User talk:BaronGrackle/Archive

Atheism

Why did you take it upon yourself to revert each and every single one of my edits to the atheist article? Just because you’re a Catholic and you don’t like some of my changes doesn’t mean you have the right to change them all.Weri long wang 18:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me show you the parts (that I added) that I like. These may not be considered as being hard on atheists, but when push comes to shove, the point of Uncyclopedia articles on any subject are intended to be funny, not harsh on that particular subject or individual. If what I put is funny then who cares if it’s not harsh on atheist beliefs? If you wish to change any other parts can you please leave these parts in:

• According to Christians, Atheists believe that since all creatures are produced from natural selection as the circle of life in Athe's personal casino that humans have no free will and that we are dominated by our most natural instincts and urges. According to Atheists themselves however, our free will comes from our 1.5kg brains and that we are perfectly capable of overcoming our “most natural instincts and urges”. In Christianity an individual has no free will due to the fact that they must follow every last word of the Bible.

This explains why the fact that Christian accusations of atheists being “monkeys” etc are nonsense but does mean it has to be removed?

• Atheists always say that since they have got a highly developed brain they can figure out for themselves what is right and what is wrong without needing a book written during the dark ages to define their “morals” for them; morals like sacrificing your own son and stoning people to death for “moving sticks on the Sabbath”. If we are to believe Christians, all Atheists are immoral monsters who don’t know right from wrong and who walk around in public naked, eating bananas and scratching their armpits. The fact that real Atheists never behave like this simply serves as proof that the Christians are right…. or something like that.

Fair enough this isn’t harsh on atheists but isn’t it funny?

• Atheists never pray to their goddess Athe, because they believe that it is cringingly embarrassing for Athe when people are continuously brown-nosing her and kissing her arse in the hope that they can avoid being burned forever in Hell. Most supernatural beings like Thor, Jon Frum, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and even gay deities like the Invisible Pink Unicorn think it is really funny when Christians brown-nose God. God is a power-hungry lunatic who actively encourages this widespread personality cult, but since Athe gets embarrassed easily she asks her followers not to brown nose her in the same fashion.

Again, this appears to be criticizing religious attitude towards prayer, but why does that matter?

On the subject of humanism and abortion I believe, what a religious individual might call a “soul” emanates from the brain. Therefore I believe that a grouping of cells doesn’t qualify as a true human (or whatever other animal that embryo will become) until its nervous system has at least partly developed. That means that a fertilized human egg doesn’t count as a human in the same way that a fully grown doctor with a family does. Did you know that around 80% of fertilized eggs “abort” themselves anyway as a kind of built-in quality control system?

It’s funny that you mention the fact that evolution says that life popped out of nowhere (even though it doesn’t truly say that), you miss the point that creationism says exactly the same thing! Problems is which one of these is more likely to pop out of nowhere?

• A self replicating molecule, probably a cruder form of DNA appeared in Earth’s ocean due to the production of organic chemicals like ribose, adenine, uracil, guanine and cytosine from sunlight and electrical energy being applied to young Earth’s highly reduced atmosphere and from inorganic chemicals like metal and non-metal ions and phosphate groups popped out of nowhere (although this is clearly isn’t what is truly implied by this hypothesis). This self-replicating molecule found more and more ingenious ways of containing itself in systems that allowed it to survive into the next generation until, after about 3,000,000,000 years this molecule became ubiquitous across all life forms.

Or

• Before the universe even existed an all-powerful, all-seeing god popped out of nowhere and created the vast and unimaginable expanse of the universe in the blink of an eye. Next he set up every physical constant somehow to make sure that atoms could stay together. Then he created all animals, each in their complete forms, in one day. After that he blew into a handful of mud and created the complexity of the male human body and took one of his ribs and did “something” to the rib to create the complexity of the female human body. Not to mention all of the nasty things that happened after that in the book of genesis. See my article on Bible Adventures to see some examples of these stories I’m talking about.

Which one do you believe is more convincing to an objective observer? Anyway let’s not get into arguing over this; all I want to do is write a funny article. Weri long wang 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Response

A religious person considers the brain and soul as distinct. Non-human animals, for instance, have brains, thought processes, and even emotions, but many Christians would not consider them having souls. Any culture that believes in an afterlife must acknowledge that the soul is independent of the brain, in order for it to continue existing after the brain has been destroyed. By the same rationale, it can exist before the brain is formed.

What I meant is that I don’t believe in a soul; therefore human consciousness is the product of the human brain, not the human soul. I wasn’t implying anything about Christianity there. I am after all almost completely ignorant on that subject.

I knew the percentage was high. Did you know that around 100% of people "abort" at some point in their lives, anway?

What I meant is that 80% of fertilized eggs do not form correctly. Therefore the body expels them naturally. I didn’t mean that human embryos abort at a late stage as often as that. I’m sure that percentage figure is much lower.

They are human. They possess human DNA and everything they grow is human

Every cell in my body contains human DNA and I shed thousands of dead cells every day. I believe the human sense of being (i.e. consciousness) is immeasurably more important than human DNA. (Excuse my poor grammar there)

Does that doctor count more than a fully grown doctor without a family? More than a farmer? Does the fully grown doctor with a family count more than a homeless person, or an unwanted orphan, or a former doctor whose arthritis is too advanced for him/her to help society much anymore?

I only mentioned the fact that he had a family because that added the fact that after he died he would have a widow, several children and many other friends and loved ones to grieve for him. How would you feel if your father died tomorrow? I know it would take me several months to begin to get over it. I was not implying that a doctor with a family is of greater worth than a homeless man either if that’s what you think (or more than a bodyguard who was nearby the doctor who was also killed; who, presumably, will also have friends and family to grieve for him)

none of the Abrahamic faiths will say that God appeared out of nowhere Himself; the belief is that God simply always was

I personally do not consider that to be an intellectually full filing answer to the problem. God “always was”? What does that mean? Plus the overwhelming amount of evidence that Neo-Darwinian evolution is correct forces me to believe in it regardless of whether some kind of god exists or not.

Anyway I respect your views and I don’t want to argue with you I just thought I’d comment on what you put before this. Thanks. Weri long wang 13:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I’ve managed to find the exact quote that I was basing my early assertion on the “spontaneous abortion” of fertilized eggs: “I wonder what these people would say if they knew that the majority of conceived embryos spontaneously abort anyway. It is probably best seen as a kind of natural ‘quality control’”

You have to understand this is referring to what is more or less a fertilized egg; not a fully formed human fetus.

I want to quote something else from the book too (on the subject of the value of an embryo versus a doctor): “An early embryo has the sentience, as well as the semblance, of a tadpole. A doctor is a grown-up conscious being with hopes, loves, aspirations, fears, a massive store of human knowledge, the capacity for deep emotion, very probably a devastated widow and orphaned children and perhaps elderly parents who dote on him. Weri long wang 00:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hitler and Stalin: the evil atheists

I’ve reverted a small part of your recent edits to the atheist’s article. As you’ve probably gathered by the title of this heading it’s the part where you effectively accuse Hitler and Stalin of being monsters because they where atheists. They were monsters because they were evil nutcases not because they were atheists.

Also, for the record, the fact that Hitler was an atheist is a myth that has been cultivated by religious people who try to paint all atheists as monsters (and present themselves as angels; the pope didn't support Mussolini or the NAZI Party!). Hitler was a Catholic and went to Catholic schools and churches as a boy and never denounced his Catholicism. Here is a speech that Hitler gave in 1922 for example:

“ My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited. ”

That was quoted in The God Delusion and here again on this website: [1] along with sixty seven other quotes where Hitler cites his own strong personal Christian beliefs. That's righty sixty seven other quotes. I would like to say that I’m not accusing Hitler of being the way he was because he was a Christian, he was just a psycho who happened to be a Christian; just as Stalin was a psycho who happened to be, we shall at least assume, an atheist.

Also, the holocaust is a classic example of people being persecuted (and this case killed en masse) simply because of their religion. So to cite Hitler and his actions as an example of the evils of atheism is a very very bad pick!

Also there's something else. In the edit history you say “I slashed most of the critical statements for extra humor” Yes, but you also added quite a few more - from the other side! Implying that atheists believe rape is okay for example. When I was saying that Athe (who doesn’t exist, but let’s put that to one side for now) doesn’t get all hot and bothered by “sins” I didn’t mean things like rape, I meant things like downloading a different anti-atheist program from the internet and giving it a 30-day trial.

Pretty much all the “sins” layed out in the bible revolve around worshipping another god. For instance when Moses was collecting the first edition of the Ten Commandments (the ones he accidentally destroyed by dropping the stone plates they where written on), Aaron convinced the impatient people to worship, and sacrifice to, another god: a golden calf. The penalty for this “sin” was that the tribe of Levi should try to kill as many people as possible. All people who purchased jeans should be spared though. This is where the term selfish jean originates from: kill people unless they by Levi tribe jeans. Anyway, you get my point. Actions like rape are deplorable and no atheist I know would say otherwise.

Although, it is worth noting, that rape of women seems perfectly okay according to the Bible! Here is one of my favorite stories from the Bible (I’ll generalize it a bit because the exact same story occurs twice - once in Genesis 19 and once again in Judges 19). The first story involves Lot’s two daughters (this story was set just before God was going to destroy Sodom and kill all the men, women and children there) the second version of the story involves the daughter of a man and the “concubine” of another man who happened to be staying with him.

Basically the main plot of the story is that a man throws a women (two cases where the women was the man’s own daughter) out to a group of “wicked men” so she could be raped, humiliated, dehumanized, tortured and then killed. The “wicked men” in the two stories actually surround the house of the man because they want to “know” (fuck) the man in the house! A Weird and despicable story indeed. The second story even ends with the man chopping up his concubine into pieces and burying different parts of her body in different places!

Uncyclopedia is a vital databank where people come to learn; therefore every single last bit of information has to be accurate. Weri long wang 12:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Athe Ackbar!

Hitler was not “neo pagan”, he was Catholic, and he was a Christian. Neo pagans don’t talk about fighting for Jesus (“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter”. Who is the “lord and savior” of pagans?). In no way shape or form could he be considered atheist, so no, it is pretty clear cut: he was Christian and he wasn’t atheist, end of story. I’m sorry but it’s true.

As far as I’m aware with the Lot story the “wicked men” were blinded by the angels and Lot’s daughters were unharmed, but what does that matter? He was willing to hand them over, that’s all that matters. Also, the next time Lots daughters were mentioned they were raping their drunken father. Quite a dysfunctional family don’t you think? If this was the best the city of Sodom had to offer I can really sympathize with God.

On the Judges story, I’m aware that the woman was cut up after she was raped and killed – I just mentioned it because it seems a very strange thing to do. Plus it kind of proves the point I was putting across: in at least one part of the Bible (we’ll consider these two stories one and the same; probably an editing error a few thousand years ago) raping women is perfectly acceptable.

And what about Abraham and his son? Imagine this hypothetical situation: In some remote town in the United States (or any other developed country) the local police happened upon a man with an axe above the neck of his son who is tied down to a stone block and next to this is some petrol, firelighter and wood. When the police approach him says: “well, God told me to do it. God’s changed his mind though, so I’ll put my axe down now”. Can you imagine the furor following such an incident? Can you imagine how a child could ever get over the mental trauma of his father trying to decapitate and then set fire to him? Pretty sick the Bible if you ask me.

What I was trying to say with regard to the holocaust is that people were labeled as belonging to a particular type of religion and persecuted for it. Whether converting made any difference is irrelevant. If Judaism (and religion in general) didn’t exist then that would have been 6-10 million lives (and probably a world war) prevented.

I want to say something on the subject of priests and sexual abuse. I do not condone such abuse and I think it is deplorable, but I would like to put it to you that the psychological abuse inflicted on children in the form of Hell, amongst other things, is far more damaging. An American woman in her forties wrote to Richard Dawkins some time ago to tell him of two unpleasant things that happened to when she was 7. One was that she was sexually abused by her parish priest; the other was that a school friend died. Since the woman was a Catholic and her young school friend was Protestant she was told on many occasions of how here friend would be burning in agony in Hell. Here’s how part of the letter went:

"Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as ‘yucky’, while memory of my friend going to Hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest – but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to hell. It gave me nightmares. (The God Delusion page 317-318)"

I just don’t like the way (in America at least and any other religious country) atheists are painted as immoral, evil monsters. I’ll put Stalin in if it will make you happy. “Athe said unto Stalin: yeah, begin the glorious Communist revolution and kill those that purchase Nike trainers”. Wasn’t like that in the real world was it? I’ll try to write a sarcastic section of how Athe drives her followers on to become despots and tyrants if you like. Weri long wang 13:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And the score is: 4 for the antis and 67 for the pros

4 anti-religious quotes versus 67-pro religious, or, more precisely, pro-Christian quotes; quite a resounding lead on my side wouldn’t you say? It was Benjamin Disraeli who said that 2 millennia of “Christian love” has really taken its toll on the Jews. Whether or not Hitler was a devout Christian and whether or not his anti-Semitism stemmed from that is irrelevant; the point is that wasn’t his (or Stalin’s or Mao’s) atheism that drove him into doing what he did. You cannot fairly associate causation with a lack of something – Stalin’s actions were not driven on by religion, therefore they were driven on by atheism. What? Would Stalin have been different if he had been touched by the graceful hand of our lord or something? I have never fully understood this stupid anti-atheist argument.

Plus if you consider the accusation that the Nazis weren’t driven by religion, ergo they were driven by atheism, in an objective manner, its a pretty ridiculous argument. That’s like saying that Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein all had moustaches, ergo anyone who has a moustache is a brutal immoral monster. The only difference is that if you said that everyone would think you were nuts. Why the double standard?

Only if by "perfectly acceptable" you mean "punishable by death and extreme destruction". Judges 20 is pretty brutal about what happens to the rapists, as is the case in any Biblical account.

So what about the man who gave his daughter over to be raped? The man who gave over his concubine to be raped? What happened to them? If a group of men surrounded your house asking to rape a male occupant what would you do? Here are your options: 1. Call the police 2. Run outside with a gun or other weapon scaring them away 3. Hand over a female occupant so she can be raped instead

Admittedly the former two options might not have been available back then but it still seems quite a deplorable act. And you never responded to what I said about Abraham and his atrocious behavior followed by the old Nuremberg plea “I was only following orders”.

See, these types of claims trouble me, things like the belief that the world would have no violence if not for religion

You’re Ann-Coultering me there. Al Gore never said he “invented the internet”, nor did I say that there would be no violence without religion, nor has Richard Dawkins, or anyone that I know. What I meant was, were it not for Hitler’s vehement anti-Semitism, most likely a result of his Christian “love”, he would not have targeted a group of human beings who share no other feature other than that they happened to have brought up in a particular religion.

The causes of the waves of “obvious” mass-genocides in the 20th century usually revolve around communism and/or nationalism certainly not atheism, but, a lot of the less well publicized acts of genocide, such as in Bosnia and Kosovo for example, (which are in the Stalin range too) are driven by religious differences.

I am also a mite curious as to exactly who told this American woman in her forties that her Protestant friend was guaranteed to be burning in Hell. Though we do have very distinct beliefs about what is sinful, what is correct, and what is in accordance with God, the church has never officially declared any single person to be, without shadow of a doubt, currently in Hell. Even Judas. You won't find it in any documents, regardless of what some molesting abomination of a priest may have told her.

She was told that when she was 7, not when she was in her forties. Once you have developed your critical faculties religious dogma designed to frighten the crap out of you doesn’t work as well as when you’re 7.

I recommend you watch part II of Richard Dawkin’s Channel 4 documentary “The Root of all Evil?” (I can’t find it on YouTube but I know it’s available somewhere on the internet) A large part of this episode deals with the Christian church terrifying youngsters with images of hell. For instance he meets a psychologist in her 50s who came from a strong Christian “group” and as a girl was frightened to death by what she was told. She works today to help young adults escape and get over their similar strong religious (exclusively Christian I might add) upbringing. When Dawkins asked her the question “so what do they tell you about hell?” it took her about 7 seconds to finally answer “it’s funny isn’t it? After all these years it still has the power to affect me when you say that”. Also he visits “Hell Houses” which have been set up by Christian fundamentalists in the United States, that are designed to frighten the living shit out of children as young as 12. The pastor who runs it cheerfully boasted that he would be glad if children had nightmares after seeing it. What a cunt.

If you can’t (or don’t want to) watch the videos check out the Wikipedia article on the program to see what I’m talking about on this subject. There is an entire chapter devoted to effects of religion on children in the God Delusion (Chapter 9: Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion).

I just thought I’d mention also that Dawkins himself did not choose or approve of that title, Channel 4 insisted on it. Channel 4 is notorious for stirring up controversy, or “pissing people off” might be a more appropriate way of saying it, to promote their programs.

I liked aspects of the previous version, with a single off-hand reference to Stalin, Mao, Tarkin... you know, just enough to make you chuckle, and then think on it.

Mentioning those names in an article about atheism clearly implies that just because they were not religious implies that they were motivated by atheism, or that atheism makes you that way. It is hurtful, hateful and inappropriate and I can assure you that I wasn’t chuckling at it. Plus just citing those examples ignores the above acts of genocide that were driven on by religion. Are humans in Germany, Russia and China worth more than Humans in Bosnia, Kosovo and Africa? If you have to talk about Stalin and the communists (and ignore the fact that they were communists and instead just call them atheists) then fine, but mention the other less well publicized acts of religious genocide too. Adding to that point it seems that atheists are more despised in the United States than communists are!Weri long wang 19:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

lives

Secularly speaking, humans are worthless things, and the only reason to live yourself or propagate is because a little gene inside you wants to keep living, for reasons it does not understand.

That might be why we exist (or, in other words, how we came to exist - and there's nothing that can change that) but that does not mean secular thinking (or what's the other one called.. er, Genist? no? errr.... oh that's it Humanist) thinking labels humans as "worthless". If anything secular thinking puts human worth first; i.e. humans are worth more than some non existent diety floating in the clouds waiting to send us all to Hell. So you're just about as wrong as you possibly could be there.

The bottom line is that no matter where humans, or any other life on this planet or other planets or moons, comes from it does not mean that we have to live simply to advance the spread of the "selfish gene"; it can do that perfectly well on its own. Secular thinking says that we should discount the idea of eternal life, which I wouldn't want anyway, and make the most of our time on Earth.

On the question of abortion, religous people believe a human embryo (or even a zygote or reproductive cell for that matter) is created in the image of God. So the human isn't worth anything, only god. The way secular thinking sees it the worth of a human being lies in the human's conscious sense of existence not on the fact that that human is created in the image of god. The consciousness of a human (and maybe other higher animals like dolphins) are special because they know they exist and can experience emotions like love and happiness - that does not sound like something "worthless" to me. It's upsetting that you've been taught that, and it clearly shows who's got the real "warped" view, if you don't mind me saying so.

Well if I can say nothing else I'll at least say I'm grateful I'm not living in a country governed by the teachings of a book written by human beings during the dark ages. If I ever get bored of living in such a country I'll move to Saudi Arabia, Iran or Syria instead.

I suggest that you respond by pointing out that North Korea is not run under religious law. That seems like a favorite of people who try to defile secular states.

Maybe I'l then respond by pointing out that all devoleped states like the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Portugal etc are secular states.11:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd kill him if you could get away with it?

Finally, consider why we should have that empathy at all. If you can kill a man and take his possessions, and you are guaranteed that you will not be punished for doing so, and you are guaranteed that you will not be rewarded in any way for not doing so, and it is certain that this man is of no benefit to society—in fact, it might benefit society to have him removed (because he is an unproductive fellow)... then why not kill him? There is no secular-rational reason for empathizing with others or loving others without benefit except for 1) the fear that you might be punished otherwise, or 2) absolutely blind faith in the concept of empathy.

When Richard Dawkins interviewed a strongly religious headmaster from a school he said something which was very revealing to Dawkins (and to me): “if there’s no lawgiver than why is rape wrong? Why is pedophilia wrong? Why are any of these things wrong?” Putting to one side the fact that a controller of a school is asking why is pedophilia wrong, I think it’s clear that making a person believe that the only reason to be good is to please God (or avoid suffering in hell) is just selfish, not moral. True morals come from within our brains, not from a book that says handing your daughter over to be raped or killing one of your sons is right.

What you’re saying also demonstrates that you’ve got a bit of a warped mind if you dont mind me saying so. If you believe that killing a person is okay so long as you can get away with it, or not killing a person is good because you get rewarded for it. The only reason you don’t kill people is because you hope to get rewarded for it?!!! That’s selfish and sick and typical of what religious “morals” do to a person.

I don’t kill people because my true moral sense tells me that taking a person’s life is one of the worst things you can do; it has nothing to do with some book which actually condones killing people for things so trivial as gathering fire wood on the Sabbath. Since you’ve been pressing keyboard buttons on the Sabbath, and I’ve found out about it (by reading what you’ve put), according to the Bible I have a “moral” obligation to fly to America and kill you by smashing your head in with stones! (and you have a moral obligation to kill me too since I'm pressing keys on the sabbath)

There is no secular-rational reason for empathizing with others or loving others

Yep, that’s sounds like something a religious person would say. Says a lot about you in many ways doesn’t it? So what's the religous reason then? And why do atheists feal love for one another? Sicko.Weri long wang 11:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Okay then, I’m sorry. It’s not my place to tell you you’re wrong on things like this, and you sound like a descent person. The things that concerns (and upsets) me which are related to religion are mostly carried out by Muslims today anyhow – but it’s a brave man who points that out in public! Remember those cartoons of Mohamed? The point I am ultimately trying to make is that to this day there is no known case of an atheist torturing or killing people in order to convert, well we can’t say convert non-believers; I suppose we’ll have to say convert believers! There are thousands of religiously inspired acts like this though. I’ve just been reading through a book written by Sam Harris that details acts of torture carried out by Christians (as well as other religions) as recently as 160 years ago – like strapping somebody down completely naked and placing an upturned cauldron on their exposed abdomen fled with starving rats. The cauldron was then heated to encourage the rats to seek an escape root. Very nice.

Anyway I can’t be bothered arguing over what’s right and what’s wrong; that’s a subjective matter. After all, there are people in uncivilized religious police states like Saudi Arabia who believe that the only bad thing about the holocaust is that there were survivors! The ultimate point I’m trying to make is that no belief system which is grounded in reason and rational thinking could ever make a person think like that.

The last point I’d like to make is that no person in my close family is religious and they, and I, still have a strong moral conviction. I bought my sister a book for Christmas just so I could see her smile and be happy; not because I am hoping to get some kind of reward (except maybe a hug). Although we don’t fully understand the brain I think it’s clear that it will eventually be proven that our true sense of what’s right and what’s wrong is an innate instinct built into the brain somehow. Considering the horrors that have been committed in God’s name since we first became intelligent enough to believe in him, I’d say it’s unlikely that he’s the source of our morals! Weri long wang 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Atheism article

Remarkable edits to the atheism article! I thought you didn’t believe in those things you wrote? Good work though! Weri long wang 18:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ironically I think you’ve hit the nail right on the head with the comment about communists. All communist states did not allow any belief system (religious or otherwise) other than that of the Marxist government. This was to make sure all citizens where under complete control of the government; but that doesn’t mean atheism is directly linked to starvation of the proletariats, communist revolutions or gulags. That sounds fair to me! Also I added a genuine comment from Adolf Hitler where he is decrying atheism and saying that it has been stamped out: “We have . . . undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” I have provided a link to prove that he did indeed say that. Weri long wang 15:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to find out more about religous countries and atheist morality, I suggest you read this website. Make sure you aren't eating while reading it though. Weri long wang 18:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The moral dog

You know, some time ago, I said that since humans have highly developed 1.3 kg brains we can work out what is right for ourselves? Recently, I read a quote by Mark Twain: "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." I think that morality (beliefs like: killing people is wrong, assaulting people is wrong etc) is an innate instinct built into the brain. After all, dogs sometimes seem to be more moral than humans! I take back that comment and think that this time it is I who has completely got the wrong end of the stick. Morality is present in all animal brains; immorality is present only in the higher brain functions of humans (and examples of assualt and even torture has been observed in some chimpanzee troops - ones in which there are two or more groups that live in seperate "tribes" those that live together don't behave like this. This kind of mirrors human behaivour)

I believe now that it is our highly developed brains and understanding of others people’s fears, worries and pains (or rather, their ability to feel them) that has lead mankind to do the ghastly things we do (physical and psychological torture is only possible from an animal that really understands pain and fear) I think I might say that immorality is a human invention! That is why I believe we should steer clear of religious thought when it comes to defining morals. Listen to our hearts not our heads, as contemporary language would have it. For instance you say that “But if we were just organisms and "good" is just a term whose definition changes with the times, then why would it matter whether we were "good"?” I think “good” is fairly constant really. Ironically, I think the religious (or that defined by the human mind) concept of “good” does change (just look at how much more advanced our counties are than that of say Saudi Arabia where they’re still living in the human dark ages), the real sense of good doesn’t change. Where Neanderthals immoral because they lacked belief in god? They were probably more moral than a lot of us! The human mind is the ultimate negator of morality if you think about it, and that’s why we should stear clear of religion or “god” to define our morals. I'll add here to prevent insult that other non-religous human thoughts are immoral too. Think the old anti-atheist favourites such as Stalin and Mao.

Here are some examples or religious (human-defined) “morality” which you say dont change over time:

Example 1: "...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. " Exodus 21:23-25

"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:39

Example 2: "A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own." - Ezekiel 18:20

"Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death." - Deuteronomy 24:16

Speaking of whores: (Ezekiel 23:43-46) "The assembly shall stone them (kind of like they do in Saudi Arabia) and with their swords shall cut them down; they shall kill their sons and their daughters and burn up their houses." - Ezekiel 23:47 (It is clear that the children of prostitutes are to be killed - in clear contradiction of Ezekiel 18:20)

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them (idols, from line 4), for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generations of those who reject me" - Exodus 20:5

The first two “absolute morals”, which are pretty horrible in themselves, contradict the second two! What does God want us to do?

Plus the Bible condones and even encourages possession of slaves. Do you own any slaves? Oh no sorry I forgot, it’s illegal in the United States! One nation under God huh? (I'm not implying for a second that you condone slavery or would ever consider owning one; I'm sure you wouldn't. If that is the case then it clearly your brain not the God of the Bible that is giving you those feelings)

Maybe this idea is worthy of an entire article? An article which claims that your pet cat is more moral than you are would certainly get a few laughs! Maybe a consciousness raiser too. Weri long wang 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Aliens and happiness

Yeah, I don’t want us to go extinct! Fight humans, fight! There is no way we could all be totally happy anyway. We must take the rough with the smooth and I believe that gives meaning to life. What about this question on the main page:

• Atheists are immoral, atheistic morality is impossible and life is absurd or meaningless or worthless if atheism is true.

• Atheists are as moral as anyone else, atheistic morality is both possible and the norm and life is not absurd or meaningless or worthless if atheism is true.

Which one do you believe? Do you believe I am immoral by default just because I’m a passive atheist (I don’t believe in God, but I don’t actively think to myself on a daily basis that God doesn’t exist) Am I immoral?

I’ve noticed you sometimes have implied that if a person believes (or understands) Darwinian evolution, they automatically believe that people should be killed if they are “not productive” (kind of like in the Soviet Union). Do you believe that? Do you think that I would want to kill somebody if they were not productive? Here are some of your quotes that imply this is the case:

• The potential child may become a burden on society in general, so now, right after its birth, would be the perfect time to eliminate it, before it really starts to live. (This has done in the name of the Christian faith in the past I might add; but no reasonable atheist would condone it. Nor would any reasonable religious person today – especially in highly developed countries like ours)
• You mention that a fully grown doctor with a family counts more than a fertilized human egg. Does that doctor count more than a fully grown doctor without a family? More than a farmer? Does the fully grown doctor with a family count more than a homeless person, or an unwanted orphan, or a former doctor whose arthritis is too advanced for him/her to help society much anymore? (Of course not. All humans - doctors, bodyguards, interns who happen to work in abortion clinics, people traveling on busses when a person decides to make a martyr of himself are all of equal importance.)

Do you believe a Darwinist thinks like that? Natural selection occurs in nature – what you’re talking about is artificial selection – which has happened in many societies, religious or otherwise. (Another example of the dangerous human mind) Also you said “non-human animals, for instance, have brains, thought processes, and even emotions, but many Christians would not consider them having souls” What does your pet say about that? Look in the eyes of your pet (if you have one) There’s no soul behind those eyes? I certainly believe that my cats got some kind of consciousness while sitting on his back purring and rubbing his head against me. I believe that counts as the traditional definition of a soul and hence that cat deserves respect and care just as a human does.

I think the moral is that since religion is an invention of humanity anything bad done in the name of religion is due to our advanced brains. Maybe this explains horrible actions that are not related to religion; Marxist philosophy for example. Kill the proletariat! Also, do you know enough about David and Goliath to add something funny to Bible Adventures? Weri long wang 01:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The selfish moralist and Charlie’s loaf of bread

You’ve got the wrong end of the stick there. I’ll throw it again and pick it up at the other side. What I mean is the morality as defined as: not doing bad thing first, forgiving bad deeds after reacting to them (forgiving tit for tat) and being non-envious are built into our brains. Yes, of course, they’re there as a result of Darwinian selection, but so what! Our good side had to come from somewhere. If being good serves our own self interests (we do better if we’re good) then that is surely even better.

There is a chapter in The Selfish Gene called “nice guys finish first” which refers to the nonzero sum game Prisoner’s Dilemma. Look this up on Wikipedia to get some idea what it is. If we define a “good” strategy as:

• One which does not defect first
• One which will forget about a dispute
• One which does not get jealous of a successful opponent

Always tended to do better than a “nasty” strategy (strategy as in computer program. One “person”, or strategy, plays against another and it was found that “nice” people, or strategies, generally ended up with higher scores than nasty people, or strategies) If we combine this with the concept of natural selection that means any nice animal will do better than any nasty animal. Now don’t start saying daft things like: “well then shouldn’t we kill nasty people?” If you say that (again; here’s your most recent version of that: “getting rid of them now would help the rest of society who does contribute and is aware of their surroundings”) you’ve completely missed the point. What I’m saying is that some basic rules of thumb to help us lead prosperous lives tell us to behave nice. Sometimes we see if we can get away with being nasty, but anybody who does that tends to be less prosperous than then somebody who is always nice. So, using the laws of evolution, we can assume that our ancestors must have been nice, because their genes were passed on. “Good” genes survive, and therefore they should be inside us. What I’m trying to say is that morality has a Darwinian explanation, and the (very disturbing) question “why be good if there is no god?” can be answered: “because nice guys finish first!” (The title of the chapter in The Selfish Gene)

So, morality is built into our brains and has nothing to do with god. If I have something in my brain which makes me recoil in terror if I kill a person in front of me, how do I kill him? Well, the basic sense of morality can be subverted and undermined by using excuses such as: “he’s an infidel, I’m doing God’s work killing him” (there are of course non-religious versions of these thoughts) So immorality stems from our higher brain processes, morality stems from our lower brain processes. So I suppose that means that morality is older than immorality!

The next time you think that anything that has a Darwinian explanation (i.e. – not given to us by a god) isn’t worth anything, think of Charlie in the original Charlie and the [Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory Chocolate Factory film]. At the beginning of the movie he rushes in with a loaf of bread above his head. His mother asks were he got it from, but Grandpa Joe butted in: “who cares were he got it, point is he got it”. Who cares where our morality comes from, point is we got it. If being good is simply “selfish” (it serves oneself) then so what! That’s even better! Weri long wang 19:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong end of the stick again

True selflessness is indeed a human quality, a result of the good side of the conscious mind, all I'm trying to say is that morality (working well with others, not hurting people, doing good deeds for people you see a lot) can be explained without the need to invoke "God". That is why most atheists are moral. In that way I believe that selflessness is distinct from morality. Morality has a Darwinian explanation, immorality and selflessness can only be explained by the human brain itself.

Actually, we could go back to Darwinism to explain selflessness too. Chapter 6 of The God Delusion (The roots of morality: why are we good?) explores the roots of morality in a more human-centered way than the Selfish Gene does. It’s worth adding that one of the subsections of the chapter is called if there is no God, why be good? It’s very revealing that some people only do good things to please God. If that isn’t selfish, I don’t know what is.

I don’t know why you come up with the bizarre examples you do as a rebuttal to things I say, but all I can say is that Charlie Bucket was no thief! What did you mean by all those what if… comments anyway? You got the wrong end of the stick again. What I meant is that it doesn’t matter where our morality comes from; the point is we have it, and it has nothing at all to do with God. I feel that it is arrogant and bigoted for a religious person to feel that only religious people (doubtless only their religion) can be good. Arrogant, bigoted and wrong. Weri long wang 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Atheists are not well known for saying “I’m moral, religious people aren’t”. Religious people are well known for saying “I’m moral, atheists aren’t”. Or even “I, of religion A, am more moral than him, of religion B. That means if I fly an aeroplane into his skyscraper I’ll go to a special martyrs heaven”. People have come up with that idea in places such as Israel, New York, London, Madrid and Allah knows where else. Arrogance is indeed a mainstay of religion.

I also think it’s daft to say that “morality was invented someday”, morality (and immorality: torture, etc) has evolved with human intelligence. The bottom-line: it has nothing to do with Yahweh, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other non existent deity. It’s all to do with the human mind.

Do you want to archive your user page here: [/Archive|Archive] Weri long wang 18:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)