Book Burning

[Thorne]

It was always my view of science that, if it could not prove something, then it had no comment to make, not that it rejected and denied that thing absolutely. Science is perfectly happy to allow things to be posited without proof; it just won't accept them as fact.

And I have not denied anything absolutely. I have stated repeatedly that evidence for gods does NOT exist, and that there is no need to assume that they do just because some people want to believe in them.

If I am right, then science does not deny the existence of god - it simply has nothing to say about it one way or the other, and that is the end of the matter.

Exactly my point! Except to say that many of the things which were once presumed to be actions of gods have been explained as natural processes, ones which do not require the assumption of a god to occur. Lightning, volcanoes, earthquakes were all once thought to be manifestations of the gods. We now understand the natural forces which cause these phenomena much better, and nowhere do we require the actions of a god for them.

If it is objected that one can't prove a negative (there is no god), then prove that the existence of god is a scientific impossibility (there can be no god).

I read a book, called "God: The Failed Hypothesis" which, while it does not prove that gods cannot exist, makes a pretty good argument that the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, Yahweh or Jehovah, cannot exist as defined by those beliefs. But you are right, there is no proof that gods do not exist, just as there is no proof that they do. There is also no proof that comets are not messengers of the gods, sent to warn us of impending doom. There's just no reason to believe that they are.

That is why I say the book-burners are equally responsible for the deaths caused in the subsequent protest riots as the rioters, because those deaths were within their contemplation (or should have been) as they set light to the sacred documents they despise.

I don't know about how equal the responsibility should be, but I do agree that they are at least somewhat responsible. Here in the US, the law says that anyone participating in a felony is equally responsible for anything which happens during the commission of that felony. Fortunately, book burning is NOT a felony, but knowingly inciting someone to murder is.

The more important issue here, though, is that too many people around the world are kowtowing to the Muslim fanatics out of fear of reprisals. The reaction to this book burning is far in excess of the act itself. Killing innocent people because their religion was insulted? That is just insane! And such insanity needs to be stopped.

Is book-burning an expression of free speech? To my way of thinking, that is a perverse argument - it is the very opposite, the suppression of ideas, knowledge and free thought, and the great irony is that the perpetrators of these oppressive acts espouse freedom and equality as if they are the sole guardians of such precious liberties.

Like many other actions, a lot depends upon the context. Were these burners attempting to destroy all existing copies of the Koran? No, that's absurd. Were they trying to prevent people from reading the book? Nope. Were they making a statement about the followers of that book? Yes, they were. That, therefore, is free speech. We may not like what they are saying, but they do have the right to say it. At least in the US they do. Personally, I think they need to go one step further. They should buy several copies of the Koran and burn them in the central square of Mecca. Then let the chips fall where they may.

[MMI]

And I have not denied anything absolutely. I have stated repeatedly that evidence for gods does NOT exist, and that there is no need to assume that they do just because some people want to believe in them.

I'm not really attacking you on this one, Thorne. I'm on your side, but less vehement in my denial and less contemptuous (seemingly) of those who do believe. We are, after all, talking about nothing.

I read a book, called "God: The Failed Hypothesis" which, while it does not prove that gods cannot exist, makes a pretty good argument that the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, Yahweh or Jehovah, cannot exist as defined by those beliefs. But you are right, there is no proof that gods do not exist, just as there is no proof that they do. There is also no proof that comets are not messengers of the gods, sent to warn us of impending doom. There's just no reason to believe that they are.

That's a start then. It might be necessary to debunk (scientifically, of course) each god individually, but there's nothing wrong with that.

(Pity the poor scientist who has to prove the 330 million hindu gods deities cannot exist ... maybe he'll just confine himself to proving the Supreme One cannot exist.)

I don't know about how equal the responsibility should be, but I do agree that they are at least somewhat responsible. Here in the US, the law says that anyone participating in a felony is equally responsible for anything which happens during the commission of that felony. Fortunately, book burning is NOT a felony, but knowingly inciting someone to murder is.

I imagine US law also makes people responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions and penalises the negligent or reckless disregard of those consequences

The more important issue here, though, is that too many people around the world are kowtowing to the Muslim fanatics out of fear of reprisals. The reaction to this book burning is far in excess of the act itself. Killing innocent people because their religion was insulted? That is just insane! And such insanity needs to be stopped.


Like many other actions, a lot depends upon the context. Were these burners attempting to destroy all existing copies of the Koran? No, that's absurd. Were they trying to prevent people from reading the book? Nope. Were they making a statement about the followers of that book? Yes, they were. That, therefore, is free speech. We may not like what they are saying, but they do have the right to say it. At least in the US they do. Personally, I think they need to go one step further. They should buy several copies of the Koran and burn them in the central square of Mecca. Then let the chips fall where they may.

I can't think of any instance where anyone has kowtowed to Moslem fanatics - enlighten me, please. Certainly it is wise to take steps to protect oneself against future terrorist acts by such fanatics, but that's not submission. It is also true that we make arrangements that involve arming and financing them, but that's only done to further our own interests, so I don't count that as being subservient to them in any way, either.

The real point is that Pastor Jones knew or should have known (and I believe he calculated) what the reaction to the burning of a single copy of the Koran in circumstances designed to upset any member of the Moslem faith, not just its hard-liners, and surrounded by world-wide publicity, would be; and the mock-trial that took place was a further display of contempt, just to sugar the pill. Now you and I know that it's absurd to react that way just because one's religion is insulted, but it's nonetheless a fact that otherwise sensible and moderate people see red mist in front of their eyes when matters of religion are mishandled. I know Americans value free speech rather more highly than Europeans do (although, as an aside, it is interesting to note how many Americans use European law to stifle the expression of viewpoints they find distasteful), but I'm sure it does not continue to uphold people's liberty to say what they like when such speech is likely to cause civil unrest, personal injury or death.

[Thorne]

We are, after all, talking about nothing.

It's truly a tempest in a teapot!*

That's a start then. It might be necessary to debunk (scientifically, of course) each god individually, but there's nothing wrong with that.

(Pity the poor scientist who has to prove the 330 million hindu gods deities cannot exist ... maybe he'll just confine himself to proving the Supreme One cannot exist.)

It shouldn't be at all necessary. One of the maxims of the scientific method is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone wants to make the extraordinary claim that an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being created the universe in six days (though we're not sure why it took him so long), created men and women (though why women were needed at that point, since they weren't having sex, we don't know), placed them into a garden and told them they could have anything in that garden except that tree (Oh, now I understand why the woman was there!), then tossed them out when they ate from that tree (even though he knew they would do so even before he made the universe), then he'd better have some damned extraordinary evidence to prove his assertions. Otherwise it's not more factual than the story of Hansel and Gretel.

I imagine US law also makes people responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions and penalises the negligent or reckless disregard of those consequences

Yes it does, but while the consequences of this book burning were definitely foreseeable, they were anything but reasonable.


* (See Russell's teapot)

[leo9]

The real point is that Pastor Jones knew or should have known (and I believe he calculated) what the reaction to the burning of a single copy of the Koran in circumstances designed to upset any member of the Moslem faith, not just its hard-liners, and surrounded by world-wide publicity, would be; and the mock-trial that took place was a further display of contempt, just to sugar the pill. Now you and I know that it's absurd to react that way just because one's religion is insulted, but it's nonetheless a fact that otherwise sensible and moderate people see red mist in front of their eyes when matters of religion are mishandled.

As I've noted before, if I were to ceremoniously and with great publicity burn a Bible in Pastor Jones' parish, I doubt if all his followers would politely agree to respect my right of free speech.

This is also a fine example of the way enemies co-operate to stir up a war. Despite his best efforts, Jones would probably have failed to cause an incident if Hamid Karzai hadn't helped him along by shouting outrage over Afghan radio. (This is why it took so long for the riots to happen.) Which incidentally shows that whatever other kind of rogue and fool he is, Karzai is no Western puppet: his US minders would certainly have stopped him if they could.

I know Americans value free speech rather more highly than Europeans do (although, as an aside, it is interesting to note how many Americans use European law to stifle the expression of viewpoints they find distasteful), but I'm sure it does not continue to uphold people's liberty to say what they like when such speech is likely to cause civil unrest, personal injury or death.

It's a judgement call, figuratively and literally, and one that gets regularly tested in the courts both here and in the US. An episode of "Law and Order" broadcast on our networks recently dealt with the dilemma where a US Nazi had been making speeches telling his followers to kill gays, and one of them did: could the leader be indited for murder, given that he hadn't named the actual victim, and should they try, given the implications for free speech?

[thir]

That's a start then. It might be necessary to debunk (scientifically, of course) each god individually, but there's nothing wrong with that.

Why is that neccesary?

What I mean is, why is it so important to prove that god does not exist?

[Thorne]

What I mean is, why is it so important to prove that god does not exist?

Primarily because there are people, especially here in the US, who want to force all Americans to accept their god as the one TRUE god. They are constantly trying to create a theocracy in the US, one which I believe would rival the Taliban in barbarity.

It's important because of the amount of harm done to people in the name of religion, from cults which kill their children because they disdain modern medicine, to those who destroy children's lives in the name of their gods.

But since we cannot prove that gods don't exist we have to be happy with exposing those who perpetuate evil in the names of those gods, and show people that the religion which tries to maintain a hold upon them is far more evil than any demons or devils that religion claims to fight against.

[MMI]

Science will always be too limited, since science studies the natural world, not a supernatural one. In the supernatural world, anyone can make up anything they happen to think of and claim it to be true, simply because no one can prove them wrong. In the natural world, you must provide evidence, testable evidence, for your claims.

You have responded to my other points in detail, Thorne, and while I personally do agree with your sentiments in general, I still think you have missed the point, and because of that, you persist in your Quixotic tilting at religious windmills. Gods are, or are believed to be, supernatural. That means that any attempt to restrict them to the narrow confines of the physical universe, to the laws of nature, or within the boundaries of the real world is doomed to failure, and any sensible person, once he realises this, will accept that it is impossible and futile to continue to try to define god in earthly terms.

That, really, answers your objections as to proving the existence of gods or otherwise completely.

Gee. I never get compliments like that!

It is a rare event when I do, too, and for that reason, it is a greatly appreciated one. Thank-you den

I AM accepting and tolerant! Until they start trying to force their beliefs on me, or anyone else. Until they start using those beliefs to justify the harm they do to others. Until they refuse to accept and tolerate my LACK of belief!

I have never seen on this site any attempts to force you or anyone else to believe in a god or gods in general. I have also never seen any attacks on atheism as vehement and as zealous as I have seen atheists proclaim the righteousness of their views above those of anyone else, based on their limited scientific viewpoints as we have just seen.

Your freedom to believe that this is as good as it gets is under no threat from anyone here. I wonder if you have chosen the wrong forum to proselytise on behalf of your creed of emptiness.

Why is that neccesary?

What I mean is, why is it so important to prove that god does not exist?

Excellent question. I don't think it is at all necessary, other than for intellectual exercise. The people Thorne blames religion for making evil would be just as bad without religion. They'd probably tie their colours to one political mast or another instead - as so many others do already.

[MMI]

I don't think it is at all necessary, other than for intellectual exercise.

I've just mulled that over for a bit. Since the pro-god side says, You can't prove God exists, because that is beyond proof, and the anti-god side says, You can't prove God doesn't exist because you can't reduce the supposed nature of God into scientific terms, I wonder if any attempt to prove or disprove God is more an exercise in foolishness than an intellectual exercise.

[Thorne]

I've just mulled that over for a bit. Since the pro-god side says, You can't prove God exists, because that is beyond proof, and the anti-god side says, You can't prove God doesn't exist because you can't reduce the supposed nature of God into scientific terms, I wonder if any attempt to prove or disprove God is more an exercise in foolishness than an intellectual exercise.

Perhaps you are right. And if religion were not so pervasive, here in the US far more than in the UK as I understand it, I might agree that it is foolishness. But as things stand I feel it is an important question with far-ranging effects on everyone's lives. As for proving something does NOT exist, it will always be impossible. I can't prove a three-legged flapdoodle doesn't exist somewhere in the universe. All I can ever say is that there is no credible evidence that one DOES exist. And the same is true about gods. (Though given the immensity and complexity of the universe, I rather think a three-legged flapdoodle is far more likely to be real.)

[denuseri]

It is a rare event when I do, too, and for that reason, it is a greatly appreciated one. Thank-you den

Your ever so welcome kind Sir.

The people Thorne blames religion for making evil would be just as bad without religion. They'd probably tie their colours to one political mast or another instead - as so many others do already.

Just like they did in the Soviet Union and China when those places banned all religions save that of state sponsered aetheism.

[Thorne]

Just like they did in the Soviet Union and China when those places banned all religions save that of state sponsered aetheism.

Ahh yes, those old bogeymen. Those were COMMUNIST governments, not atheist governments. They banned religions because religions usurped too much power from the state, reducing the control the PEOPLE running those governments could impose upon their populations. They simply replaced gods with their Supreme Councils, or whatever title they gave them. Just as Islamic governments ban all non-Islamic religions in order to maintain control. Just as some Christian nations once banned all non-Christian religions. In every case it was an attempt to maintain control. These are very different from SECULAR governments. I don't want to BAN religions, just remove their influence from the government.

[Thorne]

Gods are, or are believed to be, supernatural. That means that any attempt to restrict them to the narrow confines of the physical universe, to the laws of nature, or within the boundaries of the real world is doomed to failure, and any sensible person, once he realises this, will accept that it is impossible and futile to continue to try to define god in earthly terms.

Then why do theists keep trying to do so? I'm not defining gods, after all. I'm trying to find evidence for them, or not. Regardless of their nature, if they are of any import in the physical world they have to have some impact on that world. Something which has happened which cannot be explained in any other way. If they do not exist then there are no impacts and no reason to worship them, as all evidence to date has indicated. If they DO exist and they still do not impact our world, then what is the reason to worship them? Their existence is moot.

I have never seen on this site any attempts to force you or anyone else to believe in a god or gods in general. I have also never seen any attacks on atheism as vehement and as zealous as I have seen atheists proclaim the righteousness of their views above those of anyone else, based on their limited scientific viewpoints as we have just seen.

On this site, no. But look at some of the legislation being put forward in the US right now. Look at the Texas Board of Education. They are aimed directly at non-believers, or different-believers. They are attempting to force faith-based laws onto everyone. And look up information about Atheist Advertisements, and how those ads are vehemently denounced by (some) religious people, and how they are defaced by "good" Christians around the US. A simple message such as, "It's OK to be Good without God!" has these "loving" theists gathering the wood for the witch burning.

Your freedom to believe that this is as good as it gets is under no threat from anyone here. I wonder if you have chosen the wrong forum to proselytise on behalf of your creed of emptiness.

I do post my opinions elsewhere, true. But this is one of the few places where I can get reasonable and intelligent arguments from believers of such diverse faiths. Besides, I like it here!

The people Thorne blames religion for making evil would be just as bad without religion. They'd probably tie their colours to one political mast or another instead - as so many others do already.

Absolutely. People are people, everywhere. But as I see it, this kind of person finds it easier to manipulate people through their fears of their own mortality and lack of understanding of reality. Religion has always been used as a tool for suppression. It's simply my belief that removing religion from the political landscape gives that kind of person less room to maneuver, makes them easier to identify for the vile person he or she might be.