspective essential" though? Ok it's really two questions really: why universal? why essential? :D

[Curtis24]

There are very few so-called "Christians" who actually take their religion seriously enough to let it effect their behavior. Furthermore, of the small minority that do follow the precepts of Christianity, only an even smaller portion are dangerous.

Whereas, over a billion of Muslims do what their Imam tells them to. And of these, a substantial minority(if not the majority) are being told to go wage jihad against the non-believers.

[Wyn]

We'll see whose laughing when I control the world and it's religion-or-the-mines for unbelievers.

Seriously, I thought Religulous was funny, I watched some of the best bits a few times (even if Bill Maher is an annoying Liberal archetype).

[Debaser11]

We may not be able to find "God" anymore, no. And I don't think we should. But gods (and all that I mean to imply by this--and this will come across as extremely cryptic unless you know that I am Folkish and Heathen :D), now that's a different kettle of fish altogether. :) And I contend that we don't need to have an uninspired civilization. It's up to us to make it inspiring, no? And within the circle that I frequent, many of us have taken heed to the true need to reacquaint ourselves with such inspiration. And instead of decline, most of us see not defeat but an opportunity to create a more authentic Western European/Occidental/Germanic/Pan-Germanic/Celto-Germanic/pick-one-or-all way of Being.

Question though: why is a "universal moral perspective essential" though? Ok it's really two questions really: why universal? why essential? :D

There are no coincidences in history. Is it any wonder we all want to preserve European culture yet see it as a daunting task? I do agree with you that it's a noble undertaking that should be done regardless of how futile it may be much as a Kamikaze pilot is a noble warrior despite the futility of his actions (to use a dramatic analogy). And though we can never be certain about the future, I really do think in many ways our efforts are almost futile. It's up to people to make it inspiring but it can't be forced, either. The culture has to get to a point to where it's crying out MASSIVELY for a religious reawakening, so to speak. I think we are stuck in between. Christianity is dying but we aren't far enough down the path of decadence (our current age) where apocalyptic visions are beginning to become commonplace though they are becoming more common as one would suspect. Once that happens, a new organic religion can take shape.

A civilization simply cannot stand long term in a relativist context. If your truth is as good as my truth (regardless of how different our viewpoints are), how can we ever reach a consensus or not have a whole sector of society that lives in resentment? How much can you trust your neighbor if you have different views about what's right and wrong which a relativist outlook allows?

[Wyn]

The culture has to get to a point to where it's crying out MASSIVELY for a religious reawakening, so to speak.

Things are at an interesting point. For the average person in the west today, Christianity is old-fashioned and almost alien to them. At the same time, neopaganism like Wicca etc. has no appeal and most would really look at it as being something "kooky". Any religion that takes hold post-twentieth century is going to have to have a great deal of feel-goodness to it, anything dogmatic will scare most people off. That's why so many flock to the (westernized, bullshitish mutilation of) eastern religions like Buddhism, to give them a sense of religion/spirituality (which they want) without anything too demanding and dogmatic (which they don't).

[Debaser11]

Well, that's why I think things will get a whole lot worse before they can get better. I'm looking big picture here. A century or two down the line. In the age of decadence (which is a reoccurring age in every major past civilization), a "materialist mirage" (my term) makes religious movements very futile even if the establishment religion is on the way out.

[Wyn]

Well, that's why I think things will get a whole lot worse before they can get better. I'm looking big picture here. A century or two down the line. In the age of decadence (which is a reoccurring age in every major past civilization), a "materialist mirage" (my term) makes religious movements very futile even if the establishment religion is on the way out.

I agree there, I guess. I think one of the reasons the kind of paganism promoted by...just about every pagan is just a failure waiting to happen is because it is pure relativism. The idea that we can all just worship different gods, with no-one being wrong, and all co-existing is pure relativism. You have your beliefs, I have my beliefs, Fred down the street has his beliefs...is that any different to what we have now? And look where it gets us.

That and, stuff like Asatru, Wicca etc. has no real grounding/sense of establishment.

[Debaser11]

Right. I feel like secularists like Maher just think these paths are self-evident. Without a religious context, they don't seem to be.

[Psychonaut]

A civilization simply cannot stand long term in a relativist context. If your truth is as good as my truth (regardless of how different our viewpoints are), how can we ever reach a consensus or not have a whole sector of society that lives in resentment? How much can you trust your neighbor if you have different views about what's right and wrong which a relativist outlook allows?

Yikes, really?

I would adapt of of Ben Franklin's oft attributes quotes to this situation: those who would give up a little truth to gain a little security are deserving of neither. Should we lie to ourselves and teach our children of some patently false absolutism in the hopes that it will prolong us a little longer? Or, should we boldly look forward and change ourselves as our understanding of the world changes? Looking backwards is one route for preservation, yet it is also a sure course for stagnation. The path forwards is more perilous, but it leads to an infinitely greater reward: growth.

[Debaser11]

Yikes, really?

I would adapt of of Ben Franklin's oft attributes quotes to this situation: those who would give up a little truth to gain a little security are deserving of neither. Should we lie to ourselves and teach our children of some patently false absolutism in the hopes that it will prolong us a little longer? Or, should we boldly look forward and change ourselves as our understanding of the world changes? Looking backwards is one route for preservation, yet it is also a sure course for stagnation. The path forwards is more perilous, but it leads to an infinitely greater reward: growth.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not advocating that we lie in order save civilization. We should never be afraid of truth. Truth is not the issue here. People's moral codes are. And are such moral codes derived from a religion by default mutually exclusive from truth? Are not all virtues truth one way or another according to Plato? (At least I think that's a Plato idea.) Does religion (which collectively binds a society by providing a universal moral code) not advocate such truth then?

And I don't think questioning anything is necessarily a bad thing. But I'm uncertain whether one can acquire truth (outside the general sense of the idea) without a certain path that religion provides. I think the distinction between general truth and divine truth is important because we see what happens to an uninspired society...it begins to decay. Though truth can be generalized outside of a religious path, salvation may not be so easy to attain. And thinking in terms of the categorical imperative, it would seem society needs it. The problem of religion being "discredited" often seems to have more to do with the shallow interpretations people apply to their faith rather than the faith being "wrong" or untrue.

[Óttar]

Try to imagine the Greeks or the Romans without their gods...
I think civilisation would have progressed just fine if the Greeks and Romans had kept their gods. In the late Hellenistic period, Roman religion was moving toward a Monistic theology, which unfortunately yielded to Christianity by imperial decree. A mob of Christers dragged the "pagan" philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria out of the Academy and beat her to death (ironically, she was Christianised as St. Catherine, the shameless bastards!) This is just one example of a long string of attacks made by Christianity on science and civilisation.

It's funny how Catholic professors laud the classical tradition with Virgil and Lucan when they believe these very same people are in Hell.

I don't mind literature with Christianish themes, (Dante, William Blake, etc.) folk-songs... Because I see the primordial folk tradition behind the Christian forms. I'm not going to throw out interjections like "Jesus Christ!" , "Oh my God!" or burn down museum pieces, but this doesn't mean we should tolerate Christian groups having any measure of power in politics.

When I see a film like this, I am glad I was not born into a rigid Christian family where my view of the world would've been necessarily narrowed and warped.

We do not need Christianity to maintain morality. Common sense and a sense of the numinous is enough.

[Psychonaut]

I think you misunderstand. I'm not advocating that we lie in order save civilization. We should never be afraid of truth. Truth is not the issue here. People's moral codes are. And are such moral codes derived from a religion by default mutually exclusive from truth? Are not all virtues truth one way or another according to Plato? (At least I think that's a Plato idea.) Does religion (which collectively binds a society by providing a universal moral code) not advocate such truth then?

OK, so you're not advocating that we lie, just that we assume the stance of ethical and epistemological absolutism? The Platonic spell has been, little by little, broken over the last several centuries and we're seeing through—what some of us would say is—the false view that morality is and ought to be the same for all peoples in all places and all times. Relativism, in so many spheres of thought, is coming into dominance.


And I don't think questioning anything is necessarily a bad thing. But I'm uncertain whether one can acquire truth (outside the general sense of the idea) without a certain path that religion provides.

Yet the evidence does not seem to show that religious experiences throughout the world and history uncover the same truths or even the same types of truths. Plurality and variance is the name of the game.


I think the distinction between general truth and divine truth is important because we see what happens to an uninspired society...it begins to decay.

What would you say is the distinction?


Though truth can be generalized outside of a religious path, salvation may not be so easy to attain.

Salvation from what?

[Debaser11]

I think civilisation would have progressed just fine if the Greeks and Romans had kept their gods.

Well, that's easier said than done. Once the collective organic energy is sapped out of the religion, it begins to die like any organism.


In the late Hellenistic period, Roman religion was moving toward a Monistic theology, which unfortunately yielded to Christianity by imperial decree. A mob of Christers dragged the "pagan" philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria out of the Academy and beat her to death (ironically, she was Christianised as St. Catherine, the shameless bastards!) This is just one example of a long string of attacks made by Christianity on science and civilisation.

That is indeed, terrible. So are you trying to use this example to show that Christianity is bad or the same as say, Islam. If so, that's not too unlike looking at the Iraq invasion in isolation and then just claiming the U.S. is a terrible terrible country and is not better than say, North Korea. You'd think it more fair if the person looked at the founding documents and the whole totality of the U.S. culture in order to understand that despite a bad presidential decision, we are fundamentally a good country. At least, doesn't that seem like the fair thing to do? Why not look at what the New Testament's teachings and the manner in which most Christians behave rather lamenting over Hypatia or nuts in Alabama with double digit IQs? The Roman and Greek religions were not always nice, either. But they should have continued? Why? It's very vogue to judge Christianity by harsher standards than any other religion these days. It's unfair, I think.


When I see a film like this, I am glad I was not born into a rigid Christian family where my view of the world would've been necessarily narrowed and warped.

Same here.


We do not need Christianity to maintain morality. Common sense and a sense of the numinous is enough.

That's the argument many people like trot out. Taking the large view of history (which I feel is pertinent to do on a European preservation forum), that statement doesn't seem to have a great deal of evidence to it. Do you honestly think common sense is enough? So what's the common sense thing to do regarding euthanasia? What's the common sense thing to do on abortion?

What about in the following example:

"A vaccine manufacturer typically knows that while a vaccine will save many lives, a few people may get sick or die from side effects of vaccination. The manufacture of a drug is in itself morally neutral. Lives are saved as a result of the vaccine, not as a result of the deaths due to side effects. The bad effect, the deaths due to side effects, does not further any goals of the manufacturer, and hence is not intended as a means to any end. Finally, the number of lives saved is much greater than the number lost, and so the proportionality condition is satisfied. This is more a case of side effects/benefit analysis than of a real Principle application and is common in medicine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_double_effect

What do you do and more importantly how do you justify your actions? I don't have see evidence that most people can just "common sense" their way through life because life is not just about not killing your neighbor or not hitting your children or whatever obvious moral question one can ask themselves. A perilous gray zone is bound to hit everyone at some time. Many people often don't know how to act and are paralyzed.



OK, so you're not advocating that we lie, just that we assume the stance of ethical and epistemological absolutism? The Platonic spell has been, little by little, broken over the last several centuries and we're seeing through—what some of us would say is—the false view that morality is and ought to be the same for all peoples in all places and all times. Relativism, in so many spheres of thought, is coming into dominance.

Yes. I think that's not so good in the long run for a civilization. Greek ethics hold up just as well as any other form of ethnics. It's hardly game, set, and match for the relativist side despite their current momentum. I'm not necessarily convinced that Platonic ethics have ever been broken in any real sense; this is not like science. Neither system (absolutist or relativist) has been proven right or wrong the way you'd prove the Earth is round.




Yet the evidence does not seem to show that religious experiences throughout the world and history uncover the same truths or even the same types of truths. Plurality and variance is the name of the game.

They have different beliefs and varying ideas about what truth is in some regards, yes.




What would you say is the distinction?

I think there is something to what he was getting at here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#Epistemology




Salvation from what?

We naturally know we aren't right, but we don't know how to "fix" ourselves. This doesn't seem to be a common enough phenomenon to you?

[Psychonaut]

Yes. I think that's not so good in the long run for a civilization. Greek ethics hold up just as well as any other form of ethnics. It's hardly game, set, and match for the relativist side despite their current momentum. I'm not necessarily convinced that Platonic ethics have ever been broken in any real sense; this is not like science. Neither system (absolutist or relativist) has been proven right or wrong the way you'd prove the Earth is round.

Which Greek ethics? Plato's absolutist deontology differs greatly from Aristotle's virtue ethics, which in turn couldn't be more different from Stoic indifferentism and Epicurean hedonism. All these and more have been present in various strains of Western thought since their time of origin in ancient Greece. The only reason for Plato's dominance was it's attachment to early Christian theology.


I think there is something to what he was getting at here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#Epistemology

Why do you think we need divine help to know things?


We naturally know we aren't right, but we don't know how to "fix" ourselves. This doesn't seem to be a common enough phenomenon to you?

I understand what you mean only because it's a common view in societies dominated by religions who tell them that they're intrinsically fucked up and need to be fixed. I wasn't raised that way and was skeptical of the truth of Christian mythology from an early enough age that no serious psychological damage was done. No, I don't think we are naturally not-right, nor do I think we need to be saved. As Stephen McNallen wrote:


The world is good.
Prosperity is good.
Life is good, and we should live it with joy and enthusiasm.
We are free to shape our lives to the extent allowed by our skill, courage, and might.
There is no predestination, no fatalism, no limitations imposed by the will of any external deity.
We do not need salvation.
All we need is the freedom to face our destiny with courage and honor.

[Óttar]

You'd think it more fair if the person looked at the founding documents and the whole totality of the U.S. culture in order to understand that despite a bad presidential decision, we are fundamentally a good country.
But if you look at the foundation upon which the New Testament was built i.e. the OT, you would see it was full of killing, bloodshed, genocide, rape, child-murder, religious intolerance, ridiculous dietary restrictions, bad math etc. I really don't even see how the NT was much better. So it had some curious, mildly interesting parables and a few good adages, but it pales in comparison to many other works of philosophy and literature.

The Church itself has little to do with a Jewish carpenter that attempted to reform Judaism and rebelled against the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago. As a verse from a song by Skyclad goes "The ones who nailed him to a cross, now rule in his name." The Christian Right in our own country is out to impose a Taliban style theocracy. Abrahamic religion in general has had a long history of rigidity and religious intolerance.

[Agrippa]

The film is great and shows in a sarcastic way how idiotic many religious people actually are, that they are, in fact, not certifiably sane.

However, some of the people Maher used and abused for his movie were above the rest and for those I felt sorry at times, especially the Muslim in Israel, showhing him the mosque and the Jewish Anti-Zionist.

Those were not treated fair in comparison, I mean for acting relatively reasonable.

As for religion as such, it just satisfies the need of the human conscious for security and hope, for not having the feeling being left alone in a world you don't understand and fear. Life can be shitty and if you have hope in something you can't prove or disprove, but BELIEVE in, it might give you strength and the will to survive.

The problem is, if there are religious rules and ideas - despite the irrational aspect which clouds the mind - which are against life, so some sort of degenerated cultural/memetic traditions.

Because all memetic traditions can be, like the genetic ones, be categorised in useful, neutral and detrimental.

Religion now comes in a package, a rational mind might say: "Oh, this part of Judaism is nice and seems to be useful, that part of Islam too, Christianity as well is a good thing if only taking this aspect - Hinduism, agreed, that part is great, ..." and so on.

Yet if you take the whole package, believe in the whole religion, you usually get a lot of dead freight with the useful aspects every better philosopher or political ideologist could have told you anyway.

Even worse, the nonsense too being legitimated by god(s), so can't be criticised or changed, without offending "the belief".

That's a huge problem for many religions, just to name Islam, which is a pretty good case for the pattern. Mohammed made up a fairly good religious system FOR HIS PEOPLE in HIS TIME.

I can't blame him for doing something that bad for his people at that time, even on the contrary, even biologically the success was great.

Yet again, the problem is, if he would live today, he surely would, as a fairly reasonable man in certain matters, change a lot of rules in his own religion, I'm pretty sure about it.

But obviously, prophets are dead and they can't defend themselves nor their doctrine...

So religion could be only useful, if the essence of the religion is to adopt those things which are useful or at least neutral for those which carry that believe - with not too many fixed rules forever and everything detrimental being abandoned once that was recognised by the religious philosophers.

But such a "religion" has the great problem of arbitrariness, especially for the stupid believers which just want a "ruled life" and subordinate their whole existence under a rule, as stupid as it might be, just for not having to think for themselves and getting the "religious feeling" in their distorted brains.

Anyway, religion is like every cultural, memetic aspect, always under selection in a similar way as genes are, because if it's not successful in competition, the doctrine will disappear and if it is detrimental to the people believing in and carrying the doctrine - personally-politically-about development and adaptiveness, finally biologically - it is simply a cultural degeneration and nothing more.

Always funny if religion being higher evaluated than philosophies and political ideologies. The latter can be at least proven or disproven at times, religion is oftentimes just madness which the memetic carriers spread with violence, regardless of its usefulness to them, other people or mankind.

[The Ripper]

Would you rather live within the Christian domain which gave us Western civilization or the Muslim domain? I think Christian decay will be the death of the West eventually. The two are inseparable despite what Hitchens, Dawkins, and Maher say.

Protestant sects didn't give us Western Civilization.*

*I haven't seen the film so I'm going to assume, perhaps with extreme prejudice, that the nutters are in fact of the American "religious right".

[Agrippa]

Protestant sects didn't give us Western Civilization.*

*I haven't seen the film so I'm going to assume, perhaps with extreme prejudice, that the nutters are in fact of the American "religious right".

Religious left or right, if they religious in the way described in this movie, they are threat this or that way, because such an irrational mind and doctrine will always result in a catastrophy and a society I surely don't want - might be even manipulated and abused by more clear minded individuals which find another troops of useful idiots, like it always happened in the US of A, with almost every "right group" acting in an "American stupid" way - easy to manipulate by the Plutocracy and if they on their own would reign - well, the only good thing which would come to my mind would be: "Thanks god, the US threat is dead..."

Because they won't be able to keep up a higher level state - the only problem then would be if they have "Judgement Day" fantasies and might even be ready to use nuclear weapons, who knows, as nuts as they are...

[Debaser11]

Which Greek ethics? Plato's absolutist deontology differs greatly from Aristotle's virtue ethics, which in turn couldn't be more different from Stoic indifferentism and Epicurean hedonism. All these and more have been present in various strains of Western thought since their time of origin in ancient Greece. The only reason for Plato's dominance was it's attachment to early Christian theology

My point is simply that we act like we know so much more about truth and it's nature than we did in 600 B.C. The fact that we have phrases like "Platonic spell" seems indicative of such an attitude. I don't think we do, though.



Why do you think we need divine help to know things?

The trappings of biology? Heh, it's a good question that I myself can't answer for certain (and probably no one else can, either). But that's rather the point. That I am not sure of the answer and neither is anyone else. Please understand I'm not a Christian and I don't mean God in such context. Think of Einstein's conception of God. Hardly Christian. But I don't dismiss what I don't understand. General revelation doesn't seem to need any special acts from God. But it seems difficult to know where truth would come from without
God.

I do like this explanation at the bottom of the page here (starting at about "Hello, Professor. Yes, I survived."):
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001533.cfm



I understand what you mean only because it's a common view in societies dominated by religions who tell them that they're intrinsically fucked up and need to be fixed. I wasn't raised that way and was skeptical of the truth of Christian mythology from an early enough age that no serious psychological damage was done. No, I don't think we are naturally not-right, nor do I think we need to be saved.

I don't come from a strict religious household that told me that. And I don't think that sweeping generalization you provided there is completely fair. I'm not talking about commending people who raise their kids to think they're evil or patting parents on the back who beat their children when "they have the devil in them."
I think on some level many people cry out for these religious paths. And I don't think it's because they're sick. Why do people who are turned off by Christianity seek out other faiths (particularly from the East)? Because they are stupid and don't have your secular post-enlightenment wisdom? You don't think there is any validity in their path to try to find truth? I'm not prepared to write them all off as poor brainwashed creatures, which I find to be condescending even though I'm not exactly a man of faith, myself.

I don't think the new atheists (some of whom I actually enjoy for varying reasons) are telling us anything new. Do you honestly think people like Maher or Hitchens are conveying ideas across that Aquinas or Kierkegaard or C.S. Lewis would have embraced had they only not had some oppressive Christian upbringing? Really?! Nor am I at all impressed with the new atheists' understanding of the philosophical questions they claim to be dancing all over by using words like "no," "nonsense," "ridiculous," and "shtoopid." To be fair, their religious opponents don't argue too well, either.



As Stephen McNallen wrote:


The world is good.
Prosperity is good.
Life is good, and we should live it with joy and enthusiasm.
We are free to shape our lives to the extent allowed by our skill, courage, and might.
There is no predestination, no fatalism, no limitations imposed by the will of any external deity.
We do not need salvation.
All we need is the freedom to face our destiny with courage and honor.

I agree with just about all of that. But why do you take his word for it? I'm just supposed to accept it as a truism because...? Isn't that your beef with religious people in the context of this discussion?

[Debaser11]

But if you look at the foundation upon which the New Testament was built i.e. the OT, you would see it was full of killing, bloodshed, genocide, rape, child-murder, religious intolerance, ridiculous dietary restrictions, bad math etc. I really don't even see how the NT was much better. So it had some curious, mildly interesting parables and a few good adages, but it pales in comparison to many other works of philosophy and literature.

I'm going to post a long response I sent to my friend when he quoted some obscure Leviticus line to me to show me how "evil" Christianity is. Sorry in advance for the length. It's also slightly off topic, but I still think it addresses your criticisms. (I'm not pasting it because I think it's great or anything. I just don't feel like typing a lot of the same thing over again.)

Right. My contention was never that Christianity looked upon homosexuality favorably. I'm sorry if that's how I came off as sounding the other day. Those verses also likely applied to Levite priests (contextually, (which everyone emphasises when trying to dismiss the Islamic doctrine of Jihad) if they applied to anyone they applied to these Jewish priests thousands of years ago) but even if they didn't, I still invite you to compare Muhammad with Christ. Compare Islam's demands (within its basic precepts) with what Christianity demands from a follower to establish a virtuous society. Compare "the Lamb of God" with "the Sword of the Prophet." The basic argument is this: whatever rules you have in the Old Testament were the means by which Israel was going to create a nation state while worshiping God. Jesus clearly explains in the New Testament that his kingdom was not of this Earth. He completely disregards the statist notions of Jewish nationalists in a favor of making a new covenenant with not just Jews, but all of mankind. There was also nothing overtly political about the New Testament; it made no rules on how to create socities, and it spent most of its time running from political power. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's." That's a far cry from Old Testament or even Koranic ideas. These distinctions are important to me.

Here is another applicable response regarding the quote you sent me:
"In the Old Testament book of Leviticus, God gives Moses a long list of rules for the Israelites. Some of these are rules we still follow today; others we don't. The most famous of all is in 18:22, which says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman" (NIV). The NIV translation follows this with, "that is detestable," but the more famous version is the King James Version, which reads, "It is abomination."Now before you start freaking out or thinking God hates you, please understand that "abomination" in Hebrew refers to anything forbidden for the Israelites. For instance, Leviticus 11 says that eagles are an abomination, and so are owls, storks, various types of water creatures, "and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth," just to name a few. Locusts, by the way, aren't abominations. Still, abomination or not, the prohibition of male-male sex is pretty straightforward. And at the beginning of the passage, God tells us why He's giving these rules - because He wants to keep the Israelites pure and separate from the polytheistic cultures surrounding them (Lev. 18:1-4). This helps explain why the Israelites are forbidden to shave (Lev. 19:27), get tattoos (Lev. 19:28), wear clothing made of mixed fabrics (Lev. 19:19), or have sex during a woman's period (Lev. 18:19). It also helps explain the rather strange comments about things like sacrificing children to Molech (Lev. 18:21) and eating fruit too quickly from a tree (Lev. 19:23); and why the Israelites are forbidden to have sex with a woman and her daughter (Lev. 18:17) but nothing at all is said about sex outside of marriage or having multiple sexual partners. Outside of the context of keeping the Israelites separate, it would be a very odd collection of rules. I've heard people quote Leviticus to forbid homosexuality and tattoos, but other than that, people generally don't turn to Leviticus for moral guidance. There's something very haphazard about that approach to the Bible, picking and choosing passages like side dishes at a buffet."

http://www.gaychristian.net/rons_view.php
(Though I doubt this guy is right on everything, I can accept his above explanation as pretty valid. Think about how the average Christian conducts themselves. It seems to fit.)

Compare the civilizations that were birthed from each worldview. I can go to Paris and see a crucifix stored in a jar of urine sitting in a museum (because it's "art"). I can burn Bibles as part of a stage act and no one would raise much of a stir. And if they did, they'd be seen as "dumb Christians." Yet if Theo Van Gogh makes a movie that is critical of Islam for the way it treats women, he is viciously murdered on the streets in his native Holland by immigrants. If Salman Rushdie writes a book like The Satanic Verses, he is doomed to spend the rest of his life living under a heavy security because of a bounty imams have placed on his head. If a man like Geert Wilders speaks out about the Islamification of the Netherlands, he has to walk around with a bulletproof vest for the same reasons as Rushdie. Same with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Hell, even the girl who started a Facebook group that was anti-Islam got a fatwa (and the FBI has had to step in). If some Danish cartoonists draw a picture of Muhammad IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY the same way someone would parody Jesus, these cartoonists must pay with their lives. Shit, even the Pope and Bill Clinton side against the poor cartoonists because they are such corporatist PC globalist whores.
Where is this type of nonsense coming from within Christian communities? Honestly.

http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2010/09/bbc-quran-burning-bad-fatwa-no-comment.html

In all honesty, what do you think would happen if you were to travel to anywhere within the Muslim world--Iran, Libya, Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Jordan or Palestine and burn a Koran? These "extremists" are not marginal. Do you think their religious convictions magically melt away when they move to a Western place for economic reasons? Do not confuse economic assimilation (them having a job) with cultural assimilation. When 40% of Muslim immigrants living in London say they want Sharia Law (and there is no equivalent to Sharia Law within Christianity), that's a mainstream opinion. I'm also willing to bet that many practicing Muslims outside that 40% wouldn't exactly pitch a fit over it, either. Yet, in the Christian world (or post-Christian world), you can burn a Bible anywhere and be pretty certain you have little to fear. Some rednecks in rural Mississippi (who the media has no qualms about villifying) may be dangerous to be around, but they aren't mainstream. And they wouldn't put a fatwa on your head that you had to live with for the rest of your life. My guess is they'd chase you out of town.

There are tons of videos on youtube of Muslims setting fire to cities like Oslo, Malmo, and Paris (which are some of the most "tolerant" places on Earth). But burning and threatening is how they "act out" we are told. Anytime you read about rioting in places like Madrid and Paris, it's not coming from the European native stock. It's from Muslim immigrants that the Euro plutocrats insist Europe must have against the will of the people living in those countries. These people burn city squares, flags, and block streets (Paris) en masse to pray (you can find that video on youtube also) and it's all done under the guise of "freedom of expression" (though that is something their own faith doesn't believe in tolerating). It's not only in "oppressive Western" countries where people of this faith act out. Just look at what's happening in India and southern Thailand (which was a real concern for me while I was traveling).

But when some yokel preacher from Florida decides he wants to burn a Koran, it's a worldwide crisis. Then he's the one who has to address his hate. The double standard that this worldwide effort to globalize (on the part of technocrats) has to adapt couldn't be more obvious. He didn't even have to burn the Koran. Just the threat made the point for him. The Secretary of State for chissakes went down there to stop him. There's an unspoken rule that Christians are good sport and that Muslims should have their feelings spared. And this sentiment doesn't only come from Muslims but from people who'd rather appear "tolerant" and not "Islamophobic" rather than use their honest wits. (I'm not directing any of this at you personally.)

Furthermore, I think it's interesting that people look to the Old Testament to dig up "dirt" on Christianity but then seem to ignore such laws and their application to Judaism while at the same time disregarding the very important feature Christianity has that is the New Testament. (Find a similar such quote in the New Testament, which is where Christians place MOST of their faith emphasis.) In all fairness, it's taking the scope of the religion out of context (and a good many Christians themselves fall into this trap) when someone chooses to harp over this quote.

I also found this text below makes for some interesting reading. He explains better some of what I was trying to get across in my own scattered-brain sort of way (when I mentioned double standards and Sharia Law) though I won't take credit for knowing the details any religion as well as he does:

"If the Christian religion didn't extend to law-enforcement, then explain all those people sentenced to death for heresy and witchcraft, and the fact that adultery is still on the books in Michigan with a maximum punishment of life in prison."

*IMPORTANT Distinction IMO* "Laws made by Christians undoubtedly reflected their values (as laws made by people of any religion will), but there is no mandate in Christianity that we establish a Christian theocracy on Earth." (The above was what I was trying to basically get across on the phone the other day.)

"Historically, after the late Roman Empire adopted Christianity, and it became the official religion, the Emperors also adopted certain general elements of Christianity into law. The Church didn't push for it, but, Rome had always combined certain elements of it's official religion(s) into civil law (during the pagan period for example, Emperor worship was mandatory--and why a lot of Christians were persecuted and killed.)

There is no basis in the New Testament, for some sort of Christian Law--as there certainly is in the Koran and Hadith for Sharia.Christianity never, for example, made adultery a stoning offense (as it was in old Hebrew-Mosaic Law) as the civil laws of the Old Testament are seen as the civil laws of long-gone ancient Israel--not in any way mandatory for Christians. At the same time, Old Testament morality (NOT civil penalties) has always been a basis of Christian ethics--the 10 Commandments, and sexual ethics being key elements there.

Of course ethics affect what laws people want in effect, and Christian ethics have informed our laws....but again, Christian ethics--perhaps since they first appeared amidst a persecuted illicit religion, under a hostile government--have never mandated lists of specific laws, in the way that Islam's belief in Sharia is shown to do above.I think it might have something to do with the New Testament's, and Jesus', emphasis of change from the inside out, by grace...not the outside in, by force, that makes Christianity NOT a secular law-making religion."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2579970/posts

And again, I want to emphasize that I have no real dog in this fight other than to be truthful about my thoughts in the best way I can be. I think you know I'm an atheist and I'll likely stay that way until I die. :)



The Church itself has little to do with a Jewish carpenter that attempted to reform Judaism and rebelled against the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago. As a verse from a song by Skyclad goes "The ones who nailed him to a cross, now rule in his name." The Christian Right in our own country is out to impose a Taliban style theocracy. Abrahamic religion in general has had a long history of rigidity and religious intolerance.

Taliban style theocracy? Really? Talking about slandering the whole bunch because of a few nut jobs. Why don't you just criticize the churches themselves instead of attacking the religion, then? (Hell, even I'm pissed off at the things the Catholic Church has done. But I think the wrongs they did had more to do with them perverting their faith than following it.)

[Psychonaut]

My point is simply that we act like we know so much more about truth and it's nature than we did in 600 B.C. The fact that we have phrases like "Platonic spell" seems indicative of such an attitude. I don't think we do, though.

Our theories are more developed, but they are just as varied as in the ancient world—perhaps even more so today.


The trappings of biology? Heh, it's a good question that I myself can't answer for certain (and probably no one else can, either). But that's rather the point.

I don't really see how a premise naturally follows from insecurity about its roots. :confused:


Please understand I'm not a Christian and I don't mean God in such context. Think of Einstein's conception of God. Hardly Christian.

The premise would make sense if you were adopting some kind of pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism) or panentheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism).



You don't think there is any validity in their path to try to find truth?

I don't think that there is any value in a teaching that you are intrinsically broken and in need of repair from an outside source, no. To be sure, everyone can—and should—strive to be greater than they are, but that is so much different of a starting point than the Christian idea of original sin that requires submission to wash oneself of.


I don't think the new atheists (some of whom I actually enjoy for varying reasons) are telling us anything new. Do you honestly think people like Maher or Hitchens are conveying ideas across that Aquinas or Kierkegaard or C.S. Lewis would have embraced had they only not had some oppressive Christian upbringing? Really?! Nor am I at all impressed with the new atheists' understanding of the philosophical questions they claim to be dancing all over by using words like "no," "nonsense," "ridiculous," and "shtoopid." To be fair, their religious opponents don't argue too well, either.

Look at my entry in the religion field, dude. I'm not on Maher's side. ;)


I agree with just about all of that. But why do you take his word for it? I'm just supposed to accept it as a truism because...? Isn't that your beef with religious people in the context of this discussion?

Aye, arguments from authority are usually bunk. The philosophical formulation behind McNallen's words flows from the radical, apotheotic humanism of Nietzsche on to Alain de Benoist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_de_benoist) to himself.