The existence of god's provability is what defines religious belief, and is what puts you as a theist in the same category as a Muslim. You were saying "with the exclusion of Muslims, atheist blindness is worse etc". I was saying you don't get to exclude Muslims. If atheists are worse with the exclusion of Muslims, that means theism is worse if you don't exclude Muslims. I've already explained why you don't get to exclude Muslims. Therefore theism is worse.
I never excluded Muslims from the category of religion (though very much could be said about that). Even in the bit with the statistics I quoted from the "Irrational Atheist", Islamics are dutifully included in the 6.92% of religious based wars. However, the same article also stated that about half of those religious wars were started by Muslims (though theirs is the most recent religion and the info was compiled starting from 3000 BC).
Actually, even including them, little changes vis-a-vis the statistics regarding the crimes (measured by body counts) committed by avowed and militant atheists.
You have made your obsession "there is no proof of God" central to the discussion, whereas I have remained faithful (though contrary) to the theme of the thread: "Religion... the root of all evil?"
To simplify matters, I equated "body count" with evil (though I say that it's not nearly that neat and easy) and I have shown that the irreligious have been exceedingly more violent and so clearly "religion is not the root of all evil" (undoubtedly the love of money and power is the better answer).
Belonging to the same broad category does not disallow one from saying "with the exclusion of" a group of the same broad category.
For example, if the discussion had been about the use of automobiles, what law of logic would disallow me from saying "the religious use them them with roughly the same enthusiasm as the irreligious... with the exception of the Amish?"
They are certainly religious, they are Christians, but as Muslims have the concept of violence (Jihad) in their theology and the Jews have the concept of race in theirs, the Amish have the nearly wholesale shunning of modern technology.
The exception vis-a-vis the question being considered (religion and automobiles) is duly noted and the conclusion "the religious have the same enthusiasm for automobiles as the irreligious... with the exception of the Amish" truthfully stands. In fact, by taking note of the exception, it stands with more truth inasmuch as it is more precise than merely stating: "the religious have the same enthusiasm for automobiles as the irreligious..." The other statement is more precise.
Then talk about the Amish belonging to the same Category as Catholics or Hindus, is purely and utterly irrelevant... except for people with other agendas ("there is no rational proof of God") such as yourself.
However, you will notice that you have no trouble broadening categories when it comes to religions (to arrive at absurd conclusions), whereas you will not do it for Atheists.
In both instances broadening categories to fit ones pet agenda is wrong. I drew a distinction between militant atheism and "stoic" atheism... nevertheless, the greatest mass murderers in the world have been avowed atheists.
Why do you conflate atheism with murderous violence?
IoshkaFutz wrote:The Amish and the Navajos are both religious. Can their penchant for violence be compared -statistically - regardless of the evidence of the God of the Amish or the Spirits of the Navajos?
Erm, I believe so.
Why do you conflate evidence or lack thereof with murderous violence? (I'd be worried about that if I were you).
Are the proponents of string theory violent just because they lack evidence?
Because though no one's pulpit is squeaky clean, avowed atheists have been responsible for the world's greatest massacres. Does that mean that all atheists are murderers? Surely not. But it certainly gives atheists food for thought when they come out with threads entitled "Religion... the root of all evil???"
Lol, maybe with non-violence but not with hygiene, life expectancy, equality of sexes, etc.
The Amish are a funny group. For example they have no qualms about using modern pesticides. I don't know about their hygene. It's probably better than some groups and worse than others. I do remember reading awhile back that their life expectancy is roughly equal to that of most Americans. (Lots of exercise, fresh air, early to bed and early to rise), etc.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Question: What is the average life expectancy of Amish men and women and what is the number one cause of death in the Amish communities?
Answer: It is the same as for all persons in the United States, no different than for other groups of people. Answer coordinated by THE BUDGET [Editor: According to US Government Statistics, the average life expectancy for Caucasian men is 74.3 and for Caucasian women is 79.9. The leading cause of death is heart disease.]
You are the one trying to make it a theism vs atheism issue, not me, so don't get all defensive.
IoshkaFutz wrote:So now please explain to me what being in the same broad category "religion" has to do with the issue.
Dear Sten, look up from the keyboard to the top of your screen and tell me what you read. Does it say "Religion the root of all evil???" or does it say "The Dutch make lousy Lasagne?"
You were trying to equate atheism with genocidal regimes, to the flavor of almost inferring that I myself was murderous or genocidal.
I frankly think that given power, your outlook would create a very harsh and scary society. I wouldn't say genocidal, but certainly harsh and undemocratic.
However - and most happily - the discussion is not about you. For me you are Sten the forummer, a saint among saints. Who you are, what you do, what your job is, is irrelevant. If not a saint among saints, you are - to the best of my hot-tempered abilities - the Right Honorable Sten, even though I think your opinions stink (as I'm sure you think mine do).
I've seen you call Bunny a Stalinist.
Yes, because I posted a very long (my apologies to Cutecoot) article written by a Jew agnostic skeptic of both Darwinism and ID and got accused of "...Ioshka would rather reject this and - in the spirit of retrogressive Medievalism - make common cause with the pre-Vesalius anti-scientific proponents of Creationism/Intelligent Design....."
And then Wizard and Cutecoot went on to accuse me of Searching for an anti-evolutionary mathematician just "to get even" with SOT who is a mathematician.
What's more Cutecoot called Berlinski and "obscurantist," whereas the man is quite brilliant and exceedingly fair. Here, follow this link and read.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He fairly prints all the objections to his essay, (including those from the likes of H. ALLEN ORR, RICHARD DAWKINS, DANIEL C. DENNETT, ARTHUR M. SHAPIRO, etc) and then answers them. You tell me if you see an obscurantist.
Such labels, such putting ones motives on trial, such accusastions of "making common cause" closely resemble the methods used in Stalin's kangaroo courts.
Furthermore read Psycho Bunny's post regarding me in this thread. He says "I was unsure - but Ioshka has made my decision for me - religion rots the brain."
I couldn't help wondering about the very strange logic.
Retorical question (Statement): "religion... the root of all evil????"
IoshkaFutz: not true, according to scholars only 6.92% of wars were religious in nature.
Bunny's reaction: I wasn't sure but after IoshkaFutz's post now I know that religion rots the brain.
Consideration: Ioshkafutz brought in outside scholarship tending to DISPROVE that religion is the prime cause of war and yet for Bunny that was the PROOF he needed to know that religion rots the brain!
We must wonder: Had I confirmed the thread's hypothesis "Religion is indeed the root of all evil" then I suppose Psycho Bunny would have said: "I was unsure, but now thanks to IoshkaFutz, I know that religion DOESN'T rot the brain, because he confirmed to me that religion is indeed the root of all evil!"
Nice logic, eh? But perhaps something escapes me.
Religion has as much to do with the issue as atheism, as the religious fervor with which Maoists or Stalinists believed in their leader was undeniable.
LOL. Yes, fervor. Like my next door neighbor's fervor for Roma soccer club. Or the whole country's fervor when Italy won the world cup.
I wonder: for all the Neapolitans loved Maradona, for all their fervor (after Naples won the national cup, fans strung a banner across the entrance to the city cemetery saying: "Oh what you missed!") - did they truly deify him?
Was it truly religious in character or only in a poetic sense? There are some analogies. There's a whole generation of kids called "Diego Armando" in Naples (as there are plenty of elderly men called "Benito" in Italy). But it's surely a different kind of fervor. Going to church, generally a quiet place, where (in the case of Catholics) a ritual is re-enacted, followed by a droning sermon, is rather different than cheering at a stadium.
Now as an atheist, you are free to choose your gods to match any kind of fervor. But I did say "God as commonly conceived." So to be more precise we should ask: did the Stalinists adore Stalin the way the Russian people traditionally adored God as conceived by the Orthodox Church?
The answer is a resounding No. That God is omnipotent, (not just able to enforce successful five year plans, but billion year plans). He fears nothing, (certainly not the Wehrmacht or the likes of a Trotsky) He is eternal (Stalin died of a stroke. There has been speculation that he was poisoned by Beria - but he was in his 70s and a heavy smoker).
I'm not sure whether God is a heavy smoker. Perhaps for the macumba religionists he's a lover of cigars and rhum, but I doubt it for the Russian Orthodox.
Even the fervor and enthusiasm is different. Quiet and generally prayerful, more personal than social. Connected not only to the present and future, but also the past. Loving of God, but also of his son Jesus and all the many saints and very much, Mary, the mother of Jesus.
I'm afraid the parallels are not enough. Political fervor is not the same thing as religion.
And militant atheist mindlessness is indeed more mindless than theist mindlessness (with the exception of Islam) because theists believe that they have - and are answerable to - a higher authority.
I've already explained the reasons for the Islamic exception on another thread.
/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=3646&p=61412&hili ... eat#p61412
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Don't insult me. You change your entire contention and then accuse me of not thinking, followed by an incoherent babble about a petri dish? Goddamn but debating with you is frustrating.
Sten, old boy, you're not thinking.
Telling you that you're not thinking is not an insult. If it were what would be the use of FFI? Well at least I tried to explain why your thinking was wrong.
As for the petree dish, it was a way of saying that then you would at last have the evidence you needed to believe in God.
“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer - German Lutheran Pastor and Theologian. His involvement in a plot to overthrow Adolf Hitler led to his imprisonment and execution. 1906-1945