View Full Version : Character nationality
I don't really mean to dig up the old political correctness topic but I like the character background better for D3 compared to D2 for these reasons:
-Ok, the amazon is full blown white but do you see any amazon forests in Europe? If she was truly an amazon her skin complexion should of been darker. So what? A Brazilian native not good enough to be an amazon so a pretty white girl has to take her place?
-Black paladin? I'm sure D2 took place before the 1600s where all black people (African to be political correct) live in Africa with different cultures, an African Christian is something I would never expect.
The point is, in D2 Blizzard based the characters off American/European cultures too much despite the characters being different colored skin. I like D3 for the fact that the character looks all correlates with their country and culture. I understand that it is a lore, the time and continent shape cannot be compared to the real world's but if you're (Blizzard) going to base the looks of the characters as well as the outfits of the NPC to real life cultures, why not give the character's their correct appearances based on their ethnicity?
*Short rant, but hopefully not so offensive*:I don't understand why certain people (yes, they're here) question the race of the wizard and monk. "Oh the wizard HAD to be asian", which many people believe an asian wizard is a symbol of political correctness. Ok, they're asian, but the paladin is black, the sorceress is mid-eastern, barbarian probably Siberian or something. Do asians not count as a human species unlike black, middle easter, caucasians?
I'm not trying to bash on one nationality, I am upset that the characters do not fit with the supposed "culture" in the Diablo 2. As for D3, I'm very satisfied with the character backgrounds.
But hey, it is a "lore" after all so you can have a chinese guy dressing up in a leaf dress and bone piercings through his nose like the witch doctor *sarcasm*.
Cormac McArt
28-08-2009, 01:46
Actually Amazons originate near Greece so they are white. Barbs are Germanic/Nordic , Druids are Irish/Scottish (all White so far) and that's all that's clear.
Sanctuary isn't earth. So don't apply Earth's nationalities to Sanctuary. That is all.
Cormac McArt
28-08-2009, 01:59
Sanctuary isn't earth. So don't apply Earth's nationalities to Sanctuary. That is all.
It isn't but the Developers are on Earth so they're applying Earthly things in Sancutary - no other way.
Sanctuary isn't earth. So don't apply Earth's nationalities to Sanctuary. That is all.
^This.
If you need your character nationalities to be exact models of everything on Earth go play the sims or second life. This is a fantasy game created with imagination for the purposes of building a world different than the one we live on.
Your claim that since the developers live on Earth means they should only use earth-related reasonings behind everything goes against any fantasy world ever created. If we were to abide by this reasoning, then:
1) Real people on earth can't leap through the air for dozens of feet at a time so the Barbarian shouldn't get a leap attack.
2) Demons don't outright attack Earth so there shouldn't be any demons on Sanctuary, either.
3) Earth beings can't shoot fire, so the Wizard class isn't realistic.
4) What we can do is create a house on a street with a bunch of people and exchange fake money for decorating it, get a job that pays us and anything else that can be done in The Sims.
Actually Amazons originate near Greece so they are white. Barbs are Germanic/Nordic , Druids are Irish/Scottish (all White so far) and that's all that's clear.
I've never heard of greek amazons, but I do know that valkyries do look similar to amazons, that they wield spears/bows/shields. Having a white amazon could either be Blizzard not finding a dark skin toned amazon attractive and feel the need to use a white girl instead, or inaccurate naming, or me just being wrong about amazons and valkyries. As for the barb, his ethnicity is a bit hard to pinpoint but I don't think he's German/Nordic, he has an asian face as well as the savage-like hair style (like chinese barbarians).
Sanctuary isn't earth. So don't apply Earth's nationalities to Sanctuary. That is all.
Well, Diablo does have many features from Earth. If you're going to base the paladin's religion from Earth as well as a red head Irish for a druid (like cormac said) then you're already heavily basing the game off of Earth. Might as well make the character's skin tone and race features the same as their cultural features such as clothes and way of talking.
My overall point is that if Blizzard wants to have diversity within the character class, that means the characters clearly have a race and it is based off of real life to be "politically correct" or to appeal to people of different skin tone. What I don't agree with is that if you're going to have a black person or an asian person as a character, you might as well give them their unique individual qualities instead of homogenizing them into white/christian culture. However this is just the way I feel and I don't expect everyone to feel the same way as me and I'm fine with that, this thread is mainly to portray my own views though it may not look like it.
Well, Diablo does have many features from Earth. If you're going to base the paladin's religion from Earth as well as a red head Irish for a druid (like cormac said) then you're already heavily basing the game off of Earth. Might as well make the character's skin tone and race features the same as their cultural features such as clothes and way of talking.
There are also angel,s hundreds of demons, magic, demonic magic, you travel to Hell, you can teleport, you can be hit repeatably with swords and not die. Sorry I'm being a bit cynical.
You do have a valid point though, but i think the developers just base the Characters on sanctuary on humans because it is easy, just don't read to much into it, they are simply basing the aesthetics of the characters on humans because its easier. Aside from the fact they aren't human (there descendants of the spawn of an angel and demon) applying Earth's culture to Sanctuary isn't rational.
True but (this is all in my own opinion) it is a bit weird isn't it? I've never seen a dark skin colored (African) christian-based paladin and I find it hard to swallow when I first learned that the paladin, who I expected to be white, turns out to be black.
It's fine that Blizzard uses real word features to base the game lore on, but all those features are from the views of Caucasian Christians (or Greek) even though there are other character ethnicities in D2. There is a black, middle-east, nomadic (probably north/west asia) characters, what about their own beliefs? Why do they all have to follow the views of beliefs of Christians/Greeks? To me that is like saying all other gods and cultures are invalid and the only thing that differentiates the sorceress and paladin from the necromancers and amazons are their skin colors, which is probably only there to attract different colored customers. To sum it all up, why have a black/mideast/north asian(?) if they all have the same beliefs, cultures and language as white christians?
To sum it all up, why have a black/mideast/north asian(?) if they all have the same beliefs, cultures and language as white christians?
Go to Diablo's websites where they describe their characters to find out that the characters do not have the same beliefs. Yes, the Paladin who is portrayed as a black person has beliefs considered similar to the christian beliefs. Thinking that all of the characters have the same beliefs as him shows you know nothing about the game.
For example, the Sorceress from D2 is described as "Solitary and reclusive, the Sorceress acts based on motives and ethics inscrutable to most, sometimes seeming capricious and even spiteful." This doesn't seem to match with the Christian-like ideals of the Paladin.
Furthermore, the Druids, as listed in the Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction instruction manual are described as having "a way of thinking that holds harmony with the natural elements of the world, its plants and animals, as the heart of its most intrinsic beliefs, for they are the personification of the very world that the Druids have sworn to protect." If you were comparing this Druidic thinking to the real world you would see it has a lot in common with what Christians considered Pagan beliefs because there is no mention of an almighty God.
I'm not going to go on and do all of your research for you. Please learn about what you're here to discuss before making baseless claims and touting your own ignorant beliefs on how a game and its lore operates when there are dozens of descriptions that counter your humble opinion.
I've never mentioned anything about the Druid aside from him being red head Irish so your statements do not hold me anything over that.
However my point for the paladin still stands as well as the sorceress. Do all cultures believe in demons? Most do (Christians, Japanese) and some do not heavily believe in it (Jewish) while some do not believe in demons at all (buddhism which the exception of Japanese and "Oni's", Confucianism) unless you consider inner demons a demon... The sorceress may be pretty much an "aethiest" or however you spell it, however she fights demons from a Christian's point of view. Before you tell me that a man killing demon is viewed the same way by all cultures that believe in demons, asian countries such as Japan mainly mention demons as little tricksters that causes mischief and scares people, few actually hurt humans.
You failed to see my main point: why have characters like the paladin, who is black, but is a Christian paladin? What about the barbarians, (correct me if I"m wrong) I doubt they have any religious beliefs, yet they live in a world where angels exist. So if a witch doctor sacrifices a goat, does the goat's spirit flies straight into Tyrael's mouth or something? Tyrael resembles the Christian's view of an angel, meaning all the beliefs of any non-white-christian character may still apply to them but is false, that Tyrael is probably the highest divine figure in the Diablo world (unless there is a Diablo god), meaning the druid's belief of spirits is non existent that he should be Christian and worship Tyrael or the World stone.
Again you are confusing the real world with Sanctuary. Just because on Earth some religions choose to believe in Angels and Demons, this CANNOT be used to justify the assumption that since some Sanctuary beings resemble humans that their faiths would be similar. It's not a logical argument by any means.
why have a black/mideast/north asian(?) if they all have the same beliefs, cultures and language as white christians?
Your ignorance astounds me here, because obviously all christians must be white. Is this meant to be bigotry? The characters do not have similar beliefs, they simply have the common goal of protecting Sanctuary from the prime evils.
why have characters like the paladin, who is black, but is a Christian paladin? Yeah because christians have to be anglo-saxons. Please learn a few things about religions first.
I doubt they have any religious beliefs, yet they live in a world where angels exist.
Just because Angel's exist you have to be religious? This makes no sense.
meaning the druid's belief of spirits is non existent that he should be Christian and worship Tyrael or the World stone. Say whaaatttt???? Please stop this thread now, your arguments are ridiculous and merely showcase your small understanding or religious philosophy. a) So what, Angels exist, cool, who said Tyreal was a christian angel? Couldn't angels just be another form of being like every other animal in our world, simply living on a different plane of existence? b) If Tyreal was a Christian angel, the proof that Christian angels exist doesn't mean by any margin that the With Doctors beliefs are wrong.
Technomancer
28-08-2009, 08:27
Wow, this is powerful dumb.
The religions of Earth are divided by the FACT that they think they are right and the others are wrong. In Sanctuary, the various religions are PROVEN to ALL be right. They are really just fragments of the same reality. Angels and Demons DO exist. No one's belief or lack of belief changes that fact. The theology in Sanctuary is loosely based on Christian/Jewish/Islamic tradition, ALL of which believe in angels and demons, but is quite far removed and original beyond that.
Your issue with the Black Paladin is making me blue-screen. So (just playing on the Sanctuary = Earth argument), you don't think there were any black Christians prior to say... 1600? Man oh man. Anyways, it doesn't have to be Christianity, since they worship THE LIGHT. Apparently, no one on Earth could possibly believe in Light and Goodness without being Christian, right? As far as ancient Black Euro-Christians, look up Moors. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors) They eventually became ruled by Muslims, but originally were religiously tolerant, and Christianity would have been fairly common. Shakespeare's Othello (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othello) was a Moor.
Amazons are of Greek origin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazons) The Amazon River in South America was named by white people a couple millennia later. In-game, they have their own polytheistic religion not unlike Greek/Norse mythology.
Druids were not Christians, not even close, but half of Christian traditions were stolen from "pagan" religions, so I could see the mix up. In-game, their religion is much like the historical Celtic religion. Halloween was stolen from them. Fun times.
Necromancers worship life and death. Obviously not Christian. Sorcs, Barbs(except for the tacet connection to the Druids), and Assassins don't have any apparent religious affiliations. The Paladin is the only character with any appreciable ties to Christianity. Your trouble seems to be with the game world, not the characters.
Jedouard
28-08-2009, 09:02
In the 1600's there were plenty of Black Africans living in Europe. (If you do not know how you chose this date, as it was already the Renaissance in much of Europe.) They had been living there long before the 1600s, even in pre-Roman history. (If you want to delve really deep into the past, then prehistorically we are all African.) Furthermore, Christianity is known to have hit Africa in 42 A.D., with Saint Mark. I don't know what that has to do with Horadrim but you brought it up.
I think the only way to solve this issue is to look at the Character's "Earthly" influences:
D2
Amazon = a legendary group of mythological female warrior living in the region between Scythia and Sarmantia (modern day Ukraine).
Assassin = She is white in the game, but uses Eastern Martial arts. The term "assassin" is claimed to come from the Arabic "Hashhashin" or "hashish smoker", because the Naziri (assassins) in the Caspian region were under the influence of hashish or opium during their killings and indoctrination. What ethnicity should she have? Answer: Middle Eastern or East Asian, but not Caucasian.
Barbarian = Basically any area that was not part of Rome but Rome came into contact with and felt were uncivilised (i.e., had a different, non-centralised culture). Romans took this word from Greek, where it meant anyone who was not Greek but the Greeks had contact with and felt were not civilised (i.e., had a different, non-centralised culture). That said, using the traiditional meaning even in the Middle Ages, Barbarians could come from anywhere from Europe or the Mediterranean, the latter of which would include Caucasian, Northern African, Black African, Arabian, Turk and even Central Asian.
Druid = They lived in what is now modern-day Britain, Scotland, Ireland and parts of northern France. Probably ethnicity: Caucasian
Paladin = The word originally meant an officer connected to the Emperor's Palace on Palatine Hill. Through stories of the Paladins, or Twelve Peers of Charlemagne's Court, it began to enter modern European languages, arriving in English in 1592. Later, in poetry, they began to draw parallels between the Twelve Peers and the twelve disciples. If you take the earliest etymology, then a black paladin is completely possible: black Africans were considered a luxury to have in your company in Roman times. If you take the latter etymology, which I think most people would, then not so much. In short, if you are going to limit your understanding of Paladine to the Twelve Peers, then maybe he should be Caucasian. But, if you are going to do this, keep in mind that the Twelve Peers may have been "holy", but they were racist crusaders. If you are more inclined toward a virtuous idealisation of paladins, then there were plenty of Christians in Africa during Medieval times (or the Renaissance), and plenty of them made their way to Europe. I would guess the D2 creators combined Southern Coptic Christians with Paladins.
Necromancer = He's a white guy from the jungle. Does that make much sense if he were from Earth? This is probably the one skin-type you would never ever find in a jungle on Earth.
Sorceress = Okay she's white. Are you happy? The thing is, any white woman wearing a short-skirt while out and about in the Europe of the 1600's would have been either been stuck inside to a brothel or a jail (or killed). Anyone claiming to use magic would have been burned as a witch. It appears none of that goes on in Sanctuary.
D3
Barbarian = See above.
Monk = Well, Russia is Situated next to predominately Buddhist China. The in terms of his body, he looks like an Eastern Orthodox monk. In terms of wardrobe, it is mostly from Shaolin and Buddhist influence. Both of these would explain his strict adherence to a way of worship and the latter would explain the fighting. Plus he has Hindu red paint on his forehead, which would explain his worship and not just belief in a 1001 gods. So, no problems with this character, except that they could have chosen a better name than Ivgorod for his city of origin ("Iv" - nonsensical bastardisation, "gorod" (GO-rahd) = city in many Slavic languages, and the developers pronunciation was horrendous).
Witch Doctor = My hatred for this character's visuals aside, he is from the Jungle, and, unlike the case for the necromancer, it looks this Jungle matches our traditional (yet inaccurate) stereotype of who lives in the jungle.
Wizard = Judging by appearance, she comes from what is apparently north-eastern Asia. Her skin has a light complexion and her eyes are almond, this would lead you to believe she was an earth equivalent of northern Japanese.
Recap of who fits the Earth stereotypes:
Zon is: Caucasian, should be: Caucasian
Sin is: Caucasian, should be: East Asian or (less so) Middle Eastern
Barb is: Caucasian, should be: Caucasian, Black or North African, M. Eastern, or C. Asian
Druid is: Caucasian, should be: Caucasian
Necro is: Caucasian, should be: anything but Caucasian and Eskimo
Paly is: Caucasian, should be: Caucasian (under crusader conception)
Sorc is: Caucasian, should be: burned at the stake for her short skirt and magic
Barb see above
Monk is: Caucasian, should be: Caucasian, East Asian or Asian Indian
WD is: Black African, should be: Black African, Malaysian, South American and so on
Wiz is: East Asian, should be: East Asian.
If there is a bias, then it seems it is towards, not away from making characters Caucasians.
Cormac McArt
28-08-2009, 11:16
Such a hot discussion ...
As for your doubts for the origin of Amazons - just check it in Wikipedia.
Hmm , I've never thought for the Barbarian as Asian. It's true he has Asian Hair but that's all. The Barbarians for the Chinese were the Mongols - and they're predominantly (horse) Archers - so it doesn't fit D2/3's Barbarian. He's using Brute Melee Force and that fits both the Germans and the Norse - the Byzantine Emperor's Varangian Guard was of Norse (settled in Slav lands and raised Kievan Rus) and there are many records for these Wariors being Reckless in Battles being in Berserkergang and in times of peace some of them has volunteerly appeared in the Arena and Killing Bears with Bare Hands!!
P.S.: Nor the Mongols fit Barbarian's Gigantic figure!
P.S.2: I've never perceived D2LoD's Characters as Non-Humans - they're such Humans!
If I everwish to play Non-Human Characters then I would move to (World of) Warcraft and play Green-Skinned Freaks ...
Funkopotamus
28-08-2009, 11:56
I actually liked how Blizzard made minor changes to typical classes. I mean, it's all based in Sanctuary and not on Earth. You can't really complain the paladin isn't a white guy who follows Christianity because there is no Christianity in Sanctuary, only the teachings of Zakarum. And they do that in Kurast. I'm not sure if Zakarum is the only way of light in Diablo. I'm by no means an expert.
I'm not sure how the other classes are switched up though. I've known necromancers to be evil wizards and not necessarily masters of the undead so I can't pin down a specific origin for them. Wizards/sorcerers/magicians are everywhere. Maybe the elemental style is an Asian thing and arcane magics are more European and those are switched, I'm not sure. The barbarian has an asian twist to him with his shaved head and ponytail. I think Amazons were supposed to have tan skin and dark hair so a pale blonde one is kinda strange.
I've never heard of greek amazons
Sure you have!
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y186/zanpanzer/lcar.jpg
Again you are confusing the real world with Sanctuary. Just because on Earth some religions choose to believe in Angels and Demons, this CANNOT be used to justify the assumption that since some Sanctuary beings resemble humans that their faiths would be similar. It's not a logical argument by any means.
Your ignorance astounds me here, because obviously all christians must be white. Is this meant to be bigotry? The characters do not have similar beliefs, they simply have the common goal of protecting Sanctuary from the prime evils.
Yeah because christians have to be anglo-saxons. Please learn a few things about religions first.
Just because Angel's exist you have to be religious? This makes no sense.
Say whaaatttt???? Please stop this thread now, your arguments are ridiculous and merely showcase your small understanding or religious philosophy. a) So what, Angels exist, cool, who said Tyreal was a christian angel? Couldn't angels just be another form of being like every other animal in our world, simply living on a different plane of existence? b) If Tyreal was a Christian angel, the proof that Christian angels exist doesn't mean by any margin that the With Doctors beliefs are wrong.
I've never said Tyrael was Christian, I said he resembled it. I like you use insults in your reply so I'll use some as well, idiot. First of all, you obviously act as if Diablo takes place in the 21st century. All Christians were white or primarily caucasian back in the middle ages and any exceptions if possible would be too small to count. You must've never read a history book in your life with that "do all christians have to be white?". If there isn't a white buddhist in the 1600s then there sure as heck wouldn't be a black paladin with christian-like faith.
As for angels existing, I never said the other characters have to be religious in a Christian-like faith, I said their own beliefs are proven invalid in the Diablo world. Tyrael is labeled by D2, as an "archangel" am I wrong? He has radiant angelic wings like christian angels, he may not be technically christian be he is heavily based off of Christian angel qualities. Now, you can't say that the Paladin is technically African-American since obviously America doesn't exist in the Diablo world, however he is has Christian-like faith, and he has a clean face (no make up, buzzcut hair) like African American christians in this world. If Blizzard is going to base the characters off of real life, why base it on one or two culture's (American/British) point of view?
Oh, common goal of protecting human kind from extinction against monsters is a unanimous viewed by all humans? thanks I never knew that *sarcasm*
I actually liked how Blizzard made minor changes to typical classes. I mean, it's all based in Sanctuary and not on Earth. You can't really complain the paladin isn't a white guy who follows Christianity because there is no Christianity in Sanctuary, only the teachings of Zakarum. And they do that in Kurast. I'm not sure if Zakarum is the only way of light in Diablo. I'm by no means an expert.
I'm not sure how the other classes are switched up though. I've known necromancers to be evil wizards and not necessarily masters of the undead so I can't pin down a specific origin for them. Wizards/sorcerers/magicians are everywhere. Maybe the elemental style is an Asian thing and arcane magics are more European and those are switched, I'm not sure. The barbarian has an asian twist to him with his shaved head and ponytail. I think Amazons were supposed to have tan skin and dark hair so a pale blonde one is kinda strange.
Sure you have!
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y186/zanpanzer/lcar.jpg
I understand that my opinions can vary, but what is the point of (again) having a black paladin? It just doesn't fit you know what I mean? Sure it might if Diablo were to take place in a time and place that is more modern-like as of today. So what is a black paladin doing in D2? I'm 99% sure its just for political correctness. This part is the part that divides me from everyone here and it is entirely my own opinion: if you're going to have variety in terms of skin color for classes, why not have variety in the monsters, like Diablo (christian based) as well as Ashura (Islamic based?). I know most of the monsters in D2 are made up through Blizzard's imagination, but definitely a few is based off of real myth beliefs, might as well have some that is based off other cultures.
strange that you didnt talk about Jedouards response, cause he explained why an african paladin arround 1600 is perfectly reasonable...
indeed, his text pretty much says everything i could say about this topic (only that i wouldnt have the stamina to write such a wall of text xD)
except of the barbarian, the part that practically any culture (or ethnic) could be called babarians from someones point of view is right, but as we learn in game that act5 is the part of sancutary the barbs origins from, pretty much makes it clear that he is supposed to be a germanic/viking/norman kind of character. i think they just didnt put much thought into his hair in d2^^ (and since they confirmed that the d2 barb is the d3 barb, they fixed his out of place hair now xD)
ps: plz excuse my terrible english, they just dont teach us well enough over here^^
Jedouard
28-08-2009, 18:30
All Christians were white or primarily Caucasian back in the middle ages and any exceptions if possible would be too small to count...
[Tyrael] has radiant angelic wings like christian angels, he may not be technically christian be he is heavily based off of Christian angel qualities...
This part is the part that divides me from everyone here and it is entirely my own opinion: if you're going to have variety in terms of skin color for classes, why not have variety in the monsters, like Diablo (christian based) as well as Ashura (Islamic based?)..
Somebody never cracked a history book, but I think it was you. Africa received Christianity even before Rome proper. Regarding medieval times, it depends on which period you are discussing. Pre-Muslim expansion, Egypt, much of Northern Africa, all of the horn of Africa and a good portion of Sub-Saharan Africa were all Christian. After the Muslim expansion, many parts of the horn of Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa remained Christian. Moreover, the Copts in Egypt are pretty much the oldest known organised sect of Christianity. In all, you are talking about millions of Christians in Africa in the Medieval times.
As for demons: Baal was Caananite, Mephistopheles was Germanic, Devil was Greek, Belial is Hebrew and Azmodan entered Judaism through Zoroastrianism, the source for all monotheistic religion, and thus encompasses both originating cultures.
I cannot speak for how many black Christians made their way to Europe in Medieval times - not that that is important given what I said above - but I know there was one: Pushkin's grandfather.
indeed, his text pretty much says everything i could say about this topic (only that i wouldnt have the stamina to write such a wall of text xD) except of the barbarian, the part that practically any culture (or ethnic) could be called babarians from someones point of view is right, but as we learn in game that act5 is the part of sancutary the barbs origins from, pretty much makes it clear that he is supposed to be a germanic/viking/norman kind of character. i think they just didnt put much thought into his hair in d2^^ (and since they confirmed that the d2 barb is the d3 barb, they fixed his out of place hair now xD)
ps: plz excuse my terrible english, they just dont teach us well enough over here^^
Your English is great!
You are right about the Barbarian: he could be from anywhere. (Indeed, I forgot to add Asian Indian, because Alexander the Great's empire extended that far.) The point is that they chose a Caucasian out of all those options, like they did with so many other characters. If there is a bias, it is for Caucasians, not the opposite.
Funkopotamus
28-08-2009, 20:37
I understand that my opinions can vary, but what is the point of (again) having a black paladin? It just doesn't fit you know what I mean? Sure it might if Diablo were to take place in a time and place that is more modern-like as of today. So what is a black paladin doing in D2? I'm 99% sure its just for political correctness. This part is the part that divides me from everyone here and it is entirely my own opinion: if you're going to have variety in terms of skin color for classes, why not have variety in the monsters, like Diablo (christian based) as well as Ashura (Islamic based?). I know most of the monsters in D2 are made up through Blizzard's imagination, but definitely a few is based off of real myth beliefs, might as well have some that is based off other cultures.
Because it's cool? I don't know when which lore was published, but if they already established that the way of light, the teachings of Zakarum, originated in Kurast before Diablo 2 was being created they would have had no choice than to make the paladins black really.
slex lord of hatred
28-08-2009, 20:56
can i just ask. who cares about the race of a character. its not real. have you ever thought they add characters of lots of races to get away from racist claims , they add classes of different sexes. to stop people calling them sexist.
so what if the paladin is black. its a game . not reality. its fiction.
its good to have racial diversity.
the paladin is a holy warrior for the heavens. that are in diablo not reallity. do you see diablo in hell in our time. lol
Technomancer
29-08-2009, 01:07
@visom: Are you serious? It really sounds like the crux of your argument is that if Blizzard is gonna have characters of differing ethnicities, then they should be stereotypes. That's why the black Paladin is so awesome. It defies any and all STEREOTYPES. Your complaining about THAT!? Should he have had a bone through his nose? Practice Voodoo? Have a grass skirt?
If you're in a hole, just stop digging.
Wow, this is powerful dumb.
The religions of Earth are divided by the FACT that they think they are right and the others are wrong. In Sanctuary, the various religions are PROVEN to ALL be right. They are really just fragments of the same reality. Angels and Demons DO exist. No one's belief or lack of belief changes that fact. The theology in Sanctuary is loosely based on Christian/Jewish/Islamic tradition, ALL of which believe in angels and demons, but is quite far removed and original beyond that.
Your issue with the Black Paladin is making me blue-screen. So (just playing on the Sanctuary = Earth argument), you don't think there were any black Christians prior to say... 1600? Man oh man. Anyways, it doesn't have to be Christianity, since they worship THE LIGHT. Apparently, no one on Earth could possibly believe in Light and Goodness without being Christian, right? As far as ancient Black Euro-Christians, look up Moors. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors) They eventually became ruled by Muslims, but originally were religiously tolerant, and Christianity would have been fairly common. Shakespeare's Othello (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othello) was a Moor.
Amazons are of Greek origin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazons) The Amazon River in South America was named by white people a couple millennia later. In-game, they have their own polytheistic religion not unlike Greek/Norse mythology.
Druids were not Christians, not even close, but half of Christian traditions were stolen from "pagan" religions, so I could see the mix up. In-game, their religion is much like the historical Celtic religion. Halloween was stolen from them. Fun times.
Necromancers worship life and death. Obviously not Christian. Sorcs, Barbs(except for the tacet connection to the Druids), and Assassins don't have any apparent religious affiliations. The Paladin is the only character with any appreciable ties to Christianity. Your trouble seems to be with the game world, not the characters.
In the 1600's there were plenty of Black Africans living in Europe. (If you do not know how you chose this date, as it was already the Renaissance in much of Europe.) They had been living there long before the 1600s, even in pre-Roman history. (If you want to delve really deep into the past, then prehistorically we are all African.) Furthermore, Christianity is known to have hit Africa in 42 A.D., with Saint Mark. I don't know what that has to do with Horadrim but you brought it up.
I think the only way to solve this issue is to look at the Character's "Earthly" influences:
D2
Amazon = a legendary group of mythological female warrior living in the region between Scythia and Sarmantia (modern day Ukraine).
Assassin = She is white in the game, but uses Eastern Martial arts. The term "assassin" is claimed to come from the Arabic "Hashhashin" or "hashish smoker", because the Naziri (assassins) in the Caspian region were under the influence of hashish or opium during their killings and indoctrination. What ethnicity should she have? Answer: Middle Eastern or East Asian, but not Caucasian.
Barbarian = Basically any area that was not part of Rome but Rome came into contact with and felt were uncivilised (i.e., had a different, non-centralised culture). Romans took this word from Greek, where it meant anyone who was not Greek but the Greeks had contact with and felt were not civilised (i.e., had a different, non-centralised culture). That said, using the traiditional meaning even in the Middle Ages, Barbarians could come from anywhere from Europe or the Mediterranean, the latter of which would include Caucasian, Northern African, Black African, Arabian, Turk and even Central Asian.
Druid = They lived in what is now modern-day Britain, Scotland, Ireland and parts of northern France. Probably ethnicity: Caucasian
Paladin = The word originally meant an officer connected to the Emperor's Palace on Palatine Hill. Through stories of the Paladins, or Twelve Peers of Charlemagne's Court, it began to enter modern European languages, arriving in English in 1592. Later, in poetry, they began to draw parallels between the Twelve Peers and the twelve disciples. If you take the earliest etymology, then a black paladin is completely possible: black Africans were considered a luxury to have in your company in Roman times. If you take the latter etymology, which I think most people would, then not so much. In short, if you are going to limit your understanding of Paladine to the Twelve Peers, then maybe he should be Caucasian. But, if you are going to do this, keep in mind that the Twelve Peers may have been "holy", but they were racist crusaders. If you are more inclined toward a virtuous idealisation of paladins, then there were plenty of Christians in Africa during Medieval times (or the Renaissance), and plenty of them made their way to Europe. I would guess the D2 creators combined Southern Coptic Christians with Paladins.
Necromancer = He's a white guy from the jungle. Does that make much sense if he were from Earth? This is probably the one skin-type you would never ever find in a jungle on Earth.
Sorceress = Okay she's white. Are you happy? The thing is, any white woman wearing a short-skirt while out and about in the Europe of the 1600's would have been either been stuck inside to a brothel or a jail (or killed). Anyone claiming to use magic would have been burned as a witch. It appears none of that goes on in Sanctuary.
D3
Barbarian = See above.
Monk = Well, Russia is Situated next to predominately Buddhist China. The in terms of his body, he looks like an Eastern Orthodox monk. In terms of wardrobe, it is mostly from Shaolin and Buddhist influence. Both of these would explain his strict adherence to a way of worship and the latter would explain the fighting. Plus he has Hindu red paint on his forehead, which would explain his worship and not just belief in a 1001 gods. So, no problems with this character, except that they could have chosen a better name than Ivgorod for his city of origin ("Iv" - nonsensical bastardisation, "gorod" (GO-rahd) = city in many Slavic languages, and the developers pronunciation was horrendous).
Witch Doctor = My hatred for this character's visuals aside, he is from the Jungle, and, unlike the case for the necromancer, it looks this Jungle matches our traditional (yet inaccurate) stereotype of who lives in the jungle.
Wizard = Judging by appearance, she comes from what is apparently north-eastern Asia. Her skin has a light complexion and her eyes are almond, this would lead you to believe she was an earth equivalent of northern Japanese.
Recap of who fits the Earth stereotypes:
Zon is: Caucasian, should be: Caucasian
Sin is: Caucasian, should be: East Asian or (less so) Middle Eastern
Barb is: Caucasian, should be: Caucasian, Black or North African, M. Eastern, or C. Asian
Druid is: Caucasian, should be: Caucasian
Necro is: Caucasian, should be: anything but Caucasian and Eskimo
Paly is: Caucasian, should be: Caucasian (under crusader conception)
Sorc is: Caucasian, should be: burned at the stake for her short skirt and magic
Barb see above
Monk is: Caucasian, should be: Caucasian, East Asian or Asian Indian
WD is: Black African, should be: Black African, Malaysian, South American and so on
Wiz is: East Asian, should be: East Asian.
If there is a bias, then it seems it is towards, not away from making characters Caucasians.
strange that you didnt talk about Jedouards response, cause he explained why an african paladin arround 1600 is perfectly reasonable...
indeed, his text pretty much says everything i could say about this topic (only that i wouldnt have the stamina to write such a wall of text xD)
except of the barbarian, the part that practically any culture (or ethnic) could be called babarians from someones point of view is right, but as we learn in game that act5 is the part of sancutary the barbs origins from, pretty much makes it clear that he is supposed to be a germanic/viking/norman kind of character. i think they just didnt put much thought into his hair in d2^^ (and since they confirmed that the d2 barb is the d3 barb, they fixed his out of place hair now xD)
ps: plz excuse my terrible english, they just dont teach us well enough over here^^
Somebody never cracked a history book, but I think it was you. Africa received Christianity even before Rome proper. Regarding medieval times, it depends on which period you are discussing. Pre-Muslim expansion, Egypt, much of Northern Africa, all of the horn of Africa and a good portion of Sub-Saharan Africa were all Christian. After the Muslim expansion, many parts of the horn of Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa remained Christian. Moreover, the Copts in Egypt are pretty much the oldest known organised sect of Christianity. In all, you are talking about millions of Christians in Africa in the Medieval times.
As for demons: Baal was Caananite, Mephistopheles was Germanic, Devil was Greek, Belial is Hebrew and Azmodan entered Judaism through Zoroastrianism, the source for all monotheistic religion, and thus encompasses both originating cultures.
I cannot speak for how many black Christians made their way to Europe in Medieval times - not that that is important given what I said above - but I know there was one: Pushkin's grandfather.
Your English is great!
You are right about the Barbarian: he could be from anywhere. (Indeed, I forgot to add Asian Indian, because Alexander the Great's empire extended that far.) The point is that they chose a Caucasian out of all those options, like they did with so many other characters. If there is a bias, it is for Caucasians, not the opposite.
Because it's cool? I don't know when which lore was published, but if they already established that the way of light, the teachings of Zakarum, originated in Kurast before Diablo 2 was being created they would have had no choice than to make the paladins black really.
@visom: Are you serious? It really sounds like the crux of your argument is that if Blizzard is gonna have characters of differing ethnicities, then they should be stereotypes. That's why the black Paladin is so awesome. It defies any and all STEREOTYPES. Your complaining about THAT!? Should he have had a bone through his nose? Practice Voodoo? Have a grass skirt?
If you're in a hole, just stop digging.
I didn't read Jedouard's reply because (no offense) it was way too long and I hate reading and tend of forget it all within the 2minutes that I'm typing a reponse.
As an apology I will make a full reply, the others you'll all share yours:
Starting with the Wizard/Monk/WD I agree, I never made any criticisms about them so thanks for the backup. As for the other characters, I used 1600 as an example, D3 could be based off the 11th century where religion and people were less familiarly associated as it is with the later periods.
You define assassin as white, remember she has black hair and white skin, but so do middle-eastern people. You even said she knows mid-east fighting techniques so she could not be white afterall, unless you consider mid-eastern people white, then you've left me a thread that needs some revising to your views.
You're right, the barbarian can come from anywhere but they originally do not have a religious belief, not the ones that conquered Rome for one. If D2 were to take place in a time based before the fall of Rome, then no most barbarian tribes do not have a religious belief, otherwise at a later period in history they would all eventually be pulled to a religious faith.
As for the paladin, it is really hard (I admit) to say that it is possible for him to be Christian. The time and period within the Sanctuary are mixed up versions of today's time. The amazons follow Greek/Roman gods (specified in the character background book) in D2, and during the time that the Romans ruled, England was controlled by Rome so they did not have the Christianity as one of today. Conflict to time flow to be exact. I am aware that there some blacks with Christian beliefs but the period I'm talking about for Diablo that is based on is before the Imperial Age (the age with the muskets and stuff), meaning the relation of people and religion are more different.
The sorceress wears outfits more associated with that of middle-eastern women in brothels (only more skin showing, trait given by American creators). To clear up my confusion, do you consider middle-eastern whites like you do with English people?
Oh, and how can Christianity (or which form of Christianity) existed during the Roman period, I do know that the Romans controlled the continent of which is now referred to as Britain. If Britain (or it's name during the year 800 or something) was controlled by a superior nation, how could they spread their own beliefs?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the rest of you, no way in .... I'm replying to this wall of text, I'll sum up my reply for the rest of you:
Yes, I'm very stereotypical. Not in today's time, but during the early periods of time. Let's not forget Asia here, the wizard for example, is based off China, China of the year 800 (for ex.) do not share the same religious beliefs of the European nation, so why fight monsters based only off their mythology then? I really have no quarrel with mix/clash of cultures although I may disagree with it at times, which is why I wrote this thread, because a black paladin doesn't appeal to me, yes you're all complaining to me about my taste rather than my view of logic. I know that chinese barbarians exist, but I find that a caucasian barbarian looks more appealing and that I prefer characters of chinese nationality being a more scholarly looking class (TA DA! ITS THE WIZARD!)
No one ever seems to address my main point and constantly pull me away from it, if you're going to have a mixed variety of colors and cultures in the characters, why not do so for the monsters as well?
lone_wolf
29-08-2009, 18:14
visom people like you that come up with totaly baseless assumption annoy the hell out of me since Jedouard already picked your statements apart piece by piece i feel i have to trash your failed use of christian angels.
damnit im am an atheist and i know far more about angels in the bible then you probebly ever will because i reserch things.
As for the angels wings no just no the stupid little angel paintings that you can see everywhere is not even close to what is said in the damn bible. Its never really said they had wings there look for yourself.
you might not know this but angels where messengers unless we talk about cherubims or Seraphims but then again why anyone would bother with beings with four faces: man, lion, ox and eagle and four wings two that covered them and two that extended upward. Seraphims make it even funnier then we are talking about creatures that are simular to the cherubims but have six wings. two wings covered their face, two covered their feet and two they used for flying when not endlessly praising god that is.
If we talk about the high angels not just the messengers, the guards and the burning ones it gets even funnier as some of the angels like Uriel is only made out of light if i recall right. Why dont you take alook in The Book of Enoch 20:1-8 and educate yourself a bit.
Because your picture of how the angels look do not match up to even the bible.
Jedouard
29-08-2009, 18:51
....I hate reading and tend of forget it all within the 2minutes that I'm typing a reponse.
That was already clear.
You define assassin as white, remember she has black hair and white skin, but so do middle-eastern people.
Most would call the skin color olive and the hair brown or black. However, skin type, facial morphology, hair type and so on vary just as much within regions as they do between them.
You even said she knows mid-east fighting techniques so she could not be white afterall, unless you consider mid-eastern people white, then you've left me a thread that needs some revising to your views.Yeah, reading is not your strength. I said: 1) the word assassin has Arabic roots, 2) her fighting techniques had clear East Asian influences, 3) her character was Caucasian. Conclusion: the developers had a Caucasian bias on the Assassin. No revising needed.
You're right, the barbarian can come from anywhere but they originally do not have a religious belief, not the ones that conquered Rome for one. If D2 were to take place in a time based before the fall of Rome, then no most barbarian tribes do not have a religious belief, otherwise at a later period in history they would all eventually be pulled to a religious faith. First, Rome did recognise that many barbarians had religious beliefs; it just labelled them heresy. Second, even if a political entity does not recognise the religious beliefs or religion of a certain group or certain groups of people, it does not mean they do not exist. Even the most technologically primitive cultures have religion. Indeed, you will not find a culture without one. Lack of systematized belief in the supernatural is a new phenomenon for human kind. Some would argue - and I am inclined to agree - that there is a biological predisposition toward religion, as human brains are geared to personify many non-human things. Only in recent times do we see people beginning to understand this phenomenon and finally moving beyond the horse crap that religion is.
As for the paladin, it is really hard (I admit) to say that it is possible for him to be Christian. The in-game Paladin is Horadrim. Earth Paladins were either officials in the Roman palace or the Twelve Peers of Charlamagnes court. Where are you going with this?
The time and period within the Sanctuary are mixed up versions of today's time. The amazons follow Greek/Roman gods (specified in the character background book) in D2, and during the time that the Romans ruled, England was controlled by Rome so they did not have the Christianity as one of today. Conflict to time flow to be exact. First of all, your argument ceased making any sense.
Second of all, regarding Rome, which has nothing to do with anything IN YOUR ARGUMENT, it entered what is now Britain in AD 43 and "officially" left in AD 410. Rome became "officially" Christian in AD 391, but Rome was already at odds with its northern territories, so it did not extend the religion. In AD 597 the Roman Catholic Church, not to be confused with Rome, entered Britain. Did you think Christianity just spontaneously appeared in Britain in the Middle Ages? If there is a conflict of time flow, then it resides 1) in your unwillingness to accept that time flows and 2) your subjective placement of historic event according to your uneducated stereotypes.
I am aware that there some blacks with Christian beliefs but the period I'm talking about for Diablo that is based on is before the Imperial Age (the age with the muskets and stuff), meaning the relation of people and religion are more different. For the third time, Christianity hit Africa in AD 43. It quickly spread because Christians are evangelical. And, the Christian population remained in the millions even after the Muslim expansion.
The sorceress wears outfits more associated with that of middle-eastern women in brothels (only more skin showing, trait given by American creators). I see you have done a lot of academic work on Middle Eastern clothing and, more particularly, Middle Easter brothel clothing during medieval times. (Joking.) Since I have travelled and studied the region intensely and am in fact working a job related to this subject, I can tell you that you are wrong on both accounts.
To clear up my confusion, do you consider middle-eastern whites like you do with English people? What the hell does that mean? Moreover, what the hell does that have to do with anything?
Oh, and how can Christianity (or which form of Christianity) existed during the Roman period, I do know that the Romans controlled the continent of which is now referred to as Britain. Britain is not a continent. That was not a sentence.
If Britain (or it's name during the year 800 or something) was controlled by a superior nation, how could they spread their own beliefs? Whoever mentioned Britain spreading its religious beliefs?
Yes, I'm very stereotypical. You are proud of this!? Moreover, you do not understand the proper usage of the word "stereotypical"!? (The way you used it, it means you fit the stereotype of something.)
Let's not forget Asia here, the wizard for example, is based off China, China of the year 800 (for ex.) do not share the same religious beliefs of the European nation, so why fight monsters based only off their mythology then?Here is one good reason: The developers are trying to make a world where there is one real supernatural history, not thousands of fictitious religions.
I really have no quarrel with mix/clash of cultures although I may disagree with it at times, which is why I wrote this thread, because a black paladin doesn't appeal to me, yes you're all complaining to me about my taste rather than my view of logic."View of logic" - what does that mean? I do not know whether the other replies have been focusing on your "view of logic", but I have certainly been focusing on your lack of logical argumentation. In short, your problem with the characters' Sanctuary ethnicities is that they do not match YOUR stereotypes for their Earth equivalents. And, it is clear that the word "your" needs to be in bold, because you clearly notice nothing about a Caucasian bias in other characters.
I know that chinese barbarians exist, but I find that a caucasian barbarian looks more appealing and that I prefer characters of chinese nationality being a more scholarly looking class (TA DA! ITS THE WIZARD!) There's the proof.
No one ever seems to address my main point and constantly pull me away from it, if you're going to have a mixed variety of colors and cultures in the characters, why not do so for the monsters as well? If this was your main point, then you might have mentioned it, say, in the thread title or any of your first three posts. Instead, you never mention this issue with monsters until your forth post and you start off complaining about a black paladin (but not a white barbarian, white assassin or white necromancer, which could or should have different ethnicities if they were purely Earth based).
----------------------
Two things in closing:
1) please do not tell that me I brought up Rome and Britain and so on and so forth and that you were just responding. I listed the characters and the possible influences for them based on the etymology of their names and their skills - that was all. And, I did this to illustrate the developers' bias toward Caucasians.
When Rome did what holds no importance if it has nothing to do with when and where a given design concept came from. As a result of this, your entire argument is moot. I repeat, you are trolling because your the characters' Sanctuary ethnicities do not match your stereotypes about their Earth equivalent.
2) I hope separating your sentences - if they can be called that - has helped you to see you need to do some serious work on forming logical arguments. The evidence you provide in no way supports your conclusions.
----------------------
lone_wolf: That is awesome that you are an atheist and are willing to say it. I join you in your awesomeness, as I too am an atheist. Isn't it a shame that we are often the only ones who look into the actual nonsense written and/or professed by those who are religious?
Technomancer
30-08-2009, 00:02
@lone_wolf & Jedouard: No way!! I guess that makes 3 of us!! Now we can use our secret decoder rings to turn everyone into heathens, huh? :rolf:
I'm an atheist too, but I usually don't bring it up cause it's not worth the flack. I'm not a crusader (pun) about it, I just look at it like Greek/Roman, Norse, or Egyptian mythology. I adore Judeo/Christian mythology and all mythology, so I read a lot about it all. It get's on my nerves when I know more about someone's religion than they do. If someone's going play D&D in a steam tunnel on acid (AKA practice religion), I at least expect them to know what their talking about.
On topic: Jedouard, you've given a much better breakdown of things than I have enough interest in this thread to do, so kudos! Visom, your arguments are what are being attacked and dismantled. Stereotyping is not a positive. I would be insulted if they DID try and base characteristics on stereotypes, like Barret in FFVII, and I'm white! That was just lame to me. When I first saw the black Paladin, I was like "Really?! I would have never thought of that. ...Really?!" and I just fell in love. Not because of that, but because Pallys are so awesome! I've always thought it was great. I have to say though that the Assassin shouldn't have been pasty white like that. I always try to think of here as like far south eastern European, like around Turkey or Georgia. I've mentioned it elsewhere, but yeah, the Sorc is certainly Middle-eastern.
Too, the Sorc in D1 was black. That wasn't exactly stereotypical either. Just out of curiosity, if there was gonna be a black character in D2, what class do you think would have fit if not the Pally?
Jedouard
30-08-2009, 08:42
Not to run a stupid thread off topic (or maybe precisely for this purpose), deciding whether or not to bring up atheism or not is a difficult choice. Religious people have often been inculcated into thinking lack of religion is immoral. This is no surprise given it is necessary in order for religion (and its hierarchy) to continue such inculcation. If it were not for the threat of hell that comes with the immorality of being a non-believer, how many people really would believe a talking donkey saved Balaam from making the damning mistake of cursing Moses' and his followers in the midst of one of their genocidal rampages? I would reckon not that many. ("Skeptic's Annotated Bible" is an awesome website. Google it, because I cannot link it here.) In short, once the inculcated hear that we are atheist, anything we say must be immoral because we are, after all, going to Hell according to the folklore some men wrote a few thousand years ago.
You know all of this, I am sure, but I put it out there for the others to see why we might be afraid to speak up.
But here is the issue about us not speaking up: 10% of the United States is not religious, yet that 10% often does not voice itself because of the aforementioned reason. Because of this, the fights for separation of church and state and for evidence-backed arguments in place of faith-based assertions are being weakened. Kansas teaches creationism in its schools--that's right, the world began in 6000 B.C.. Scientific progress has been halted in many a field, for example, stem cell research. Apparently, embryo's have souls and women are going out and getting pregnant just to kill those poor souls to donate them to science. (I highly doubt that any one person had an abortion to help out stem cell research.) Political debate has become even more demagogic and shallow with all things debatable turning to a question faith: no homosexual marriage because some dudes 5000 years ago were homophobic. These same people ought to outlaw masturbation since it is completely forbidden in the Torah, Bible and Shi'a shariah and many of the Sunni schools of jurisprudence. The list could go on and on, and the side that demands true deliberation, not recourse to folklore, is that much weaker without us. We need to start speaking up, if only for our own good.
In addition to the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible", search "American Atheists" on Google. It is the oldest organisation in America devoted to the legal protection of Atheists.
Technomancer
31-08-2009, 08:07
We do need to speak up. I typically avoid it because religion is just not part of my life, so I just naturally don't bring it up very often, except to people I know think similarly, or are at least open minded. I've been friends with Christians, atheists, Wiccans, and even satanists, and I have to say from personal experience, the most moral among them have been Wiccans and atheists. My experienced difference between Christians and satanists is very mixed. Hell, I don't smoke or do drugs, I rarely drink, I'm not a manwhore, I try to help others when I can. About my only "moral" vice is that I cuss like a sailor sometimes.
Funny story: The singer in my first band was a true believer, son of a preacher man. He was also a party animal and womanizer. He got high at our first show and made a fool of himself. Eventually he quit, and part of the reason (he claims) he quit was because he thought we were a bad influence and God was doing stuff to get him away from us like when he drove off an icy road. :whistling: We didn't do anything, we didn't party, couldn't get laid if we wanted to. We were straight and narrow dorks, being in a band was about the only thing cool about the rest of us, and we were a better band than the one he left/went back too. Meanwhile, ALL of his other friends were into all sorts of hedonism, but since they went to church all the time, they were the right people. He was also bigtime into Godsmack, until we enlightened him to the fact that Sully was a witch. :evil2:
There are getting to be more and more high profile people championing our cause like Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens, which is great. Being an atheist is something like a milder closet homo phenomenon. When some people find out, they just shut down, so I typically pretend to just be agnostic and searching when I'm around people I know will act that way. It makes me feel dirty, so I don't really associate with those folks much anymore.
As soon as I hear anyone spouting the 6000 yrs thing, I just try to forget that they even exist, cause there's no common ground there. For a good period of history masturbation or homosexuality was illegal. I can't remember the century, but in England, I want to say the 16 or 1700s, any type of sexual behavior that wasn't for the explicit purpose of reproduction was punishable by death.
I'm much more fearful of American Christian theocrats than Arabic or Persian Muslim theocrats.
Oh yeah... :hijack:
I'm glad i don't live in America because i'm atheist, don't get me wrong i love the states, but amount of persecution even nice people subject you too just because you don't believe in god is quite amazing. It is amusing though, it's strange how religions preach acceptance and tolerance of your fellow man, but for atheists? Nope. Straight to hell dont pass go dont collect $200.
I guess though radicals always seem to out-scream moderates, a lot of people think Muslims are hell bent on destroying Christians and ****, but living next to the largest population of Muslims in the world, they are incredibly accommodating and amongst the nicest people i have met, its just that the radicals soil their name. Same with every religion, KKK was Christian, so was Hitler, Crusades killed thousands of innocents, witch hunts, Scientology (oh wait they are crazy)... Islamic Terrorists, they all just ruin the name of legitimate religions.
Jedouard
31-08-2009, 12:27
It is tough to be an atheist in the States, perhaps moreso than anywhere else, but I think it is tough anywhere. I currently live in a Muslim country. No one asks what my religion is... until they find out I am engaged to a native. Then, the usual course of conversation is:
"Are you Muslim?"
Me: "No"
"How can you take a Muslim?"
Me: "Who said she was Muslim?"
"What is she?"
Me: "She is not religious?"
"How can you marry someone who is not religious?"
Me: "I am not religious."
"You don't believe in God?"
And from that point I usually get a whole slew of arguments about why I should religious, usually ending up at how I am going to Hell. I think the issue is that, as I am not part of the in-group, I am not held to the same standards, but once I start to mess with the in-group, suddenly things change.
This is not to say Muslims or anyone is any worse than any other religion. Indeed, Christians who try to convince me usually follow the same cycle of argumentation.
My issue is this: You mention the "radicals" versus the "legitimate", but there is only really two differences between these categories: 1) radicals have beliefs that do not necessarily match modern conceptions of human freedoms and rights, 2) radicals force - sometimes through direct violence - their beliefs not only on the in-group, but also on the out-group. But, the problem I am most concerned with is universal to both radicals and non-radicals: faith.
Faith is perhaps the most detrimental concepts to human-kind to have ever been invented, yet it is also very useful at maintaining a hierarchy: "Do not ask questions. Do not search for evidence to support possible answers to your questions. No, have faith in something there is no evidence for, but was instead written by a person (who also had no evidence)." For this reason, I regard all religion as dangerous.
That does not mean I think those people who are religious are dangerous or even deserving of animosity. Instead, they have unfortunately been inculcated. The question is how to wipe the religious slate clean and get these people to ask questions and seek evidence-based answers.
The only thing I can come up with is to form a community where the standard of living is so high that everyone wants in. What is the catch? Although the society will allow anyone in, the profession of religion is not allowed. Instead, you would teach a natural history of religion in schools. That way kids can see how dumb, yet influential religion is. And, sure there is no freedom for institutionalised religion, but there is the freedom to live in the community or not.
engagequadlaser
31-08-2009, 13:05
Removed
10char
Jedouard
31-08-2009, 15:56
Yeah, in 1999, back when I lived in Ohio, my best friend had a Darwin fish on his car. Someone tore it off and keyed his car. The worst part of this story is that it took place in 1999, well before September 11, 2001 lit religionism ablaze.
lone_wolf
31-08-2009, 18:13
Since i live in Sweden a country where most swedish people go to the church a minumum of 4 times. their baptism, confirmation,wedding and funeral. Most people here dont give a damn.
@Jedouard yes its sad that we often know far more about their religion then the religious people know themself.
@Technomancer well i know that in the states it can be much harder and that many times the best you get is a blank look in peoples faces as their brain fail to understand what you just said.
@Autti yeah the radicals ruin pretty much everything they come into contact with. Whats important to remember is that the vision of those people are not the same as saying that all people that has that religion feels the same. As you say yourself thankfully in reality most moderate religious people dont try to force their religion onto others.
I can also recommend bill mahers movie religulous its quite an intresting look on religion.
@engagequadlaser as with many other things it depends on where you live. Here in sweden for example most people would not be that much supriced if you said you where an atheist.
Starving_Poet
31-08-2009, 18:24
Like anything else, depends on where in the states you are. I'm an atheist living in Miami Beach, FL and ride around with a darwin fish on the back of my car. Never once been harrassed or even gotten so much as a honk, regularly talk to people about faith and religion and never once gotten a hard time for my beliefs. Now, if I lived in the midwest somewhere....
Yeah, but that last line displays a prejudice that is in no way different than people who are unable to understand religious views that are different than their own.
engagequadlaser
31-08-2009, 18:30
Removed
10char
Starving_Poet
31-08-2009, 19:07
Yeah, that is pretty much the definition of prejudice.
engagequadlaser
31-08-2009, 19:21
Removed
10char
Funkopotamus
31-08-2009, 19:21
I live in the midwest. Nobody really cares.
You can find people who are all high and mighty about their religion, sure, but you can find those people anywhere really.
engagequadlaser
31-08-2009, 19:30
Removed
10char
Starving_Poet
31-08-2009, 19:33
I have no problem with religious people. To each their own, whatever they'd like to believe.
I have a problem with bigots, and those who push their beliefs on others. Are you trying to make some sort of statement about how I should be more open-minded, even towards those whose views involve pushing their viewpoints on others?
There's such a thing as being so open-minded, your brain falls out.
No comments on being more open-minded - just pointing out the irony of making a statement about living in an open-minded 'utopia' while using the broad brush of prejudice to prove your point.
Funkopotamus
31-08-2009, 19:39
By and large, it's been my experience that people are far more fervent about their religion in the bible belt. Perhaps it's the norm to some because you live there, but when I go from majorly secular Miami to seeing billboards with religious propaganda, jesus fish on the majority of cars, and an air of passive aggressiveness when the fact I'm an atheist is brought up, it's a pretty stark contrast.
Despite your defensiveness of the area, yes, religious intolerance is far more concentrated in certain places than others.
Edit - Oh, my favorite was the billboard of the aborted fetus. By far.
I dunno. Maybe. Religion just never comes up. And I don't look at billboards much. I told my mom's missionary friends that I wasn't into religion and they were okay with that. But I could be living in an area that's an exception. Also I'm not really a social butterfly or anything. All my friends would be right on board if I started making racist, rape, dead baby, or any combination, jokes.
engagequadlaser
31-08-2009, 19:48
Removed
10char
Jedouard
31-08-2009, 20:42
Having lived on the East Coast and in the Midwest, and travelled extensively on/in both, I would say the Midwest is observably more religionist. Ohio, my home state, swung in favour of Bush for his second term because of the black electorate in Columbus and Cincinnati. However, it made no political or economic sense to for this minority group to do so. Indeed, it was for religious reasons (anti-homosexual marriage, pro-life). This is no surprise, as, just like the rest of the country, the minority populations with darker skin are on average poorer and poor populations tend toward religion. The same goes for the remaining poor, lower-middle class and/or rural white population. (Something about their imagined afterlife holding more promise than the living hell they are subjected to.)
Sure you will always find a some bastions of open-mindedness in the Midwest, but ask yourselves where all the rallies calling Obama a terrorist Muslim were held during the last election. I of course have my areligious and atheist friends in the Midwest, and I even know of larger communities of areligious, atheist, agnostic or simply not fervent religious people, but I do not think this is representative of the Midwest's population.
While Engagequadlaser's argument may seem prejudiced, I am sure a professional survey would support what he is arguing: the Midwest is more religionist than, say, the East or West Coast.
I do think Florida may be more religionist than his social group/community represents, though, because poorer Hispanic populations tend toward religionism as do older generations, both of which are substantial communities in Florida.
EDIT: Do you believe that when I wrote the other three-letter word for "homosexual" in "homosexual marriage", the censor program asterisked it out? It is sad to think that the forum can turn into that sort of name calling.
Starving_Poet
31-08-2009, 21:22
It's not prejudice to point out a fact. Unless you really want to make the argument that religious zeal is equally distributed across this country in a uniform fashion.
In fact, please do. I'd absolutely love to see someone try to make this point and defend it.
:coffee:
This one is easy as your facts are wrong - which is the point about prejudice.
It depends on the religion in question
You'll find zealous Baptists in the south east
You'll find zealous Mormons in the west
You'll find zealous Lutherans in the north
You'll find zealous Methodists everywhere east of the rockies
You'll find zealous Episcopalians in a little county in South Dakota
You'll find zealous **** in the east coast and South East Florids
You'll find zealous Catholics in the South West and North West and North East
- All care of the Glenmary research center
You'll find zealous atheists too! But I don't have the data to show their distribution, so I can't comment on where they are most likely to be found.
You find zealots where ever there is a large massing of any ideologue - religious, political, or social. To label the Midwest as the zealot capital of the world, is a misnomer. Then to call it the Bible Belt is sheer ignorance. The Bible belt is the south eastern quadrant of the United States. While there are indeed midwestern states (MO) in the Bible belt, it is predominantly southern. In fact, you are closer to it in Miami Beach than I am in Chicago.
Midwest
http://iguide.travel/graphics/Midwest_-28United_States_of_America-29-1.png
Bible Belt
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/BibleBelt.png/255px-BibleBelt.png
Now for the moral of the story - even if the facts were right what you said would have still be prejudice. Let me use an example - It is a fact that for every 10% increase in single parent families in a given area, there is about a 17% increase in teen violent crime rates. (US Bureau of Statistics)
However, if I then go and say
"Well, where I live - in Chicago, Illinois, I never really had to worry about my kids being violent criminals. We talk about gangs and stuff, but it's never really a big deal. But if I lived in Washington DC..."
That, my friend, is prejudice.
Jedouard
31-08-2009, 22:36
Hi Starving_Poet,
Your argument is good. I think there may be a couple points of contingency.
One point I can think of is that the maps your provided do not always match people's conceptions. I always tend to think of the Midwest as a bit larger (in terms of similar conventions), and the Bible Belt as well.
Like I said above, I think the only real way to discern if there is a big difference in religionism by region is to do a survey. Ask a random sample of the population about their views on placing their religion in the various parts of the public sphere and about how mandatory it would be to observe their religious conventions. I am sure that such surveys must have already been conducted, but my interest is too low to go look for them.
I would imagine that non-coastal United States would show a stronger tendency for religionism than coastal United States, as would poorer and/or less educated populations. I am sure there would be exceptions, but the averages I would imagine would point this way. I am basing this assumption off of other sociological work I have read and/or personally conducted myself.
I have a feeling that this is what engagequadlaser was trying to say, though not as clearly.
There is one thing I do disagree with:
You'll find zealous atheists too! But I don't
have the data to show their distribution, so I can't comment on where they are most likely to be found.
"Zealous" means something along the lines of being fervently partisan to a person, cause, ideal. I thus do not see atheism, the disbelief in anything supernatural, as being a source of zeal. There tends to be three levels of activism for atheists: 1) no activism at all, 2) activism to the extent of resisting religionism, 3) activism to the extent of getting religious people to ask questions. Most atheists belong to the former category. A minor, but significant percentage belong to the second category.
The third category is a bit trickier. You cannot really include in this category atheist who are defending their views against what usually amounts to be interrogation. So what you end up with is people like Richard Dawkins. I would say he is one the border of being zealous, as his methods are a bit abrasive like those of zealots, but his ideal is simple for theists to ask themselves the same questions they pose to others when pushing their religion. (Question: "What if you're wrong?" Response: "What if you're wrong." Question: "What is morality without religion?" Response: "What is morality with religion?") His assumption is that if theists do this, and he helps them a long a bit in the process, then they would see the flaws in their logic.
But, even this cannot be considered zealous, as this is not the implantation of confining ideals, but the encouragement of free, unbridled thought so that the individual may derive his/her own ideals. I guess some would consider the encouragement of thought to be the encouragement of an ideal, but it seems a stretch to call that zeal.
Funkopotamus
31-08-2009, 22:44
I've seen a 4th level of atheists where they just claw and bite at people who are religious. They call them stupid and get really annoying about it.
Starving_Poet
31-08-2009, 22:48
Would you consider someone who works to disprove religion to be a zealous atheist?
If we define these 'zealous religious folk' as those who remove your darwin fish and vandalize your car, would not a 'zealous atheist' be one who removes your jesus fish and vandalizes your car?
Wouldn't this be the equivalent of the Billboards that were seen in the midwest?
http://londonist.com/attachments/london_craig/241008atheistbendy.jpg
If one is religious zeal, then how can the other not be atheistic zeal?
popenfresh
31-08-2009, 23:06
Sure atheists can be obsessive but at least they have the right to be. If you think there’s such a thing as truth and care about was it real and what is not, does that make you zealous? Saying God doesn’t exist is like saying the earth is round or unicorns are fairytales… You’re bound to get frustrated if people keep acting so stupid that they deny pretty much anything that contradicts their narrow-minded believes.
As for your bus billboard, at least they’re being open-minded enough about it to use the word “probably”. Religious folk don’t even consider the possibility they might be wrong. Now that’s zealousness for ya.
'zealous atheist' be one who removes your jesus fish and vandalizes your car?
Holy crap Jesus has a fish now! I'm so becoming Christian, that guy is awesome!
Zealous isn't really the right word for your argument, fanatical would be more appropriate, a zealous follower of a religion doesn't mean he isn't accepting of others, just that he passionately believes in his religion but DOESN'T have to openly discredit others. That would be a fanatical person, someone who follows the religion to the very letter and openly discredits and abuses others religions for being 'false'.
As i said before, it comes down the fanatical and radical members of religions that divide them, mostly because moderates are incredibly accepting of others and realize people have different faiths and respect that right. They don't speak out like fanatics or radicals who cover the airways with their doomsday messages of everyone bar my religion is going to hell.
Technomancer
01-09-2009, 00:58
This thread took a frown and turned it upside down!! :)
I get what engagequadlaser is talking about, and he's more or less right, I live in the middle of what he's talking about. It's a bit overly simplistic though. Larger population centers tend to be more tolerant of different viewpoints, so Chicago or Miami Beach would be a less threatening environment than more rural areas. Indianapolis is so so. In the Midwest, there's a little bit of confusion about where the Midwest stops and the South begins. It's not at state lines, it's Interstate 70. North of 70 is the Midwest, south of it is the South. At least that's the way it is in Indiana, I'm under the impression that holds for Illinois and Ohio too.
There are, basically, zealous atheists, but they tend to actually be satanists. Not devil-worshippers, but Anton Levey style atheist self-worshippers, or autotheists. Those people get on my nerves. I hate selfish people in any form.
On the list, I'm basically a 2 with opportunistic 3 mixed in. I've always been interested in the "debate" between science and religion. I came up with a quote a few years ago:
"The difference between science and religion is that in science, someone asks a question, then tries to find the answer, while in religion, someone asks a question and someone else makes up the answer."
Funkopotamus
01-09-2009, 01:06
Sure atheists can be obsessive but at least they have the right to be. If you think there’s such a thing as truth and care about was it real and what is not, does that make you zealous? Saying God doesn’t exist is like saying the earth is round or unicorns are fairytales… You’re bound to get frustrated if people keep acting so stupid that they deny pretty much anything that contradicts their narrow-minded believes.
What about the moral boost? Some people draw strength from their belief in religion. It helps them get through hard times. I don't believe in God, though I don't deny the slim possibility of a Star Trek scenario of something posing as one, but I wouldn't try to take that away from anyone.
Also, if there's anything I've learned from the Bible that I heard on tv it's "do unto others". If I don't want to hear people's **** I'm sure they'd appreciate it if I didn't subject them to mine.
EDIT:
Anton Levey style atheist self-worshippers, or autotheists.
I actually looked into that one day and I agreed with a lot of what it was about. I kind of follow a lot of it naturally in that I don't go out of my way to help people really but if they ask I will lend a hand. With what depends on how much I like them. I try to better myself, etc. It's been a while, I don't remember all the things they wanted. Ultimately though, I deemed myself too lazy to be the best I can be or whatever it was.
Tolerance isn't really a good thing though if you look at it. I don't like tolerance, its ridiculous. Think about it, tolerance by definition is knowing someone is doing the wrong thing and openly accepting their wrong doing. Of course this has the assumption of the observer being infallible which is rarely the case. But my points still stand, why should you accept someone doing something if it is wrong? Should the issue at least be debated to convince one of the parties of their mistake?
Jedouard
01-09-2009, 08:21
I couple responses to various topics before (not in any order):
-----
Regarding tolerance: It is pretty rotten, actually. We need respect for valid, evidence-based, well-defended arguments. Tolerance means that I don't like what you're doing, but go ahead. Why are people tolerant? It is usually either because of laziness, because of powerlessness or because of the unspoken agreement of "You leave me alone, I leave you alone." The problem is, there are some subversive ways around tolerance, namely the Australian ballot: Yeah I am tolerant, but I vote for the candidate who says he will get 10 commandments in our schools.
So where does that leave atheists? We can sit silently while this happens, we can engage people in conversation and/or we can become politically active.
-----
Regarding the Golden Rule:
I would not say that it was from religion that you took the rule "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". If it was, then why didn't you take anything else? You clearly have a set of morals that finds its source in something else, such that you can pick and choose. God sure killed a lot of people directly, as well as commanding his followers to do so, so why not follow that example?
Furthermore, this rule was based on In-Group/Out-Group behavior. Historically, sure you do unto others in your own group as you would have them do unto you, but with other groups not so much. I doubt that a significant portion of the religious population are observing this rule. Why? For the very reason stated above: when they go into their anonymous voting booths, they vote for something that does unto others what they would not have others do unto them. Many (not all and not necessarily a majority) vote to have religion forced on people, but would not accept the reverse.
-----
Regarding zealous and fanatical atheists:
Are they zealous and fanatical or simply responding to zealous and fanatical religious people. The atheist bus sign began precisely as a response to the fanatical. Comedy writer Ariane Sherine saw an advertisement on a London bus featuring the Bible quote, “When the Son of Man comes, will He find Faith on this Earth?”. A website URL ran underneath the quote, and when Sherine visited the site she learned that, as a non-believer, she would be “condemned to everlasting separation from God and then spend all eternity in torment in hell”. (Much of the text in this paragraph is directly quoted from the website for the bus campaign, the URL of which I cannot post here.)
The atheist bus sign was simply a response to this fear-mongering, something that is dangerous. At the very least, this can ruin people's days, which may cause them to in turn ruin other people's days; at the very worst, it can drive people to the "Well, I am going to Hell anyway, so why not have some fun with it and **** someone up." I believe in "Religulous" they said a random survey was conducted and 5% of the religious people interview thought they were headed to Hell. (I might be wrong about the source.) What sort of mentality do you think they meet the world with?
In addition, the atheist's response to that bus sign was, as suggested above evidence-based: "There is probably no God." We have no evidence to prove a negative, as proving a negative is not falsifiable. But we can say that many of the traditional arguments supporting that there is a God have been proven wrong by science and that there is no evidence to support there being a God. Hence, we are 99.999999999% sure there is no God, but not 100%.
In sum, I would say atheists only become active in response to having their right to freedom from religion infringed upon. Even if this is in the public realm, I believe this is still a right. Wear your cross, wear your hijab, do what you want to that regard - these are all very personal things - but do not seek to engage me with religion and religious indoctrination, fear- and hate-mongering? When you do, be prepared for me to ardently defend myself and my rights with evidence-based arguments. This is something I do not consider zealous or fanatical.
For those who tear off fish stickers (I have never heard of any atheist doing this) or who prohibit religious activity (Stalin's Soviet Union), I do not know whether they are fanatical atheists or simply misguided. Forcing something on theists is no more productive than forcing something on atheists - it just so happens that the latter is far more frequent than the former.
Indeed, I cannot imagine an atheist tearing fish stickers off of people's cars except maybe in a drunken state, and in that case I would think it would come in response of having religion pushed in your face all day long. Don't believe me, check out the giant touchdown Jesus on I-71 in Monroe, Ohio. (Google image it - it is good for a laugh.) As far as Stalin goes, he was totalitarian, and it would make no sense if that did not carry over to his ideology. Case in point: I think it is safe to say that atheists are not the one's leading the anti-hijab argument, but Christians (at least in France).
-----
Regarding religion as a source of solace:
Indeed, there is a problem of people finding solace in religion... actually there are many:
1) If the afterlife is so great, then who cares about this one. I will just let the things that are wrong stick around because, well, "The first will be last and the last will be first."
2) A very significant portion of the religious population - source is in the film "Religulous" - Many people actually think Judgement Day is less than 50 years away. What do you think their views are on sustainable, environmental friendly behaviour as well as just sustainable social organisation.
3) Religious people seek answers in a books of folklore written thousands of years ago. Something tells me that these answers are not sufficient to resolve modern-day human issues, which require that we be taught proper methods for inquiry and research and then go about conducting the work ourselves.
4) As an addendum to #3, many of these same religious people try to then force these "answers" on everyone else.
You can find solace in other places than a book of folklore that tells you someone loves you (so long as you fear and love Him and you not only follow but also enforce this arbitrary set of rules).
Finding solace in religion often means one of two things: either you become apathetic toward this life or you become a fanatical bible-thumper.
Love yourself for doing something productive.
Technomancer
01-09-2009, 09:26
The fact that many religious think that without God, there is no morality, is actually a sign of victimhood and guilt. A lot of people who grow up in heavily religious environments are raised in a way that makes the only reason to do good is that God is watching and will punish you if you don't. No true morality is bestowed in that model, only fear. Someone raised that way, when they grow up, if they lose their faith, there's nothing in their background or upbringing that prevents them from completely running wild. If they are able to keep themselves together, it's in spite of their upbringing. I've known many people who've failed at this. Now, when someone who still believes imagines someone, like themselves, not believing in God, they realize there would be nothing stopping them from running amok. They're projecting their own fragile morality on atheists.
I think a lot of religious folks are guilty and frightened about being one step away from freedom, sort of like a closet *** in denial, so they become defensive, having to "fix" you in order to reinforce their own faith. It never fails to amaze me how the most accusational and radical people tend to be guilty of the very "sins" they condemn others for.
I personally follow and endorse the "Golden Rule", not for any religious reason, but because I think it's a great ideal. It's a shame, because amidst the hellfire and blackmail, there's actually a lot of good ideals in various religions. The in-group/out-group behavior is disturbing. When I argue with Christians, they talk about how much compassion they show and how much they help people, and they do, but then I tell them it's either only for their own "kind", it's an investment in trying to convert someone, or to buy their own way into heaven. They tend to cobble together some confused, frustrated response and change the subject or end the conversation.
I don't believe tolerance is necessarily a bad thing, if everyone actually practiced it. Tolerance is actually akin to the "not knowing 100%", because it allows for the possibility that someone else might be right. Not probably, just maybe. It's just an acknowledgment that you may not be completely infallible. Obviously there are things that cannot and should not be tolerated, but when it comes to something like religion, anyone who claims to know the unknowable is either a liar or a fool. That said, yeah, the odds are like 99.9999999999999% against. There's no evidence for it and no necessity for it. That shouldn't give it a majority stake in society. I'm an advocate for live and let live, I guess that's why I accept tolerance, but if others will not abide, nor will I.
Another quick story that sticks in my craw: There was a girl a couple years back I really liked, and she really liked me too, but the reason she wouldn't have anything to do with me relationship-wise was because she was a "believer" and I wasn't and she didn't think I ever would be. I had no serious issues with her beliefs, but there it was. We were a good match otherwise. I hate "God". ;) I have a curse of being attracted to "good Christian girls". Oh, bitter irony...
edit: for the record, the 3 letter word that got filtered started with a g, not an f.
Nice commentary Jedouard, well thought out, my only criticism would be that religion is a useful source of solace and guidance for a lot of people.
Although I'm an atheist i fervently support people to practice religion despite the fact i find no use for it other than some of the moral guidance it offers. What matters for religion is not the existence of god, wether god exists or doesn't is largely irrelevant, what matters is the teachings that religion enlightens or sadly corrupts people with.
Religions, in general, preach very good values and a good sense of morality as long as you as you don't repeat scripture verbatim. That is what matters. What i find amusing is that, for the lack of a better description, religious idiots insist that you can only find these values and moral guidance through religion, dismissing atheists as heathens and how we will be judged upon armageddon.
The only common theme i have a problem with in religion, is that failure to accept their beliefs wont instigate violence (save for a few examples) but that i will go to hell in their eyes, thus my failure to believe results in my damnation. I think if god did exist, wouldn't he be an enlightened being and recognizes that the most inalienable right is free will? Religion that declare judgement and focus on the negative and force morals through threat of hellfire i find to be illegitimate.
Jedouard
01-09-2009, 11:45
Nice commentary Jedouard, well thought out, my only criticism would be that religion is a useful source of solace and guidance for a lot of people.
Although I'm an atheist i fervently support people to practice religion despite the fact i find no use for it other than some of the moral guidance it offers. What matters for religion is not the existence of god, wether god exists or doesn't is largely irrelevant, what matters is the teachings that religion enlightens or sadly corrupts people with.
Religions, in general, preach very good values and a good sense of morality as long as you as you don't repeat scripture verbatim.
First, thank you :)
I cannot agree on this part though, for at least four reasons:
1) It is indeed a source of solace, but not a good one. Religion is like marijuana in terms of trying to find solace. While marijuana can be fun, it is no more a source of solace than a bottle of gin, and those who turn to marijuana for this purpose often end up being the cliché agoraphobic addicts many of us are familiar with. In the same way, religion is an escape route, nothing more. The religious do not face their problems, they wall them off with self-contradicting (and often nonsensical) scripture. And they too become agoraphobic, never wanting to leave their scriptures beyond those who agree with them. I believe this is why V.I. Lenin said "Religion is the opium of the masses."
This makes for a very fragile source of solace, and thus lends religious people to being defensive, which is one step closer to fanaticism.
2) Religion is not a true source for morality. Religious people's ability to pick and choose what is right and wrong in, for example, the Bible means that they must have an alternate source of morality. Why should we follow the Golden Rule, when we can just as easily walk down the street, kill our neighbours and their male children, and then confiscate their animals and take their female children for our sex slaves, just like Moses did in Deuteronomy? Indeed, those people who do commit immoral acts following examples found in scriptures are often condemned by other religious people. Weird, isn't it?
Rather, religion is just a reinforcement of social morals for those who are too... too something rather (abused, neglected, lazy, etc.) to ask questions about morality for themselves. How many steps does it take an atheist to reason why we ought to avoid murder under most circumstances? And, yet, even with those few steps, it is still ever so slightly more tedious than just saying, "Because you go to Hell."
3) Because of these first two reasons, it is no surprise that ferver follows quickly behind. When someone comes along saying they do not believe in God or Hell or even that they just believe in something different, they get labelled as immoral. Why? Well, for a lot of people they are simply inculcated into thinking "Not my religion = bad."
For the few deeper, yet religiously constrained thinkers, this may go as far as "What is preventing him from doing Bad?" When they cannot come up with any supernatural restrictions, they obviously think "Without the the fear of God, he will obviously use the opportunity to do "Bad"." That in itself ought to point to a shallow morality.
And it is that shallow morality that is the very basis for ferver. "You are not like me, so you are immoral. I will make you moral or, at the very least, prevent you from tainting me and mine by forcing you into my belief system."
4) Get enough of these people together and you have a dangerous in-group that is either defensive or has already become militant in its shallow morality.
-----
Even if this dynamic only applies to 5% of those who are religious (which I would say is a severly low estimate given recent voting polls in the US), it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch. In Afghanistan, a country of 28.15 million people, Taliban supporters numbered in the 200k range or .7% of the population, yet they managed to force their ways on everyone. I won't go so far as to say this sort of fanaticism will take ground in the US, but this does illustrate a point: religion is not a source of true solace or true morality, but quite the opposite, and, as such, a danger to a much larger population than those few who are militant or even those many who peacefully adhere to it.
If we want a better life for ourselves and for everyone, then we need to start by asking real questions and seeking real answers.
Moonfrost
01-09-2009, 11:57
Not to derail the discussion or anything, but this is perhaps better left for some OT thread rather than the D3 general discussion forum. :/
With regards to the Taliban's insurgency in Afghanistan, their ability to force their religious belief doesn't stem from the morality of religion, it stems from their fanatical actions; they are willing to kill to enforce their rule. Islamic moderates within Afghanistan are reluctant to test their devotion to creating a Taliban rule of the state by risking their lives, especially considering the Taliban are willing to kill themselves to enforce their rule.
Religion might not be a true source of morality, but it is certainly a solid foundation to implement it. Regardless of redundant scripture that isn't implemented, the reading of scripture allows the person to implement what he evaluates as morally acceptable, exactly the same was an atheist implements morality in one's life, just that for this example, a christian uses precedent to guide him.
Can't atheists also choose to pick morals that benefit themselves? In fact without any guiding through scripture or precedent or moral guidance from an institution or figure, wouldn't it be easier for an atheist to become immoral. And if not it implies that morality is stemmed from the individual reasoning, and religions are collections of individual reasoning, regardless of wether you agree with that reasoning or logic.
What about religions such as buddhism? Do they not extend moral guidance? I was honored to meet his holiness the Dalai Lama in 2007, one of the most humbling experiences i will ever had. Regardless that Buddhists believe the Dalai Lama is a re-incarnation sent to enlighten others. Surely his guidance is legitimate, and saying buddhism promotes secularity and fanaticism is ridiculous.
My criticism of your points is that while it is a critique of religion, it is mainly targeted at it's implementation which i often disagree with myself. But religion in its purest form if adopted correctly is incredibly helpful for many people.
Starving_Poet
01-09-2009, 13:59
In the Midwest, there's a little bit of confusion about where the Midwest stops and the South begins. It's not at state lines, it's Interstate 70. North of 70 is the Midwest, south of it is the South. At least that's the way it is in Indiana, I'm under the impression that holds for Illinois and Ohio too.
I like to believe it's south of I-80, but that depends on where you live - my buddies in Milwaukee defer it to I-90 :-p
And a wise man once said re: science and religion:
When a scientist can't disprove something, they call it a law.
When a priest can't disprove something, they call it God's will.
There comes a point, even in science, where everything is relegated to a faith in the system. Remember, the big bang theory was developed by a priest - and steady state theorists, still to this day, use its religious implications as an effort to disprove it.
Jedouard
01-09-2009, 14:11
With regards to the Taliban's insurgency in Afghanistan, their ability to force their religious belief doesn't stem from the morality of religion, it stems from their fanatical actions; they are willing to kill to enforce their rule. Islamic moderates within Afghanistan are reluctant to test their devotion to creating a Taliban rule of the state by risking their lives, especially considering the Taliban are willing to kill themselves to enforce their rule.
Morality includes the valuation of actions (i.e., what actions are wrong and right), not just the valuation of ideal ends. So, fanatical morality would not only include what is being enforced, but how it is being enforced. Forcing women to veil themselves from head to toe is fanatical, and so is dying to enforce this is also fanatical.
Religion might not be a true source of morality, but it is certainly a solid foundation to implement it. Regardless of redundant scripture that isn't implemented, the reading of scripture allows the person to implement what he evaluates as morally acceptable, exactly the same was an atheist implements morality in one's life, just that for this example, a christian uses precedent to guide him.
How many people who are religious actually read the scripture they profess to believe in? My experience and the experience of many others is very view.
Furthermore, reading scriptures as you have described does not directly correspond to the implementation of anything. If it did, then when I read do unto other as I would have other do unto myself, I would then turn back a few chapters, take a look at God's actions, implement my morality, and say "To Hell with this petty God." If there were an implementation of morality that came about from reading the scriptures, then shouldn't start with the scriptures themselves?
Can't atheists also choose to pick morals that benefit themselves? In fact without any guiding through scripture or precedent or moral guidance from an institution or figure, wouldn't it be easier for an atheist to become immoral.
I don't know if it would be "easier" or not, but violent crime statistics, which are not necessarily statics on morality, but are the nearest thing we have, tend to show that atheists are highly under-represented in the US prison system.
The thing is: most people do not sit around and think about morals all day; usually they go with their "gut". But, when it comes to facing a moral dilemma, the process for an atheist and the process for a religious person may be (and often is) quite different. Atheism is too broad to say people would answer moral delimna this way or that way, but it suffices to say that both a "self-interested" atheist and a "phioanthropic" atheist would look at the evidence, weigh the consequences of his/her actions, and then decide; a religious person, on the other hand, might be inclined to look to the religion, weigh the consequences in the religion and then decide. What is the difference: one uses evidence, the other uses faith in the authority of religion. This is a big difference with a big impact. (I will explain after the next quotation.)
And if not it implies that morality is stemmed from the individual reasoning, and religions are collections of individual reasoning, regardless of wether you agree with that reasoning or logic.
There is no implication of this at all. There is clearly something social about morality, not individual. Indeed, the progress we see in our understanding of morality in the last 8000 years has some clear social roots to it, namely, the more various in-groups converge, the more it becomes necessary to have blanket morals that surpass the boundaries of the in-group (in other words, do away with the in-group). And, precisely there lies the problem with looking for our morals in religions whose foundations go back 5000+ years to in-groups whose only interested was in the success of their own expansion.
What about religions such as buddhism? Do they not extend moral guidance? I was honored to meet his holiness the Dalai Lama in 2007, one of the most humbling experiences i will ever had. Regardless that Buddhists believe the Dalai Lama is a re-incarnation sent to enlighten others. Surely his guidance is legitimate, and saying buddhism promotes secularity and fanaticism is ridiculous.
I will not say Buddhism promotes fanaticism, but it can and does lead to it via the same process I mentioned in the previous comment. There are plenty of unfortunate religious wars in the history of Buddhism, both with Buddhists being the aggressors and the victims. And, this violences persists today.
Regarding the Dalai Lama, his guidance is no more legitimate than say that of an ethics philosopher, and perhaps less so, as the philosopher might be apt to extend his the sources for his/her arguments further.
Your argument is based on the notion that 1) there exist moral truisms and 2) religion can is one source of these truisms. However, religion is just a record of what the religious community in question deems moral, which is very different than there being a moral truism accessible through religion.
To this regard, inquiring into folklore that is thousands of years old will never be as good of a source of morality as evidence-based inquiry. We will only find moral truism through 1) understanding the consequences of our actions and behaviors, 2) coming to a mutual agreement on the value of those consequences, and 3) coming to a mutual agreement on the value of those actions and behaviors both based on their evaluated consequences and in and of themselves.
My criticism of your points is that while it is a critique of religion, it is mainly targeted at it's implementation which i often disagree with myself. But religion in its purest form if adopted correctly is incredibly helpful for many people.
I added bold and italics to point out that this is a tautological argument. In short you are saying Religion is helpful when it is adopted correctly, and it is adopted correctly when it is helpful. The issue is that religious people who are not being very helpful (e.g., fanatics) are very convinced that they have adopted their religion correctly. Quite the opposite of what you said: if religion can lead to so many diverging and (frequently enough*) harmful and dangerous understandings of what is moral, then it is not a solid foundation for morality.
engagequadlaser
01-09-2009, 14:14
Removed
10char
Starving_Poet
01-09-2009, 14:34
Science only calls something a law when it's been proven. Till then, it's a theory. Theory of gravity, theory of relativity, etc. By its very definition this is an admission of, 'We don't know for a fact, but all the evidence at hand points to this being the case.' And unlike religion, science is more than willing to go back and correct itself, should new evidence that contradicts an existing theory come to light.
As has been said, science observes evidence to determine truth. Religion attempts to state a truth and then hunts for evidence to support it.
That's your mistake - laws are not proven - not in science. In science, a law is an observation and a theory is an explanation. There is no theory of gravity in classical physics - in quantum physics we have the idea of gravitons - one can be disproven - the gravitons - the other can't, all we know that it works for large bodies. At the same time, we have no idea why it doesn't work for small bodies.
A scientific law, by it's definition can not be disproven - for the same reasons that faith can't be disproven.
Jedouard
01-09-2009, 14:42
I like to believe it's south of I-80, but that depends on where you live - my buddies in Milwaukee defer it to I-90 :-p
And a wise man once said re: science and religion:
When a scientist can't disprove something, they call it a law.
When a priest can't disprove something, they call it God's will.
There comes a point, even in science, where everything is relegated to a faith in the system. Remember, the big bang theory was developed by a priest - and steady state theorists, still to this day, use its religious implications as an effort to disprove it.
Faith in a system? Explain please.
Faith means supporting a claim for which there is no evidence. For this reason there is faith and science are not the same. Why? If there is evidence for something, it becomes fact; if not, there is nothing. Even the systems we use for evidence-based inquiry (i.e., scientific method and its social science equivalents) have themselves been evidenced to properly perform their function of testing hypothesis with evidence. (That sentence is a doozy, so read it again - it will make sense.) For that reason we do not have faith in these systems of inquiry, we have evidence-based trust in them.
I think your quote above should read:
When a scientist can't prove something, they call it an unknown.
When a priest can't prove something, they call it God.
Jedouard
01-09-2009, 14:48
A scientific law, by it's definition can not be disproven - for the same reasons that faith can't be disproven.
Not quite: A scientific law has the possibility of being disproven, it is just that in every conceivable test ever done it never has been. Having stood the test, it becomes considered a law. That is why the Theory of Evolution is now becoming a law.
On the other hand, the God or gods or any supernatural power in which someone has faith cannot be conceivably tested.
The differences is that whereas scientific law is tested, not yet disproved and not likely at all to be disproved, faith is never tested, never capable of being tested and thus never capable of being disproved.
Starving_Poet
01-09-2009, 14:55
Faith in a system -
This one is easy - do you believe that there are a set of laws governing the Universe? Do you believe that a scientific law is irrefutable?
I know the definition of faith is important - so, to me, faith is a system of beliefs - to make any theory in science you have to assume that a certain set of axioms are true. The difference between science and spirituality is what determines the axioms.
The statement 'And unlike religion, science is more than willing to go back and correct itself, should new evidence that contradicts an existing theory come to light.' Is logically true - but it should read - unlike A religion (etc). However, if you compare religion in the macro sense to a theory, then you open up an entirely different can of worms. Religions, like theories, shift and evolve through time in response to societal evolution.
It might take some searching, but there are some very interesting theories on the philosophical relationship between the western evolution of a generally monotheistic society without our need to find that one scientific theory that describes the universe.
Starving_Poet
01-09-2009, 14:57
double post
Jedouard
01-09-2009, 15:01
I think the faith that is being discussed here is not the faith you defined. It is rough, because faith has so many definitions. It can be a religion or the belief in the religion (or supernatural) or the belief in (a function of) the rites of the religion or (supernatural).
I am referring to the belief in the religion or the rites thereof. I think I adequately described above why it is not faith that we have in scientific method or scientific laws, but trust in the evidence supporting them, something religion does not have.
Jedouard
01-09-2009, 15:06
Eh, not that I don't believe in evolution, but for it to become a law we have to disprove the second law of thermodynamics first.
We can't have both sitting side by side.
I don't think so. Increasing entropy in an isolated system does not mean that evolution cannot be a law. The Law of Evolution could exist within the constraints of an isolated system, subject to the laws of entropy. In other words, we will eventually die out. In the meantime, we will evolve.
This sort of mix-up happens a lot when you start crossing branches of science.
The question is: How big is this isolated system?
popenfresh
01-09-2009, 15:10
Evolution doesn’t in the slightest way contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law only applies to closed systems and since the earth and the solar system clearly are not closed systems there is no inconsistency at all… Evolution is a law. We have seen and tested it over and over again.
Pls get a clue about what you’re talking before you say stuff like that.
Starving_Poet
01-09-2009, 15:12
Evolution is a law. We have seen and tested it over and over again.
We have seen it, and again, I absolutely believe it, but how have we tested it?
And again, we must define the system. Is the universe a closed system?
Soo, back to the philosophy -
I never attempted to disprove the scientific method - my only argument is that in the most theoretical science, we get to a point where we can't explain anything.
At that point, as scientists, we simply must have faith in the system that what we observe is true.
It's a philosophical debate, not a scientific one -
At their most basic roots both spirituality and science strive to explain the world around us. What people do with that is completely different - religion has done a lot of bad things in its name, but so has science.
We can derail this topic again (it's an art form if you do it well :) ) and explain how science has become 'the Church' of the modern age, and since definitions in symbolism are important, this is in the sense that the 'public concept' of science as a tool to control the masses.
Jedouard
01-09-2009, 15:23
Well, I would say that when scientists run into the unknown, they label it unknown. They work with what is known (i.e., what has been tested and not disproved) to design tests to inquire into the unknown. I don't really see faith in that, and I don't see religions doing that.
I wouldn't say religion or science has done a lot of bad things, but people have. And, yes, people use both science and religion to defend these bad things. But, I would say regarding this downfall, religion has a much larger propensity, especially as the more people become educated and learn to inquire, the less accepting they will be of such manipulations.
As far as science being a religion, I do not see that as being a product of scientists, but of religious people trying to take on and dismantle a foreign foe under familiar terms. It is far easier to label something blasphemy if it is replacing your god, rather than ignoring it.
Can your provide examples of what you mean by a "tool to control the masses"? I just cannot imagine the legitimate scientific community, i.e., those who adhere to falsifiability, doing this.
lone_wolf
01-09-2009, 15:56
We have seen it, and again, I absolutely believe it, but how have we tested it?
And again, we must define the system. Is the universe a closed system?
We have grown bacteria for more then 20 years that during that timeframe has evolved the ability to gain energy from a new source.
But since we talk about ecoli its not like anyone can handle those samples. Dont recall the scientist by name but i could probebly find it again when i have some time over to search for that research paper again.
So yes we have actually tested evolution and found that it does happen in bacteria at times with fantastic speeds.
popenfresh
01-09-2009, 16:13
Yes the universe as a whole is a closed system and in a couple of billion years the 2nd law of thermodynamics will probably prevail rendering the universe into a uniform state of – 273 degrees Celsius. But the earth is not a closed system and never was.
As for the “tests” regarding evolution: scientists have actually observed unicellular life forms evolve into unicellular ones through the introduction of a predator species. Thus we have simulated the course evolution has taken in the past.
Also the idea that there comes a point where science can’t explain anything anymore is due to the fact that science is a tool for our minds. And since our minds did not evolve to be capable to interpret the most basic and fundamental mechanics that govern our universe does not mean the method itself is flawed. The reason we know science works is because it has a direct impact on our lives which we can verify through our sensory organs. So unless you propose the idea of a mind in a vessel which is fed only false information you should know that what we experience is “true” to some degree. If you disregard the idea that we can learn something about the actual state of the universe through science you should disregard the idea that there is a universe and we can learn something about it as a whole. Which would be grossly inefficient for our species.
This thread is more fun that I expected. ^^
popenfresh
01-09-2009, 16:15
Ofc I meant unicellular -> multicellular
Sorry, my bad
Funkopotamus
01-09-2009, 16:37
Tolerance isn't really a good thing though if you look at it. I don't like tolerance, its ridiculous. Think about it, tolerance by definition is knowing someone is doing the wrong thing and openly accepting their wrong doing. Of course this has the assumption of the observer being infallible which is rarely the case. But my points still stand, why should you accept someone doing something if it is wrong? Should the issue at least be debated to convince one of the parties of their mistake?
Why should I accept it? Because it's none of my business. I mean, there are limits. If someone tries to convert me, it becomes my business. If someone is murdering someone else and I can hear it it becomes my business.
If someone is using a sword and shield against a Gravios, by themselves, that's not my business. I really think it's a poor choices in weapon. Gravios has a tough hide and his weapon's just going to bounce off everything unless he can get at the chest, or he has the ESP skill that lets him land hits on anything. But even then his weapon's going to be getting dull so fast. A hammer or hunting horn would have been a better choice. Maybe a bow or something if they're good at gunning.
As long as it doesn't effect me and doesn't cross any legal or personal boundaries I'm not going to raise an issue. But in saying that, I acknowledge others' boundaries may be different. And if they are, they're wrong. Bwahahaha!
-----
Regarding the Golden Rule:
I would not say that it was from religion that you took the rule "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". If it was, then why didn't you take anything else? You clearly have a set of morals that finds its source in something else, such that you can pick and choose. God sure killed a lot of people directly, as well as commanding his followers to do so, so why not follow that example?
Furthermore, this rule was based on In-Group/Out-Group behavior. Historically, sure you do unto others in your own group as you would have them do unto you, but with other groups not so much. I doubt that a significant portion of the religious population are observing this rule. Why? For the very reason stated above: when they go into their anonymous voting booths, they vote for something that does unto others what they would not have others do unto them. Many (not all and not necessarily a majority) vote to have religion forced on people, but would not accept the reverse.
I didn't take anything else because I didn't want to. Also, like I mentioned in the post, I probably heard it on tv. I like to come to my own conclusions usually so I'll take advice like that, or statistics, or whatever, and let it sit on the sidelines while I think it through and decide if I want to use it. In general, I think it makes sense - If you act friendly to people, people are more likely to be friendly back. Barring any major cultural boundaries. Like if smiling is a threat or something, like to an angry animal who bares its teeth.
But even if everyone followed it, it still has the fatal flaw of human subjectivity attached to it. People who vote to have religion forced on people could be from the mindset that if they were "lost" they would want someone to try to "save" them. The same mindset exists in some atheists who try to "save" people who are "lost" in religion. So in that respect they are still following it. I wouldn't consider the rule so golden, personally. It's just like a general guideline. I like to be left alone so I leave others alone. I hate pranks so I don't prank anyone. That kind of thing.
You know, I actually might have really considered it when I heard the Pearl Jam song "This is Not For You" with the lyric "If you hate something don't you do it too."
-----
Regarding zealous and fanatical atheists:
[...]
When I see it it's usually like "I'm religious." *berating begins*.
It's not often but it happens. About as often as I get accosted by religious folk. Again, I don't go mingle much so that could account for something. I don't think there's anything you can say to convince me there aren't bad eggs in everything. Everything. There are literally jerks everywhere.
-----
Regarding religion as a source of solace:
[...]
I mean like someone's spouse dies, their child dies, they're going through a really rough patch. Not as a lifestyle necessarily.
Also, the door swings both ways. I'm not religious at all and what do you think my views are on sustainable, environmental friendly behaviour as well as just sustainable social organization? I don't give a ****, I'll probably be dead before any of that becomes an unbearable problem. I know and acknowledge that that's selfish but whaddya gonna do? Not saying I won't do anything to help the environment but I'm incredibly lazy and that plays a large factor.
Starving_Poet
01-09-2009, 16:48
Funky absolutely gets it! You guys are all looking at too small of a picture.
(here I refer to science as the public perception of science - not the method)
Why do you care about environmentalism? The world will still be here after you die. So it will be a little dirty after you've made your mark but so what? The 'why should I care' concept is key to this entire argument.
How is 'science' used to control people's lives? In the 70's 'science' was used to scare people because if we didn't change our habits we would be experiencing an ice-age in 20 years. In the 90s we used 'science' to scare people because if we didn't change our habits we would be experiencing the total destruction of our ecosystem from catastrophic global warming.
There is your answer - life is naturally greedy - it does what it takes to survive - as humans, we are super greedy, and untempered - our greed can be our downfall. Thus, we create for ourselves systems in which to temper that greed.
Political systems, religious systems, scientific systems can all be manipulated to control. Today 'science' is bandied about for political purposes in the western world no differently than 'religion' was bandied about before.
Try to separate yourself from your own worldview and look at it in the macro sense -
To the common man, what is the difference? These are the people who aren't overly well educated, who aren't overly critical thinkers, or who just really don't care. These are also the people who makeup the largest mass of any society. What's the difference if a man in a white coat says something is true, than if a man in a funny hat says something is true, or if a pile of bones strewn in the dirt says something is true? What's the difference if a man says you shouldn't do something because it's not healthy or if he says you shouldn't do something because it will harm your soul?
If you believe any of that matters, then you will be scared because, by golly 'I do that stuff!' *gasp* 'Someone should do something so that OTHER people aren't tempted to do what I do!' Etc. Etc - 'The road to tyranny was paved with good intentions.'
Jedouard
01-09-2009, 20:24
Yes, the scientific findings have been used to manipulate people. I fail to see what this has to do with your argument, though, because no one here ever said science was a moral code.
The manipulation of science to cause fear in people does not make science similar to religion. Whereas true scientists, the people who conduct falsifiable tests and trust in the evidence derived therefrom, do not manipulate people and do not even profess morality, the religious have "faith" and manipulate people using whatever religious paraphernalia is most opportune.
That common people cannot distinguish this difference only means that systems not promoting evidence-based inquiry (e.g. religion) are failing to educate people in ways that will allow them to make informed decisions about morals and anything else.
-----
Regarding morality:
I suggested that evidence-based inquiry is the best method to consequences of actions, but what does "evidence-based inquiry" mean? It is scientific method for all the sciences, from the physical to the social. And of what the value of these consequences? Well, that is something that cannot be derived through scientific method.
In short, it is up to each person and each group of persons to look at the actions and look at the consequences of those actions and decide come to agreement on what behaviors are best. Evidence-based inquiry only makes their decisions more informed. And, because religion tends to hinder evidence-based inquiry, I say it is a disadvantage.
Of course people diverge on what they understand as moral behavior. In short it all depends on how far your understanding of inter-individual, generational and environmental dependency extend. If you think in terms of the immediate future, then your morality would tend more toward selfish opportunism. If you think in terms of many many generations, though, then you end up with a few more perplexing issues, namely: When do you cease to differentiate between your descendants and everyone else? Eventually, you cannot differentiate anymore, which brings you to pose this question: What is so important, so valuable about people, be he/she descendant from you or not? The answer could be life or consciousness or something else along those lines... or nothing at all. For the former case, the person with the generational view then has to accept that life, consciousness or whatever else is tied to everything in his/her environment. The person that said that nothing was important is probably clinically depressed and is free to do as he/she wishes because the consequences are insignificant to him/her.
Interestingly, the immediacy view and the generational view are both self-interested, it is just that the latter has a longer outlook and is more melded theory-of-mind thought processes.
There are a couple interesting issues to this regard, though:
1) How do generational views survive against immediacy views?
2) How do immediacy views survive in spite of themselves?
Growing populations have made these interesting questions.
-----
Regarding motivation to behave morally:
There are a slew of reasons people lack motivation and or have motivation, and they match up well the immediacy and generational views above. However, the difference between views or morality and motivation to act morally lies on that fine line between cognition. Sure, the person with the generational view cognizes why certain behaviors are valuable, but that does not mean the consequences of not acting that way entire press upon his immediate consciousness. In short, those with high motivation have a high sense of consequentiality, be they of the immediacy view or the generational view.
For that reason, Funkopotamus admittedly has slight generational view and sees his laziness as somewhat immoral, even if it is ever so slightly. "Laziness", after all, does not have a good connotation. However, Funkopotamus also lacks that pressing sense of consequentiality, such that he is not driven to act according to his own moral standards.
-----
Regarding the education of morality:
Sure the common people who do not inquire into things will see the guy in the white coat no differently than they see they guy in funny hat, but that is precisely where the problem lies. Common people be they from the immediacy view or generational view, should be asking themselves what the difference is between the men in coats and hats because it is in their own self-defined interest to do so. They should inquire not only into who these people in coats and hats are, but upon what they are basing their arguments. And the reason for this was stated above: to make more informed moral judgements a person needs to have as much evidence-based information as possible.
So, which system is better at encouraging people to make evidence-based inquiries, religion or a systematic education based on social and physical scientific method? We know that while the former may prevent people from behaving certain ways through inculcation, it does not work in providing them with the skills needed to face new moral dilemmas.
As for the latter, we have never seen it. However, given the information and statistics we do have on atheists parenting styles, criminal records and so on and so forth, I would assume that a system based on teaching inquiry would provide people not only with a good solid foundation for morality, wherein they know the points of contingency, but it would also provide them with the skills to face new moral dilemmas.
-----
In sum, I am hard pressed to buy into the idea that common people who make no inquiries into anything are a justification for the moral indoctrination of faith-based institutions. If anything, this is a justification to promote social and physical-science education to teach people how to inquire into their own lives.
popenfresh
01-09-2009, 22:30
Wow Jedouard, I've never seen one post with so much win in it. O.o
For a start, the THEORY of evolution isn't a law. It never has been. Secondly, Jedouard your insisting that atheists have better morality systems and clauses in place to act and employ greater faculties in evaluation of circumstances.
The manipulation of science to cause fear in people does not make science similar to religion. Whereas true scientists, the people who conduct falsifiable tests and trust in the evidence derived therefrom, do not manipulate people and do not even profess morality, the religious have "faith" and manipulate people using whatever religious paraphernalia is most opportune.
For a start, you cannot ignore a subset of the scientific community as irrelevant in an argument and then take a subset of religion as your justification. You just systematically grouped religious followers into the set that manipulate people whoever they can, which isn't true because not all of them do. And disregarded the fact that parts of the scientific community do. That is not grounding for a logical argument.
That common people cannot distinguish this difference only means that systems not promoting evidence-based inquiry (e.g. religion) are failing to educate people in ways that will allow them to make informed decisions about morals and anything else.
Again this applies to a very small subset, especially considering historically that religion has been the greatest contributor to knowledge that has ever existed. Islam paid for the study of the arabic mathematicians who developed the system we use today. Religious based institutions provide enormous teaching and growth of knowledge in all areas. Have you ever heard of a Catholic university not teaching science? Of course not.
You evidence based inquiry stems from philosophical backgrounds, and the greatest contributors to philosophy were the religious, you seem to think that religion by and large attempt to pervert the truth to maintain power, but that is not the case, yes there are examples where they silenced opinions but atheists have also done the same. Religion has no problem with the search for truth, in fact they started the search themselves, yes they disagree with the truth initially if it contradicts their beliefs, but an atheist would do exactly the same, dismissing truth doesn't occur to maintain power over followers, it occurs because of lack of understanding and fear of implication.
Jedouard
02-09-2009, 01:51
For a start, the THEORY of evolution isn't a law. It never has been.
I did not say it was law; I said it was becoming law, i.e., there it has been tested and tested and tested and not disproved. Most biologists studying this field would support what I said.
Secondly, Jedouard your insisting that atheists have better morality systems and clauses in place to act and employ greater faculties in evaluation of circumstances.
What is a "morality system"? Whatever it is, I did not say atheists have better ones. Indeed, I demonstrated quite a variation in atheists' morality. What I did say was that evidenced-based inquiry allows for more (verifiable) information and with that (verifiable) information, people can make better decisions and moral judgements. Since religion poses faith-based assumptions in place of fact-based inquiry and thus does not supply that (verifiable) information, it is not a good tool in providing people what they need to answering their moral questions.
For a start, you cannot ignore a subset of the scientific community as irrelevant in an argument and then take a subset of religion as your justification. You just systematically grouped religious followers into the set that manipulate people whoever they can, which isn't true because not all of them do. And disregarded the fact that parts of the scientific community do. That is not grounding for a logical argument.
I am not ignoring anyone: I am saying that those people calling themselves scientists and yet not subjecting their work to falsifiable tests so that they can "trust" the results are not actually scientists; they are pseudo-scientists or quasi-scientists or wannabe-scientists. (As a side note: more often than not, these quasi-scientists are not atheists.)
As for religious followers, you and everyone else who has read anything I wrote here can clearly see that I have not grouped religious followers into one group. I clearly stated that I saw many various degrees of religiousity. I simply did not feel the need to restate all of this in this post because, as this is a forum thread, I am assuming their is some continuity to what we, the authors, are saying.
Again this applies to a very small subset, especially considering historically that religion has been the greatest contributor to knowledge that has ever existed. Islam paid for the study of the arabic mathematicians who developed the system we use today. Religious based institutions provide enormous teaching and growth of knowledge in all areas. Have you ever heard of a Catholic university not teaching science? Of course not.
Religion is the greatest contributor!? Well, how is that? If religion is the only thing that was ever around, then there can be no comparison. And, if religion systematically rid the world of all those who were not religious (or at least rid them of their voices) or who were differently religious, then how do we know that instead of being the greatest contributor, it did not just stifle or silence the greatest contributors. We will never know because we cannot test this without a large period of time where areligious and religious populations exist side by side and seeing how much "progress" (whatever that means) they make.[/QUOTE]
You evidence based inquiry stems from philosophical backgrounds, and the greatest contributors to philosophy were the religious...
My evidenced-based inquiry stems from the concept of falsifiability, conceived by Karl Popper, an atheist. Why did he come up with it? In response the the failures of religious philosophy. That is hardly my idea of contribution.
you seem to think that religion by and large attempt to pervert the truth to maintain power, but that is not the case, yes there are examples where they silenced opinions but atheists have also done the same.
No, I don't think that. Why? Because religion cannot be personified. It is an institution. However, religion is an extremely easily used tool for perverting the truth, because you have no recourse to evidence when you try to argue against something when seated within the institution.
As for atheists doing the same, did they do so because they were atheists or for other reasons? I can't think of an atheist who perverted the truth to maintain power for the sake of atheism, but I can think of religious people who did so for the sake of religion. There is a big, glaring difference.
Religion has no problem with the search for truth, in fact they started the search themselves,
Again, religion is not a person, so of course it has no problems. As far as religion searching for something, I think your definition of "searching" is different than mine:
Religious searching:
"Where did man come from?"
- "Um, a really powerful god that looks like a man."
"How do you know?"
- "it was written in this book."
"Why do you believe that book."
-"Have faith."
That is hardly searching.
yes they disagree with the truth initially if it contradicts their beliefs, but an atheist would do exactly the same,
Would an atheist? I think you are starting to project religious institutions on atheism, which pretty much lacks an institution. The question ought to be whether the religious institution encourages the rejection of a truth (i.e., something verifiable through evidence) more than would happen otherwise in the absence of this institution. And since the institution is known to demand of its followers faith in things that are both not verifiable (think "God") and things that have been disproved (think creationism), it is pretty clear it encourages the rejection of truth more than would occur in its absence. So, would atheists do the same? Maybe. Are they as likely to do the same? If the religious institution has any bearing on people, then no, atheists are no as likely.
dismissing truth doesn't occur to maintain power over followers, it occurs because of lack of understanding and fear of implication.
This depends on the group you are talking about. Yes, for common people who are powerless this would be the case, but what about the powerful people, religious or not?
-----
You cannot prove to me that religion has granted the world vast "progress", morally or technologically, just because past progress has come from religious peoples or institutions: there were no alternatives against whom/which to compare these peoples/institutions. Nowadays, however, we are starting to get a glimpse at what a lack of religion in the physical and social sciences can offer, and it although not perfect, it is far less stifling than the religious alternative. If every time an important finding came out, and it disproved something asserted before, where would we be if secular academia reacted in the same way the Church did to Galileo? Maybe our scientists would be rehabilitated in 500 years.
And again, we must define the system. Is the universe a closed system?
The universe may or may not be a closed system, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not violate evolution. That whole argument is based on a misunderstanding of the 2nd law. The 2nd law only states that in a closed system not in equilibrium the *overall* entropy increases over time. It does not say that separate things within a system cannot lose entropy. It just means that when something does, something else within that system will gain an equal or greater amount of entropy.
You do know about things like freezers right?
popenfresh
02-09-2009, 09:39
Autti you are actually right. Evolution isn’t a law at all in science. Laws are a set of rules with which we can predict past, present and future events given enough information. Theories on the other hand are much more solid and reliable than laws. A theory, unlike a law, gives an explanation to facts, hypothesises and laws all together. Fact and laws themselves don’t explain anything at all. A theory gives you the big picture and reveals the underlying mechanics that govern a certain system with the highest degree of accuracy in science.
In short: fact<hypothesis<law<theory
The theory of evolution is far more comprehensive than any of the laws it is based on.
(gravity is both a law and a theory in science, the law is useless if we want to understand things related to the other fundamental forces, the theory on the other hand, which is still incomplete by far, explains the relation gravity has with these other forces)
And yes, religion is fundamentally dishonest, by definition. All monotheistic religions are based on faith. I.e. the affirmation of a certain thing without any evidence or prove to sustain it. Religious people are therefore expected to believe whatever their holy scripture tells them, with out any scrutiny at all. This is the plain and simple definition of faith and is explained many times over in the bible (not sure bout the Koran, I’ll have to look into that). The disciple Thom was chastised because he wanted prove of Christ’s resurrection instead of following the rest like a sheep. If you would actually spend the time to read the bible you’ll see it’s one big discouragement of reason. The devil wasn’t someone who was evil because he ran around eating babies or something. No, Lucifer was a demon because he tempted mankind with wisdom and knowledge….
And no this isn’t a matter of opinion, almost all religious people understand faith to be an unmovable trust in their holy scripture from which they will never diverge, no matter what amount of facts or debunks you throw at them.
Religion has a problem with the truth because it is itself fundamentally dishonest.
Jedouard
02-09-2009, 11:30
I do not know about your definition of theory. The difference between theory and law, as I understand it, is only in the degree to which it has been tested and not disproved. Both are tools we use to make predictions about the future and explain the present and past. Laws and theories both explain facts, i.e., that which is verifiable through evidence, it is just that the former has been tested to exhaustion and perhaps even witnessed. For example: the law of morphogenesis.
You scale of "greater thans" is not something most scientists would agree with. It ought to be:
1) Verifiable fact plus preceding evidence-based knowledge leads to hypothesis about how the fact functions;
2) Hypothesis about how the fact functions preceding evidence-based knowledge leads to testing
3) Testing plus preceding evidence-based knowledge leads to theory about how the fact functions;
4) Repeat step four until you have law about how the fact functions.
In any case, everyone with any scientific (evidence-based) background, will accept that evolution is fact when talking about what happened and theory when talking about how it happened. That I assert that the latter is becoming law stems from our ever increasing, ever more tested and not disproved knowledge of how it functions.
As for the second part of your post, it was great, particularly
almost all religious people understand faith to be an unmovable trust in their holy scripture from which they will never diverge, no matter what amount of facts or debunks you throw at them.I agree. I might change the wording to: "Almost all religious people understand faith to be unmovable devotion to what they imagine their religion to be and what they think is in their holy scripture, from which they will never diverge, no matter what amount of facts or debunks you throw at them.
I changed "trust" to "devotion", because I try to use the term to differentiate from "faith": you trust in what has been verified to be or to at least be probable; you have faith in what has not. That is just personal preference and a hope to keep things clearer.
As for the second part, a lot of people never read their holy scripture but, rather, invent it as well as much of what they simply believe to be religious. These inventions are often just mere justifications for whatever they want. I recently heard a girl tell me, "I do not think God would mind us getting married just so he (her fiancé) can get a visa to the U.S." I am not saying this is activity has any moral weight to it or not, but from which scripture or religious rite was she pulling that?
I do not know about your definition of theory. The difference between theory and law, as I understand it, is only in the degree to which it has been tested and not disproved. Both are tools we use to make predictions about the future and explain the present and past. Laws and theories both explain facts, i.e., that which is verifiable through evidence, it is just that the former has been tested to exhaustion and perhaps even witnessed. For example: the law of morphogenesis.
Sorry to argue agaisn't you again Jedouard haha, although you present very clear points and i largely agree with you on religion being an atheist myself.
But a scientific theory is merely an collection of abstractions on a phenomenon, using empirical analysis to justify its assertion. Theory's explain the occurrence of phenomena.
Scientific laws are more broad and are considered the axioms of science, explaining a fundamental principle. A law doesn't have a higher standing than a theory or a hypothesis. A law is the evaluation of repeated observation, as such it only applies to the conditions specified in the determination of said law, and most laws when extrapolated don't apply.
Most people assume Newtons universal law of gravity to be fact but it isn't. It doesn't account for gravity in strong gravitational fields as Newtons law was not developed from strong gravitational field observation.
Thought i might add, that both Laws and Theory are falsifiable in circumstances but they still maintaing standing as laws and theories because they only apply to the prescribed circumstance under which they were observed and evaluated. Most Laws and Theory's have been proven wrong in different circumstances.
Also Hypothesis is the only one of lower standing, it is the formulation of a theory but hasn't undergone significant testing in conditions to be validated as a theory
ausbeimit
02-09-2009, 14:30
I haven't wholly read this giant thread yet, but I think something in these last pages needs to be clarified (not implying that no one has said anything of the following yet).
A fact in not something which belongs to the same class as of a law or a theory. A fact is a ontological category, meaning anything that is the case (as opposed that what is not the case). Laws, principles, theories and so on are epistemological categories. They are propositions or relations of propositions which, if true, report facts of the world.
Now, a law, meaning a scientific law, is any proposition, largely believed as true by the relevant community, which predicates something about all objects of science which satisfact the same conditions. A principle, I believe, is a law which is fundamental for a given theory.
A theory is an argument or a body of arguments which seeks to correlate and explain scientific laws and other less comprehensive scientific propositions. Among these, one can find the empirical laws. An empirical law is merely descriptive and statistical: it says something has always happened in certain way, but is not shown to hold necessarily by a good explanation. It may be backed up by hypotheses, alleged explanations which need yet to be tested.
Going off my subject a bit, do you know that from a purely logical point of view it would be easier to prove God's existence than the opposite? That's because to prove the existence of something you need only to show this thing once, and to prove its non-existence you need to prove it necessarily doesn't exist. :thumbup:
Jedouard
03-09-2009, 18:35
[D]o you know that from a purely logical point of view it would be easier to prove God's existence than the opposite? That's because to prove the existence of something you need only to show this thing once, and to prove its non-existence you need to prove it necessarily doesn't exist.
And since you cannot prove the non-existence of something, that leaves us Atheists saying there is probably no God, no gods and nothing supernatural because 1) there is no evidence of one/any and 2) much (an outstanding majority) that has been claimed as supernatural has been disproved. That said, "easier" might not be the right choice of words if it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something but it is also very probably impossible to prove the existence. Imagine the proving the existence or non-existence of the good ol' "flying spaghetti monster". (Google it.)
Tangerinedream
03-09-2009, 19:03
And yes, religion is fundamentally dishonest, by definition. All monotheistic religions are based on faith. I.e. the affirmation of a certain thing without any evidence or prove to sustain it. Religious people are therefore expected to believe whatever their holy scripture tells them, with out any scrutiny at all. This is the plain and simple definition of faith and is explained many times over in the bible (not sure bout the Koran, I’ll have to look into that). The disciple Thom was chastised because he wanted prove of Christ’s resurrection instead of following the rest like a sheep. If you would actually spend the time to read the bible you’ll see it’s one big discouragement of reason. The devil wasn’t someone who was evil because he ran around eating babies or something. No, Lucifer was a demon because he tempted mankind with wisdom and knowledge….
And no this isn’t a matter of opinion, almost all religious people understand faith to be an unmovable trust in their holy scripture from which they will never diverge, no matter what amount of facts or debunks you throw at them.
Religion has a problem with the truth because it is itself fundamentally dishonest.
I have to say I think there should be no more comments on religion etc. Just like at a bar you don't mention politics/religion same should go unless the forum is designated to it because it can cause offense. For example towards me, I take high offense saying that we are expected to believe something with no evidence what-so-ever. That is a gross mis-characterization, not all religious people are mindless and care so little about their faith that they are willing to just believe anything someone says or what a book says for that matter. Certain things may not be able to be fully proved but there may be enough underlying evidences and proofs for other things to build upon and support what is above it. Same goes in science not everything is "fact" but there is enough theories and proofs for other things to help greatly support what is being argued above it.
Now I myself am somebody who cares enough about their faith to actually study both the arguments for an against it, and see which arguments are most convincing. The ones that are more logically sound is the ones I gravitate towards. I have done my studies and and majored in it and may later go back and further my studies. I am not a master in all areas of studies some things I do need to leave it up to other people who are experts in those fields. I remember when people would ask me to defend my beliefs and then they would respond or ask questions and some things I would simply have to say "That is not an area I know enough about to give any sort of an educated response, I can ask someone that knows more about it than myself or try and point you in the correct direction if you wish to study it more."
So please don't categorize all people with religious beliefs as mindless drones who believes for no reason at all. Atheism is a religious stand point as well and needs to be able to support itself just as much as any religion. I find funny that many proposed atheist know less about their beliefs than other people with religious stand points. They make blanket statements such as "science has disproved religion," and then try to use that as a trump card when they really have no clue what they are talking about. Realize religions use science to support their beliefs as well.
If religion is by definition dishonest and has a problem with truth, than atheism is in the same boat as all the rest.
Tang
lone_wolf
03-09-2009, 20:30
how am i as an atheist taking a religious standpoint?
Atheism is mearly a disbelieve in any gods nothing else. Calling atheism an religious stance is like saying bald is a hair color it makes no sense what so ever.
For the record you just believe in one more god then me Tangerinedream. Or do you pray to more gods then one?
Unless you do you are in fact an atheist when it comes to other religions gods. I just choose to not belive in one more god then you do.
ausbeimit
04-09-2009, 03:39
And since you cannot prove the non-existence of something, that leaves us Atheists saying there is probably no God, no gods and nothing supernatural because 1) there is no evidence of one/any and 2) much (an outstanding majority) that has been claimed as supernatural has been disproved. That said, "easier" might not be the right choice of words if it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something but it is also very probably impossible to prove the existence. Imagine the proving the existence or non-existence of the good ol' "flying spaghetti monster". (Google it.)
Actually, it is certainly possible to prove the non-existence of most kind of things. All you need is an argument showing that you have correctly searched for it in all the relevant places and times. Thus I too was wrong when I said that to prove a non-existence you'd always need an argument showing the thing necessarily doesn't exist.
Surely, if the thing you are looking for is something like God, there is the physical impossibility to do an exhaustive search through the universe, and you would then need some argument of the very stronger kind, showing its necessary non-existence. But note that my point of view was "purely logical"; so, we can assume it were physically possible to thorougly search the (temporal and spatial) universe for God. But not finding it would not be enough (no matter how reliable your search was), you would still need a powerful argument proving that he cannot exist "outside" time and space. I don't know whether it is impossible to construct such arguments, but it is surely no easy task to perform. (The trip through the universe may probably be avoided if you already possess this kind of an argument, because, if God is the creator of the universe, I bet he must exist "outside" the universe.)
On the other hand, if God exist, there is perhaps the possibility it manifests itself to someone lucky enough. In that case, the logical work would be minimal: a comparision between the thing and the concept of God. This is highly unlikely to occur, but the source of the difficulty is not to be found in the logic of the argument.
I recognize my English isn't very good, but it's this the sense I meant by using the word "easier".
PS: I am agnostic and spaghnostic :D
Elric-Logain
04-09-2009, 03:58
So what is the point of this thread again?
Technomancer
04-09-2009, 06:06
So what is the point of this thread again?
To not talk about the original point of this thread. :coffee:
To not talk about the original point of this thread. :coffee:
CRAP! Technomancer has figured us out! BAIL!
Cormac McArt
04-09-2009, 11:38
A nationality aspect would be more effective if the characters exclaim/soundbite in their respective language.
Jedouard
04-09-2009, 12:54
In response to Tangerinedream:
I have to say I think there should be no more comments on religion etc. Just like at a bar you don't mention politics/religion same should go unless the forum is designated to it because it can cause offense.
Firstly, If you really felt this discussion on religion is out of place, wouldn't you have stopped your comment with the above-cited text? Instead, you continue on. From what I can gather from this is, our sort of discussion is out of line because it is not to your liking; your response, however, is okay because it is to your liking. This points the the discussion on tolerance we already had and which I will return to in a second.
In any case, I will gladly stop speaking about religion, provided that religious people gladly stop voting based on religion on issues that affect my life, stop espousing religion in areas that enter my life and so on and so forth. But, they do not. Walk to Planned Parenthood in Bloomington, Indiana on a Thursday and you will see a woman with a picture of a fetus and the words "Abortion is Murder". Asked for justification, she will say it is in the Bible. I know because I spoke to her. Look at voters who vote against *** marriage, they will often justify their views with Sodom and Gamora or some other scripture they may or may not have read. And, you do not even need to ask for the sources for the husband and wife who bring their poor children to carry signs at Indiana University's Bloomington campus to preach hell-fire and damnation on pretty much any topic.
That religion is taboo speaks to a weakness in its arguments. I can make this assertion because I as do both many atheists and many people of religious minorities, know from experience that it is not religion that is taboo but speaking about religion from a point of view different than that of the majority. If you accept the majority's religious views, though, then it is all good. Take a look at Obama's carefully worded speech in Cairo, which exploited the religious similarities in all three of the major monotheistic religions, but never mentioned their differences, let alone the glaring contradiction within each one. And, though I support his intentions (i.e., uniting people) and his methods may debatably be the lesser of two evils, how do you think this makes a non-religious people or people of different religions feel?
And that is our segue to politics. The problem with politics is that there is this weird sort of convention that is running rampant in West and perhaps other areas: the equality of ideas. But when you talk about reality, i.e., "that which is", and even the way things function so as to have consequences on that reality, then there are clearly ideas that:
1) are evidenced to correspond to reality;
2) are evidenced to not correspond to reality;
3) and not completely tested so as to certainly correspond. (Ideas in this last category may have been tested enough that we have a good sense about which way they will go in terms of corresponding to reality or not, but they are still in need of testing.)
For that reason, politics and political discussions mirror that of religious tolerance. "I am free to have (what I think are) my (right) ideas, and you are free to have (what I think are) your (wrong) ideas. But let us not speak about them because I do not enjoy defending my argument (something which may be impossible to do). And, let's call this unspoken agreement 'tolerance'." This "tolerance" and this "equality of ideas" is one of the things bogging down the U.S. political system, because people do not educate themselves on the issues and instead go with their gut - or at least what their gut tells them is a valid educated idea - and expect to be tolerated or respected for it.
And, I do speak about religion and politics in bars, should the subjects come up. So, I guess this is the Internet version of a bar. Given all the other threads here, you can bar-hop if this is not to your taste.
For example towards me, I take high offense saying that we are expected to believe something with no evidence what-so-ever. That is a gross mis-characterization, not all religious people are mindless and care so little about their faith that they are willing to just believe anything someone says or what a book says for that matter.
I do not believe anyone ever said that religious people are mindless here. The closest anyone came to that would be in an argument that could be simplified into saying: "If someone who has access to the evidence-based information we have nowadays still believes in the supernatural, then either they are not using their minds to digest that information, they do not understand between evidence-based information and other forms of information, or they are suffering from sort of indoctrination that leads them to one of two aforesaid pitfalls." None of these categories mean mindless.
If you wouldn't mind, though, could you explain what the source is for the discrimination in deciding what to believe in and what not to believe in when it comes to what "people" and "books" say?
Certain things may not be able to be fully proved but there may be enough underlying evidences and proofs for other things to build upon and support what is above it.
Can you provide examples? They do not even need to be examples of specific things; examples of general subjects will suffice.
Same goes in science not everything is "fact" but there is enough theories and proofs for other things to help greatly support what is being argued above it.
There is quite a difference between the characteristics of faith in the supernatural and the characteristics of trust in scientific facts, hypotheses, laws, theories, and proofs. Even if in this forum we have not all agreed on the meaning of the latter terms, we have all agreed on one thing: they all depend to a certain degree on verifiable evidence, something that is not characteristic of faith. Until you can provide me with those examples I asked for above and until those examples are proven to evidence something supernatural, I will still insist upon this point.
Now I myself am somebody who cares enough about their faith to actually study both the arguments for an against it, and see which arguments are most convincing. The ones that are more logically sound is the ones I gravitate towards. I have done my studies and and majored in it and may later go back and further my studies.
What makes an argument convincing? What makes an argument more logically sound? I will get back to this point when I respond to Ausbiemit, when I assert that there is no possible logical assertion for anything supernatural, but for now I would like to hear your input.
Also, what academic major provides an education in the supernatural?
I am not a master in all areas of studies some things I do need to leave it up to other people who are experts in those fields. I remember when people would ask me to defend my beliefs and then they would respond or ask questions and some things I would simply have to say "That is not an area I know enough about to give any sort of an educated response, I can ask someone that knows more about it than myself or try and point you in the correct direction if you wish to study it more."
If you respond this way and, as you stated above, you have the true intention of further studying your argument from multiple angles in the hopes of providing an educated response, then you stand out from the average religious person.
So please don't categorize all people with religious beliefs as mindless drones who believes for no reason at all. Atheism is a religious stand point as well and needs to be able to support itself just as much as any religion. I find funny that many proposed atheist know less about their beliefs than other people with religious stand points. They make blanket statements such as "science has disproved religion," and then try to use that as a trump card when they really have no clue what they are talking about. Realize religions use science to support their beliefs as well.
I will disregard the first sentence because I already responded to it above. Moving on, the rest of this paragraph is ultimately wrong, i.e., not true to reality, and definitely does not make the case for you admitting you do not have an educated response. I will explain.
Atheism is not a religious standpoint, it is a standpoint against religion and the supernatural. Atheism is not a religious standpoint in the same way that the civil rights movement was a racist movement. Atheists are not claiming anything supernatural, only refusing claims that there is evidence for anything supernatural and thus asserting there is no reason to believe in it. Atheists do not adhere to any atheism-based institution that promotes a certain morality or encourages the practice of certain rites. The lack of belief in the supernatural and the lack of adherence to atheism-based morality and rites makes atheism not at all a religion and not at all like a religion. As such, there is nothing to defend, only something to defend against, e.g. our rights to secularity and our freedom both from religious inculcation and from having conventions and regulations based on this inculcation thrust upon us.
Those atheists who say that science has disproved religion are probably right. Why? Well, remember that religion means everything that the religion involves - all its texts and all its rites and all the beliefs in the purposes for and outcomes of those rites and so on. Religion is not just what one person believes within the religion; it is an encompassing institution. As such, at least something in every religion has been scientifically disproved, for example: origin stories.
But, wait a second! What if the world were created so "our science" leads us to believe the history of the world and universe and so on are one way, but it is really the way it was in [random religion's] religious texts? Well, then that would make the religion false because its texts do not report creation truthfully. Therefore, religion would be logically disproved.
However, those atheists who say that there is nothing supernatural are wrong; they ought to say that there is very probably nothing supernatural. Remember here that the supernatural just means something that is beyond being subject to confines of the natural universe. Indeed, in the world could have been created in 6000 B.C., and everything was just set up perfectly to tempt us atheists away from believing in the supernatural. (It could have been created two seconds ago with our memories intact, for all we know.) It is just that there is no evidence for any of this and thus no reason to think (let alone believe in and have faith in) the existence of the supernatural.
Returning to the claim that atheism is a religion or a religious stand point is made, when it is made, it usually comes about for two reasons:
1) It is more convenient to not think outside usual paradigms of though, of which religion is one;
2) It is easy to accept what other people have said when it fits into the aforesaid paradigms.
The claim that atheist is a religion or religious standpoint is old and invalid, yet popular. Probably, the religious people or elite that came up with this claim, could themselves not think outside of the religious paradigm. That those who did not come up with this claim on their own grabbed on to it so well only means that they suffered from the same human tendency.
If religion is by definition dishonest and has a problem with truth, than atheism is in the same boat as all the rest.
I think I handled the brunt of this sentence earlier by evidencing that atheism is not a religion or like a religion at all and thus not "in the same boat" as religion.
However, there are atheists who "have problems" with the truth, and they may even use their being atheist to defend their invalid argument, but that does not have anything to do with atheism. On the contrary, religion absolutely requires that you have a problem with the "truth", as it requires belief both in that for which there is no evidence (the supernatural) and that which has been disproved (creation stories and so on).
-----
To Ausbiemit:
I doubt there is any logical argument that could possibly prove the existence of a god, gods or anything supernatural without flawed inductive reasoning. At some point along the logical argument it will eventually boil down to this: "Because of A there is B" or "A is B" or something along those lines. In either of these cases, someone will have to presume God is the unknown, and this would be a mistake. We could just as easily label the unknown "natural unknown". Only once all possible natural unknowns have been exhausted could we ever assume there is a supernatural unknown as an explanation for something. Even if there were a finite number of unknowns, humanity's confines make performing the task of exhausting them very probably (99.999999...%) impossible. However, given their may be and very probably are infinite unknowns, it is impossible for finite humanity to perform this task.
This leaves us needing to verifiably observe something supernatural to prove its existence.
It was ausbiemit about the existence of God not me Jedouard :)
But my thoughts on the subject are this: Atheists need proof to believe something, Theists need only faith to believe, although arguably faith could be based upon the fact that the universe is almost infinite, so the possibility of a "higher being" existing is large.
Oh and about not discussing politics or religion in bars. What is with americans and that? I talk politics most of the time and bars don't stop me why is it taboo in america?
In any case, I will gladly stop speaking about religion, provided that religious people gladly stop voting based on religion on issues that affect my lifeAh Jedouard, the ignorance surrounding the American constitution. Gone are the days of separation of Church and State. This is another aspect that i cannot understand with Americans, in general they are very patriotic towards their constitution, and upholding the constitution is almost a sacred vowel uttered at birth. And yet few realise its intention, and the fact that it is ignored today. The first amendment is upheld, lets not even mention the 2nd, I fail to see how the 8th hasn't been enacted. And worst of all Article two has been thrown out the window.
But who cares what the founding fathers had in mind, we can just ignore it and decide what they ought to mean. This isn't meant to be an anti-american rant, i'm frustrated with the disregard on which a country was established.
lone_wolf
04-09-2009, 14:17
bah americans dont even know that the saying on their money is from the 50 ties how can you expect them to actually read up on their constitution?
i have lost hope in that years ago.
Jedouard
04-09-2009, 14:22
It was ausbiemit about the existence of God not me Jedouard :)
Sorry about that. I edited it to fix it.
But my thoughts on the subject are this: Atheists need proof to believe something, Theists need only faith to believe, although arguably faith could be based upon the fact that the universe is almost infinite, so the possibility of a "higher being" existing is large.
I don't know about atheists. I know plenty of atheists who do not like religion because of a bad experience with it or just because it makes them stand out from the crowd. Sometimes they base their arguments on nothing more than "____ is stupid". Maybe it is my own bias in thinking this, but they also tend to be the ones, when it does come time to defend themselves, that get belligerent, rude and say something like, "Science has disproved the existence of God."
Oh and about not discussing politics or religion in bars. What is with americans and that? I talk politics most of the time and bars don't stop me why is it taboo in america?
Ah Jedouard, the ignorance surrounding the American constitution. Gone are the days of separation of Church and State. This is another aspect that i cannot understand with Americans, in general they are very patriotic towards their constitution, and upholding the constitution is almost a sacred vowel uttered at birth. And yet few realise its intention, and the fact that it is ignored today. The first amendment is upheld, lets not even mention the 2nd, I fail to see how the 8th hasn't been enacted. And worst of all Article two has been thrown out the window.
But who cares what the founding fathers had in mind, we can just ignore it and decide what they ought to mean. This isn't meant to be an anti-american rant, i'm frustrated with the disregard on which a country was established.
I'm with you on all of this.
Religion and politics are taboo because people cannot separate themselves from their ideas, so much so that any critique of the ideas (even on their own part) is considered a critique on their person. The idea of non-confrontational is just an excuse not to defend one's thoughts, whether people are aware of this dynamic or are just seeking refuge behind it as a "right".
ausbeimit
05-09-2009, 01:34
To Ausbiemit:
I doubt there is any logical argument that could possibly prove the existence of a god, gods or anything supernatural without flawed inductive reasoning. At some point along the logical argument it will eventually boil down to this: "Because of A there is B" or "A is B" or something along those lines. In either of these cases, someone will have to presume God is the unknown, and this would be a mistake. We could just as easily label the unknown "natural unknown". Only once all possible natural unknowns have been exhausted could we ever assume there is a supernatural unknown as an explanation for something. Even if there were a finite number of unknowns, humanity's confines make performing the task of exhausting them very probably (99.999999...%) impossible. However, given their may be and very probably are infinite unknowns, it is impossible for finite humanity to perform this task.
This leaves us needing to verifiably observe something supernatural to prove its existence.
I doubt it too.
Many intelligent men (Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz...) have tried to construct such an argument to prove God's existence (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument). The routine though is not to call God whatever unknown cause of an unexplained event. They usually take a property which belongs uniquely to the concept of God - like being the supreme goodness or the first cause of the universal causality chain - and seek to prove that there must exist one and only one thing which has this property - that is, God. This is deductive reasoning and isn't necessarily flawed at all. Any (logical) argument goes like that. The problem is that logic alone can't prove anything about the real world. It depends on data from experience as its starting point (the premiss "A exists") if it is to say anything about what really exist. The philosophers missed that until Kant came and showed that existence isn't something which can be derived from inside a concept, but simply the fact that a concept is actualized (materialized) on the world. Knowing that now, we know also that the endeavour is much harder (if not impossible) than the ancients thought: to derive the existence of God we would need to start from very powerful existence premisses, premisses which are themselves, even if apparently plausible, too strong to be proved.
xduncanx
05-09-2009, 04:57
jeepers.
The scholars are out in force in this thread. I'm not going to throw myself into the fray.
anyway,
+1 for atheists.
You got to get your act together USA, I'm basically stunned and speechless if i meet a christian under the age of 30 much more so if they actually go to church. I mean, i know they exist but they must have real good hidey holes.
Technomancer
05-09-2009, 09:22
Damn Jedouard, are you getting paid for this?! lol!
Just a story I thought I'd share:
"Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment and it was un-Constitutional when Congress added it. Back in high school, I was doing a vocational program for computer programming at a different school. They never did this at my home school, but this other school had daily Pledge of Allegiances where we had to stand and recite it. Me and a couple of my friends refused to say "Under God" and our teacher eventually noticed. She started giving us grief trying to make us, so we stopped reciting the Pledge altogether in protest of her violation of our 1st Amendment rights. She sent us to Dr. Goodhead (that was her nickname cause her real name was similar ;)). She told us we had to recite it. One of us had printed off a recent Supreme Court opinion that held that no one could be forced to recite the Pledge SPECIFICALLY because of "Under God". She just dismissed it as some random crap we downloaded off the internet. We kept at it saying that they can't force us to say that and she said, and I quote: "Well, we don't have to let you attend our vocational program." Yeah. We all knew that none of our parents would back us up if push came to shove, so we backed off.
In the end, we were "allowed" to not say the words "Under God", but had to do the rest of it and our teacher wouldn't mess with us anymore. For the rest of the year, from time to time, one of us would throw in something like "Under Vishnu" or "Under Odin". That was our only recourse, and we didn't get hassled over it outside of a funny look or two.
The "no religious or political talk in bars" thing mainly depends on the bar. There's a few bars around here that'd be fine, but I live within 10 minutes of a couple bars where this conversation would get beat up in the parking lot.
Tangerinedream
06-09-2009, 17:12
Sorry I haven't been able to really sit down at a computer, the last few days have been hectic and I haven't been at home for the most part. I am on my friends computer so I can only respond in brief what I will talk about when I finally get a chance to sit down and cohesively put together my thoughts. I have work for the next few days as well and they are early afternoon to nighttime shifts. So again it will be a push to get within the next few days but I shall try.
I will go over my defense for why I, and others as well, see atheism as a religion. A couple of defense for the historicity of the New Testament, which I will let follow into the historical reliability of the resurrection. I chose those two because they went along with my major. I chose to defend in brief, because it is such a huge topic, the historical reliability of the New Testament because I see that is something that can be proved. I went a step further and then went onto the resurrection because it naturally flows out of the topic. One wants to prove the documents are trustworthy so that one an say that what is being said in the documents is trustworthy as well. I didn't major in some form of science, but there are those that did, whom are well known around the world, and don't see it as anymore of a threat to religion as I do. One person for example would be J.P. Moreland, another would be William Lane Craig. William is a well known debater and defender of the faith, and has done so with many well known atheistic thinkers. If he doesn't see the need to be fearful in defending his beliefs against some of the best known thinkers of our time then why should I?
However, this will not be right away, I do have some things that I do need to get done, and as I stated these past few days have been hectic.
I still believe it should have stopped much earlier but since I was asked to continue basically I guess I have no choice than to do so. What I said a page or so ago was something in brief, I wasn't expecting a drawn out response. >,<
Tang
Jedouard
06-09-2009, 21:38
No apologies necessary on taking a while for a response. As far as I know, no one is paid here, so we all have other things to do.
As for the rest of your comment... Well, did you ever read Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy? In it, there are these linguists who dissect what people say. This politician visits their planet, and after three days of speech making he takes his shuttle home. The linguists dissect everything he says and what do they come up with? He said nothing in three days.
I guess you know where I am going with this: your response pretty much said nothing.
I will go over my defense for why I, and others as well, see atheism as a religion.
But you don't.
A couple of defense for the historicity of the New Testament, which I will let follow into the historical reliability of the resurrection.
First of all, what historicity? What evidence do you have that the New Testament is any more historistic (i.e., part of a actual reality as opposed to invented) than the Iliad or Beowulf?
You never provided any evidence that would leave me to believe in the historicity of the New Testament.
Furthermore, simply asserting that the New Testament is historistic or even that it has historistic parts in it does not mean that there is any historical reliability in the ressurection.
I chose those two because they went along with my major.
What school did you go to that had a major that "went along" with the historicity of the New Testament and the historical reliability of the resurrection? Explain, please.
I chose to defend in brief, because it is such a huge topic, the historical reliability of the New Testament because I see that is something that can be proved. I went a step further and then went onto the resurrection because it naturally flows out of the topic.
I am sure that you see the New Testament as something that can be proved... because you are a Christian. However, what evidence do you have for any of this? What evidence does anyone have?
I'll provide the answer: none. And, since there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe any of it could be proved, there is no reason to believe any of it is more provable than any other religion's texts and, to put it bluntly, there is just no reason to believe any of it.
Whether you "see" it as something that can be proved is inconsequential to it actually being provable.
As for resurrection "naturally flowing from the topic", yes it does naturally flow from the topic, but it does not mean that it is proved or provable and thus deserving of my or anyone else's trusting in it. The mention the Sea of Galilee in the New Testament too, so, according to this logical argument, Sea of Galilee was around, then Jesus was resurrected. One thing being true does not mean another thing is true.
In this case, all I have to do to write a text and have it believed is put on verifiable fact in it. The moon revolves around the sun, so I am God. Let the worshipping begin.
One wants to prove the documents are trustworthy so that one an say that what is being said in the documents is trustworthy as well.
No, "one" does not want to prove that the documents are trustworthy; you, a Christian want to prove the documents are trustworthy out of self interest, whether you are aware of it or not. I, however, want conclusions to be drawn from evidence about what actually happened, is happening and is likely to happen, whether it agrees with other texts out there or not.
I didn't major in some form of science...
It seems like this might be an important aspect to understanding and trying to evaluate the historical realiability of New Testament.
...but there are those that did, whom are well known around the world, and don't see it as any more of a threat to religion as I do.
There is a difference between educating yourself in science and actually being a scientist. A scientists has no agenda; (s)he has only the desire to understand what happened, is happening or is probably to happen based on evidence gathered and observations made by him/her and other scientists.
Being "well known around the world" for speaking about science does not make you a scientist. In terms of science, it may be true that you are a well-known scientist, but it may also be true that you are a well-known manipulator of scientific facts for religious or other purposes. The latter group are the ones you find defending your arguments.
One person for example would be J.P. Moreland, another would be William Lane Craig. William is a well known debater and defender of the faith, and has done so with many well known atheistic thinkers.
I thank you for providing examples, because now I can dissect them:
"A mind’s ideas may be complex, but a mind itself is a remarkably simple thing, being an immaterial entity not composed of pieces or separable parts." -J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philisophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview, p. 490
It is amazing what bunk you can come up with when you base everything - even your analysis of information - on what you believe or would like to be true. Indeed, this is where a background in science would help a lot, particularly one without an agenda.
Luckily, my background is in neuroscience. So, I am going to tackle the assertion that the mind is "simple", "immaterial" and not "composed of pieces or separable parts", all three of which are utterly false.
Is the mind simple? Not at all. But wait, I concede that "simple" is very vague, so it could be simple according to some definition of the word. (Indeed, the brain is composed of some rather basic elements on the periodic table, and I will be connecting the brain to the mind in a second.) But, according to what the authors meant by "simple" in this phrase, the mind is not simple at all. The thoughts our minds have can be conflicting. They can change over time and the environment (social or otherwise) can affect them. None of this is simple.
I got a chuckle out of the "immaterial" and "not composed of pieces or separable parts" claims. Several experiments have been done with sensory deprivation chambers, wherein participants are asked to think about and/or remember various things. Interestingly, if the memory or thought involves color, for example, then areas in the brain that are active when actually perceiving color become active just at the thought of color. The same holds true for various other thoughts and their corresponding areas of the brain. This points to neural networking theory.
Brain damage is another good way to test out the physicality of the mind. People with damage to Wernicke's area in the brain lose the ability to comprehend and produce semantically meaningful language. Indeed, the rhythm and syntax of the language remains largely normal, but they aren't saying anything meaningful. "Blue rubber ice-cream on forty-eight hay-rides of pygmies." It makes no sense. Another unfortunate sort of damage comes from long-term, intensive alcohol abuse or, more precisely, thiamine deficiency. It is named Korsakoff's syndrome. People with Korsakoff's syndrome cannot create new memories (anterograde amnesia), lose their old memories (retrograde amnesia), invent memories to fill in gaps in memory (confabulation), lack the ability to see meaning in things and are apathetic.
Now, if areas of our brain are active when we have certain thoughts and if brain damage and deficiencies in our vitamins, minerals and nutrients change our ability to think on a temporary or permanent basis, it is safe to say that the mind is materially derived and that messing with the material pieces of the mind does not necessarily destroy it, but may alter it (perhaps profoundly, perhaps not at all).
In short, our mind, our consciousness or whatever else you want to call it is our brain (or at least the parts actively and passively involved in these functions). We do not notice all of its inner working because, evolutionarily speaking, that would not be have been to our reproductive advantage and would more likely have been to our reproductive disadvantage. All that we notice are the products of these processes. But, it is all neurons, synapses and the stuff they are made out of.
Returning to simplicity, but now from a biological standpoint, the molecular, cellular, tissue and organ structures of the nervous system and thus mind are not simple at all.
As for ideas being complex, this is bogus. Some ideas are complex (e.g. capitalism, theology, tyranny, in-groups, etc.); but some can be relatively simple (e.g. cold, wet, stinky, bright). Sure we may tend to get more complex the more we think or learn about something, but often times we do not go any further than "Ouch!".
If he doesn't see the need to be fearful in defending his beliefs against some of the best known thinkers of our time then why should I?
First of all, there is no reason to fear anything on a forum thread. If this were a Salem witch trial, then maybe I ought to be afraid, but here you are anonymous and amongst what I would say are level-headed friendly people. Under most other circumstances, anonymity and and audience leads to something horrible, but we are doing well here.
Confidence in arguing one's claim (for example, in favor of a belief), on the other hand, can have four sources:
1) "Scientifically and Logically Sound Confidence" - The claim is evidenced and follows logic;
2) "Biased Confidence" - Though the claim is not evidenced and does not follow logic, the person arguing the claim has a known or unknown bias that leads him/her to believe it is;
3) "Manipulative Confidence" - Though the claim is not evidenced and does not follow logic and the person arguing the claim knows this, this person arguing also knows or believes it is probable that people will still support what his argument;
4) "Idiotic Confidence" - The person making the argument is concerned neither with evidence, nor with logic, nor with the argument at all, but is merely blindly defending or asserting a claim. ("It is good/bad because it is good/bad.")
These categories are not as strict as I have outlined them, as people will have arguments that fall into one, two, three or all four categories. However, it is safe to say that J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig and all the other intelligent-design, creationism defenders and religious scientists belong to that category of people who have biased or manipulative confidence in their arguments, as you too most likely do.
However, this will not be right away, I do have some things that I do need to get done, and as I stated these past few days have been hectic.
I still believe it should have stopped much earlier but since I was asked to continue basically I guess I have no choice than to do so. What I said a page or so ago was something in brief, I wasn't expecting a drawn out response. >,<
Tang
Did you honestly believe you would halt atheists and agnostics from having a discussion by telling them you though the discussion was out of line and then proceeding to tell them you had proof of God and that they belonged to a religion?
Jedouard
06-09-2009, 21:59
The problem is that logic alone can't prove anything about the real world. It depends on data from experience as its starting point (the premiss "A exists") if it is to say anything about what really exist. The philosophers missed that until Kant came and showed that existence isn't something which can be derived from inside a concept, but simply the fact that a concept is actualized (materialized) on the world.
Exactly.
Furthermore, the arguments which you discussed are themselves ridden with logical fallacies, Kant, Humes and others point them out much better than I ever will.
popenfresh
06-09-2009, 22:36
I will go over my defense for why I, and others as well, see atheism as a religion.
This old argument again…. The notion where you don’t believe in something cannot be elevated to the same level as the notion where you do believing in that something, especially if there is no proof to believe it in the first place. There are millions, billions, an infinite number of things you don’t believe in. Does that mean you can be defined as someone who belongs to a religion that doesn’t believe in gnomes, unicorns, Martians, pink elephants on roller-skates and so on?
Also, you can prove all the things you want from the New Testament, old cities, corpses, ancient writings, but it doesn’t make the things they actually say true.
I can prove to you that my neighbour told me he caught a great white shark at sea, does that make what he said true? No.
Tangerinedream
07-09-2009, 06:36
I'm not sure what you are expecting with that post, because it seems like you are dissecting arguments that weren't there. I said that I would get to my arguments and defenses over the next few days. So you can say "but you didn't" in response to something I would further discuss but there was no reason for you to because I left nothing there to discuss. I said that I would continue on my own time in my own leisure. Quoting what I say and trying to act as though what I said was my defense when it very clearly wasn't does nothing.
Now I can already seeing you heavy with the quote button commenting on this post, as though it is my defense for my defenses, when I haven't given any argument in the first place. I will go at my own leisure, so feel free to quote and comment on something that really has little to do with what I will eventually discuss.
Tang
ps. quote away.... even though this post has nothing worth quoting in it, just as the other one. When I actually bring up my arguments with what I feel is their defenses then it makes more sense to quote.
Jedouard
07-09-2009, 08:47
I'm not sure what you are expecting with that post, because it seems like you are dissecting arguments that weren't there. I said that I would get to my arguments and defenses over the next few days. So you can say "but you didn't" in response to something I would further discuss but there was no reason for you to because I left nothing there to discuss. I said that I would continue on my own time in my own leisure. Quoting what I say and trying to act as though what I said was my defense when it very clearly wasn't does nothing.
Now I can already seeing you heavy with the quote button commenting on this post, as though it is my defense for my defenses, when I haven't given any argument in the first place. I will go at my own leisure, so feel free to quote and comment on something that really has little to do with what I will eventually discuss.
Tang
ps. quote away.... even though this post has nothing worth quoting in it, just as the other one. When I actually bring up my arguments with what I feel is their defenses then it makes more sense to quote.
I am sorry. I am not trying to be mean here, but your last comment was poorly worded such that it was not clear when you were going to get into the things you said that you were going to get into. I thought you meant later in the post, not in the next post. Honestly, it makes no sense to give us an introduction to what you will be talking about in a later post, let alone to do so with confusing wording.
I will wait for your arguments, and, yes, you can be sure that I will go through them one by one, quoting and dissecting them, looking for what is verifiable, what is logical and what is not. There is nothing wrong with analyzing an argument, indeed I think it should be encouraged. My apologies if this bother you, but that should have been clear before you posted here.
Tangerinedream
07-09-2009, 19:24
My comment was not so poorly worded that it wasn't clear when I was going to be writing my arguments. I said twice in the same post, once at the end of the first paragraph, and again after the second paragraph that I would try and get to it within the next few days. I agree that writing in a forum I will be a bit more quick with my writing so it may not be the most carefully worded, but it wasn't unclear.
All I did was provide a little "sneak peak" if you will concerning what I would be talking about. Therefore what I wrote makes sense.
I have started working on my writing a little bit but I have to work for labor day and got roped into an extra shift so Ill try to get it done in a timely manner.
Tang
Jedouard
07-09-2009, 20:52
My comment was not so poorly worded that it wasn't clear when I was going to be writing my arguments.
Obviously not everyone thought it was clear. I am not the only one who responded.
xduncanx
07-09-2009, 22:56
I must confess i found the post unclear as well, and felt lost as to what point you were trying to make.
But, please, by all means, take your time.
There is no rush, you may submit your essay at a time of your choosing.
Starving_Poet
08-09-2009, 15:29
"Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment and it was un-Constitutional when Congress added it.
Oooh, Constitutional Law - I like this:
The ONLY mention of religion in the Constitution is that 'Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion'.
The ONLY mention of God in the Constitution is the signatory:
"Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our lord, one thousand seven hundred eight seven"
And if you knew your history, you'd know that the 'Separation of Church and State is
a) Not in the Constitution
b) Intended to keep the Government out of the Church, not the otherway around.
Legally speaking - you can put a crucifix in the middle of the Senate floor, and so long as you don't make a law saying that it can't be taken down, it's not illegal.
The sad thing is that when people are given the choice to distrust religion or distrust government - in modern times, they side with religion - even though it is the Government that can and will more directly effect your life on a daily basis. People acting in the name of God have done many bad things - people acting in the name of their nation have done FAR worse.
Jedouard
08-09-2009, 22:41
Hi Starving_Poet,
Unfortunately, what you have relayed to us is nonsense. I am sure anyone not extremely familiar with James Madison, the principal framer of the constitution, might be inclined to believe it. I am not blaming you for relaying this: much of the history we get is filtered through religious text-book writers. Did you go to the sources?
While he often made statements to the tune of protecting religion from the government, Madison's less-published works, private papers and even some of his more-published texts reflect quite the opposite intention of what you stated. Indeed, according to his own words, he wanted to keep the U.S. government free from religious "encroachment".
But, you don't have to take my word for it; here are his own words:
-----
We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it... ("Memorial and Remonstrance")
-----
Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. ("Memorial and Remonstrance")
-----
The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor b y an authority derived from them, and are slaves. ("Memorial and Remonstrance")
-----
It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those who see opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. ("Memorial and Remonstrance")
-----
What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies. ("Memorial and Remonstrance")
-----
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? ("Memorial and Remonstrance")
-----
Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. ("Memorial and Remonstrance")
-----
Experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. ("Memorial and Remonstrance")
-----
Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. ("Detached Memoranda")
-----
In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst (See letter of J. M. to Mr. Jefferson dated )1 The opponents of the amendment having turned the feeling as well as judgment of the House agst it, by successfully contending that the better proof of reverence for that holy name wd be not to profane it by making it a topic of legisl. discussion, & particularly by making his religion the means of abridging the natural and equal rights of all men, in defiance of his own declaration that his Kingdom was not of this world. This view of the subject was much enforced by the circumstance that it was espoused by some members who were particularly distinguished by their reputed piety and Christian zeal. ("Detached Memoranda")
-----
But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. ("Detached Memoranda")
-----
Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects. ("Letter to Bradford", January 1774)
-----
That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such a business. ("Letter to Bradford", January 1774)
-----
Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects. ("Letter to Bradford", April 1774)
-----
Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience. (House Debate wherein Madison explained his intentions in writing the First Amendment, August 15, 1789)
-----
A couple things ought to be clear from this and his other writings:
1) Madison saw organized religion as a danger to the government.
2) Madison clearly had an issue with heavily organised religion and felt that religion out to be personal (i.e., up to the individual's conscience).
I think that takes care of your second (false) assertion that it was intended to protect religion from the government. You need to keep in mind that times were not so different from what they are now: people were still heavily under the sway of religion, and it would have been impossible for Madison to say "Religion is detrimental to ___" without candy coating it to make it sound beneficial to religion. And, given some of the other things Madison said not so publicly, particularly that bit about "protect[ing] the minority of the opulent from the majority" (Robert Yates, "Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787"), I would venture to say that his concern for people's rights and freedoms was just one more example of this candy coating.
As for your first assertion on the separation of church and state not being in the constitution, that depends on what you call the constitution. If you do not include the amendments, then you are right; if you do, then you are wrong. I do include the amendments because that is, after all, what the word "amendment" means. Furthermore, the word "unconstitutional" has nearly always included violations of the amendments.
Here is the text of the First Amendment for your enjoyment, which was further defined in later Supreme Court rulings and by Madison's own speeches, a quotation of which is above:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Moving on, it is presently not sure whether you can put a crucifix on the Senate floor; it depends on whether the Senate floor is "government" or if "government" only means an abstract institution, the tangible infrastructure of which is not "government". If the Senate floor is government, then it should be unconstitutional to place a crucifix on it. Interestingly, a recent ruling of the Kentucky Circuit Court on the placement of a plaque with religious references on the property of Kentucky Department of Homeland Security office would uphold this . (Do you believe it? Kentucky!?). If the Senate floor is not "government", and religious ornamentation is ever permitted to be installed, then Senate best get ready for my Flying Spaghetti Monster shrine.
Finally, getting to your last claim:
People acting in the name of God have done many bad things - people acting in the name of their nation have done FAR worse.
How can you possible say this? This is utter nonsense. The only possible way I can see you claiming this is if you have some weird definition of what is "bad" and what is "worse".
To start with, secular states were a rare thing until the 1900s. Most states were based on or heavily intertwined with religion, and many still are. Though the term "Divine Right" is not that old, the notion and its use to mobilise, suppress and exploit people has been around almost forever. Given this is the case, you are in essence asserting that the violence in the last century is far worse than all preceding violence either in quantitative terms or qualitative terms.
The Qualitative Argument:
While I do agree that Nazi death camps and gulags and whatever else are horrendous, I will not go so far as to say they are qualitatively worse than anything that preceded them.
I can already feel the fire I am going to come under for saying that. I know the tragedy of the 12 million people executed during the holocaust and the 20 million in Stalin's Soviet Union, but read Numbers in the Old Testament and tell me that you don't see something just as bad in the murder of all Midian men, women and boys and the sexual enslavement of their virgin girls. Tell me that in Genesis making an entire city's worth of men to get circumcisions and then murdering them anyway when they are healing afterwards and taking their women as sex slaves in not as qualitatively bad. (Of course, this was done in response to the chosen people having one of their women raped, so you can see how well justice was dished out: 1 rape = hundreds or thousands of murders and many many repeated rapes.) Examples of such religion-based atrocities run rampant in history and in almost every traditional religion.
Furthermore, a lot of this 20th and 21st Century so-called "secular" violence would not have been possible without religious indoctrination. How many Germans would have hated **** if they were not brought up in a bigoted Christian environment? Such groundwork most likely accounts for the majority of the 6 million **** executed in the Holocaust. What about the other 6 million? Who were they? -Hmmm, a good many were homosexuals. What does Christianity have to say about that? It is no coincidence that the Holocaust's executed match well with Christianity's historical enemies. It is no coincidence that Hitler and the Pope were close, no matter how often the former claimed he was not religious. I am not saying Nazi fascism was religious, but I am saying it would not have functioned without a religious mould to form it.
And, the same goes for Bush Jr.'s "crusade", as he called it.
The Quantitative Argument:
I do not even know how to calculate how many people became victims of purely nationalistic violence versus purely religious violence versus state-religion violence. (I doubt you do either.) Given the history and pre-history of Homo sapien sapien, though, I would bet that many more victims can be found in the latter two categories than in the first, even if you include the genocides of the 20th and 21st centuries.
That people tend to trust religion more than government does not necessarily point to religion being more trustworthy than government, but perhaps (and more likely) to religion doing a better job of indoctrinating people. There is no Pascal's wager for government - we all know the consequences for not trusting it.
Technomancer
09-09-2009, 01:58
Oooh, Constitutional Law - I like this:
The ONLY mention of religion in the Constitution is that 'Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion'.
The ONLY mention of God in the Constitution is the signatory:
"Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our lord, one thousand seven hundred eight seven"
And if you knew your history, you'd know that the 'Separation of Church and State is
a) Not in the Constitution
b) Intended to keep the Government out of the Church, not the otherway around.
Legally speaking - you can put a crucifix in the middle of the Senate floor, and so long as you don't make a law saying that it can't be taken down, it's not illegal.
The sad thing is that when people are given the choice to distrust religion or distrust government - in modern times, they side with religion - even though it is the Government that can and will more directly effect your life on a daily basis. People acting in the name of God have done many bad things - people acting in the name of their nation have done FAR worse.
What Jedouard said! :alright:
But to play along with your assertion, you forgot "...or prohibiting the free practice thereof." That includes NON-practice. Now, let's say for the sake of argument that you're right. Public school IS goverment, and no rights denied to the federal government are allowed to the states, counties, etc. It IS still in violation of the Constitution (and yes, the Bill of Rights IS part of the Constitution) for school districts or individual schools to FORCE children to recite or observe something that is clearly religious, like "Under God". It's no different than forced prayer to Christ in school.
Interestingly, a recent ruling of the Kentucky Supreme Court on the placement of a plaque with religious references on the property of Kentucky Department of Homeland Security office would uphold this . (Do you believe it? Kentucky!?).
The 4th sign of the Apocalypse! Hurry, Jesus is coming, look busy! ;)
Jedouard
09-09-2009, 07:30
But to play along with your assertion, you forgot "...or prohibiting the free practice thereof." That includes NON-practice. Now, let's say for the sake of argument that you're right. Public school IS goverment, and no rights denied to the federal government are allowed to the states, counties, etc. It IS still in violation of the Constitution (and yes, the Bill of Rights IS part of the Constitution) for school districts or individual schools to FORCE children to recite or observe something that is clearly religious, like "Under God". It's no different than forced prayer to Christ in school.
Yes, there are several Supreme Court rulings that state freedom from religion is included in this. Here is one example: Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".
Furthermore, there are also several Supreme Court rulings that extend the jurisdiction of the First Amendment clearly to the other branches of the federal government (judicial and executive). Likewise, the Supreme Court has interpreted the "Due Process" clause of the 14th Amendment extending the jurisdiction of the First Amendment to non-federal, governmental (public) institutions, i.e., state, county, city and so on governmental institutions.
I think my wording in this paragraph might have been a bit confusing:
Moving on, it is presently not sure whether you can put a crucifix on the Senate floor; it depends on whether the Senate floor is "government" or if "government" only means an abstract institution, the tangible infrastructure of which is not "government". If the Senate floor is government, then it should be unconstitutional to place a crucifix on it. Interestingly, a recent ruling of the Kentucky Circuit Court on the placement of a plaque with religious references on the property of Kentucky Department of Homeland Security office would uphold this . (Do you believe it? Kentucky!?).
I meant to say that the Kentucky Circuit Court ruling would uphold that Government infrastructure (buildings and whatnot) is government as it ruled the plaque violation of the First Amendment. I don't know if that was clear. It will soon be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their defense for the appeal goes something along the lines of the plaque only referencing "God" (emphasis on the capital "G"), not a religion, and thus not violating the First Amendment. So, even if we discount that not all religions believe in "God", but many have multiple gods or other supernatural beliefs, we still have the fact the plaque is in violation of the First amendment in that it is showing preference against irreligion. I strongly doubt the Supreme Court will overturn this.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.