Theism - better to believe a lie?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Religion, all religion is a lie.


Science, all science is a lie.


We must believe in something or we loose the miasma created by false hope.



If we give-up false hope then we could be exposed to a glimmer of the truth of our situation.

No one would ever want to do that.


Thank you.





.

[Ginkgo]

You sound like an existentialist

[uwot]

You really want to assert that "Materialist" is a "straw-man"? Then it's one that I share with every Philosophical dictionary you can find.

Not your version you don't. According to you, a "Materialist" is someone who has no moral duty and is lying if they say they believe they do. You contrast such a person, not with theist, but your own particular "real-Theist", who believes they have a moral duty to their god. This would only be true if that god exists, something you take for granted, but cannot prove. Given that god is not proven, it is quite possible for a materialist to be morally equivalent in that they can believe in things like justice, fairness, equality and their duty to uphold them with as much passion and certainty as you believe in your god.
I can't prove that such qualities 'exist' anymore than Immanuel Can can prove his god exists, but if we are going to 'lie' about things for the good of society, I think it would be better to teach those secular qualities and let people attach whatever gods they wish to them, because starting with a god is demonstrably arse about tit. You only have to look at some versions to see what psychopaths can make of their god.

[Arising_uk]

Even bigger problem for you...it included far *more* atheists, agnostics and other kinds of skeptics. Like the whole Soviet Union, for example. And did you know that Mao's (self-declared Atheist and stridently anti-religious) "Great Leap Forward" killed at least 43,000,000 people? So tell me about the dangers of "religion"!

I'm not telling you about the dangers of religion? Other than that it is a problem when theists are involved as they will have no other believers than themselves. This is why you fear Islam but from my point of view you are all much of a much, after all 'God' is on your side. And yet those atheists, agnostics and other kinds of skeptics in the Soviet Union opposed the Nazi and pretty much saved us whilst the Church pretty much sided with the Nazi?

Was 43,000,000 a lot in a country of 750,000,000,000? He also managed to feed China for the first time ever but I'm confused here as China has never had a 'God' and when it had 'God's' it still killed many. Your argument appears to be that the theist doesn't kill due to having a 'God' but both of us appear to have shown that having a 'God' appears in no way to stop killing and war, it's just that killing and war is not about 'God's', but can be, but is more about economic and politics.

But in any case, is your definition of "religious war" one in which somebody "religious" was involved? That would make just about everything in the history of the planet a "religious" event, in your sense. Now, I had been labouring under the impression that you meant religion was some sort of important *cause* of wars. But apparently not? Then by your definition, all wars in history have been "religious" -- and "atheist" at the same time, since "religious" people, and presumably people who believed in other things, were always involved!

Fair point, mine is simple, your belief that there is a 'God' and that if people believe this then they won't kill appears false by history. Your idea that because someone is an Atheist they will kill also appears false. What you appear to fear is what you think you'd be like if you didn't believe but I can reassure you that this is not a necessary thing.

You've not heard of The Terror? It came right after the very "humanist" French Revolution. In any case, Humanism is irrational, according to any Materialist account. There's no rational account of why to privilege mankind among animals, since according to Materialism we're all merely contingent products of an indifferent universe.

There is a very rational account of why we can privilege mankind amongst the animals, one, we are mankind and two, Reason and Rationality. I have no idea why you fear being the contingent product of an indifferent universe as it means we are free to choose how we act, whereas with a 'God' you are just a sheep.

Humanism, if it wants to oppose war, has a burden to prove rationally why war is wrong. ...

Nope, it just doesn't have to go to war. But War is not always wrong or irrational? Is this why the Church supported the Nazi? Or why they supported countless Dictators?

It doesn't get a pass just for saying it, nor does it get a pass because I, as a Christian, happen also to think war is wrong. To be philosophically sound, it needs to show such a claim rationally or morally necessary on the basis of its own ontology: and that it simply cannot do. And absent that, there's no reason why anyone who wants war should take Humanists seriously if they don't like it.

The rational reasons abound in Humanism? It's wasteful, it's unproductive, it's harmful, etc, etc. But like I say, War is not always irrational nor wrong.

If this is your best response, it's not much. ...

But probably a fact.

Both "religious" people and secular ones nowadays have access to such things...but worse than that, you can only *speculate* on what you think "religious" people *could have done* if they'd had more technology: but I can point to what secularists actually *did* do with that same technology. So...it's a guess...versus the historical facts...and I think, on that balance, you can't possibly win that argument with any rational observer.

Not what I was saying, historically the religious crusades killed a chunk of people, it was in the secular days that advanced tech was around, all I'm speculating on is that it looks like the religious wars are about to return and this time they are going to be heavily armed so we should be able to watch and see if your idea that having a belief in a 'God' who imposes a moral code stops them using their weapons, a la, the Atheists did in the Cold War. My guess is that we are going to be sorely disappointed and horrified.

In point of fact, though, you've got a much bigger problem with your inability to differentiate among what you call "religions." Some "religions" are bloodthirsty, it's true. Take the Thugees of India. Or the headhunters of Borneo. Or more relevantly today, the Muslims: for they are a crusader religion, and have no prohibition against killing infidels..indeed, they have a declared positive duty to put them to the sword. ...

Unless o course they convert to Islam that is.

But contrast that with, say, the Mennonites, the Baptists, the Methodists, or any other of a great variety of Protestant groups, for whom not a single war in history can be blamed. In damning all religions, you are not only slandering some of the innocent, but actually blaming a great many of the victims!

Victims of what? Religious Wars? Why not contrast them with the Catholic Crusades or the purges of the Protestants. You talk about the Methodists and I presume the Anglican Church but personally I think Africa is going to be the source of soldiers for the next Crusades as their version of Christianity is much closer to the old one and that appeared a lot less Christ-like with respect to killing and loving.

There is, after all, no warrant for pacifism in Materialism. And as I pointed out, secular utopian ideologies are by far the most homicidal kind of thing. According to the Encyclopedia of War, the historical record of collective Atheism is 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Catholicism's worst historical misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition; and there is a 58% chance that an Atheist leader will murder a significant percentage of the population over which he rules (at least 20,000).

Of course there is a warrant, the best one, i.e. because this is what we choose to do.

Not even Islam can compete with that (and you may wish to add "yet").

I'd also add Christianity to this.

[henry quirk]

"Thank you for my new words, bugfuck crazy. I love it. Have you tried to visualize it?"

HA! You're welcome!

It's derived from 'needledick the bugfucker'.

As for visualizing it: sure...I can see some squirrelly lil bastid chasing after love bugs, hot in the nethers, lookin' to slam away with his needle-thin member.

-----

HA! Lookee here: http://www.stephenprime.com/2011/03/nee ... ug-fucker/

#

As for the topic at hand: "better to believe a lie?"

No, but it's -- again -- better to leave the other to his or her delusions (unless the other's delusion takes bread offa your table or shingles offa your roof).

That is: till you have to pay a price for the other guy's (mis)belief, leave him alone.