Atheism

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
@Lord Lucien I hope you are not saying that all control is a byproduct of religion.

I think religion and control are two different things that often in the past were entangled. I think if you got rid of all religions, it would have no effect of control. Governments would just find another way to control people.

Control can be applied in many ways, some direct, some subtle, some down right insidious. Often in the vaguest, most unconscious of ways. Likely many of the chiefs/kings/priests who exerted control over others via religion were doing so unknowingly, or for benevolent intentions. But control is control is control. Even if the methods (intention or not) lack efficacy or malice, it's still control. Religion just made for a wonderful tool in that regard.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, I'm not. I'm saying almost all human interactions are a byproduct of the desire for control. Over one another, over resources, over nature, over one's self. What have you. And I firmly believe that that desire for control is a direct byproduct of fear--which is part of the reason why in that "strongest emotion" thread in the Philosophy Forum, I argued that fear was numero uno.

Control can be applied in many ways, some direct, some subtle, some down right insidious. Often in the vaguest, most unconscious of ways. Likely many of the chiefs/kings/priests who exerted control over others via religion were doing so unknowingly, or for benevolent intentions. But control is control is control. Even if the methods (intention or not) lack efficacy or malice, it's still control. Religion just made for a wonderful tool in that regard.

OK, good. And control is needed, because after all, we are primitive beings.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
I don't need sources to point out that your view suggests that an awful lot of people had the same exact thought process.

1. No, it doesn't. I never claimed people thought exactly the same. This is a strawman.

2. You need sources or some kind of argument ability to engage in a debate. I even gave you a link to help yourself in this field where you suffer in our previous debate, which you opted to not finish.

Insinuating that every chief, emperor, king or man in charge used religion to enforce control over his people is outrageous.

Another strawman. I never said "every", but I did say that the largest religions were adopted by the state, and it's reasonable to assume that they served as a unifying factor and a control mechanism. Lucien had a good point in that some leaders actually believed in the religions they espoused or forced others to convert to, and therefore it shackled them in turn.

You really must learn to read what I post, reflect on it, and digest it properly before you barf all over the thread. It really shows that you don't understand what I'm saying and you just attack what you believe I am saying while demonstrating an incredible lack of comprehension. At the very least, you could attempt to clarify with me just what it is you're confused about before you begin pointing fingers and telling me I'm wrong.

Beyond that you're manipulating the facts.

Which ones? You haven't provided a single specific instance at all since you began replying to me.

Certainly some in charge used religion to promote unity and expand their influence, but some just did it to promote unity for the sake of making the world a little better of a place.

Which ones? How can you know this for sure? What direct proofs can you provide me? Or are you just saying this because you feel there are "good leaders" out there throughout time who helped perpetuate and spread religions because they thought they were good people? If anyone is bringing pure conjecture to the table, it's you. I challenged you to prove up and debate fairly, and you've decided to behave the same way you did last time.

I'm not one to be upset that you disagree, but I will call you out on ignoring my points and then misrepresenting them because you have an underlying opposition to whatever it is you choose to believe I represent.

There are some good people every once in a while you know.

Pointing out the minute exception doesn't disprove the rule you know.

My point about Judaism is just fine. While it may be a minority as far as religions go, it has certainly persisted without ultimately being some means of control. In fact, it might be possible that Judaism is the best example of a religion not being manipulated towards negative means.

Actually, this is a show of ignorance. In ancient times, Jews waged wars, committed what we might consider now war crimes or crimes against humanity such as slavery and massacres but back then were norms for the era. Also, my point indicated that the two largest religions worldwide were perpetuated by interested parties who were in positions of authority and influence by virtue of military power. Saying the less than one per cent of Judaism is equally valid example enough to disprove my assertion is being incredibly obtuse.

Alright, you need to eat a dick, and practice what you preach. There's some religion for you.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Alright, you need to eat a dick, and practice what you preach. There's some religion for you.

Concession accepted.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Alright, you need to eat a dick, and practice what you preach. There's some religion for you.

Stealth Moose is his own religion. 😉

Merry Hitchmas everyone!

That's right, it's almost time for everyone's favorite holiday, Hitchmas. December 15 marks the passing of professional drinker, and part-time thinker and atheist, Christopher Hitchens. You will not find a more uncompromising and eloquent advocate of reason and free thinking, and an equally uncompromising critic of religion and religious ideas that he found to be either detrimental, false, or both.

Hitchens was best known as a public atheist, but his accomplishments as a journalist actually go far beyond the realm of religion. In his work he turns the same analytical eye to public figures, historical figures, political movements, and cultural trends. It is rarely boring, and his mastery over the language and the myriad thoughts that language gave rise to was matched by few. Even if you aren't a fan of him in a religious sense, I still recommend many of his other works.

I'll be drinking some Johnny Walker Black this weekend in tribute. Cheers!

http://www.hitchmas.com/

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Concession accepted.

Originally posted by Oneness
If one's only area of expertise is the subject of debate, than he'll never win an argument that isn't about debating.

Sure, but Stealth Moose wasn't talking about debating before this infographic. This was a response to being told to eat a dick. Who is your post here directed at?

Originally posted by Digi
Merry Hitchmas everyone!

That's right, it's almost time for everyone's favorite holiday, Hitchmas. December 15 marks the passing of professional drinker, and part-time thinker and atheist, Christopher Hitchens. You will not find a more uncompromising and eloquent advocate of reason and free thinking, and an equally uncompromising critic of religion and religious ideas that he found to be either detrimental, false, or both.

Hitchens was best known as a public atheist, but his accomplishments as a journalist actually go far beyond the realm of religion. In his work he turns the same analytical eye to public figures, historical figures, political movements, and cultural trends. It is rarely boring, and his mastery over the language and the myriad thoughts that language gave rise to was matched by few. Even if you aren't a fan of him in a religious sense, I still recommend many of his other works.

I'll be drinking some Johnny Walker Black this weekend in tribute. Cheers!

http://www.hitchmas.com/

This may shock you but I am not familiar with Hitchens. I must read up on him. However, drinking is philosophical. Prost!

Also, I suspect Oneness is attempting to apply sophistry. Roll to-hit. Three. Did you want high or low?

Originally posted by Digi
Sure, but Stealth Moose wasn't talking about debating before this infographic. This was a response to being told to eat a dick. Who is your post here directed at?

Originally posted by Oneness
Just because someone is a poor debater, or looses his cool in a debate (me) does not mean he's wrong.

Neither does it mean he's right, though. But ok, sure, agreed. But this is somewhat beside the point. Telling someone to eat a dick is rarely justified. I was just confused that you were jumping into it once it was clear it had devolved to that level of petty insults. Any comment on Moose's debating, however valid it may be, should still consider the context of that particular picture.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
This may shock you but I am not familiar with Hitchens. I must read up on him. However, drinking is philosophical. Prost!

Also, I suspect Oneness is attempting to apply sophistry. Roll to-hit. Three. Did you want high or low?

Hitchens was way more merciless than even Dawkins. How he didn't become the societal pariah for atheist stereotypes is beyond me. But he was soooo good at it. Just as important as his writing are his live debates. Do some video searches on Hitchens and you'll be entertained.

But he was considered part of the "Four Horsemen" of atheism (no idea who coined that term, but it stuck), along with Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and the last escapes me...maybe Sam Harris (the most affable of the bunch, if he was).

One of the most important things about science is the ability to have your life's work challenged by other scientists and be civil about it.

Civility is always a nice thing to have. The issue is that individuals more often than not become personally attached to their argument and take attacks on it personally. You can't say "That's not a well-thought out argument" without stepping on toes and threatening egos.

In Moo's case, I asked him for something better than vague contradictions, as I did in another debate that we had prior, and instead of being mature he did the most boorish thing he could.

Expertise is one facet in a debate. If you can't formulate your position and relate it without a string of fallacies, the only people swayed are the ones who would not object in the first place. If you intend to have your assertions aired in public, you do yourself a grave disservice refusing to learn how best to present and defend them.

We are still humans. We still have pride. But every day the amount of control over our emotions required of us multiplies. We're dealing with a 1% of humanity who have great resources and cohesion, that is exerting the greatest oppression, especially upon creative minds, of all time. That's why control over our emotions just isn't enough these days.

Ah, here we are:
http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/6/5319/wallpaper-1659386.jpg

Again, all a bit melodramatic for my tastes. And if it were up to me, I'd put Harris as the figurehead...his approach is a much more palatable one for the religious masses. I personally enjoy Hitchens the most, and probably agree with Dawkins more often than any of them (Dennett irks me for various reasons, and I don't agree with some of his philosophical assertions). But Harris is the best at making a reasoned case without causing people to grab their pitchforks and lit torches. But alas, Dawkins is the only household name, and Hitchens at his peak only flirted with true notoriety.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Civility is always a nice thing to have. The issue is that individuals more often than not become personally attached to their argument and take attacks on it personally. You can't say "That's not a well-thought out argument" without stepping on toes and threatening egos.

In Moo's case, I asked him for something better than vague contradictions, as I did in another debate that we had prior, and instead of being mature he did the most boorish thing he could.

I doubt you do nothing to incite such responses, so watch yourself. But yeah, telling you to eat a dick was uncalled for in the context of the discussion. You had said nothing to warrant it.

I run into the same problem of people conflating attacks on ideas with personal attacks. It's not just a tricky line to straddle, it's an impossible one at times.

The quotes in that image are pretty concise and smart.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Concession accepted.

It's in my profile for future use.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Oh my Tom Cruise, that is fantastic.

It's out of order and some sections are improperly described. Calm your tiits.