[pclayton]

kenberg, on Feb 19 2008, 03:57 PM, said:

I'm impressed. I had never heard of it.

The Forum is my liberal education

LOL me too. Nice to see how others think outside my immediate group of friends.

My formative books would be Psycho-Cybernetics (don't remember the author) and The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. I also love all of Pirsig's books.

[blackshoe]

Maxwell Maltz

[barmar]

TimG, on Feb 19 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

barmar, on Feb 19 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

How can you try to convince someone to change a fundamental belief without preaching?

Perhaps you are correct.

While I consider myself an atheist, I do not feel it is important that I convert others to this point of view. Dawkins struck me as something of an evangelical atheist -- The God Delusion was something of an attempt at conversion rather then enlightenment or education. There may be a fine line between the two which I have inadequately described.

Yes, Dawkins is quite "militant" in his atheism. People like him feel there IS a need to convert people to their point of view, because fundamentalists create societal problems. We can't just let everyone believe what they want, because other people are affected. For instance, some have been trying to convince schools to teach Intelligent Design as if it's a valid alternative to natural selection, while others succeeded in getting a bunch of believers to fly jets into skyscrapers. As long as religious leaders are encroaching on everyone else's rights, we have to fight against them. And one way (possibly the only way) is to try to convert people away from religion.

Regarding the popularity of the book, non-believers don't read books like this to learn not to believe. What we get out of it is useful talking points when discussing religion with others.

I wonder, though, whether many of them were bought as gifts from atheists to their religious friends. Kind of the opposite of people asking "Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior?"

[helene_t]

barmar, on Feb 21 2008, 01:09 AM, said:

I wonder, though, whether many of them were bought as gifts from atheists to their religious friends. Kind of the opposite of people asking "Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior?"

I doubt it. I can imagine someone giving "Breaking the spell" as a gift to a religious friend, but giving a friend "the God delusion" would be disrespectful IMHO.

[TimG]

barmar, on Feb 20 2008, 07:09 PM, said:

We can't just let everyone believe what they want, because other people are affected. For instance, some have been trying to convince schools to teach Intelligent Design as if it's a valid alternative to natural selection, while others succeeded in getting a bunch of believers to fly jets into skyscrapers. As long as religious leaders are encroaching on everyone else's rights, we have to fight against them. And one way (possibly the only way) is to try to convert people away from religion.

The fact that there are eco-terrorists doesn't mean we should attempt to dissuade all environmentalists from working for the causes they believe in.

[barmar]

TimG, on Feb 20 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

barmar, on Feb 20 2008, 07:09 PM, said:

We can't just let everyone believe what they want, because other people are affected.  For instance, some have been trying to convince schools to teach Intelligent Design as if it's a valid alternative to natural selection, while others succeeded in getting a bunch of believers to fly jets into skyscrapers.  As long as religious leaders are encroaching on everyone else's rights, we have to fight against them.  And one way (possibly the only way) is to try to convert people away from religion.

The fact that there are eco-terrorists doesn't mean we should attempt to dissuade all environmentalists from working for the causes they believe in.

That's because there's obvious benefits to environmentalism, and the eco-terrorists are a small fringe group. On the other hand, evangelizing is part of the mainstream of religion. Religious leaders have enormous power in the world, and many political leaders take advice from their religion.

[TimG]

barmar, on Feb 20 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

That's because there's obvious benefits to environmentalism, and the eco-terrorists are a small fringe group. On the other hand, evangelizing is part of the mainstream of religion. Religious leaders have enormous power in the world, and many political leaders take advice from their religion.

One could argue that there are obvious benefits to religion, too.

[Al_U_Card]

ROFLMAO

[kfay]

"Trinity" - Leon Uris

Conor Larkin is my alltime hero.

[cjames]

"Moment of Freedom" + "Powderhouse" + "the Silence" all by Jens Bjørnebo should be compulsory reading for everyone in the West.

[mycroft]

I would say that if you want to understand where I'm coming from, you should realize that I read "How to Lie with Statistics", Huff, and "1066 and All That", Sellar and Yeatman, every year.

As far as my theories on Society go, books don't really help. You have to know my past, and no, if you can't figure it out from my posts, I'm Not Going There. Let's just say that were I born South of 49 instead of the other way around, I would be dead by now, for at least three reasons. I *appreciate* the things about the Rest of the Developed World that have given me the opportunity to be who I am, finally, and sort of hope that someone else will be able to take advantage of them as well.

I would suggest, on the side topic, that fundamentalism isn't the issue. Extremism, or fanaticism, is. Which is why rabidly evangelical *anything*, including rabidly evangelical atheism, scares me. Do note, however, that it is the extremist and the fanatic who progress the world the most as well. It's like dynamite, or a chainsaw, or a bulldozer - the biggest tools affect the world the most, it is what it is aimed at that determines whether that affect is progress or regress.

Oh, and you can call my beliefs and opinions anything you like. You can call me (in certain circumstances) irrational - I've tried being The Ultimate Rational Being, and it tried to kill me. If you call me stupid, however, well, I'm rational enough to know how to judge the maker of that judgment.

Michael.

[finally17]

mycroft, on Feb 21 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

I've tried being The Ultimate Rational Being, and it tried to kill me.

This is awesome.

[helene_t]

mycroft, on Feb 22 2008, 12:53 AM, said:

I would suggest, on the side topic, that fundamentalism isn't the issue. Extremism, or fanaticism, is. Which is why rabidly evangelical *anything*, including rabidly evangelical atheism, scares me.

Yes, I think the word "fundamentalism" is abused a lot.

But I don't think there is such a thing as rabidly evangelical atheism. OK, Dawkins has made his mind up and he is evangelical, but he doesn't advocate children being taught that they will burn in hell if they do pray to God, nor does he advocate blowing up embassies of countries in which newspapers are allowed to praise prophets.

There are militant environmentalists, militant pro-choice activists, militant marxists and militant anti-semitists. And obviously there are atheists in all of those groups. But I don't think I have ever heard of atheism as such being promoted in unacceptable ways. At least it doesn't happen very often. How often do atheists burn churches? How many atheists argue that religion should be banned?

[Codo]

helene_t, on Feb 22 2008, 09:04 PM, said:

. At least it doesn't happen very often. How often do atheists burn churches? How many atheists argue that religion should be banned?

During the communist times they closed many churches in Eastern Europe.
During the Nazi times they closed many churches in Germany.
Ask tibetian monks about chinese practice with their churches.

And these are the only states I know, who claimed to have an atheist governement.

I bet that the same will happen elsewhere if atheism is the most popular form of living or if it is the wish of the governement that their citizens should be atheists.

And even in this forums I read quite often that religion should be banned, that it cause more evil then good.

So as often as I agree with you, sorry, we disagree here.

Atheists are as much normal people as believers are.
They do the same good and bad, commit the same crimes and wars, whatever.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Feb 22 2008, 02:13 PM, said:

During the communist times they closed many churches in Eastern Europe.
During the Nazi times they closed many churches in Germany.
Ask tibetian monks about chinese practice with their churches.

Point taken. Good examples. Maybe the ban on public display of religion (such as women wearing headscarves) in France and Turkey are borderline examples.

I haven't noticed anyone arguing that religion should be banned here, though. Several have said some very negative things about religion, but that is ok IMHO. I don't mind people saying that atheists are misguided either, as long as they don't say that we are criminals (which nobody says here either as far as I have noticed).

There was a thread at some other forum I belong to in which someone stated that religion should be banned, but that is quite rare and did not get any support.

[hrothgar]

Codo, on Feb 22 2008, 04:13 PM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 22 2008, 09:04 PM, said:

. At least it doesn't happen very often. How often do atheists burn churches? How many atheists argue that religion should be banned?

During the communist times they closed many churches in Eastern Europe.
During the Nazi times they closed many churches in Germany.
Ask tibetian monks about chinese practice with their churches.

And these are the only states I know, who claimed to have an atheist governement.

I bet that the same will happen elsewhere if atheism is the most popular form of living or if it is the wish of the governement that their citizens should be atheists.

And even in this forums I read quite often that religion should be banned, that it cause more evil then good.

So as often as I agree with you, sorry, we disagree here.

Atheists are as much normal people as believers are.
They do the same good and bad, commit the same crimes and wars, whatever.

Comment 1: Turkey is an overtly secular republic (It seems to be mellowing though)

Comment 2: I would hardly call the National Socialist party atheistic. Hitler used precisely the same "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" language as Bismark. The National Socialists reached a very happy accomodation with the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church wasn't actively in bed with the German Fascists the way they were in Franco's Spain, but don't pretend for a minute that there was any kind of antagonistic relationship here.

The Nazi's weren't against religion. They were against anything that detracted from their own ability to manipulate the masses. On those occasions where churchs or individual clergymen played ball the Nazis were more than happy to use religion to bolster their own authority. If / when individual clergymen resisted, the Nazi's dealth with them extremely harshly.

[Codo]

[quote name='hrothgar' date='Feb 22 2008, 11:19 PM'] I bet that the same will happen elsewhere if atheism is the most popular form of living or if it is the wish of the governement that their citizens should be atheists.

[/QUOTE]
Comment 1: Turkey is an overtly secular republic (It seems to be mellowing though) [/quote]
Turkey has some very very religious people in their governement. They just try to separate state and church as good as possible. This is very different from being atheists.

[quote]Comment 2:  I would hardly call the National Socialist party atheistic. 
The Nazi's weren't against religion.  They were against anything that detracted from their own ability to manipulate the masses.  On those occasions where churchs or individual clergymen played ball the Nazis were more than happy to use religion to bolster their own authority.  If / when individual clergymen resisted, the Nazi's dealth with them extremely harshly.[/quote]

Like many political parties, The Nazis tried to coopaerate with anybody as long as they are useful. So they did not suppress the christian churches as hard as they did with others. That is true. They abused the churches for their purposes.
But they are still atheists in their words, in what they did and how they thought. If they had had the time, they had closed the christian church too- and if it had just been for the reason you mentioned- there should be nobody able to detract the masses.

The churches did surely not play the role in the resitance that they should have played. This is a very black chapter of our history. This is true. But that does not make Hitler to a christian/ religious man at all.

The Nazis tried to convince people that the church is not necessary. They started programms to get the kids away from the pathfinders to the "Hitler Jugend". They tried to install a new "youth consecration" outside of the church and did some more. This is quite a lot in just 12 years during a world war.
In the parliament there had be not one member who still belonged to a big church.
20 years ago, about 80% of all members of the parliament in the "Weimarer Republic" had been christians.
The christian churches had a strong place in the german society. So it was not possible for the Nazis to erase them in such a short time. However, they often tried.

Please search under Wikipedia Nazi/Religion for further details.
The german side for this is: [url="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchen_und_Religionsgemeinschaften_im_Nationalsozialismus"]http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchen_und_R...onalsozialismus[/url]

[mikeh]

TimG, on Feb 20 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

barmar, on Feb 20 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

That's because there's obvious benefits to environmentalism, and the eco-terrorists are a small fringe group.  On the other hand, evangelizing is part of the mainstream of religion.  Religious leaders have enormous power in the world, and many political leaders take advice from their religion.

One could argue that there are obvious benefits to religion, too.

One could argue that the world is flat. One could be indoctrinated into believing the world to be flat. It wouldn't render the world flat.

I am interested (well, not THAT interested) in knowing what 'benefits' could be said to flow from a belief in a religion.

I am NOT saying that a believer doesn't perceive a benefit, but I am suggesting that I find it (so far) impossible to come up with a 'benefit' that is unique to religious belief... a benefit that pertains because of religious belief and that would be unavailable to a non-believer.

Of course, I don't count the ability to abandon or never invoke rational thinking as a benefit

As for stale arguments such as the charitable works of religious organizations, all I can say is 'hogwash'. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest, and arguably successful altruistic venture in the history of the world, and it is the creature of two secular individuals... I don't know if the Gates are religious, but they sure don't preach god.

[Al_U_Card]

OBVIOUS benefits....hmmmn let's see;

No further need to figure out what to do, (morally, ethically, practically) as someone will always be there to tell you what is required.

No need to worry about the consequences of your actions, as once you accept Christ and repent then all is forgiven.

Become part of a group that will support you no matter what, as long as you toe the line.....until you get caught.

[barmar]

mycroft, on Feb 21 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

I would suggest, on the side topic, that fundamentalism isn't the issue. Extremism, or fanaticism, is. Which is why rabidly evangelical *anything*, including rabidly evangelical atheism, scares me. Do note, however, that it is the extremist and the fanatic who progress the world the most as well. It's like dynamite, or a chainsaw, or a bulldozer - the biggest tools affect the world the most, it is what it is aimed at that determines whether that affect is progress or regress.

Do you consider people like the Pope and Jerry Fallwell, and the people who follow them, to be extremists? They represent mainstream religions, and hold significant influence over public policy in many countries. Even one whose Constitution expressly dictates separation of church and state.

It's not extremists who are trying to outlaw gay marriage (and consider homosexuality to be evil), curtail stem cell and cloning research, and teach creationism or intelligent design. In the Middle East, it's not extremists who are perpetuating the conflicts between Israel and Palestine or between the Muslim sects in Iraq. In Northern Ireland, the conflict between Catholics and Protestants involves ordinary folks and the government they elected.

Isn't it ridiculous that in this modern age, people are being persecuted and killed over whose version of ancient fairy tales should be followed? I don't see how you can blame someone for being overly preachy when trying to convert people away from this.