hhmmm, the Brits will fuck you up. I don't know where your from, but the "Brits" have done just about everything (except cook good food); they've conquered just about everything, imperialism, science, been the center of the world for many centuries, londinium. etc. saying "Fuck the brits" is like saying fuck your grandparents. I love my grandma haha!! And she's practically all british.
I never saw a brit in my life :) what about the mongols? the big conquerors LOL where the fuck are they? where is your logic myfriend? burried in the sand now?
hhmm I herald your knowledge of history with your reference to the "mongols"..I wish I could say a decent knowledge of history does a man good in his career and wish you on your way, but unfortunately you won't be needing that because your idiots don't have work that require an encompassing grasp of history.
our idiots don't have work? are you allways incoherent, or just when you have nothing to say? History proves that I'm right I don't have to say anything really. Just look around you! Your castle is crumbling :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools." Romans ch1
Any time any of you want a real debate using logic rather than swapping insults I am more than game. But I don't find it productive to get flamed by Christophobic haters who think that only secularists are rational, logical, or even smart. I will not engage further with Badger-boy does his moniker fit! If any of you are trying to show me how secularism is superior to religious belief you don't do it by getting ugly. Smile and be peace. Shalom.
Religious faith is a belief in something which cannot be proven. This is clearly irrational. Therefore you cannot keep up the pretense that you are rational and religious. The two stances are diametrically opposed.
I never argued that people of faith are not smart, merely that they are not rational. I do not believe that I have been insulting in our exchanges but you must admit that your style of argument is somewhat puerile and smug.
I suggest all you guys that proudly tout yourselves as rationalists learn how to frame an argument. That means you back up what you say. Flinging accusations and rhetorical bomb throwing is not logical argumentation. I hate having to do what your teachers ought to have done long ago. If they taught you HOW to think instead of WHAT to think (indoctrination )my work here would be done. Look at poor Badger. What a waste of time trying to get him to use formal logic. Guys, blame Aristotle not me.
My teachers have not encouraged my atheism in the slightest. We were taught religion in school. I just find that it is irrational to believe in an omniescent supernatural being whose existence has never been proven.
Do you believe in Buddha, Vishnu, Yahweh, Baal, or Thor? What is inherently more believable about the Judaeo-Christian God, for example, over any other Gods? Can you use your
keenly honed sense of logic to explain that to me?
The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: "The basis of Hitler's political beliefs was a crude Darwinism." What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin's theory: "Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest." (Cut & Pasted) How can any of you DARWINIACS hold your heads up?
Darwin was a scientist who used the tools of scientific observation and deductive reasoning and experiment to construct his theory that organisms evolve by inheriting favourable traits . Hitler was a psychopathic mass murderer who had an irrational belief that certain races of human beings are inferior whose extinction would benfit the human race. Your attempt at using deductive reasoning to discredit Darwinism because Hitler happened to believe in it is not very convincing to me.
Hitler may have believed in Darwinism but he lacked morality so he thought that he had a right to decide which races were worthy of preservation and which were worthy of elimination based upon his unscientific and irrational racism. A belief in Darwinism does not necessarily connote a belief in race supremacy. It does however connote a belief in logic and reason and what can be proven by scientific observation and critical thinking which religion, by definition, does not.
The problem with religion is that adherents to any particular believe that one lacks morality if one does not believe in that particular religion. This, apart from being insulting to rationalists, has been the root cause of religious wars for millennia as the religious factions attempt to spread their particular brand of faith by the sword with the loss of undocumented millions of lives.
You pretend to be a rational creature but you have rejected logic by implying that people who believe in the theory of Darwinism are in some way believers in race supremacy since Hitler believed in Darwinism. One might as well argue that vegetarianism is shamefully associated with anti-semitism since Hitler was a vegetarian.
A religion has no positive attribute that outweighs its potential for obscuring the truth and causing conflict.
It is hard to swallow Jane's comments about fundamentalism and bigotry while hearing her arrogantly talk about imposing her western, "scientific" gospel upon "ignorant" people. This is standard secular progressive snobbery and elitism. I am sure she has very vile things to say about western missionaries taking the gospel of Jesus Christ to these same people.
They-the elites-think they are so much smarter than the rest of us. It is condescending and hypocritical.
"They-the elites-think they are so much smarter than the rest of us. It is condescending and hypocritical." -
They are smarter than the rest of us. If you think that's condescending, well, tough. They've dedicated their lives to study and observation of our world. They're known as intellectuals for good reason.
And it isn't hypocritical nor bigoted to promote an understanding of science. It's the only method humanity has to know what is true.
Tough. Do you think THAT is a rebuttal of my comments? A hard-assed attitude didn't even work on me when my parents tried it. How do you know they're smarter than the rest of us? I said THEY think they are. When I said IT was condescending I was referring to her entire attitude and stance--what the hell does condescending mean if it doesn't apply to her diatribe? The hypocrisy & bigotry I mentioned isn't regarding a promotion of science--you're spinning what I said! Read all of what I wrote!
"How do you know they're smarter than the rest of us? I said THEY think they are." -
You really have to ask why I think eminent scientists with PhD's who are icons in their respective fields are on the whole, more intelligent than the vast majority of the population?
I notice you have changed your wording. First you add the qualifier, "On the whole." Then you change,"the rest of us," to "the vast majority of the population." When you qualify your statements you make yourself sound much more reasonable. I agree-by the way-that scientists are more intelligent than the vast majority of the pop." But this doesn't speak to my original value-statement about what I saw as Jane's condescending attitude. I'm surprised she didn't just say "those ignorant savages."
The hypocrisy is: flaming liberals have screamed for years about missionaries bringing the Sun of Knowledge to people living under the shroud of darkness. "How dare you impose upon them your western ideas," they whine. yet here's Jane talking about the ignorant not having had the opportunity to have been educated in the "right way." When liberals talk about being open-minded what they mean is being indoctrinated into the far-left camp. If you want to rebut me use logic. Tell me WHY I am wrong.
Because educating a person to examine the world with honest skepticism and an understanding of science is the opposite of indoctrination.
If a religious fundamentalist tells a child that the universe is 6,000 years old simply because their theological beliefs say so, then that is indoctrination.
I have been to college and if you think that the ideological BIAS that is rammed down students throats is HONEST skepticism or scientific understanding then you have been a subject of the very brain-washing to which I referred. Students are not taught HOW to think, they are taught WHAT to think. For instance, do you know the 4 laws of logic? No. Too bad! Because logic is the grammar of reason and you can be a reason-er without knowing it. I see though YOU DID get a lethal dose of Christophobia.
"I see though YOU DID get a lethal dose of Christophobia." -
Actually that's not true. My beef is with fundamentalists, not religion. Most of the theists I know are very moderate in their approach in this world. They are people I don't have a problem with. I had a Christian upbringing and although it's not for me, believing in Christ is not mutually exclusive with intelligence and reason.
I misspelled. I meant to write you CAN'T be a reason-er without it. But all of this arguing is very academic. You haven't addressed my statement, which was a value-statement not a categorical one. I am not a Fundamentalist by the way. Thanks for the label. Next time use more of the sticky stuff before you slap it on a forehead. I must admit you are much more civil than the usual Christophobic-Lefty. How's that for labels? I'm not against them I just think they ought to be accurate.
Wel I agree with you 110%. I actually read my first book on philosophy a while back and it was really the first time that the whole process of formal thinking had been brought to my attention. Very eye opening. So I believe that kids should also be taught how to think on top of their studies of science, humanities etc.
And I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was labelling you a fundamentalist. It was unintentional.
Well it looks like we can end our exchange on a positive note-unless you have something else you want to add. I'm not a fundamentalist but I am a heretic.E.g.I don't believe in the non-Biblical doctrine of the trinity & I question whether the Greek word translated eternity & forever mean those respective equivalents. I am totally in love with the Biblical Jesus of Nazareth and I do believe in Truth and that it is collected in his countenance. I think post-modern relativism is a dead-end. Shalom.
Daniel, I won't speak for this woman but Richard Dawkins makes a good point in his books....it is absurd to label a child Catholic or Muslim. A child does not yet have the faculty of critical thinking to weigh up the truth or otherwise of religion. In my opinion, educating children to believe in a particular God and religion which cannot be disproved is a source of much of the world's wars. How many believers in religion would there be if it was only introduced once one reached adulthood?
True, a child isn't a religious by being born into a religious family. But,I think you assume that one picks a religion via critical thinking, as opposed to ,say, special revelation. Buddha was Hindu until his Bodhi Tree revelation. Saul of Tarsus had his Damascus road, Muhammad a cave. Your view is very Western. Also, Why do you believe educating a child to believe in a particular God or religion is a source of much of the worlds wars? Can you turn this statement into a logical syllogism? Try.
Most people do not develop religious faith through means such as "a special revelation"....however one would not expect, for example, Muhammad to be indoctrinated into Islam by his parents since he started the religion. The same applies to Buddha. It is a simple matter to understand that there are huge numbers of religious believers whose faith was merely indoctrinated into them from childhood before they had the faculty of critical thought. One man's special revelation is another man's delusion
India's Hindu's have fought at least three major wars with Pakistan's Muslims. The wars may have been territorial but British India would never have divided into India and Pakistan if not for religion so religion has lead to war in this case.
Persia conquered much of Asia in ancient times
in the name of religion.
The ancient Jews/Israelis have fought all their wars in the name of religion.
There were several Christian crusades into Eastern Europe and the Middle East in the Middle Ages.
The religious wars of Europe in the post reformation period has been one of the main determinants of the gene pool of the North American gene pool.
The Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are having a civil war in Iraq - they kill people who have different religious beliefs; in Sudan Christians and Muslims are in conflict.
In the former Yugoslavia and in Northern Ireland, religion has been the segregating factor which has allowed people to identify people for ethnic cleansing or terrorist attack.
If by accusing me of having "western views" you mean "rational views" then I agree. People have to put faith over rationality and logic to have faith and that is something I cannot do and something which I believe is detrimental to the causes of peace and civilisation which I, as a rationalist, support.
I believe that I have given examples of many wars that were started on the pretext of religion or fuelled by religion.
I would like to point out that a syllogism is logical by definition.
I wanted you to form your thought as a syllogism to see more obviously where it logically breaks down. Every argument is composed of 2 statements: a premise and a conclusion. Your premise is: many wars have been waged in the name of religion, therefore, (conclusion) no children should be raised religious. Yet, more people died at the hands of Stalin ( Atheist) than in the crusades, ought we therefore ban atheistic (Secularist) teaching in schools. Public schools would have to close their doors.
I will put my premise in my own terms, if you don't mind. If you insist upon putting words into my mouth then you are merely arguing against a straw man of your own conception. My premise is not merely that "many wars have been waged in the name of religion". My premise (in my own words and without your editing) is that many wars have been waged have been waged in the name of religion or fuelled by religion leading to the loss of countless millions of lives. This alone outweighs any benefit.
You state: "more people died at the hands of Stalin ( Atheist) than in the crusades, ought we therefore ban atheistic (Secularist) teaching in schools." I am not debating the death toll attributable to Stalinism as opposed to "the crusades" so this counterpoint is redundant. There are no accurate death tolls for all the wars caused by or fuelled by religion in history but it is easy to pick out
death tolls for the generally more recent phenomenon of secularist wars.
You totally miss my point! Its not about numbers. I AM USING YOUR OWN ARGUMENT AGAINST YOU! I have replaced the Church & Christianity with Stalin & Atheism and shown how-- just because people have killed in the name of Atheism doesn't mean we ought to blacklist Atheism like you would do with Christianity. You can't see the point. really? What a hopeless effort. WE ARE DONE--YOU FLUNK!
When you guys rant against the world's Religions you never catalog the harm secular governments have perpetrated over the last & bloodiest century. This shows your bias as thinkers. E.g. Franco's Fascist Italy, Stalin's Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China, etc. You never talk about the good the religions have done. Maybe because your secularist teachers won't tell you. Separation right? Ghandi was Hindu, Martin Luther King Jr, Baptist, Mother Teresa Catholic. What good are you doing?
Can you define what you mean by "you guys"? I merely ask because you have already attempted to define me as having attended a secularist public school despite the fact that I did not, so I must suspect that you are attempting to mischaracterise me and what I stand for. I understand that this would be convenient for you since you srgue that you are logical yet you support religion which is based upon the belief in a supernatural being(s) whose existence cannot be proven.
When people commit mass murder it is because they are immoral or amoral. History has shown that both religious believers and atheists are all capable of the worst of crimes as well as the most noble of endeavours. Morality is not the exclusive preserve of people who have religious faith. You have lumped many religions together by trying to claim Ghandi, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King as belonging to your side of the argument. Yet all of these people believed in incompatible religions...
It would be illogical to believe that Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa could all be right about their religious beliefs since they had incompatible religious beliefs. For argument's sake, if Mother Teresa was correct in her Catholicism, then MLK and Gandhi must have been incorrect in believing in their religions - yet this did not prevent them from doing good works. It follows that people can be moral and a force for good even if they have incorrect beliefs with regard to religion.
Since it is possible for people to do good and be moral while holding incorrect religious beliefs (in other words believing in a false God) then it is rational to accept that an atheist can also be moral and a force for good.
Can you tell me what good the Catholic Church did in the Medieval period? I know you weren't told in secularist public school because they are forbidden. But I suggest you research both sides of the coin instead of relying on public school Ed. You talk of peace but how can we have world peace when you have hate in your heart. I know you'll say you don't hate but I suggest you search your feelings Luke. The diversity crowd reminds me of Mao's "enlightened generation." They destroyed China.
I know that the Catholic Church preserved ancient writings. Your assertion that I was not taught about this in secularist public school is correct but merely because your assumption that I attended a secularist public school is incorrect. You seem to be keen to define me and my arguments by assuming that I have not researched "both sides of the coin" (by this do you mean that I have not researched religion as well as atheism?)
You accuse me of rhetorical bomb-throwing but you accuse me of having hate in my heart which is an impediment to world peace. You proceed to condescend to me by telling me that you know my feelings better than I do. I find your smug tone ironic in light of your profession to believe in supernatural being(s) while also being rational. The Bible tells us that the first humans were tempted by a talking snake and that a man lived in a whale's belly for 3 days. If you believe this you are irrational.
I'm not going to waste a whole lot of time responding, because guys like you are a dime-a-dozen on the internet. I am a logical, rational creature AND a person of Faith. Faith doesn't violate any of the 4 laws of logic. I'm sorry but a syllogism isn't logical by definition because you can create a faulty one. I didn't think you would accept my challenge because you don't know what I'm talking about. I wouldn't propose that people not raise their kids as communists/ socialists because of Stalin.
It is false to say that "a syllogism isn't logical by definition because you can create a faulty one". Can one not create false logic? Therefore, can a syllogism not be logical and false? After all, logic is not equal to truth but it is a tool used to discover the truth. Religion is a tool used to obfuscate and hide the truth and its existence depends upon the propagation of the belief that faith or delusion is more important than critical thinking in the search for truth.
I think is an influential platform for environmentalists to voice their opinions on how effectively humans can help contribute towards the impact of extinction to plant and animal life. Many of them are definitely disappearing alarmingly from the face of our planet earth. Therefore, David Attenborough and Jane Goodall are two of the best role models who can teach use to create an imperative impact for our children to help save endangered species.
I agree, Attenborough and Goodall are good role models, don't forget however how influential Leakey's philosophy is,this is a man who stood up to poachers and restored kenya's wildlife even after attempts on his life which resulted in the loss of his legs. Also, Dawkin's ideas may be frowned on by some but it is good to add someone with such a strong humanist focus, he also puts into context Goodall's omnipotent idea of human ignorance. Great stuff!
9valkyrie, giving women control over their own bodies is an important issue. However you'll find that in poorer countries it is essential to have many children because the death rate is so high, and more providers are needed. As Attenborough says, the birth rate decreases when populations get richer (after a "babyboom").
Sir David Attenborough mentions the problem, which is overpopulation, but not the solution: to give women the right back to control their own (!!!) bodies and therefore reproduction. Dr. Dawkins evades, he would better connect to his topic: religion. They are abortionforbidders, and seem to even wish the world back to forbidding of any birth control method. (In the US nurse Margaret Sanger challenged this law in early ninteenhundreds.
in order to save the planet, capitalism has to be gone, since it causes greed and corruption and therefore destroys our enviroment recklessly.
R0YE0NE 3 months ago
Anyone who has more than three children is, in this day and age, utterly selfish in my opinion.
ZF1000 5 months ago
this panel is an intellectual force to be reckoned with.
MacDaddyPooty 1 year ago
What?! no EO WILSON!!!
Nades129 2 years ago
I would say overpopulation is the biggest problem we have
105km 2 years ago 5
Interesting conversation between badger5079 and danielbalter, who got served ;)
I would really have wanted to read the last sore loser(?) -post by danielbalter, but it isn't visible coz it has -8 points :P
lockynboycannen 2 years ago
resources are still sufficient, we not mobilizing them sufficiently,
we need World Government
so if there is drought in some place, the resources can be mobilized to the area where that year it was excess yeald
sushanalone 2 years ago
This conversation and all the 5 brits in it is EXCELLENT.
johntkucz 2 years ago 3
fuck the brits
dumbnetworks 2 years ago
hhmmm, the Brits will fuck you up. I don't know where your from, but the "Brits" have done just about everything (except cook good food); they've conquered just about everything, imperialism, science, been the center of the world for many centuries, londinium. etc. saying "Fuck the brits" is like saying fuck your grandparents. I love my grandma haha!! And she's practically all british.
johntkucz 2 years ago
I never saw a brit in my life :) what about the mongols? the big conquerors LOL where the fuck are they? where is your logic myfriend? burried in the sand now?
dumbnetworks 2 years ago
hhmm I herald your knowledge of history with your reference to the "mongols"..I wish I could say a decent knowledge of history does a man good in his career and wish you on your way, but unfortunately you won't be needing that because your idiots don't have work that require an encompassing grasp of history.
I have build a sand castle around you already.
johntkucz 2 years ago
our idiots don't have work? are you allways incoherent, or just when you have nothing to say? History proves that I'm right I don't have to say anything really. Just look around you! Your castle is crumbling :)
dumbnetworks 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools." Romans ch1
danielbalter 3 years ago
sooostupid lmfao.
johntkucz 2 years ago
Any time any of you want a real debate using logic rather than swapping insults I am more than game. But I don't find it productive to get flamed by Christophobic haters who think that only secularists are rational, logical, or even smart. I will not engage further with Badger-boy does his moniker fit! If any of you are trying to show me how secularism is superior to religious belief you don't do it by getting ugly. Smile and be peace. Shalom.
danielbalter 3 years ago
Religious faith is a belief in something which cannot be proven. This is clearly irrational. Therefore you cannot keep up the pretense that you are rational and religious. The two stances are diametrically opposed.
I never argued that people of faith are not smart, merely that they are not rational. I do not believe that I have been insulting in our exchanges but you must admit that your style of argument is somewhat puerile and smug.
badger5079 3 years ago 2
I fail to see how my arguments have been ugly or insulting. Perhaps the bald unpalatable truth that faith is irrational is ugly to somebody who
proclaims to be both rational and a believer in the unprovable.
badger5079 3 years ago 3
Daniel, can you provide me of examples of when people "killed in the name of atheism"?
badger5079 3 years ago 2
I suggest all you guys that proudly tout yourselves as rationalists learn how to frame an argument. That means you back up what you say. Flinging accusations and rhetorical bomb throwing is not logical argumentation. I hate having to do what your teachers ought to have done long ago. If they taught you HOW to think instead of WHAT to think (indoctrination )my work here would be done. Look at poor Badger. What a waste of time trying to get him to use formal logic. Guys, blame Aristotle not me.
danielbalter 3 years ago
My teachers have not encouraged my atheism in the slightest. We were taught religion in school. I just find that it is irrational to believe in an omniescent supernatural being whose existence has never been proven.
Do you believe in Buddha, Vishnu, Yahweh, Baal, or Thor? What is inherently more believable about the Judaeo-Christian God, for example, over any other Gods? Can you use your
keenly honed sense of logic to explain that to me?
badger5079 3 years ago 3
The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: "The basis of Hitler's political beliefs was a crude Darwinism." What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin's theory: "Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest." (Cut & Pasted) How can any of you DARWINIACS hold your heads up?
danielbalter 3 years ago
Darwin was a scientist who used the tools of scientific observation and deductive reasoning and experiment to construct his theory that organisms evolve by inheriting favourable traits . Hitler was a psychopathic mass murderer who had an irrational belief that certain races of human beings are inferior whose extinction would benfit the human race. Your attempt at using deductive reasoning to discredit Darwinism because Hitler happened to believe in it is not very convincing to me.
badger5079 3 years ago
Hitler may have believed in Darwinism but he lacked morality so he thought that he had a right to decide which races were worthy of preservation and which were worthy of elimination based upon his unscientific and irrational racism. A belief in Darwinism does not necessarily connote a belief in race supremacy. It does however connote a belief in logic and reason and what can be proven by scientific observation and critical thinking which religion, by definition, does not.
badger5097 3 years ago
The problem with religion is that adherents to any particular believe that one lacks morality if one does not believe in that particular religion. This, apart from being insulting to rationalists, has been the root cause of religious wars for millennia as the religious factions attempt to spread their particular brand of faith by the sword with the loss of undocumented millions of lives.
badger5097 3 years ago
You pretend to be a rational creature but you have rejected logic by implying that people who believe in the theory of Darwinism are in some way believers in race supremacy since Hitler believed in Darwinism. One might as well argue that vegetarianism is shamefully associated with anti-semitism since Hitler was a vegetarian.
A religion has no positive attribute that outweighs its potential for obscuring the truth and causing conflict.
badger5097 3 years ago
It is hard to swallow Jane's comments about fundamentalism and bigotry while hearing her arrogantly talk about imposing her western, "scientific" gospel upon "ignorant" people. This is standard secular progressive snobbery and elitism. I am sure she has very vile things to say about western missionaries taking the gospel of Jesus Christ to these same people.
They-the elites-think they are so much smarter than the rest of us. It is condescending and hypocritical.
danielbalter 3 years ago
"They-the elites-think they are so much smarter than the rest of us. It is condescending and hypocritical." -
They are smarter than the rest of us. If you think that's condescending, well, tough. They've dedicated their lives to study and observation of our world. They're known as intellectuals for good reason.
And it isn't hypocritical nor bigoted to promote an understanding of science. It's the only method humanity has to know what is true.
idroppedoutofcollege 3 years ago
Tough. Do you think THAT is a rebuttal of my comments? A hard-assed attitude didn't even work on me when my parents tried it. How do you know they're smarter than the rest of us? I said THEY think they are. When I said IT was condescending I was referring to her entire attitude and stance--what the hell does condescending mean if it doesn't apply to her diatribe? The hypocrisy & bigotry I mentioned isn't regarding a promotion of science--you're spinning what I said! Read all of what I wrote!
danielbalter 3 years ago
"How do you know they're smarter than the rest of us? I said THEY think they are." -
You really have to ask why I think eminent scientists with PhD's who are icons in their respective fields are on the whole, more intelligent than the vast majority of the population?
idroppedoutofcollege 3 years ago
I notice you have changed your wording. First you add the qualifier, "On the whole." Then you change,"the rest of us," to "the vast majority of the population." When you qualify your statements you make yourself sound much more reasonable. I agree-by the way-that scientists are more intelligent than the vast majority of the pop." But this doesn't speak to my original value-statement about what I saw as Jane's condescending attitude. I'm surprised she didn't just say "those ignorant savages."
danielbalter 3 years ago
The hypocrisy is: flaming liberals have screamed for years about missionaries bringing the Sun of Knowledge to people living under the shroud of darkness. "How dare you impose upon them your western ideas," they whine. yet here's Jane talking about the ignorant not having had the opportunity to have been educated in the "right way." When liberals talk about being open-minded what they mean is being indoctrinated into the far-left camp. If you want to rebut me use logic. Tell me WHY I am wrong.
danielbalter 3 years ago
"Tell me WHY I am wrong." -
Because educating a person to examine the world with honest skepticism and an understanding of science is the opposite of indoctrination.
If a religious fundamentalist tells a child that the universe is 6,000 years old simply because their theological beliefs say so, then that is indoctrination.
idroppedoutofcollege 3 years ago 2
I have been to college and if you think that the ideological BIAS that is rammed down students throats is HONEST skepticism or scientific understanding then you have been a subject of the very brain-washing to which I referred. Students are not taught HOW to think, they are taught WHAT to think. For instance, do you know the 4 laws of logic? No. Too bad! Because logic is the grammar of reason and you can be a reason-er without knowing it. I see though YOU DID get a lethal dose of Christophobia.
danielbalter 3 years ago
"I see though YOU DID get a lethal dose of Christophobia." -
Actually that's not true. My beef is with fundamentalists, not religion. Most of the theists I know are very moderate in their approach in this world. They are people I don't have a problem with. I had a Christian upbringing and although it's not for me, believing in Christ is not mutually exclusive with intelligence and reason.
idroppedoutofcollege 3 years ago
I misspelled. I meant to write you CAN'T be a reason-er without it. But all of this arguing is very academic. You haven't addressed my statement, which was a value-statement not a categorical one. I am not a Fundamentalist by the way. Thanks for the label. Next time use more of the sticky stuff before you slap it on a forehead. I must admit you are much more civil than the usual Christophobic-Lefty. How's that for labels? I'm not against them I just think they ought to be accurate.
danielbalter 3 years ago
Wel I agree with you 110%. I actually read my first book on philosophy a while back and it was really the first time that the whole process of formal thinking had been brought to my attention. Very eye opening. So I believe that kids should also be taught how to think on top of their studies of science, humanities etc.
And I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was labelling you a fundamentalist. It was unintentional.
idroppedoutofcollege 3 years ago
Well it looks like we can end our exchange on a positive note-unless you have something else you want to add. I'm not a fundamentalist but I am a heretic.E.g.I don't believe in the non-Biblical doctrine of the trinity & I question whether the Greek word translated eternity & forever mean those respective equivalents. I am totally in love with the Biblical Jesus of Nazareth and I do believe in Truth and that it is collected in his countenance. I think post-modern relativism is a dead-end. Shalom.
danielbalter 3 years ago
Daniel, I won't speak for this woman but Richard Dawkins makes a good point in his books....it is absurd to label a child Catholic or Muslim. A child does not yet have the faculty of critical thinking to weigh up the truth or otherwise of religion. In my opinion, educating children to believe in a particular God and religion which cannot be disproved is a source of much of the world's wars. How many believers in religion would there be if it was only introduced once one reached adulthood?
badger5079 3 years ago
True, a child isn't a religious by being born into a religious family. But,I think you assume that one picks a religion via critical thinking, as opposed to ,say, special revelation. Buddha was Hindu until his Bodhi Tree revelation. Saul of Tarsus had his Damascus road, Muhammad a cave. Your view is very Western. Also, Why do you believe educating a child to believe in a particular God or religion is a source of much of the worlds wars? Can you turn this statement into a logical syllogism? Try.
danielbalter 3 years ago
Most people do not develop religious faith through means such as "a special revelation"....however one would not expect, for example, Muhammad to be indoctrinated into Islam by his parents since he started the religion. The same applies to Buddha. It is a simple matter to understand that there are huge numbers of religious believers whose faith was merely indoctrinated into them from childhood before they had the faculty of critical thought. One man's special revelation is another man's delusion
badger5079 3 years ago 2
India's Hindu's have fought at least three major wars with Pakistan's Muslims. The wars may have been territorial but British India would never have divided into India and Pakistan if not for religion so religion has lead to war in this case.
Persia conquered much of Asia in ancient times
in the name of religion.
The ancient Jews/Israelis have fought all their wars in the name of religion.
There were several Christian crusades into Eastern Europe and the Middle East in the Middle Ages.
badger5079 3 years ago 2
The religious wars of Europe in the post reformation period has been one of the main determinants of the gene pool of the North American gene pool.
The Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are having a civil war in Iraq - they kill people who have different religious beliefs; in Sudan Christians and Muslims are in conflict.
In the former Yugoslavia and in Northern Ireland, religion has been the segregating factor which has allowed people to identify people for ethnic cleansing or terrorist attack.
badger5079 3 years ago 2
If by accusing me of having "western views" you mean "rational views" then I agree. People have to put faith over rationality and logic to have faith and that is something I cannot do and something which I believe is detrimental to the causes of peace and civilisation which I, as a rationalist, support.
I believe that I have given examples of many wars that were started on the pretext of religion or fuelled by religion.
I would like to point out that a syllogism is logical by definition.
badger5079 3 years ago 2
I wanted you to form your thought as a syllogism to see more obviously where it logically breaks down. Every argument is composed of 2 statements: a premise and a conclusion. Your premise is: many wars have been waged in the name of religion, therefore, (conclusion) no children should be raised religious. Yet, more people died at the hands of Stalin ( Atheist) than in the crusades, ought we therefore ban atheistic (Secularist) teaching in schools. Public schools would have to close their doors.
danielbalter 3 years ago
I will put my premise in my own terms, if you don't mind. If you insist upon putting words into my mouth then you are merely arguing against a straw man of your own conception. My premise is not merely that "many wars have been waged in the name of religion". My premise (in my own words and without your editing) is that many wars have been waged have been waged in the name of religion or fuelled by religion leading to the loss of countless millions of lives. This alone outweighs any benefit.
badger5079 3 years ago 2
You state: "more people died at the hands of Stalin ( Atheist) than in the crusades, ought we therefore ban atheistic (Secularist) teaching in schools." I am not debating the death toll attributable to Stalinism as opposed to "the crusades" so this counterpoint is redundant. There are no accurate death tolls for all the wars caused by or fuelled by religion in history but it is easy to pick out
death tolls for the generally more recent phenomenon of secularist wars.
badger5079 3 years ago 2
You totally miss my point! Its not about numbers. I AM USING YOUR OWN ARGUMENT AGAINST YOU! I have replaced the Church & Christianity with Stalin & Atheism and shown how-- just because people have killed in the name of Atheism doesn't mean we ought to blacklist Atheism like you would do with Christianity. You can't see the point. really? What a hopeless effort. WE ARE DONE--YOU FLUNK!
danielbalter 3 years ago
When you guys rant against the world's Religions you never catalog the harm secular governments have perpetrated over the last & bloodiest century. This shows your bias as thinkers. E.g. Franco's Fascist Italy, Stalin's Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China, etc. You never talk about the good the religions have done. Maybe because your secularist teachers won't tell you. Separation right? Ghandi was Hindu, Martin Luther King Jr, Baptist, Mother Teresa Catholic. What good are you doing?
danielbalter 3 years ago
Can you define what you mean by "you guys"? I merely ask because you have already attempted to define me as having attended a secularist public school despite the fact that I did not, so I must suspect that you are attempting to mischaracterise me and what I stand for. I understand that this would be convenient for you since you srgue that you are logical yet you support religion which is based upon the belief in a supernatural being(s) whose existence cannot be proven.
badger5079 3 years ago 2
When people commit mass murder it is because they are immoral or amoral. History has shown that both religious believers and atheists are all capable of the worst of crimes as well as the most noble of endeavours. Morality is not the exclusive preserve of people who have religious faith. You have lumped many religions together by trying to claim Ghandi, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King as belonging to your side of the argument. Yet all of these people believed in incompatible religions...
badger5079 3 years ago 6
It would be illogical to believe that Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa could all be right about their religious beliefs since they had incompatible religious beliefs. For argument's sake, if Mother Teresa was correct in her Catholicism, then MLK and Gandhi must have been incorrect in believing in their religions - yet this did not prevent them from doing good works. It follows that people can be moral and a force for good even if they have incorrect beliefs with regard to religion.
badger5079 3 years ago 8
Since it is possible for people to do good and be moral while holding incorrect religious beliefs (in other words believing in a false God) then it is rational to accept that an atheist can also be moral and a force for good.
badger5079 3 years ago 10
Can you tell me what good the Catholic Church did in the Medieval period? I know you weren't told in secularist public school because they are forbidden. But I suggest you research both sides of the coin instead of relying on public school Ed. You talk of peace but how can we have world peace when you have hate in your heart. I know you'll say you don't hate but I suggest you search your feelings Luke. The diversity crowd reminds me of Mao's "enlightened generation." They destroyed China.
danielbalter 3 years ago
I know that the Catholic Church preserved ancient writings. Your assertion that I was not taught about this in secularist public school is correct but merely because your assumption that I attended a secularist public school is incorrect. You seem to be keen to define me and my arguments by assuming that I have not researched "both sides of the coin" (by this do you mean that I have not researched religion as well as atheism?)
badger5079 3 years ago
You accuse me of rhetorical bomb-throwing but you accuse me of having hate in my heart which is an impediment to world peace. You proceed to condescend to me by telling me that you know my feelings better than I do. I find your smug tone ironic in light of your profession to believe in supernatural being(s) while also being rational. The Bible tells us that the first humans were tempted by a talking snake and that a man lived in a whale's belly for 3 days. If you believe this you are irrational.
badger5079 3 years ago 3
I'm not going to waste a whole lot of time responding, because guys like you are a dime-a-dozen on the internet. I am a logical, rational creature AND a person of Faith. Faith doesn't violate any of the 4 laws of logic. I'm sorry but a syllogism isn't logical by definition because you can create a faulty one. I didn't think you would accept my challenge because you don't know what I'm talking about. I wouldn't propose that people not raise their kids as communists/ socialists because of Stalin.
danielbalter 3 years ago
It is false to say that "a syllogism isn't logical by definition because you can create a faulty one". Can one not create false logic? Therefore, can a syllogism not be logical and false? After all, logic is not equal to truth but it is a tool used to discover the truth. Religion is a tool used to obfuscate and hide the truth and its existence depends upon the propagation of the belief that faith or delusion is more important than critical thinking in the search for truth.
badger5097 3 years ago
I think is an influential platform for environmentalists to voice their opinions on how effectively humans can help contribute towards the impact of extinction to plant and animal life. Many of them are definitely disappearing alarmingly from the face of our planet earth. Therefore, David Attenborough and Jane Goodall are two of the best role models who can teach use to create an imperative impact for our children to help save endangered species.
alal22000 4 years ago
I agree, Attenborough and Goodall are good role models, don't forget however how influential Leakey's philosophy is,this is a man who stood up to poachers and restored kenya's wildlife even after attempts on his life which resulted in the loss of his legs. Also, Dawkin's ideas may be frowned on by some but it is good to add someone with such a strong humanist focus, he also puts into context Goodall's omnipotent idea of human ignorance. Great stuff!
moose3007 4 years ago
thanks for posting-great debate
healy1981 4 years ago
9valkyrie, giving women control over their own bodies is an important issue. However you'll find that in poorer countries it is essential to have many children because the death rate is so high, and more providers are needed. As Attenborough says, the birth rate decreases when populations get richer (after a "babyboom").
smaakjeks 4 years ago
Sir David Attenborough mentions the problem, which is overpopulation, but not the solution: to give women the right back to control their own (!!!) bodies and therefore reproduction. Dr. Dawkins evades, he would better connect to his topic: religion. They are abortionforbidders, and seem to even wish the world back to forbidding of any birth control method. (In the US nurse Margaret Sanger challenged this law in early ninteenhundreds.
9valkyrie 4 years ago
We need more informed honest forums like this. There aer plenty of people who do not accept this.
peterb1968 4 years ago
Thank you for the excellent upload. Looking forward to the rest.
antiNAU 5 years ago