Dangers of atheism -Sam Harris

originally posted by: luthier
I sound like an apologist? I have never been religious in my life. I do respect apologists. They actually attempt to use reason in arguements. But no am not an apologist.

Sam Harris is my favorite philosopher but I am an apologist?

I said you sounded like an apologist.

My point is I have studied theology.

Congrats....but so what?

The new testament was supposedly a new covenant.
Your arguement does not make sense.

Again, so what? it's the same character that committed those genocides, the same god/son of god/himself/whatever. That it apparently made a convent with someone doesn't change the fact that in the books that it apparently wrote/inspired, this character committed genocide on more than one occasion, setting a precedence...

It's simply out of anger and you haven't looked at the reasons for conquest.

Anger? now i'm convinced you're an apologist.

The genocide in the Americas was a race between three kingdoms to devour land for their empires. It was finished off by a secular state. A secular state whose forefathers wrote scathing reviews of religion.

It wasn't a secular state that was present during the genocides, it was religious states, and religion had no problems whatsoever with all the mass murders, which is the point I was making to the previous poster who was claiming that such bad things happen when religion isn't present...

There is no contradiction. In the grand scheme of killing throughout history Muslims are one that you can reference in their scripture justification for killing.

And Muslims are theists no?....

Do tribal animists slaughter each other?

don't know, don't care

What about pantheist budhists?

Buddhists have been known to slaughter each other sure.

Sorry but I think it's something human being do regardless of what they believe.

I completely agree, religion and theists do not get a pass, which was my original point.....

a reply to: Xtrozero

i dont agree that religion is not the problem. i can agree that people will kill whether they are religious or not.

the thing that makes atheism superior to religion is that there is no atheist dogma, there is no atheist bible. were on the religious side, we have commandments to do evil , written down and taught to children, this is where we get children suicide bombers that can justify their evil by referring to specific verses in the Quran.

the only way to get from atheism to evil, you have to add a philosophy that justifies evil, because saying i dont believe x claim of a god, is not enough to rationally justify yourself to become a murderer.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The Spanish brought diseases not seen in the Americas that wiped out about 80% of them before the big influx of Europeans. Are you suggesting this was planned for religious purposes? I'm not religious but I do understand that Man is one evil SOB, religion or no religion.

And yet religion was there, men and women of god, and these awful things still happened....

The differences is that religion does have some basic good fundamentals and as we go off the moral compass path there is something there to draw us back. In the cases I posted about there was no moral compass to come back to and so Man went totally bonkers.

Did those 'basic good fundamentals' stop the holocaust? the native american holocaust?

Religion does not not have a monopoly on morality in any what whatsoever.

I'm not defending religion, but I do think that religion is not the problem, WE are are problem with or without religion.

So those 'basic good fundamentals' don't make any difference? make your mind up....

As to my original post, I just wanted to point out a cool 200 million deaths that were not religious based to a person who said they do not know of a single situation where religion was not the driver...

That's not what they said, they asked for a time when religion wasn't present......

you my friend added another 100 million to it... I say this at the lost of 10,000 Mayan disks due to religious extremism... such a lost... I think we should wipe out the Spanish for their religious evils but it seems I'm the only one on ATS that actually blame the Spanish for all this and not Americans...lol

Ah...nvm

a reply to: Prezbo369

First of it was definitely a secular state when the last part of the genocides happened. Correct? Which is what I said. The beginning was three kingdoms fighting for land and resources which is the true cause to 99 percent of the history of warfare.

The new covenant in the new testament negated the old testament where it was unreconcilable with the Jesus.

I was never raised religious so I am not angry at it. Like so many who come through difficulty of the religion. I have plenty of problems with religion beyound basic reason issues.

I also have problems with Nietzsche morality or Marx on homosexuality.

Sam Harris classifies religions in different degrees of madness I agree with him .

For instance Christians living in the ME don't create death squads blowing themselves up at a rate anywhere near Muslims. Because yes their book currently has those chapters.

My whole point mankind is viscous no matter what they believe.

If you want to talk about other social problems then we would most likely agree that religion creates some serious perception problems regarding social equality for instance.

originally posted by: vjr1113

the thing that makes atheism superior to religion is that there is no atheist dogma, there is no atheist bible. were on the religious side, we have commandments to do evil , written down and taught to children, this is where we get children suicide bombers that can justify their evil by referring to specific verses in the Quran.

That's the part some refuse to understand.

Nothing is done in the "belief" of atheism - - because it is not a belief.

Things are done for the reasons of belief in a specific God.

a reply to: vjr1113

Or for an atheist to want someone else's resources.

a reply to: Annee

It's not that. It's that it's assumed an atheist won't be jealous or greedy or lustful somehow because they are not religious. Somefaiths may actually have a positive position in philosophy about those situations. It's argueable but a point.

a reply to: luthier

thats a bad assumption. that's why its better not to be prejudice. on topic, Sam Harris talks about spirituality. we can take the good from any school of thought and leave behind the supernatural.

you're right some aspects of Confucianism and Buddhism have good things to teach.


id like to clear up that the difference between scripture and spirituality is the latter can be argued and reformatted, were scripture is a set doctrine that can't be changed at all, a very dangerous way of thinking. that's why we have amendments in the constitution.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Prezbo369

First of it was definitely a secular state when the last part of the genocides happened. Correct? Which is what I said. The beginning was three kingdoms fighting for land and resources which is the true cause to 99 percent of the history of warfare.

Again, you've missed the point. Religion was present during those actions, the religious embarked on those actions, and the religious carried them out. That a secular state eventually emerged at the end of these actions is irrelevant.

The new covenant in the new testament negated the old testament where it was unreconcilable with the Jesus.

The same god of the bible carried them out, why on earth would anyone that's not a christian them think that it's no longer responsible? this thinking is asinine.

My whole point mankind is viscous no matter what they believe.

.....then we agree....

a reply to: vjr1113

I agree it a bad assumption. It's not mine.

Have you read Waking Up?

It's pretty cool. I don't know I would call him an atheist. Maybe anti theist. He does border on Deist sometimes. I think that's why he says he hates the term. He is always working on himself.

He is even a blue belt working on his purple in BJJ. Probably to protect himself from the nutters.

a reply to: luthier

yes i listen to it almost every week if not every month. good stuff. i also keep up with his podcasts, id recommend them.

a reply to: vjr1113

Yeah I am on his mailing list. He has even answered a few philosophy questions I had. Thats how committed he is to awareness.

I really think he is the best of the four horseman. I liked Hitchins too.

a reply to: Prezbo369

I can't answer the assinine thought. I am not a theist. There are plenty of things I find assinine .

When cornered about an omniscient God taking away free will this whole miidle knowledge cherade was invented which was still a paradox

When asked if God could make a round square or an object so big he couldn't lift for an omnipotent God more jargon

IMO. Of course.

a reply to: luthier

wow thats so lucky. id like to meet him though, have a nice discussion about intent.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Annee

It's not that. It's that it's assumed an atheist won't be jealous or greedy or lustful somehow because they are not religious. Somefaiths may actually have a positive position in philosophy about those situations. It's argueable but a point.

No its not.

How many times must someone state/repeat an atheist is an individual.

They are individual people who run the gamut of all that is to be human. They are connected by only one thing - - lack of belief in a God.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: luthier

wow thats so lucky. id like to meet him though, have a nice discussion about intent.

You mean of the action? I agree to a point if that was a dig at my arguement but there is also the effect that matters.

Like good deeds and good intention being different.

a reply to: luthier

yep, he had a long discussion about imperialism in the middle east with Noam Chomsky. Noam basically argued that the west is just as bad as Islamic terrorists. a topic in still researching, but id have to disagree with Noam.

a reply to: Annee

OK Annee you win.
You can relax about the label now.

a reply to: vjr1113

Well its a hard arguement IMO. Intention matters but it needs to be in check with the reality of the effect. In the case of Muslims in the ME I would also argue the way they treat their own social contract is another defining factor. Also defining what bad is would be important.

Did imperialism have an effect on creating radicalization or the chances of reform? I think Harris went over that as well but I forget the whole debate.

Noam isn't my favorite either. He argued from the regressive liberal point of view.

a reply to: luthier

yes ME is very complicated. lets take Iraq as an example. in my opinion going into iraq and taking out saddam was a good move, not rebuilding Iraq was a bad move.

another example, conquering Nazi Germany was a good move, the only difference is that germany didn't fall back into its right wing ideologies when the war was over. they rebuilt their ruined country with the help of western imperialism. could it have been done a better way? yes

it seems to me that the only reason the ME can't rebuild itself is because the default seems to be theology. basic civil rights are not granted to women, 50% of their population, therefore a truly democratic system is out of their reach. the best shot they have is to be educated and dragged into the 21st century.

and i argue, if they have to be made to respect women and reject theocracy by force, so be it. we owe it to the people that are being oppressed. to do nothing is to seal their fate.