Troll-Free Thread

[nkb]

Quick side question (maybe this should go in the Comments, Suggestions thread): Can we (and should we) set up a separate forum that would be troll-free? Or is there a way to mark individual threads as 100% no-troll?

[ubs]

Professor Chaos wrote

True, but I rarely see the claim made that, "religion leads to genocide."

Well, we do it here, but I agree it's tongue in cheek

In another thread there appeared among us a disagreement on the definition of God, which would mean by default that we have a disagreement on the meaning of atheist.

We might want to settle that before we determine if believing in the God(s) or failing to beleive in God(s) predisposes one to blood thirsty ideologies.

[Philboid Studge]

Professor Chaos wrote

So, Hitler beats Russia, and the allies are now pissing their pants in fear. Would Truman have dropped da bomb on white people?

Didn't have any problem with firebombing the living fuck out of civilian populations (see Dresden). I know that, psychologically, Da Bomb was different, but still...

[nkb]

ubs wrote

Well, we do it here, but I agree it's tongue in cheek

In another thread there appeared among us a disagreement on the definition of God, which would mean by default that we have a disagreement on the meaning of atheist.

We might want to settle that before we determine if believing in the God(s) or failing to beleive in God(s) predisposes one to blood thirsty ideologies.

ubs,
It's all about dogma. If you follow a religion that is dogmatic, you are more predisposed towards killing others that don't believe the same thing you do.

There is nothing dogmatic about atheism.

[Professor Chaos]

ubs wrote

We might want to settle that before we determine if believing in the God(s) or failing to beleive in God(s) predisposes one to blood thirsty ideologies.

The blood-thirsty ideologies are written down in their holy books.

[ubs]

nkb wrote

ubs,
It's all about dogma. If you follow a religion that is dogmatic, you are more predisposed towards killing others that don't believe the same thing you do.

There is nothing dogmatic about atheism.

I think the word "religion" rather than philosophy is pejorative in this instance; It links the God with the paradigm guiding behavior, or to make things fair, we could refer to all philosophies without a deity as areligions.

But I agree - the world view - not the ghost or absence of a ghost is the problem.

Does failing to beleive in a ghost make you fertile ground for crazy thoughts? Is there any value in a fixed code of behavior?

[ubs]

Professor Chaos wrote

The blood-thirsty ideologies are written down in their holy books.

Yes, but if we take away the mascot does it matter? I would say no.

[a different tim]

ubs wrote

Which part of theism, defined as only belief in a deity or deities, tells someone that other people must be killed?

If we separate atheism from the philosophies of atheocracies, don't we then also have to separate theism from the ideologies of theocracies?

Neither believing that a noun exists nor believing that a noun doesn't exist leads to genocide.

This.

If we aren't going to put up our hands to Uncle Joe, we can't blame "theism" in general for, say, the Inquisition. We can say "this church did this bad thing at this historical time", sure, but that's all.

I do consider myself anti-theistic, by the way, in that I think religion is bad and I wish it would go away, but that's for philosophical rather than historical reasons. I personally think genocidal atrocities are something that humans do when our societies go pathological, and I don't think this has much to do with religion either way. Chimps, after all, do the same thing on a smaller scale.

What it turns out I care about more though is either side distorting or misrepresenting history to its own ends.

[Professor Chaos]

Philboid Studge wrote

Didn't have any problem with firebombing the living fuck out of civilian populations (see Dresden). I know that, psychologically, Da Bomb was different, but still...

Troodat.

Here's a whatiffer...

So if Hitler beats Russia, are we assuming that the good guys still prevail somehow? (I think they do. Hitler still would've been spread too thin, America may have just largely ignored Japan until he was defeated, [Communist and KMT forces in China may have aligned sooner against Japan anyways] and Jesus loves America.)

Anyways, so the good guys prevail. Communism is limited to China, and maybe Merka bitch-slaps it out of them, too, since Stalin ain't around no mo.

So "under God" and "In God We Trust" are never added to our pledge and currency. The persecution of atheists in America never gets off the ground.

If Hitler wins, so do we...

[Philboid Studge]

nkb wrote

It's all about dogma. If you follow a religion that is dogmatic, you are more predisposed towards killing others that don't believe the same thing you do.

There is nothing dogmatic about atheism.

I think I mostly agree with this. My ongoing theory is that dogma is enhanced by the belief that the adherents have tapped into absolute truths. If you think you have God's ear (or can convince the masses that you do), then any behaviors you wish to rationalise will be acceptable. Moses, a whole string of popes, Hitler, Stalin (?), Bush, etc.

This is true for atheists as well. Objectivists, e.g., believe in absolute truths that can be divined through rational thought. They were WAY ahead of the curve in calling for bombing Iran (justified by the scary notion that "our" oil companies had to protect their private property).

[Professor Chaos]

a different tim wrote

This.

That:

Professor Chaos wrote

True, but I rarely see the claim made that, "religion leads to genocide."

I see the claim that Christianity leads to genocide, or Islam leads to genocide...

adt wrote

I personally think genocidal atrocities are something that humans do when our societies go pathological, and I don't think this has much to do with religion either way. Chimps, after all, do the same thing on a smaller scale.

I agree, but nobody is claiming that genocidal atrocities are limited to Christianity, Islam, et al. (Religious reasons in general)

[ubs]

nkb wrote

It's all about dogma.

Also, I am not convinced that dogma is undesirable.

A code of beliefs accepted as authoritative, like fixed pricing and all forms of branding, accelerate productivity by cutting transaction time.

A price tag means that I don't have to spend 30 minutes haggling with you over a pack of gum. A well established brand means I don't have to spend hours driving in an unfamiliar area to find an acceptable sleeping arrangement.

Likewise, your identified ideology means I don't have to spend weeks determining your opinions on facial nudity, marriage, birth control, shellfish, and the likelihood of us being friends or enemies. And when I ascribe to a code, I know how other members of my tribe will respond to any of my actions.

Dogma renders groups predictable and the efficiencies contributed by dogma bring more than they cost when they go sideways, as horrific as those sideways events are.

[Professor Chaos]

ubs wrote

Likewise, your identified ideology means I don't have to spend weeks determining your opinions on facial nudity, marriage, birth control, shellfish, and the likelihood of us being friends or enemies. And when I ascribe to a code, I know how other members of my tribe will respond to any of my actions.

Good points. I hadn't thought of religion as a sort-of social laziness, but I'm sure there's some truth to that.

[nkb]

ubs wrote

Also, I am not convinced that dogma is undesirable.

A code of beliefs accepted as authoritative, like fixed pricing and all forms of branding, accelerate productivity by cutting transaction time.

A price tag means that I don't have to spend 30 minutes haggling with you over a pack of gum. A well established brand means I don't have to spend hours driving in an unfamiliar area to find an acceptable sleeping arrangement.

Likewise, your identified ideology means I don't have to spend weeks determining your opinions on facial nudity, marriage, birth control, shellfish, and the likelihood of us being friends or enemies. And when I ascribe to a code, I know how other members of my tribe will respond to any of my actions.

Dogma renders groups predictable and the efficiencies contributed by dogma bring more than they cost when they go sideways, as horrific as those sideways events are.

OK, so now we are apparently arguing the definition of "dogma" (although I don't agree that what you are listing would be validly described as dogma).

Here is the one I am using:

Wikipedia wrote

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

It's the last part that I have an issue with. I reject anything that can not "be disputed, doubted or diverged from".

By any stretch of the imagination, how is a price tag an example of dogma? I think you're really reaching in your argument here.

[a different tim]

Professor Chaos wrote

I agree, but nobody is claiming that genocidal atrocities are limited to Christianity, Islam, et al. (Religious reasons in general)

But they aren't limited to religious reasons either, is the point. Atheistic regimes are not immune from committing atrocities, and to be honest it's a bit pointless pretending otherwise. My conclusion: committing atrocities has little to do with a regime's theism (or atheism), and rather more to do with their secular politics. Like: "Is it a dictatorship" is usually a dead giveaway, whereas " do they believe in God" is not.