That's not true, many of us are. I am, for example.
Last edited:
What is good about religion?
- Thread starter articulett
- Start date
-
- Tags
- patcondell youtube
That's not true, many of us are. I am, for example.
Apology
This title intentionally left blank
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,126
I just said in my last post that I don't believe they have the same level of religiousity.
I never said that Bush was a good president. I said that we don't need him to be a fundamentalist to show he's a bad president, his record stands for itself.
I've said many times on this board that I'm agnostic. I don't have any faith. None whatsoever. All I want is for atheists to make arguments that are good arguments---ones that are better than the ones that people on the religious right are making.
Faith itself is no more deserving of respect than any other belief. It's the faithful that deserve our respect. They deserve to not be painted with a broad brush of fundamentalism when most of them disagree with fundamentalists just like everyone else. They are our friends, our family members, and our co-workers. They are our fellow Americans, our teachers, and even our spouses or lovers sometimes. They deserve better than they are getting right now. They deserve better than to be told that they were in favor of Hitler and helped get Bush elected when many of them also think Hitler and Bush are just horrible. They deserve the same things that all Americans deserve. When you insult Christians you insult nearly everyone in the United States. I don't think that's right. I don't think that 80% of the nation is deserving of our disrespect because they disagree with us as to whether God is real or not.
As for what religion is good for, I think your language idea was pretty good. I'd add Art up until the Renaissance. Believers seem to get some sort of sense of community from religion from what I gather (see Beth's thread.) As an agnostic I don't have much use for religion either.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
I think you've confused the criticism of a belief system with criticism of believers-- which is another thing faith teaches. You stick up for your family, faith, and country-- They are not the same. You can see that with critiques of Scientology--but people cannot see that with their own faith. You can critique the belief that North Koreans have had inflicted upon them with no choice of their own--you can understand it-- and you can also criticize it without criticizing. I think most people believe what they are told is true by the people they trust. And that religion encourages believers to be afraid of not believing it--like when you tried to make me afraid of Hillary and Bush tells us "we must fight them there so they don't fight us here"... I don't like that. The way I feel towards the faithful is the way you might feel towards a loved one caught in a cult that you know cannot be true. If it's harmless or the person is not that important to me, I don't think I'd say anything... but I sure wouldn't offer my deference for the lunacy. I'm mostly silent regarding peoples' beliefs around me until or unless they say something and assume my agreement. I've had my family members say "Hitler was an atheist..." and "Of course all people were born in original sin..." both imply that I agree. I don't. Neither statement is supported by evidence, both are designed to promote a viewpoint that I find harmful and wrong.
As for respecting the faithful and their opinions... I do... to the same extent that they respect mine. Often I find they don't even ask my opinion; they presume I think like they do. And then I wonder if my silence and deference is part of the problem.
As for respecting the faithful and their opinions... I do... to the same extent that they respect mine. Often I find they don't even ask my opinion; they presume I think like they do. And then I wonder if my silence and deference is part of the problem.
Apology
This title intentionally left blank
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,126
These are all laudable things Articulett. I've never said that everything religion does is good or right. I agree with you that there are many bad things about religion. I work hard against those wrongs I see religion doing. I try to convince the religious that they are wrong about things like prayer in school and atheists being immoral frequently.
The thing is, it's impossible to be disrespectful of faith without making the faithful feel attacked across the board. When moderate Christians hear atheists blaming them for Hitler, they move closer to the fundamentalists and away from what is right. They do support us from time to time against the far religious right, otherwise abortion and prayer in schools would still be legal. They are convinced by our arguments from time to time, provided that we don't begin the argument by insulting them. They voted with us to get Bill Clinton elected----twice. Rather than driving them away, let's draw them in closer to us so they will continue to help us. There aren't enough atheists to accomplish much on our own. We need them much more than you seem to think we do.
Now, if you want to get together to bash Fred Phelps, I'm all for it. He's a monster. Most Christians agree with us on that. High five.
Also, I apologize for making you afraid to vote for Hilary. I was being too sarcastic. I doubt that Hilary will do much more religious posturing after she's elected. All politicians speak with forked tongue and pander to religion because they take every vote they can get. I think Hilary will make America swing back towards a more moderate position and she might be able to get us out of this dumb war, although I'm starting to think that nobody can do that. She's also in favor of social programs, which is one of my pet issues. Again, my apologies.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Yes, but in the reverse--you can't criticize faith without all the faithful come rushing up to defend their faith. The dirty secret is that in order for to have their faith respected--the faithful have got to at least pay lip service to respecting other faiths. If attacking faith makes people defensive, that might be good. It might make them ask themselves what their faith is good for if it can't handle scrutiny. If people hear themselves feeling attacked when it's pointed out that Hitler was a Christian, they might be a more likely to stop spreading the rumor that Hitler was an atheist and other falsities that promote prejudice against non belief and make the faithful feel more moral just by virtue of believing some unbelievable story. The problem with faith-- is the competition to see who is the most faithful-- who god or allah likes the most... who is the most enlightened, the most right, the most moral, who follows the letter of whatever text the closest or the rightest with the truest interpretation. After all, if "faith" is good and god likes faith-- why not give him your all-- especially when the stakes are so high-- eternity!
Mostly I leave religious folks alone-- I figure the ones who preach here are fair game... I understand lots of people need religion especially when it's instilled such fear about letting it go--but I hope that it fades and real facts grow. I think we've outgrown it. I don't mention Hitler's Christianity unless someone tries to pretend that morality comes from religion or that atheism leads to evil or that Hitler was an atheist. I do think religion is very responsible for spreading fear and distrust and lies about atheism... pretending that those who don't have the "fear of god" or a book of his demands will be off sinning willy nilly-- I understand faith and the faithful. I was raised with religion. I thought that what it was good for was obvious-- but then I tried to figure out what exactly it WAS good for... and I never really found anything. I wish I'd have had adults like myself to share what I was thinking with, and I'm glad there are adults around for other doubters to talk to. I'm a grown up... I want a rational world where problems are addressed rationally. I feel like the guy in the tape. I'm glad I can go online and express it. I am smiley in most of my daily life, but I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who finds this creeping "faith" scary. I hope for some consciousness raising and fewer people inflicting it on kids. When I had my kid, people would say things like you need to raise them with religion, but they were always vague as to why. I didn't really think it did me much good, and without a good reason, I sure don't see a reason to inflict it upon the young and the trusting.
I am fine with faith people use for themselves. I am not fine with people telling me what god wants for me. On a skeptics forum, I am a little freer with my criticisms of faith than I dare be in real life. I consider my goals and potential outcomes before blurting-- or at least I try.
Mostly I leave religious folks alone-- I figure the ones who preach here are fair game... I understand lots of people need religion especially when it's instilled such fear about letting it go--but I hope that it fades and real facts grow. I think we've outgrown it. I don't mention Hitler's Christianity unless someone tries to pretend that morality comes from religion or that atheism leads to evil or that Hitler was an atheist. I do think religion is very responsible for spreading fear and distrust and lies about atheism... pretending that those who don't have the "fear of god" or a book of his demands will be off sinning willy nilly-- I understand faith and the faithful. I was raised with religion. I thought that what it was good for was obvious-- but then I tried to figure out what exactly it WAS good for... and I never really found anything. I wish I'd have had adults like myself to share what I was thinking with, and I'm glad there are adults around for other doubters to talk to. I'm a grown up... I want a rational world where problems are addressed rationally. I feel like the guy in the tape. I'm glad I can go online and express it. I am smiley in most of my daily life, but I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who finds this creeping "faith" scary. I hope for some consciousness raising and fewer people inflicting it on kids. When I had my kid, people would say things like you need to raise them with religion, but they were always vague as to why. I didn't really think it did me much good, and without a good reason, I sure don't see a reason to inflict it upon the young and the trusting.
I am fine with faith people use for themselves. I am not fine with people telling me what god wants for me. On a skeptics forum, I am a little freer with my criticisms of faith than I dare be in real life. I consider my goals and potential outcomes before blurting-- or at least I try.
Last edited:
Apology
This title intentionally left blank
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,126
Yes, yes, you have it exactly. When we criticize faith, the faithful do come rushing out to defend it. This includes the ones who will sometimes side with us. This includes our families, and our friends. That's why I believe it's so important to be careful what we say and to choose our battles wisely. We don't want to alienate those members of the faithful that are sometimes on our side.
That's not to say that we can't criticize faith at all---we just need to be justified in every criticism, and not waste our time on arguments that aren't well justified. That's why I think it's worth the time to debate things like George Bush's religion even though I hate the guy too. I want to be sure that the argument is a good, rational argument that's very hard to refute, lest we prove nothing and accomplish nothing other than adding to the anti-atheist sentiment which already and provably exists in this country.
I agree with you here, they are fair game, but I would like to see the JREF as a place for civil debate. I'm not talking about you here, but it seems like people are a little too quick around here to call people liars and frauds when personally I think they might be just a little deluded, mistaken, or possibly the victims of a fraud themselves.
That sounds good to me. I'm not fine with people telling me I'm going to hell either. We actually have a lot of things we agree about.
I am not even fine with the faith people keep for themselves.
Their faith skews their judgment in ways that affect all of society. I am injured by the faith of others on a near daily basis. Sometimes the injury is as minor as being forced to drive an extra 20 minutes to find a liquor store, because the Southern Baptists in the area won't allow a liquor store in city limits. But, there is always something.
What religion is doing to politics, to education, and to scientific research in this country is what scares me the most. For example, we are not funding stem cell research at the federal level because of what many people in this nation believe about conception and the fetal acquisition of the soul, on no evidence whatsoever.
The over arching largest danger of religion is it's general indoctrination of fuzzy headed magical thinking into the population. It is the same kind of thinking that puts people susceptible to homeopathy, mediums, psychics, and all manner of fraud.
Their faith skews their judgment in ways that affect all of society. I am injured by the faith of others on a near daily basis. Sometimes the injury is as minor as being forced to drive an extra 20 minutes to find a liquor store, because the Southern Baptists in the area won't allow a liquor store in city limits. But, there is always something.
What religion is doing to politics, to education, and to scientific research in this country is what scares me the most. For example, we are not funding stem cell research at the federal level because of what many people in this nation believe about conception and the fetal acquisition of the soul, on no evidence whatsoever.
The over arching largest danger of religion is it's general indoctrination of fuzzy headed magical thinking into the population. It is the same kind of thinking that puts people susceptible to homeopathy, mediums, psychics, and all manner of fraud.
Last edited:
Wikipedia is your friend.
So, by your own definition, you cannot say who are "true christians" because you do not know what Jesus really meant. Hell, you can't even prove he even existed. So far, your definition is useless.
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
Meanwhile... back in the real world...
What is the basis for this assumption?
Using christianity as a 'real world' example, the assumption seems exceedingly ill-founded, considering the widespread ignorance of what would otherewise prevent hatred and war: the "new commandment"
The Commandment to Love
- No mention of invading Iraq etc.
- No mention of persecuting homosexuals etc.
- No mention of oppressing women etc.
However, for those so-called christians who don't fancy the prospect of 'loving everyone', they can simply flip back a few pages, to the Good Ole Testament:
Joshua 6:21-27 (New International Version)
Adherents simply cherry-pick their rule books in order to justify whatever they want to do, so don't be surprised when sermons delivered from the pulpit of the Gregarian cathedral fail to foster kindness, compassion and charity in the congregation... those who fancy a spot of canine butchering won't be listening
Transcript of Richard Dawkins reading The God Delusion
The moral right to ignore the commandment to love everyone?
"What is the basis for my assumption?" You can call it an argument from incredulity, but I simply do not believe that of the billions of people who are raised in some sort of theistic environment, none of them take what we would call the "good" messages of their religion to heart. Since my original statement was merely that some people learn ethics from religion, the fact that many others do not doesn't seem relevant to me, although we can both agree on it.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Yes... but then you sound like you are deriving your morality from other sources and crediting religion for it. I seem to have incorporated the good messages without religion bludgeoning it in to me. Clergy who molest children seem to think they got the important parts of their morality from religion too. Just because people think their morality comes from god or religion, doesn't make it so-- and it makes them ignorant to the actual people and processes responsible for their good behavior while blinding them or making biblical excuses for their bigotry and worse.
I see what you're saying, but it doesn't seem fair to me to say that someone's religious upbringing didn't "really" teach him morality simply because he could have gotten it elsewhere.
For example, I would generally credit my parents and the way they raised me for how my moral system developed. But had I been orphaned as a baby, and adopted by someone else, I might still have developed in very much the same way, morally. In theory there are millions of people who could have taught me my current moral system, but in actuality, it was primarily the work of two people, my parents. The fact that I could have gotten my moral elsewhere, and the fact that billions of people manage to get their morality without even knowing my parents doesn't make them any less responsible for it.
It's sort of similar, I think. The fact that you gained morality without religion doesn't mean that religion isn't a "real" source of morality, any more than your gaining morality without being raised by my parents doesn't mean that their parentage wasn't a "real" source of morality.
For example, I would generally credit my parents and the way they raised me for how my moral system developed. But had I been orphaned as a baby, and adopted by someone else, I might still have developed in very much the same way, morally. In theory there are millions of people who could have taught me my current moral system, but in actuality, it was primarily the work of two people, my parents. The fact that I could have gotten my moral elsewhere, and the fact that billions of people manage to get their morality without even knowing my parents doesn't make them any less responsible for it.
It's sort of similar, I think. The fact that you gained morality without religion doesn't mean that religion isn't a "real" source of morality, any more than your gaining morality without being raised by my parents doesn't mean that their parentage wasn't a "real" source of morality.
Apology
This title intentionally left blank
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,126
Well then, Scott, you're going to be unhappy a lot. You need Christians to reach your goals, not because they're Christians, or because there is anything special about Christianity, but because they're 80% of the country, and atheists are around 3%. If you antagonize them you can expect them to turn on you, even the liberal Christians who might have agreed with you about keeping prayer out of schools, keeping abortions legal, and forwarding stem cell research.
Who can blame them? Who among us would listen to "Your beliefs are wrong, you're stupid for believing them, please sign my petition?" Did "You're not a real citizen because you're an atheist, please vote for me in the next election," work on you when George Bush Sr. said it? I don't think it worked on anybody, even the Christians. Bush Sr. was voted out in favor of Clinton in the next election.
I get that you're hurt by religion in various ways; I'm hurt by them too. I know first-hand how vile and oppressive prayer in schools can be, and I'm infuriated every time someone tries to undo all my good work and my parents' good work to sneak them back in. However, I don't blame Christianity as a whole for the problems that I have. That's because to do that is to blame all Christians for the problems caused by a few ignorant sacks who don't even understand their own religion.
Another point I'd like to make is that many of the dumb things Christians do aren't actually seated in their religion. If you can sit down with a Christian and a Bible and show them that it doesn't say what they think it does, you have an ENORMOUS opportunity for success. A lot of Christians don't read the whole Bible. They take people's word for it, like the pastor or their parents and friends, and they never actually check it out for themselves. Some parts of the Bible are very popular and are used over and over again in sermons and the like; usually the parts that contradict the popular ones are rarely used, and fodder for ammunition. With a basic idea of what's in there and a good understanding of how to use a search engine, you can use the Bible against Christians as evidence as quickly and easily as you'd use Google. If you start out by insulting them, they'll get all righteous on you, and then you'll never know what a fine sport Competitive Bible can be.
One of my proudest moments as an unbeliever is when I convinced an old woman that it was all right for her to marry again now that her husband had passed away. There's a part in Paul's gospel (worst Christian evar, btw) where he encourages widows to remarry so that they will not be tempted to sin. This lady missed that part, and only heard the part about how if you separate or divorce you can never marry again. All the other Baptist pastors in the town where she lived except hers agreed with me. Hers was just nuts. Got a message from her later, she said she changed churches and remarried. Unfortunately, she says it only goes to show that the Lord works in mysterious ways, sending an unbeliever to help her find her way back on the path to God
but hey, at least she didn't have to die all sad and alone.I know you all wonder what my agenda is, and why I would debate with you about some of this stuff if I presumably don't believe in God either. I've stated my agenda again and again, upfront and from the start. I want atheists to make better arguments against Christians. I want to see arguments that can't be refuted easily. I want to see them presented in a manner in which they can be effective. I don't want Christians pissed off, hurt, and angry; I want them to listen. There's no other way to get them to listen other than to present our arguments to them in a fashion that is sensitive to them.
The JREF is a unique and wonderful place. I would never dream of going into an atheist forum and telling you all how to act. That's your place to say what you will about Christians in the privacy of your own forum and I support it. I expect you to make fun of them there, and it's your right to do so. I would never dream of trying to do something like that on a Christian forum either. It's like bursting into someone's home and telling them that their hospitality sucks. The JREF, however, is a public forum, where everyone with an argument is free to give it a shot. You can practice here the arguments that you want to use in the real world and fine-tune them until they are nearly irrefutable---then you can go out and effect positive, peaceful change. That's the power of the JREF, and it's a pretty great gift.
I'm hoping that my ideas about debating religion will catch on and will be taken back to those more exclusive, private forums, so I will summarize it: The real issue, ladies and gentlemen, is not whether Christianity is right or not, or whether faith itself is deserving of respect, but rather, how are we to deal with this giant sea of Christians that are surrounding us, and how can we realistically effect peaceful change.
Last edited:
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
But my dog has more morality than my president... and she has no religion. I think morality evolves and is refined by culture... just like language. I think religion just takes credit for all that is good and never the blame for what is bad. But maybe religion is good for something. But if religion is responsible for morality... then how do you account for pedophilia clergy or all the scandal amongst the religious right? I suspect it makes people feel moral without being moral-- at least overall. It tells you you are moral because you believe the right thing.
If religion was responsible for morality, than secular societies and areas of the world would show the most dysfunction-- instead they show the least-- where religious areas... if the more religious areas of the US show higher rates of crime, homicide, drug use, venereal disease, teen pregnancy, and abortion. (Though I'm sure Muslim countries take care of the latter via stoning to death.)
I just wonder if religion is good for anything... and if so, if we still need it. Is it worth it if it means you make people ripe for manipulation by ensuring them that "faith is good" and they need religion to be moral and that doubt or dissent is "evil" or "bad" -- and atheists and science "untrustworthy"? I think it's best for all of us to have a more educated, critically thinking populace, and I think this deference towards faith is dangerous... I just don't think it's good for all the stuff it claims to be good for (like morality), and I think it's harmful in ways that can have long lasting, divisive, and stupifying consequences. It's primitive. I'd like it if people started treating it as the backwards thing it is...like... those exercise machines that jiggled the fat off you supposedly "spot reducing"-- or primal scream therapy or astrology. Don't take it away from people--but lets look incredulous or ask questions when there is the presumption that we show it respect or when it crosses into our government or our choices.
I will respect faith to the same respect that the faithful respect my lack of faith-- and so far that is not much. I wonder how much non-believers have bought into the notion that faith DOES deserve special respect. People deserve special respect. Even Muslim people and North Korean people who had no choice about the faiths inflicted on them. Does anyone. But not faith... because, as a kid, when I saw all these adults paying lip service to faith-- I thought there was something wrong with me... that I was the one "not getting it"-- I wish for an adult... or even some sort of humor or satire that could have prodded my thinking from the angst. I don't know how I'd have reacted to the guy in the OP. I would have hoped I would see a glimmer of my own budding thinking.
I don't want to be any part of propping up the lie.
Last edited:
You are saying that you understand the psychology of these people better than they themselves do.
rocketdodger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 6,946
Do you understand the psychology of cave men better than they do?
Apology
This title intentionally left blank
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,126
Ordinarily I'd identified that piece of Articulett's argument as a strawman because she seems to be presuming what religious people think, but there is actually evidence that a large number of religious people do think that their morality comes from religion:
http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=rel...ewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find
so that part of her argument demonstrably has a valid point.
Last edited:
By my definition we cannot be sure who are the true christians, but we can and need to do our best to find out.
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
"Can"? How would we even start? Mind reading, anyone? If you can do that, you can win a million dollars through the Randi Challenge.
"Need"? Why do I need to verify who "truly" believes in a fictional event?
Well, we have the doctrine and we need our best to find out the original intent.