Paul ’s Comments (group member since Sep 12, 2010)

Paul ’s comments from the Atheists and Skeptics group.

I think Seneca explains it quite well.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."

To be fair, whining is one of the few talents the CofE can lay claim to...

This doesn't surprise me. There're plenty of studies that show that, while religion helps in-group cohesion, it also lessens out-group empathy - indeed, that's probably whey we evolved it. This latest study seems a reasonable correlate of that.

Hi Jeff


I think I vary. I've been an atheist since I was around ten years old and, in my day-today life, I'm very much live and let live. This is probably made easier by living in the UK, where religion really doesn't play an active part in everyday life - and, while we do have politicians with religious convictions, if they express them in anything stronger than bowing their heads at a memorial service, tend to get ripped to shreds.


That said, I have very much been caught up in the so-called 'new atheist' movement; I do consider religion, on balance, an ill to society and have described myself as an anti-theist. However, I do worry that being overly fervent on this does have the effect of driving some people into defensive positions and, a a consequentialist, I consider that the outcome is more important than the stance so have begun to soften my approach on occasion.


While I intellectually believe that it is entirely appropriate to ridicule ideas that are ridiculous, I understand that people who hold these ideas can often take this criticism as personal attacks and, while that may not be my intention, it is something I would prefer to avoid - providing the person is largely reasonable (I have absolutely no problem in causing 'offence' to people whose positions I consider dishonest or beyond argument).


This does, of course, cause a certain amount of dissonance, but questioning one's position and approach should be part of a thoughtful perspective.

I particularly like this:

https://www.queerty.com/graphic-12-re...

I'd actually argue that religion per se isn't evil - and I am someone who describes myself as anti-religious. However, I think that religions are modes of thought that encourage certain problems, behaviours and ways of thinking that encourage abuse and other issues. Conformity, groupthink, in-out group discrimination, abusive power relationships, stagnation, etc. This is true of all dogmatic philosophies, it is just that religions seem to particularly lead to these problems because they are intimately tied to the human tendency to tribalism and because they claim Ultimate Truth from a divine source which cannot, of course, be questioned. This is why other dogmatic philosophies so easily come to resemble religions themselves, such as the regime in North Korea.

So I believe that the enemy of reason and progress is not religion, but is dogma. Religion is simply the most obvious, widespread and tenacious form of dogma we face.

(Of course, there is a whole other debate to be had on the word 'evil'; I am a consequentialist so believe that acts are 'good' or 'evil' based on their effects rather than some innate quality, and usually assume most atheists/skeptics/rationalists share a similar view)

One comment (NSFW):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDf...

A once reasonable explanation to explain the intricacies and apparent patterns of nature that is many centuries past its usefulness. A crutch for lazy thinking.

Hi all

Is anyone else here going to the QEDCon event in Manchester, UK, this weekend? If you're not familiar with it, it is a science and skepticism conference organised by jointly the Manchester and Merseyside Skeptics, now in it's fourth year. This will be my third, and it's always a blast.

I don't see how it's even a question; it is quite clear from imaging and experimentation that the mind is an emergent property of the corporeal substance of the brain and body - that we can see how brain damage or drugs change our abilities and personality, that physical, electrical or pharmaceutical stimuli can not only alter our perceptions but make us experience things that seem utterly real.

There is no need of a ghost in the machine.

George wrote: "I'm sure that Mitt Romney approves."

I'd bet good money that all the potential Republican nominees also approve. Unless some of them worry it is too quick and painless.


It's interesting that it's the messiness that is abhorrent - firing squad is probably one of the more 'humane' ways of execution, as is swift decapitation - rather than the more clinical lethal injection. I also find it odd how difficult it seems to carry out the lethal injections correctly, I assume because doctors are generally not involved; I've had to have several dogs euthanised and they have all gone peacefully. Of course, there's probably a huge difference between having the injection administered whilst being hugged and told everything is ok and after years on death row, probably with multiple false starts, and being observed by a silently hateful mob.


For the record, I AM against the death penalty.

Humour is definitely the arena in which to discuss libertarianism

Undoubtedly. There is a definite group within what we have come to call "moderate Christianity" who have long been on the side of environmentalism, taking the whole "stewardship of the Earth" position, but this is currently drowned out by the (largely US-centred) right-wing Christian nutters.

Don't forget, there is a whole branch of Christianity that is staunchly socialist - as well as the movements in South America (vilified bu JPII who did tend to froth at the mouth a bit with any whiff of socialism), a lot of British Christians, both Anglican and Catholic, stressed the whole do-unto-others, love-thy-neighbour, feed the poor side of the bibble, and I'm sure this is the same elsewhere.

The current US right wing Christianity, tying faith and religion and nationalism all up in one inseparable bundle, is very reminiscent of both cults and Nationalist movements throughout history (I'll avoid mentioning the obvious at the risk of invoking Godwin, but I really don't think that is overplaying things). It, perhaps, isn't representative and does lead us as anti-theists to picture (and treat) theists with rather cartoonish simplicity. Although it does also, I think, drive people away from the religion who might otherwise be more well disposed.

Francis is undoubtedly more liberal and socially minded and a better person than his predecessor (how's that for damning with faint praise?), although hardly without fault in his own actions, and I think it behooves us as rational people to praise positive words and actions.

Timothy wrote: "Well, this may be the wrong track but i am just wondering whether there seem to be adaptations in nature that we call morals, that are in fact products of evolution, that is they are successful ada..."

Morality IS an evolutionary adaptation; it allows us to live in large groups with relatively little conflict. As you say (and, I think, Madge's reference to primate studies supports), some other animals do seem to follow the do-unto-others algorithm of the golden rule, even down to chimps demonstrating anger when given unequal rewards.

My view (and, I think the standard scientific/atheistic/rationalistic view) is that these functions of adaptation are mechanistic - in that they have evolved and survived because they are useful (as you suggest) and nothing more. There is a deep rooted bias in culture and language (and perhaps in human psychology) that implies (or infers, depending from where you are viewing) a purposefulness that isn't there, or a Platonic ideal to which our morality is striving.



(I hope that makes sense; it's been a long week and I have just enjoyed a bottle of wine with my dinner and am on my second Talisker - which, incidentally, may be the Platonic ideal of an Islay malt [this may also explain the over-use of parentheses...])

Timothy wrote: "And how do we recognize and adhere to them? And what connection does this have to religion?"

We do not need to "adhere" to the rules of the universe; they are rules in the true sense, they are physical limits and restraints.

The only other rules of those we construct ourselves, our societal limits. Some of these are arbitrary, some seem to be universally (in the small sense) good rules. The idea of "recognising" universal rules seems, to me, nonsensical.

Awdhesh wrote: "If you deny the king and still follow all his laws, you are still a good citizen--much better than those who praise the king but break all his laws.

Hence, pure atheism is a myth. "


At the risk of repeating what others have said, although in a different way I hope, I feel that your basic premise is at fault. Your definition *seems* to be that if one follows certain moral precepts one is de facto a believer. This is utterly incorrect. I do not follow those precepts because they are the realm of the divine (even subconsciously); I follow them because they are are the basis of a moral life, an existence that hopefully makes life better for those around my (and for myself by extension, but this is hardly the place the enter into the debate about the selfishness of selflessness).

Further, I would argue that religion has sought to commandeer these principles as its own although they have nothing whatesoever to do with what religion is - arguably, they are a core part of so many religions over so much of human history because they are such a fundamental part of what it is to be a societal human being, rather than the reverse. Morality arose separately from - and probably before - religion.

Brilliant, thanks for sharing

Will wrote: "Yeah that one is more geared towards pushing science and skepticism in general. It's like one big love fest to the scientific method haha"

One of my all-time favourite books. I think that and How Things Are: A Science Tool-Kit for the Mind should be required reading, just to instil a proper sense of both scientific wonder and a fantastic grounding of what scientific thinking really is.

Hope you enjoy your reading, Jeffrey. Seeking to broaden one's knowledge is always a good thing.

I guess some regimes find freedom of thought truly terrifying