God is not great: How religion poisons everthing

Post by **garyb** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:27 am

science is just an educated guess!

ignorance is reality!

Me$$iah · Post by **Me$$iah** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:29 am

great thread.... I love these types of topic

just a couple o points tho:-

In response to monotheism being the cause of religious violence, someone mentioned Arkenhaten. To show how this violence went back to before monotheism. However, the Arten was the original 'one god'. Arkenhaten the first monotheist.

Then someone mentioned representative democracy as the only way to ensure their freedom. I hate to go this route on a religious topic, but, say that to the famously quoted sheep that is voting along with two wolves about whats for dinner. I must point out here, despite years of 'brainwashing' the USA is not a democracy. Its a constitutional republic, which is a very different thing.
Just sayin'

But on topic, Hichens is not saying God doesnt exist. He is saying your God, if you have trdditional view of God, (christian, Jewish Muslim whatever) then he is saying your God is not great. Your tradititional biblical or koranic god is an evil blight on the face of humanity.
He says this because the nature of all man made religions is corrupt. All organised religions have the same things in common, a desire to control everyone. Those that cant be controlled, well it obvious that god would want them dead.

Ive a lot more on this but I'll leave it for now, this is a huge post from me already, especially since i dont post all that much.

I think tho that all organised religion can be summed up by simply Kissing Hanks Ass

Also Im very impressed with the intellectual level of discussion here. 4 pages of a thread about Hitchens and nobody has gone off topic in the usual manner. Nice.

Post by **Neil B** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:01 am

dawman · Post by **dawman** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:09 am

Hell in the Pacific was reduced due to our use of such scales though, and of course the windtalkers of the Navajo nation.

But let's throw it all away to make people like us more. I can't bare the thought of not being liked by everyone, what would the world think ???

My God is whoever left the seed of mankind then fled the scene. Should I thank him every Sunday ? NOT. Just an occasional blessing for our existence will suffice.

I have put in a request to the Jehovah's Witness Hall for a large breasted blonde, they have several in their ranks. Praise The Lord.

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:55 am

garyb wrote:science is just an educated guess!

ignorance is reality!

Is the statement 'science is just an educated guess' also just an educated guess? To me, that's just evasion, pointing at limits of our understanding to discredit all understanding (except the understanding you are using at this precise moment, which is somehow different).

"No statement is truly objective" -> this statement claims to be objective, or what would be the point of saying it? When you accept that something CAN be true, you can have an intelligent conversation. Otherwise you can't say anything at all about anything.

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:04 am

scope4live wrote:Hell in the Pacific was reduced due to our use of such scales though, and of course the windtalkers of the Navajo nation.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, something negative was averted due to use of imperial scales? Could you elaborate?

scope4live wrote: But let's throw it all away to make people like us more. I can't bare the thought of not being liked by everyone, what would the world think ???

Wild talk. Either extreme is silly. That's why America uses the same symbols for elements that everyone else does, not because there is some coercion and fear of what people will think, but because everyone in the world stands to gain from such agreements, including America. Yes, there will be profits for the business classes, and some of the scientific knowledge gained will be put to bad use, but scientists worldwide who don't give a rat's ass about politics also enjoy having a common language.

scope4live wrote:My God is whoever left the seed of mankind then fled the scene. Should I thank him every Sunday ? NOT. Just an occasional blessing for our existence will suffice.

True enough.

scope4live wrote:I have put in a request to the Jehovah's Witness Hall for a large breasted blonde, they have several in their ranks. Praise The Lord.

It must be only several in their ranks of millions, I've never seen any such going door to door. Just stressed out looking men.

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:31 am

to whom or what do you refer when using the term 'god' manfriday???

not an easy question to answer these days.

I can say that years ago I was a believer in a abrahamic God.
These days, I am pretty well convinced that all the major religions have it wrong.

I do believe in 'god', but whether 'god' is a personal deity that gives a toss about us or an impersonal force that was the catalyst for the creation of the universe I do not know..

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:36 am

In response to monotheism being the cause of religious violence, someone mentioned Arkenhaten. To show how this violence went back to before monotheism. However, the Arten was the original 'one god'. Arkenhaten the first monotheist.

You are quite correct about that.
I think my point was less about 'monotheism' in general and more about 'the big three' which is what I thought the guy I was responding to was talking about.
Actually, I cant ever remeber what the hell my point was anymore. It's too damned sleepy in here.
time for coffee.

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:52 am

oh yeah. I think I remember now what my point about Akhenaten was..
It wasn't that Atenism was a violent polytheistc religon. It was, as Me$$iah mentioned the first (or at least darn close to it) montheistic religions.
My point was how violently the polytheists rooted Atenism out of egypt.

My point was simply that polytheists are just as violently opposed to other religons as monotheists.
Early christians certainly were not hurting anybody, but the romans called them "atheists' becuase they did not believe in their gods. Atheism was a crime in rome.

As it was in ancient greece. I beleive Atheism was one of the charges against Socrates wasn't it?

Micha · Post by **Micha** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:41 am

Atenism IMHO has been the attempt of a king to break the power of the priests. With the side effect that he was not more responsible to listen to any rule or recommendation outside of his own ideas or wishes. A super dictator. Well, people didn't like these. Too brilliant this idea. That's why after his time everything was done to prevent any successor to repeat that. And, yes, somehow I can understand that, one god or more gods, doesn't matter.
Socrates: yes, atheism has been one of the points.
One crime of the early christians is as bad as the ones that followed later: the burning of the library in Alexandria.
It showed, very early, the problem: intolerance.
And that is what we have to deal with, till today.
And yes, IMHO, the others are not better and some of the poly's either.
(Gosh, what a depressive post.)

Micha · Post by **Micha** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:09 am

agreed. Yes, and scope rocks, and friends and more also do.

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:25 am

ya know, in the end it seems like there are no spoiled religions, just spoiled people. Religtion as a concept isn't spoiled at all I think. It's just the bad implementations of it, that's messed up. Either way, I think there are dumb people who just can't get it right, regardless of religion.

Science and religion is an interesting issue. As some have already stated, science IS a religion. If religion is based on a man made construct, trying to explain things in nature, if religion is an agreed truth, if religion consisted of signs and languages that was built for the religion, then they're both pretty much the same thing. It's just that science is more robust.

Before the school of science, religion was science. Or atleast it was in a similar relationship as we, to modern science. Different religions were like different theories and approaches to many things in nature that could not be explained. (Well, apart from religions that were constructed to deliberatedly control people, I'm sure they existed)

It would seem that science is closer to the truth than religion. But I have my doubts about any truth being a measurable, recreatable truth that traditional empirical science deals with. The human value system is a relative system, based on comparing things, based on ever changng factors, based on society (with varying extents). The objective truth is only one aspect of truth. Truth takes on many more forms when consumed by humans. That side of the subjective truth is what some fields of science are starting to consider, through a more qualitative approach. The style of a "scientific" paper is even changing. I've seen recent publications that are written in untraditional form, as a diary, or as even a drama-esque dialogue. Bottom line is, traditional empirical science based solely on objective truth only works for certain things.

For qualitative, and subjective truth, religion seems to be a much more powerful construct. Because religion is based on higher up abstract concepts and loose specifics.. hmm, sort of hard to explain. Religions use "concepts" as parts, so as society changes, or as different people interpret the religion, the concepts get filled in by whatever fits, within the context. Conscious or not, I think this is what happens in any religion. This sort of "loose" way of throwing the message out leads to multiple interpretations, and adaptations to an extremely wide range of cultures and people. This method works very well to encompass different things, and tieing them together to a high up concept. That common higher up concept, is the truth, but it's allowed to be interpreted in many different ways. The subjective truth.

Now take these concepts. Truth, Value, and Society. If objective truth was the only truth, truth exists outside of people. Truth exists on its own, regardless of society. On the other hand, value, is measured within society. In other words, value is an internal thing. A subjective thing.

Put these two together. The more objective the truth is, the further away it is from any value system. The pure objective truth is not worried if it is of value to anyone, it's just a representation of something. Put that truth into society, internalize the truth, and you percieve value. A subjective perception of the value of truth. At this step, the objective truth has become subjective, becoming something of value for the first time.

What I want to explain is that anything, in the end, will reside in a subjective value system, and so it's only a matter of which part of the cognitive process you deem as "truth". Do you focus on the outside world? Or do you focus on the internal mental representation of the outside world? Everything travels through both phases, so there's no one over the other. However, it's important to know that in the end, everything ends up as an internal mental representation.

Calling these two aspects of reality "science", "religion", or "objective", "subjective", is probably not as important as acknowledging that they simply deal with different phases of a single process.

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:37 am

kensuguro wrote:What I want to explain is that anything, in the end, will reside in a subjective value system

This cannot be true. If it was true, it would merely be subjective, not an objective appraisal of reality that it (implicitly) claims to be.

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:06 am

This cannot be true. If it was true, it would merely be subjective, not an objective appraisal of reality that it (implicitly) claims to be.

Well, that is the thing, I don't believe humans are capable of making objective appraisals of reality.

As said many times before, objective truth is a collected truth created from many subjective truths that overlap. This can be through agreement, education, or perhaps coincidence, but still, the basic unit is subjectivity. An agreement obvously can be made, which allows us to make generalized statements, but the agreement is through best effort. If the agreement is through best effort, then it's not really objective is it..

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:15 am

kensuguro wrote:
This cannot be true. If it was true, it would merely be subjective, not an objective appraisal of reality that it (implicitly) claims to be.
Well, that is the thing, I don't believe humans are capable of making objective appraisals of reality.

This statement itself would seem to be an objective appraisal of reality. Are you capable of making it?

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:17 am

As said many times before, objective truth is a collected truth created from many subjective truths that overlap

Maybe they overlap because they are not really subjective?

Post by **garyb** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:22 am

sorry for trolling, let's say something that's not absurd..

first, science is based on theories, which are by definition, educated guesses.

second, so called polythiestic religions are mostly monothiestic. the deity takes many forms in say, the greek, roman or baylonian system. this is the same deity in all mankinds religions with different names and forms, with one exception, the hebrew idea of god, which has nothing to do with the bible, which is the about same god that the romans worshipped(hey, a roman emporer put the book together).

third, according to most sources, religion, which has nothing to do with the so-called creator, arrives with civilization, which, as far as can be told, began with Nimrod, whom the encyclopedia brittanica says instituted the idea of government through random acts of violence, in "uruq" (also known as iraq or babylon), the spot between the tigris and euphrates rivers...the american forces were exstatic to discover the treasures of Nimrod in a locked vault in the Iraqi national museum.

lastly, christopher hitchins is a well know political muck-raker. he specializes in hit pieces. his main job is playing "alternate press" for the powers that be. he is entertainment. he may speak truth occasionally by accident, but following him as a thinker only leads to destruction. look, even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day....

as i said before, whether god exists or not is of no concern to a being who is by definition, omnicient, omnipotent and omnipresent. such an entity can'y be bothered or helped, no comprehended(nor apprehended!!). talk all you want, think all you want, believe don't believe, at best you can only help or hinder yourself. memory is short. history is a mystery. religion is a lie, but that does not in any way preclude "god". whoever made this, if "someone" did, has nothing to do with your opinion or how smart or self important you may feel yourself to be....

thanks for the space to vent in. carry on.

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:26 am

Liquid Len, it's not between "be objective", or make no generalizations at all. I'm saying that we can try, but objectivity is not guaranteed.

Manfriday, whether they overlap or not doesn't matter I don't think. Or that doesn't make the overlapped portion an objective truth all of a sudden.

Again, what I'm pointing out is that anything that passes through our subjective minds, becomes subjective. This is based on the cognitive process. Here's why this is so. I'll use words as an example. When a word "dog" enters your mind, you piece together, from the information you have in your mind, an meaning for dog. The mental representation of a dog in your head may or may not be the same as another persons. But, by agreement, and through education, both your representation and another person's representation are quite similar, to a degree. This is the fundamental mechanism we use to generate meaning.

That is the important part. The word "dog", the carrier, does not carry with it, the meaning. The meaning is dynamically generated when something is internalized, from local material. This mechanism itself makes it impossible to pursue any sort of objective truth, simply because by the time it is internalized, and a meaning is generated using local parts, the objectivity is lost. We can, though, attempt to be objective, and try to communicate as accurately as possible. Which I believe is the beauty of science, logic, mathematics, etc..

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:45 am

"first, science is based on theories, which are by definition, educated guesses."
I wasn't arguing about the nature of science (which by necessity ASSUMES things will work the same way today that they did yesterday) but of logic and reason. I'm not claiming to have any answers - only that to me it makes NO SENSE to say that all truth can only be subjective. It's undeniably easier to skip the philosophy and assume that some things can be true, which is what most of us do the minute we leave philosophy class anyways. Same applies to rejecting the concept of value, which doesn't last outside of class either.

Explain the difference between the hebrew god and the one in the bible.

I agree C.H. is just an talker, no smarter than anyone else, paid to arrive at a certain answer(s), for our entertainment and distraction. Maybe it's a better job than the one I got now.

"whether god exists or not is of no concern to a being who is by definition, omnicient, omnipotent and omnipresent"
I'm not sure of that. IF there is a being that created this world, it seems reasonable to think that its nature is/might be somewhat reflected in its creation.

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:56 am

Ken : the statement 'descriptions of an object inevitably cannot encompass the whole of its reality' is one I would say is TRUE. If it wasn't true, then your argument is not sound. Assuming reason and logic CAN BE valid is pretty much the inherent basis for any thought you want to express. You don't say "it is statistically probable that I am writing messages on this internet forum".

Science is less precise than logic because it makes a lot of assumptions, the bit about things working the same today as they did yesterday seems to work fine for most of us, but it cannot be rigorously proved.