What is good about religion?

[scotth]

You seem to have a vested interest in blaming his craziness on Christianity. I just don't think the evidence is there to make that case. The Holocaust was Hitler's fault. It's senseless to try and lay blame like this.

I think most of us have only argued that Hitler, whatever odd mix of beliefs drove him, certainly was not an atheist. That doesn't mean I place all the blame for Hitlers attrocities at religion's feet. Nazi Germany's problem was not an overabundance of rational thinkers or lack of dogmatism. The world views of atheism, skepticism, and secular humanism are just as effective antidotes for the ills of nazism as they are for a middle Eastern theocracy.

 

[scotth]

A sensible definition of a christian is "a person that actually follows the teachings of jesus".

Ah yes, but deciding just which of those teachings to follow. That must be the hard part. (Unless you admit you use your own moral intuition to decide which teachings really are moral, and only follow those)

 

[Apology]

I think most of us have only argued that Hitler, whatever odd mix of beliefs drove him, certainly was not an atheist. That doesn't mean I place all the blame for Hitlers attrocities at religion's feet. Nazi Germany's problem was not an overabundance of rational thinkers or lack of dogmatism. The world view of atheism, skepticism, and secular humanism are just as effective antidotes for the ills of nazism as they are for a middle Eastern theocracy.

No, I think the case is clear that he wasn't an atheist either. I have argued against his atheism many times as well.

I think Hitler manipulated Christianity and committed heresy (Aryan Jesus) far too much to really be a Christian. However, he made too many religious statements in his efforts against the Jews to be considered an atheist either. From careful examination of what we do know, the only thing we can really say is that Hitler was a Hitlerist.

The Jews for the most part don't blame Christians for Hitler and the holocausts, but that's for religious reasons. Part of Judaism's practice on forgiveness is based on Christ's crucifixion. Since they do not believe they should be punished as a group for their ancestor's involvement in the crucifixion, they do not believe that they should punish all Christians for what Hitler did. Of course there are Jews that do blame Christianity, but apparently not blaming them is the standard dogma.

 

[articulett]

Well, according to most Christian theology, Hitler was forgiven because he believed in Jesus and Jesus died for all the sins of those who believe in him. So it all works out happy in the end doesn't it?

 

[Apology]

Well, according to most Christian theology, Hitler was forgiven because he believed in Jesus and Jesus died for all the sins of those who believe in him. So it all works out happy in the end doesn't it?

Now you're really stretching it. Most Christian theology says that Hitler went to hell for his sins.

 

[articulett]

Now you're really stretching it. Most Christian theology says that Hitler went to hell for his sins.

Well, according to his theology (Catholicism) you just needed to get your last rites... which he did... all sins forgiven. Presto. And for many, Christ forgives everything so long as you believe in him. Some more liberal Christians don't believe in hell. Protestantism favors belief in Christ (no sin can't be forgiven except blaspheming the holy spirit per the fundies) over good deeds.

Ask any Christian what it would take to keep a murderer out of hell (and doesn't it count if you don't do the murdering... just order others to do so?). Those in jail seem to think that all sins can be forgiven if you believe the right thing or ask forgiveness from Jesus since he died and all as a sort of "pre-payment" for future sins of humanity. So long as you don't tell them the murderer was Hitler, I think you'd be surprised what their church teaches. Sure they pretend that Hitler is in hell-- that's why they pretend he's an athiest. Christians are spared, you see. That's why they bend over backwards to make him not one of them--although he never denied a belief in god or Jesus... just some ways it was practiced... but what Christian today doesn't do that? How many people have a messiah complex--how many priests, pastors, and reverends are sure they have been called by god to do what they do as Hitler appears to have?

The fact is, that Hitler would qualify as a Christian by most peoples' definitions of what a Christian was until you told them you were talking about Hitler. And his "sins" would be forgiven according to most Christians until you told them it was "Hitler". As soon as they know you are talking about Hitler-- he wasn't a "real Christian" and he is burning in hell where the atheists go.

 

[Taffer]

The definition of a christian is not just "any person that claims to follow jesus".

This is not a sensible definition. If it were so, one could say that he believes that the NT teaches that every person has the duty to rape people with green eyes (not justifying it at all), and according to the above definition, he would be still called a christian. But it would be absurd to criticize christianity by pointing to the behaviour of such "christians".


A sensible definition of a christian is "a person that actually follows the teachings of jesus".

Do you know what the "no true scotsman" fallacy is JetLeg? You are engaging in it quite readily. Just because you don't think they are True Christians(TM) doesn't mean they don't consider themselves christian. Many different types of christianity exist. Does this mean that only ones you like are "really" christian?

 

[rocketdodger]

This is interesting, but not to the point. My question was if there is a virulent meme says you a good thing (you decide what it is) - would you opt for its existance? For example a meme that says that there is a blue invisible hypo floating around which asks us to be creative. Or a meme that says that there is a blue invisible hypo floating around which asks/commands us to have a seperation of church and state.

I said no, except for the guardian meme. The reason is that virulent memes by definition infect and overrun the minds that support them. The blue hippo meme wouldn't be virulent as you describe it -- just one of many that can happily coexist with other memes at once. Religion is not such a meme. It does not happily coexist with others.

 

[rocketdodger]

Who?

Any of the radical Islamic individuals who videotape themselves threatening me for just being an American citizen.

Any of the upper ranking members of a number of corrupt governments, such as that of North Korea, many African countries, etc.

Any of the large number of guilty convicts in the U.S. prison system.

The list goes on and on. That being said, do I go about my daily business any differently? No. I am just saying I would have no ethical qualms whatsoever about putting a bullet through these people's heads. Not out of hate, or revenge, or anything like that. Simply because I view the risks of their continued existence as greatly outweighing the benefits. But there is no room for this kind of thing (which seems pretty wise to me) in the morality of religion.



... or is there?

 

[rocketdodger]

I would very deliberately not want to use utility theory. I would much rather try to construct a moral framework from a few precepts that would be universally agreeable. Richard Carrier's "Sense and Goodness Without God" is a pretty good stab at it. I would encourage you to at least read that before abondoning ship. (That's the second time tonight I got to recommend that book)

Well we are on the same page. I just like to have a reason for "why" some precept is universally agreeable, and so far only utility theory has been able to answer that for me. Such an outlook is a little cold for some people, but then again I am a materialist and we relish those temperatures near absolute zero

 

[Apology]

Well, according to his theology (Catholicism) you just needed to get your last rites... which he did... all sins forgiven.

Catholicism requires good works as well as faith in order for salvation. Your statement is simply false.

http://pinoycatholics.blogspot.com/2007/10/faith-vs-good-works.html

I've heard the argument I've linked from many different Catholics. Catholics constantly argue with born-agains that it takes more than just being "saved". It's one of their big hot-button issues.

I'm not convinced he was a Catholic though. Historian Bradley F. Smith claimed in his book that a childhood friend of Hitler's said that Hitler never went to mass after he left his parents' home. Here's his book about Hitler:

http://www.amazon.com/Adolf-Hitler-...0886457?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193549176&sr=1-9

Also, Hitler married Eva Braun in a civil ceremony. He could have requested a priest, and, had he been Catholic, surely would have insisted upon it:

http://www.mi5.gov.uk/print/Page242.html

I think it's interesting to note that MI5, the UK government's version of the CIA, makes no mention of Hitler receiving Catholic Last Rites. They were involved in interrogating all the surviving Nazis that were involved with Hitler.

 

[scotth]

Now you're really stretching it. Most Christian theology says that Hitler went to hell for his sins.

I don't know how many times it has been explained to me, that redemption through Jesus was available to everyone. The main requirement to salvation was seeking a relationship with Jesus. Dallas/Ft Worth is full of churches that hand out tracts on this very point that end with the re-enforcing assertion that the most heinous killer, rapest, etc were still available to salvation if they genuinely accepted the redeeming power of Jesus before they died, even if happens as late as that walking to gallows so to speak, and then a list people who perform good works throughout their life, but believe some other doctrine, and they will certainly burn in hell. You don't have to be good, you just have to believe correctly.

Of course, I always thought..... now there is a doctrine for someone who wanted to do a lot of bad stuff and still feel they we going to heaven. Back to what you were saying, it seems to me that many, if not most, people who take their christianity seriously (and we have a ton of them around here, let me tall ya) would disagree with you. They would say that if Hitler accepted Jesus as his savior at the end of his life, heaven would be open to him.

 

[scotth]

Well we are on the same page. I just like to have a reason for "why" some precept is universally agreeable, and so far only utility theory has been able to answer that for me. Such an outlook is a little cold for some people, but then again I am a materialist and we relish those temperatures near absolute zero

The problem is that the utility of an idea doesn't have to have much to do with the truth of the idea. I am sure that belief in the afterlife has been conforting to many people over the ages, I that would seem to qualify as being of great utility to some.

 

[JetLeg]

Do you know what the "no true scotsman" fallacy is JetLeg?

No.

Just because you don't think they are True Christians(TM) doesn't mean they don't consider themselves christian. Many different types of christianity exist.

Yes, and I pointed the absurdity in saying that any person who thinks he follows Jesus could be called a christian.

According to your proposal, any hypocrite can read his own ideas into the bible, and call himself a christian. For example, a person that claims that christianity teaches to rape children (not giving justifications at all). Would you consider such a person a christian?

For example, is "A Newtonist" someone that actually understands his 3 laws? That would be my definition. Defining "A newtonist" as someone who thinks he follows newton would give rise to the absurd possibility who thinks that Newton's 3 laws are about our ability to jump from the roof and fly, "A newtonist".

Does this mean that only ones you like are "really" christian?

Hm... In order for my definition to be entirely consistent, I have to say that we must understand what jesus really meant in his teaching. When we decifer this, then we can see who really follows his teaching, and who gets it wrongly.

 

[JetLeg]

Any of the radical Islamic individuals who videotape themselves threatening me for just being an American citizen.

Any of the upper ranking members of a number of corrupt governments, such as that of North Korea, many African countries, etc.

Any of the large number of guilty convicts in the U.S. prison system.

The list goes on and on. That being said, do I go about my daily business any differently? No. I am just saying I would have no ethical qualms whatsoever about putting a bullet through these people's heads. Not out of hate, or revenge, or anything like that. Simply because I view the risks of their continued existence as greatly outweighing the benefits. But there is no room for this kind of thing (which seems pretty wise to me) in the morality of religion.

... or is there?

Bold added by me. Funny that you say that. I would think that you are against death penalty.

(Off-topic)

 

[rocketdodger]

The problem is that the utility of an idea doesn't have to have much to do with the truth of the idea. I am sure that belief in the afterlife has been conforting to many people over the ages, I that would seem to qualify as being of great utility to some.

But does it have more utility than the alternative? I don't think so. The reason utility theory doesn't currently lead to an optimum morality in most people is that they don't know the utility of all their options. In theory, though, it works out fine.

 

[Upchurch]

Hm... In order for my definition to be entirely consistent, I have to say that we must understand what jesus really meant in his teaching. When we decifer this, then we can see who really follows his teaching, and who gets it wrongly.

Given that Jesus is not around to tell us what he really meant, how can we make this determination?

I'll point out that this has been a topic of discussion for about two thousand years and it still hasn't been definitively resolved.

 

[rocketdodger]

Bold added by me. Funny that you say that. I would think that you are against death penalty.

I am, extremely so, among other reasons because I do not accept trial by jury as a valid path to justice. I also think the idea of any "punishment" in general is immoral. In my opinion, prison should not be for "punishment" but rather just "segregation."

I think killing people out of punishment is stupid and evil. However, I think killing people because their existence offers more risk (to the rest of us) than benefit is very smart and not evil at all. Judging those risks and benefits is not always easy, but in the cases where it is, there is nothing wrong with pulling the trigger and making the world a better place.

 

[JetLeg]

Given that Jesus is not around to tell us what he really meant, how can we make this determination?

Well, we have to do our best.

We have to think hard, and try to do our best. A person should try to understand what Jesus really meant. Then he could say that the persons who don't do that are not christian.

Just as we can define who is "A true newtonian" - someone that understands and propages the 3 laws of newton. At least we can try and do our best.

 

[scotth]

Well, we have to do our best.

We have to think hard, and try to do our best. A person should try to understand what Jesus really meant. Then he could say that the persons who don't do that are not Christian.

Just as we can define who is "A true newtonian" - someone that understands and propages the 3 laws of newton. At least we can try and do our best.

There is a huge difference. Newton wrote an incredibly lucid book, himself. If you understand what he wrote you will be able to accurately predict many things involve the location of bodies in the future, given its current location, movement direction and amplitude, and relevant gravitational fields. There is no equivalent methods to demonstrate you understand Jesus's intent. You can't even establish Jesus existed in anything like the form portrayed by the Christian churches.

Jesus's words as quoted in bible are perfectly and clearly ridiculous and/or digesting in many instance. And all this "thinking hard and trying your best" indicates that the bible must be a pretty poor source from which to derive your morals, or it wouldn't be such a struggle. You are, in effect, admitting that you are trying to choose the good moral lessons yourself, from the mixed bag presented by the bible. I again suggest you'll have better luck by tossing that whole stack of superstition out and just trying to figure out what is right completely unencumbered by by bronze age ignorance.