Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 19:04:41 GMT From: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@neomedia.it> To: Fergus Cameron <fcfbsd@eircom.net>, anonymous@god.com, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: OFF TOPIC Re: Atheists Manifesto Message-ID: <20000419.19044100@bartequi.ottodomain.org> References: <SAK.2000.04.19.cafenapt@irlbcw1186737>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 4/19/00, 12:03:43 PM, Fergus Cameron <fcfbsd@eircom.net> wrote regarding Re:Atheists Manifesto: > 19/04/00 11:58:55 > science is also a god. except it calls it's beliefs axioms & i know plenty of people > that spend all their life worshiping that god. why? so they achieve their own brand > of immorality, to make them more than a 'street sweeper'. > things don't change that much i'm afraid. we'll bury ourselves with genetics as easily > as we did with christianity. > If your strong enough to stand up, why are you anonymous? I'm not. > Fergus. > Atheist, yes, but it does not mean I consider mankind god. REMARK Those who believe that science is a god are ignorant. They do NOT know *what* Science is, *what* the scientific method is, and how this method works; more generally, they completely ignore the sense and meaning of scientific knowledge; they ignore the scope and limitations of scientific theories; finally, they ignore the nature and limits of scientific models. Let alone the history of philosophical thought, which eventually originated science itself ... Also, those who substitute "Science" for "God" (or gods) and claim to be atheists miss the subtle contradiction in terms: they adhere to the Religion of Science ... As to "axiomatization" , those who worship it seem to ignore eg Goedel's theorems as well as the subtle semantical and syntactic problems connected with "languages", "metatheories" etc. ... The keyword is ignorance, as usual. > > The Athiest's Manifesto > > > > > > > > We live in a world full of Gods. Many different cultures have many > >different Gods. There are two classes of Gods. The Gods of the past, which > >usually come in groups, which were generally used to explain things that the > >people did not understand. From the roaming patterns of buffalo, to > >lightning and echos, people have made up stories to explain things they did > >not understand, because ignorance of a subject leads to fear of it. Lack of > >knowlege can be frightening. Still, the people of today look back at= these > >anchient religions and call them "myths". They chuckle when they think of > >the ignorance required to believe that the sun is a God's Chariot. Dear "anonymous", you do NOT seem to have really understood Greek mythology. In particular, you seem to ignore, among other things, the modern interpretations of the **deep** meaning of myths. > > > > This brings us to the Gods of the present. Today's religions are commonly > >Monotheistic, relying on the belief of a single all powerful God. Today's > >Gods usually provide us with two messages. One is a social code which lays > >out a model of society for people to abide by. The other is a explination > >of the fundamental questions which people tend to ask. "Where did we= come > >from ?" "Why are we here ?" and "What happens when we die ?". None of > >these questions can be answered to anyone's true satisfaction. Ignorance > >creates insecurity, therefore the people need to find a way to fill in this > >gap in their knowlege. The most common religion in the world today is > >Christianity and it's derivitives (Catholicism, Mormon, Islam, etc). > >Christianity provides the social code, and it also fills in the gaps in our > >knowlege, explaining the answers to these questions via the written and > >translated stories of people who lived 2000 years ago. > > > > What kind of people existed 2000 years ago ? By our standards today= , they > >were ignorant, violent, socially obtuse, and worse. They treated women as > >objects, and slavery for both sex and labor was common. The people of this > >era were far less advanced than the Greeks, who's beliefs we laugh at= today. > >And yet, some how, the words, stories, and beliefs of these people are taken > >as absolute fact by millions of people all over the world today. > >Christianity speaks of Jesus of Nazerith, the Christ, the son of God,= who > >was born of a virgin, and walked about the people of the time and performed > >miracles and preached the word of God. Because of the historical impact of > >the man referred to, one can hardly deny that a man named Jesus of Nazerith > >exists, however, in order to believe the rest of his tale, you must take the > >word of ignorant people of the past as fact with no proof, evidence,= or > >other information. This is commonly referred to as "blind faith". Hmmm, here you seem to ignore what you are criticizing: 1) Jesus NEVER says that men are superior to women, or that women have inferior dignity, either; please note: he lived in a *barbarian* society, a society with *barbarian* prejudices against women; 2) Jesus NEVER says that men are unequal (masters, slaves etc.). Also, you seem to ignore the (historical) difficulties that his thought created for the Christian Church as far as slavery is concerned. > > Millions of people choose to dedicate hours, days, and years of thei= r life > >worshipping this Christian God. They are so certain that these people of > >the past, whom they probably aren't even decended from, are speaking the > >truth, that they are willing to devote their entire lives to this "story". > >They believe in a God, who in the past performed many many miracles, but for > >some reason has decided to discontinue his supernatural behaviors. God no > >longer comes to earth and speaks with men, as he did in the past. > > > > Why is it people are blind to the fact that they are emulating the same > >behaviors they criticize the Greeks, American Indians, and others for= ? How > >can anyone honestly take this 2000 year old story as fact, with no evidence, > >and devote thier entire lives to it ? I would like to put forth my theory > >on that subject. > > > > As we've estabished, the people of today have the same types of > >insecurities that need "explaining". The fear of death has made men invent > >the world of spirituality. The idea that when one dies, that is the end; > >that one's bones go into the ground and decompose, is too frightening= or > >depressing to people. So instead, they have to believe that some part of > >them is immortal. That they can always live on in some form or another. I > >call this an emotional crutch. It's a way of dealing with one's > >insecurities about our lives. It makes us feel important, like we're= > >something more than a street sweeper, or garbage collector. We're all > >immortal souls with a much more glorious future ahead of us. This emotional > >crutch helps many people get through the day with a little self esteem and > >hope, and I don't begrudge them their crutch. What I do disagree with is > >the ignorance, but I would not be one to demand that others give up their > >emotional crutches in the name of enlightenment. I believe that enforcing > >your beliefs on another person, especially beliefs based solely on blind > >faith, to be the highest crime one human can do to another, short of taking > >their life. > > So if we, the atheist, are going to allow the street sweeper to believe, > >and we're going to choose not to believe, then what is the problem ? What > >is the purpose of this manefesto ? I believe that atheists are condemned by > >the majority of the population. Those of us who are secure enough in= our > >own existance, and who feel that the 70 plus or minus 5 years on this= earth > >is all we have, are treated like unholy fools. Those who will be punished > >in the afterlife. Those who are infected with this mental epidemic tend to > >react to the atheist in one of several ways. One way is to try to convert > >or convince the atheist that the 2000 year old story is true, and that the > >atheist needs to change his/her ways, lest they face eternal hellfire. The > >second way is to simply exclude and disassociate from the atheist, perhaps > >making comments about the "poor" soul to other believers. > > You'll notice I referred to religion as a mental epidemic. In my opinion, ignorance is the worst mental epidemic :-) > > Many believers > >take this as an insult. I label religion such, because of certain behaviors > >that today's "evolved" religions have. > > > > (1) Questioning the religion's validity, asking for proof, expressin= g > >skepticism, etc, are all considered to be "sins" or crimes under the > >religion. In other words, independant, logical, unbiased thought are= not > >allowed. Back in the earlier times when the followers were a little more > >"rabid" people were burned to death for expressing such ideas. Quite right. What those **barbarian** people did in the name of "God" or "Jesus" has NOTHING to do with Jesus and his words. Did he ever say e.g. "please kill or burn all people who will not believe" and funny things like that ? Have you ever read what you are currently criticizing ? BTW, the Arabian civilization in the VIII-XII centuries has NOTHING to do with the **barbarians** living in Algeria and other such countries today, either. > > (2) Religion is taught to children at a VERY young age. Basically, from > >kindergarden to adulthood, a believing parent is supposed to enroll the > >child in some kind of religous program like Sunday School. The reason for > >this is to expose the child to religion at an early age, before rational > >logical thought develops. This way, the child grows up with religion, so > >that any thoughts, ideas, concepts of atheism or disbelief are completely > >alien to them. An analigous example would be Hitler's Youth. Hitler= also > >knew this concept well. If you wish to spread an idea, and have it safe > >from independant or radical thought, ingrain it in the children before they > >can reason. Today's religions have it down to a science, with songs,= > >videos, and activities designed to make the child a believer before they > >truly even understand what God is. If people waited until age 13-15 before > >introducing religion to their children, so that the children could > >rationally decide if this was what they wanted to believe, religion would > >not be such a wide spread epidemic. > > > > (3) Religions instruct their people to attempt to convert (or in som= e > >radical cases, kill) any disbelievers. The kinder, more passive religions > >will simply ask their congregation to bring new people into the church every > >week. Once a person visits the church once or twice, the church has them > >added to their mailing and phone lists. They attempt to get the person to > >regularly attend. Then they attempt to get the person to participate= in a > >ritual, such as baptism or confession. These are relatively benign > >activities, and usually can only trap the weak minded. The more "active" > >religions send people out to visit your home. They want to come in and talk > >to you about god and convince you that the 2000 year old story is true > >(because they say it is). They run commercials, and give your free > >literature or free copies of the bible. They'll do anything to convert you > >to their way. Why ? Because their religion specifies it. > > > > (4) Religion requires that you disbelieve anything scientific that might > >possibly contradict the religion. We've all seen and heard religous people > >sit and argue about how the entire sciences of Biology, Genetics, and= > >Physics are just plain wrong, because the 2000 year old story contradicts > >it. Hmm, maybe in the XVII century or so. You seem to ignore that the scientific perspective is completely **independent** of the religious one. Simply put, science and religion deal with totally different (unrelated) things. You are free to believe in what you like (or nothing), and develop your scientific intepretation of the world. Those who ask you to "disbelieve anything scientific etc." are **malicious** and **ignorant** persons. Alas, the world is full of people trying to use anything (including religion) to make others slave. This, too, has NOTHING to do with **religion(s) per se** > > (5) Religion covers every base. No matter what kind of argument or > >evidence you can bring up to attempt to contradict religion, the believer > >can always simply make up a little story or "possibility" of how God,= using > >his supernatural powers, can simply have "made it that way". Take for > >instance the Dinosaurs. Either they didn't exist, and the bones "are= really > >from contemporary animals, which are being fitted together incorrectly to > >look like a creature that never existed", or "God put those bones down > >there." No one knows why. Or how about how we are all decended from= Adam > >and Eve ? Adam and Eve must not have truely been human, or mankind would > >have died from inbred genetic diseases (insufficeient gene pool), after the > >first couple hundred generations. And how did those people in the bible > >live for hundreds of years ? Were the laws of physics and the nature= of > >human biology that different back then ? Religion fields these questions > >with ease. "God made it that way". "It's all part of God's plan". > > Here, you seem to ignore the symbolic nature of the Biblic language. > > Beyond the grievences I have as an atheist living in a belief based > >society, I also have grievences as a human being. I have a personal care > >and interest in the well-being of my species. I would like to see mankind > >reach out into space, establish colonies on other planets and systems. > >Become something more than the proverbial 2 day mold on a piece of bread > >(before it is thrown out), before conditions in our solar system change and > >erase us from existance. Truthfully, everyone should care about mankind's > >development. The problem is this. The religions are "anti-science" in many > >respects. Nope. Religions per se are NOT anti-science. The use that **some people** make of religions (and of technologies for that matter) IS anti-human so to speak. > > There are many things, like cloning, which we should not do > >because that is God's territory. "Playing God" is not allowed. Add that to > >the fact that many of man's best minds, people who could be possible > >Einsteins of certain fields, are robbed of their potential because they are > >infected with this mental disease. If John Doe grows up believing that > >evolution, biology and genetics are in conflict with his religion, he= > >certainly wouldn't excersize the possibility that maybe he would have= become > >one of the best Geneticists in the history of the science. Not only that, > >but those who don't believe, and wish to advance mankind's knowlege are > >restrained by the believers. They are forced to move at a slow enough pace > >so that the religions can readjust, reevaluate, and reinterpret the words of > >their religion so that they don't reach a point in which they cannot explain > >how their religion can be true with science showing the oppisite. You seem to ignore the basics of genetics, or, at least, you seem to contradict yourself. Producing human clones is useless. Incidentally, Nature produces few "clones" (eg homozygote twins) NOT without reason. A population with limited variation in its genetic material is subject to (wait for it) diseases and other problems. Darwin docet. BTW, this is the *genetic* reason why marriages between relatives are NOT encouraged. Instead, cloning human **organs** is a most interesting research area. As to cloning per se, just to split hairs, the laws of quantum mechanics prevent us from producing two **perfectly** identical human beings, however similar two such beings can look. Even if this were possible, and it isn't, environment makes people (more or less) different, as recent theories (e.g. neural Darwinism etc.) indicate. Anyway, limited or reduced genetic variation in a population IS, genetically speaking, a bad thing. > >there are such fanatics who spend every waking hour worshiping God, to the > >point which they're throwing away the most valuable thing they own. Life. > >Real life, here on earth. One only has so much time. If one spends all of > >that time trying to get ahead on the "next" life, they are throwing this > >life away, and not contributing to the society and species as a whole. > >Religion is a serious drain on mankind's most important resources, manpower > >and time. And no matter how much science proves that the world is 4 billion > >years old and not 15,000 years old, and that the universe was formed through > >the mixing and spreading of elements, and not by the wave of a magic wand, > >and no matter how many times scientists try to show that life on earth was > >formed by the interactions of nucleic acids (and it still is every day), > >it's absolutely impossible to convince a believer that the simplest answer > >is the correct answer. The world is as it seems. There is no second= world, > >second life, greater power, or magic that makes it all possible. And= it's > >sad, because we need every one of those believers with us, here on earth, > >helping out, not praying in some church or temple in front of some clown in > >a suit or fancy religious outfit. Strictly speaking, you cannot make **any** statement about a second world. Believing in it or not is your free choice. You seem to ignore Kant's thought, inter alia. > > I am an atheist. I live in a world full of people, blind to their o= wn > >ignorance, dedicated to a 2000 year old story written by people who's= > >intellect doesn't even compare to an 8th grader. I have to live with= these > >people, respect thier beliefs, and endure their constant attempts to convert > >me into one of their ilk. I have to watch as millions of man-years go down > >the drain, wasted away in foolishness. I watch as other atheists have to > >hide their beliefs, to avoid being condemned by the believers and ostrasized > >from society. But as I'm watching, I'm waiting. I see with every > >generation, more and more people are simply "going through the motions". > >They take part in the process, but they don't really believe in it. They > >simply do what is expected of them. Soon, they reach a certain age or time > >in their life in which they no longer attend the church, but they "still > >believe". They don't pray anymore but they "still believe". They go= about > >living their real lives, pretending to themselves and others that they > >believe. These are a kind of "Casual Christians". This behavior shows the > >deterioration of the true believers as a whole. A pattern author Frank > >Herbert referred to as "rot at the core". As parents become more and= more > >lax about their own religious patterns, they begin to spare their children > >the foolishness of church and Sunday School. Slowly the religious base of > >mankind is deteriorating. People are giving less and less credability to > >the 2000 year old story, as they grow up in a world of computers, cloning, > >genetic therapy, and microbiology. All of which you seem to ignore. At least, you show a superficial knowledge and understanding of the topics you have been writing about. > > It's only a matter of time until, > >hopefully, enough of us break free of this mental disease and begin to live > >life for the here and now and not to please some imaginary God in order to > >gain entrance to some fantasy land. I am not alone. Talking privately with > >many others of my generation, I know I'm not the only one who thinks > >religious people are foolish. While most will tell an adult they believe in > >God, it's simply because they don't want to experience the social punishment > >of being a disbeliever. So we watch and wait. Wait for the world to= wake > >up from this 2000 year old dream. Some day people will look back on > >Christianity the same way people look back at Zeus and Apollo. They'll ask > >how a people who've mastered genetics, computers, atomic physics, etc, can > >possibly believe in such childish nonsense. The answer is, most of us > >don't, we're just afraid to admit it, because we've seen what kind of= > >violence the rabid religious can bring forth when their beliefs are > >threatened. So rather than rising against religion and preaching against > >it, we watch and wait for it to die of apathy. If we're wrong, we'll= be > >condemned to hell for all eternity. If the religious are wrong, then= > >they'll have thrown away the single most valuable thing they possess.= Their > >life. I am an atheist. This is my manifesto. It is the first step in > >curing the disease. Why not read a few books instead of posting such manifestos ? Rem tene, verba sequentur ... By the way, you can waste your life whether you are religious or not. Yet again, this has NOTHING to do with religion. Best regards, Salvo To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000419.19044100>