• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Atheists who don't hate religion

barehl said:
Nice try but that wasn't the original point. It was suggested that religious organizations were unnecessary because there were secular organizations that could do the same job. I gave an example where that is not the case. It is kind of difficult to argue that people are being less religious by volunteering when other groups are not.
Click to expand...

Your example just doesn't work. As I said, "the less religious, the better the result". Nothing new there.
 
barehl said:
None of these categories are strictly limited to religion. Each can have secular abuses. I think the only real conclusion is not that religion itself is bad but that situations where a monolithic ideology is prevalent are likely to be abused in some fashion. So, when a free flow of ideas is present there is no reason to assume that religion would have an especially negative influence. I'll admit that I can't think of that many examples where this has happened though on a large scale. The call for Vatican II back in 1962 is one and the current Interfaith Alliance is another. Sadly there are so many more examples of the opposite of this such as the Association of Religious Broadcasters. I think it might be fairest to say that religion can be a positive force but it takes effort, openness, and cooperation.
Click to expand...

None of those are limited to religion, but that's not an excuse for any other entity or ideology. We don't excuse KKK on account that OTHER organizations or ideologies behave just as badly, or would behave just as badly if they could. We don't excuse Ted Bundy on account that, really, there are plenty of other people (the Taliban for a start) who'd equally want to kill a young woman who went to a stranger's house to get laid. Etc. So I'm not sure why or how that would work in favour of religion.

Plus, honestly, all you just said in that numbered list boils down to yeah, religion would be bad, if it ever got secular authority, or authority over education, and so on. Given that religion is invariably struggling to get such authority -- often via a side-step, like lobbying Uganda to execute gays, if it can't do that at home in the USA -- that sounds to me like you just made the case for why it should be fought off, contained, and prevented from ever being in a position to get such power. You just made the anti-theist case, and quite eloquently so, really. I thank you for it.

Plus, again, the same can be said for any organization we don't really encourage. The KKK is also entirely benign, if you can prevent it from having any power, or from spreading its ideology to the young 'uns. The Taliban, same idea. Hell, even the Neo Nazis are also benign, if you can prevent them from ever having the power to actually kill Jews and Blacks and whatnot, and from controlling some education outlet to indoctrinate children. Etc.

Yet for all those, we essentially decided that we don't like them anyway. Not many people would say, ah, the KKK is good and joining the KKK is harmless, because they're not in a position of power, nor control the education. The fact that if they ever got enough power, they'll be a problem, is reason enough to dislike them.
 
Last edited:
I don't think religious "charity" is really something that should be considered a necessarily redeeming quality. Let call this "charity" what it is; marketing and PR. A lot of this "charity" comes with strings attached. If producing converts and spreading the faith wasn't such a main driver of (some) religion, I don't think we would see as many religious charities as we do. Now, this doesn't take away the good that this "charity" provides, just as a corporate sponsored charities do good, but I think we should recognize it for what it is.
 
Last edited:
Gawdzilla said:
Your example just doesn't work agree with my assumptions. As I said, "the less religious, the better the result". I'll just repeat this without evidence. Nothing new there.
Click to expand...

Now that I could agree with.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
None of those are limited to religion, but that's not an excuse for any other entity or ideology.
Click to expand...

AronRa made a solid point about the category of great apes which is defined solely on the basis of excluding humans without being able to explain why. Therefore, the proper category of apes includes humans. Can you come up with an argument that excludes religion while allowing for government or other social organizations that is not based on an arbitrary exclusion. That would be a solid point if you can do it.
 
barehl said:
AronRa made a solid point about the category of great apes which is defined solely on the basis of excluding humans without being able to explain why. Therefore, the proper category of apes includes humans. Can you come up with an argument that excludes religion while allowing for government or other social organizations that is not based on an arbitrary exclusion. That would be a solid point if you can do it.
Click to expand...

Quite easy, actually. Democracy for a start. It allows us to change what the current doctrine is, rather than insist that we can't, for example, ordain women because some old fart 2000 years ago said otherwise. Actual example from the catholic church, too. Or we can decide that actually credit is good, regardless of what some cretin (Jesus) said in a sermon on a mount 2000 years ago.

You'll also notice that it resulted in a constant reduction of the people we exclude, for the last couple of hundred years.

But basically, since our friend Tommy brought up the Nirvana fallacy before, THIS is just Nirvana fallacy: all forms of organization / ideologies / whatever have some failing to various degree, therefore they're all equal, and you can't be against just one of them.

No they aren't. Even if none is perfect, some are better, some are worse.

For example both feudalism and modern western democracy are examples of human organization, and while they may share some failings, someone would have to be willfully retarded to claim that therefore we can't rate one as better than the other. Both egalitarianism and the old hindu doctrine of burning widows are ultimately ideologies, but we're pretty sure that one caused less victims than the other. Etc.

So, I hope you'll excuse me if I'm not impressed by an argument that boils down to a textbook fallacy, and quite stupidly at that.
 
barehl said:
Now that I could agree with.
Click to expand...

Who gives a flip, really? Illogical apologist presenting illogical fallacy, can only agree to a fallacious rewrite of the retort. Film at eleven.

So? Either you can actually make a sound argument, or you can't. Just rewriting something into some silliness isn't it.
 
Last edited:
First let me say I don't think that no religion = world peace. We have been killing ourselves for too many reasons, quite often very stupid ones. It would be, however, one less reason.

Let me also say I am painfully aware that religion quite often is one of the few if not the only bit of hope some people have to cling on and keep going. I also am aware of the countless works of art sponsored and/or inspired by religion as well as the also countless charity works, schools, universities and hospitals. Its roles on building and shaping communities, cultural senses, identities and our history are also fundamental.

So, yes, I understand it is imensely important for mankind.

So, this means I like religion? No. I just acknowledge its importance. This means I hate religion? Not always, but some religions, sometimes, yes. I could try to put it in a more candid way. Something like "I don't hate the religions themselves but the leaders who use them to reach and maintain power, to promote and justify prejudice, violence, oppression, authoritarianism and anti-scientific positions." Yes, that would be more acceptable for most people, it would be politically correct, more tender and cause less conflicts with theists. Many theists would even agree with me. They probably would even also point fingers at "them" because "they" are doing the wrong things in the name of god.

The problem is I would not be touching some of the key issues regarding religions- they all claim to be The Right Path To The One True Absolute Truth. Its part of their dogmas. Those who do not follow it are somehow lesser humans: they are deprived from god's light, they will burn in hell, they must be converted. The big Abrahamic religions, with the exception of Judaism, are expansionist religions. They seek to dominate, to convert the infidels. Its part of their dogmas. No real tolerance for diversity, for competition; questioning is not really allowed. They all want the monopoly on the market of faith and truth. I don't like this.

Is it bad to hate dogmas and ideologies which include prejudice, bigotry, violence and oppression?

These dogmas are present at the core of the holy texts of Abrahamic religions. They will be there, quite often forgotten, dormant, hidden. The ideology, the doctrines underneath the religious charity works, underneath the gently talking priests are supportive of prejudice, bigotry, violence and oppression. These things are integral parts of their holy texts. Every now and then someone uses these very texts to back bigotry, prejudice, lust for power and anti-science positions. I don't like this. I actually hate this.

At the moment religious authorities step out and say something like "look folks, these things are stupid and outdated, they must not be enforced and we are deeply sorry for all the damage they caused" they will actually earn my respect. Just smile and keep going on pretending they do not exist is not OK.
 
Gawdzilla said:
It's an impediment to mankind.
Click to expand...


Those aren't mutually exclusive. Consider food, gravity, mortality, language, or emotion. All impediments in their own ways, but if any one of them were to go away, we'd be up a creek.
 
Gawdzilla said:
And religion is not on the "we need it or we're up the creek" list. That's just a rationalization by believers to keep supporting the magic man.
Click to expand...


Apparently it's not, on the individual level. (Which appears to be the case for all the things I listed besides food as well. For instance, if a few people were immortal, the world as we know it could still exist.) On the level of entire societies... maybe, maybe not. What's your case? What representative examples can you exhibit?
 
Myriad said:
Apparently it's not, on the individual level. (Which appears to be the case for all the things I listed besides food as well. For instance, if a few people were immortal, the world as we know it could still exist.) On the level of entire societies... maybe, maybe not. What's your case? What representative examples can you exhibit?
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing a coherent question there.
 
The coherent question is, what evidence you have that entire societies living without religion is viable?
 
Gawdzilla said:
Okay, can you give me the URL for the news you watched on TV this morning? For the book you read yesterday? For the class work you took last year?
Click to expand...


:confused:

I could, for the first two. I didn't take any class work last year. Please explain how this is relevant to my question, and how it isn't gratuitous personalization of the discussion.

You look at religion, something that has existed in human societies at all scales almost universally, except for a few partial exceptions in the past century that did not have results anyone would want to emulate. A science that can model and predict the social effects of it or its absence doesn't exist, Hari Seldon not having been born yet. Yet you confidently conclude we'd be better off if it didn't exist. How do you know?
 
Myriad said:
:confused:

I could, for the first two. I didn't take any class work last year. Please explain how this is relevant to my question, and how it isn't gratuitous personalization of the discussion.
Click to expand...
So, you don't have any evidence of your class work? Okay then, you don't have a case. (If you can't figure out what I'm doing here I have no hope for you.)
You look at religion, something that has existed in human societies at all scales almost universally, except for a few partial exceptions in the past century that did not have results anyone would want to emulate. A science that can model and predict the social effects of it or its absence doesn't exist, Hari Seldon not having been born yet. Yet you confidently conclude we'd be better off if it didn't exist. How do you know?
Click to expand...
First, prove you didn't take classes last year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom