This is why religion is a problem

[Fnord]

Would his wife or children have supported him if God had not given him instruction?

I am surprised that you would believe an unsubstantiated claim by an obviously deranged and/or deluded individual; such a one as the man who claimed that he had a divine directive to rape his own daughter.

For as you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

You are an intelligent person, and I will not insult that intelligence by assuming that you actually believe any of the statements that you've made so far in this thread.

 

[Fnord]

But religion let's them feel right about it,

So does alcohol.

Feelings are irrelevant. Belief is irrelevant. It's the act that determines the crime.

 

[Fnord]

god gave him the authority just like he gives it to you.

Either you mean that God gives all men the authority to rape their daughter, or you mean that God gives no man that authority. Which is it?

Assuming, of course, that you actually believe that God exists.

It's interesting how the believers god agrees with him/her.

As the prophet's wife said " It's amazing how your god fulfills your desires"

Actually, this believer is of the opinion that the man who raped his daughter is a criminal of the most vile and disgusting kind. Christians are supposed to remain under secular authority, which includes obeying secular laws against rape. Examples of this are given in:

Judges 8: 22,23
I Samuel 8: 3-20
Matthew 22:15-22
Mark 12:13-17
Luke 20:20-26
Romans 13: 1-7
I Timothy 2: 1,2
I Peter 2: 13-15

There may be more, but that's all I can offer in this short of a time.

But if you believe there is no God, then your position against Him is pointless.

 

[RobRoy]

The basis of the religion does not take away from two pivotal facts about religion:

1) Religion allows people to have authority they would not otherwise have.

Not true. If there were no religion, that doesn't mean that people seeking power or authority couldn't find it elsewhere.

2) Religion allows people to justify actions they could otherwise not justify. Whether to themselves or to others.

Equally untrue. Religion does not hold the corner market on justifications. Name an action, and I'll provide you with a non-religious justification for it.

This is because they are either self-deluded that every whim that overtakes them is from god, or because they are abusing the above mentioned authority.

This I agree with in respect to the OP.

Whether a religion has good intentions is beyond the point.

Not if the question is "why religion is a problem". It's exactly the point.

 

[uruk]

I don't know about Stalin, but I remember reading about Lenin targeting Christians, killing thousands. The Wikipedia article about Lenin (scroll down, the last paragraph of that section) provides some information, although you might want to look into it some more if you're interested (Wikipedia is, as many point out, not perfect).

I usually think about this when someone classifies Lenin as some kind of communistic philosopher without blood on his hands, like Marx. He may not be remotely close to Stalin's level, but he's still bad.

It would seem from the wikipedia article that Lenin targeted the christians more because he connected them with the uprising of the clergy rather than thier beliefs alone. He was killing them as a result of thier uprising or defiance of the government rather than thier beliefs.

But the point is taken. Though it may be a very thin line of argument.

I see a difference between: " I'm an athiest and I'm killing Jews or Christians because they believe in a god" and "I'm a athiest and I'm killing jews and Christians because they were involved in a rebellion". The result is the same but the intention is different.

Do you see the difference?

 

[articulett]

It's interesting how the believers god agrees with him/her.

As the prophet's wife said " It's amazing how your god fulfills your desires"

Yes, each believer creates their own unassailable immeasurable god in their own image and then feels super special for knowing his will.

 

[RobRoy]

Given how many different conflicting tales there are of what God has said to us, we have a seriously big problem. God is an idiot who can't keep his story straight, or God is an idiot who can't find a decent method of communication. Or possibly God is maliciously doing this to us just to **** with us.

There a line of logic you're missing completely: people as idiots.

Mumm sacred cows make the best barbecue.

Mmmmmm . . . forbidden barbecue.

The Cult of the Great Apis Bull lasted 3000 years. Christers have got to go another thousand just to get even.

Sorry, not familiar beyond the Egyptian god, and I don't see your point. Could you explain?

god gave him the authority just like he gives it to you.

God hasn't given me any authority that I'm aware of, unless you mean my own moral sense. At least I have no proof of said giving, and no evidence or demarcation of said authority.

God certainly hasn't given me any authority to rape someone or abuse my children in His name.

 

[Egg]

You are having trouble seeing the difference because you think it is good to believe that your eternal happiness depends on believing a certain way. What wouldn't you do for eternal happiness?-- If you really thought God wanted you to do so?

Ah Ok, thanks for sharing your wisdom and insight. Just a couple of little things...what the hell are you talking about and how has it got anything to do with what I was saying?

Why do you do this imagination of what the other poster must be thinking thing based on minimal evidence? Please stick to discussing the arguments.

We have a society that approves of the notion that people can get "higher messages" and nobody who is capable of determining real messages (as if) from fake ones.

How do you determine which of your thoughts (or internal messages to yourself) are ones which you should act on and which are the ones best kept to yourself?

Moreover, lack of belief in something doesn't "inspire" anything... that's another bit of faulty thinking promulgated by religion. People who don't believe in astrology or superstitions don't run out to kill those who do... there is no reason to do so. We educate. Regimes are defined by what they believe in--the ideals that unite them-- not by the things they don't believe. We have huge swaths of people who believe that god talks to them and a bunch of other people who agree that this is a possibility. But we have no person who can distinguish god from a delusion of a god.

I did not say that lack of belief inspires anything. Please try responding to what I actually write. The argument was about art inspiring action and anti-religious rhetoric helping to provide a climate for some people to act on such ideas, as a logical follow on from your argument.

If you cannot see the difference, it is because you have a faith protecting meme that ensures you won't.

Ah a quite brilliant argument, like if I was to say "you think there is a difference because your irrational hatred of all things relating to religion ensures that you are blind to the implications of your own arguments" or "I'm right and if you disagree you must be stupid".

Sometimes I think your arguments should be presented to students of skepticism as a game of "name that fallacy". Anyone get more than 3 on that post?

 

[Arkayik]

When it comes to accusing Religion of its myriad atrocities for the past 10,000 years, I find it informative that regardless of the flavour of the religion, the overwhelming majority of the atrocities were perpetrated by homo sapiens vs. homo sapiens... In other words, the common link is a human was involved...

I'm not an apologist for religion, but Mao wasn't really all that nice either... I think the point is that sweeping generalizations are not useful.

The individual mentioned in the OP did a bad thing, regardless of the justification, it will not restore "justice" to the victim(s).

It is very human to make an error, and then cast around for an excuse. The only difference being the relative size or damage from the transgression, and the relative amount of fiction in the excuse...

Unfortunately I don't think the inflammatory opening statement "and this is why religion is a problem" was proved by the case provided...

Now that we've gotten all hot-and-bothered and perhaps a little sanctimonious, what would the OP have us do about the information s/he presented?

 

[skeptical]

Not true. If there were no religion, that doesn't mean that people seeking power or authority couldn't find it elsewhere.

True enough, but its is hard to find a better authority than appeal to an almighty creator. It is likely one of the reasons religious systems were invented in the first place.

Equally untrue. Religion does not hold the corner market on justifications. Name an action, and I'll provide you with a non-religious justification for it.

Perhaps, but the problem is, religion is the only appeal to authority that has insulated itself from criticism in the modern world. I cannot think of any other ideology that large numbers of people feel they cannot criticize. Not that people don't criticize religion, they do, but they are a small minority.

It is also the only authority based ideology that a large number of people accept. There are always other possible justifications, but it is hard to find ones that are as universally accepted uncritically as those proffered based on religion.

I am also not convinced there are not actions that are only justifiable via religion. For example. the withholding of medical care from children because the parents are convinced that God will heal the child seems hard to justify on non-religious grounds.

Not if the question is "why religion is a problem". It's exactly the point.

I would say the problem is unquestioning acceptance of dogma via an authority. That was the problem with Communism, and that is the problem with most religious systems today. Once someone thinks there are a list of tenets that must be adhered to and cannot be questioned, all other evils follow. The authority is simply used to back up the tenets, and the best authority people have found is appeal to a god or gods.

 

[RobRoy]

If you cannot see the difference, it is because you have a faith protecting meme that ensures you won't.

Hey, wait a minute. I just caught this. Isn't this along the same lines as what the fundies try to tell me? That if I don't believe what they believe, or the way they believe it, it's because I'm blocking in some way?

 

[skeptical]

Now that we've gotten all hot-and-bothered and perhaps a little sanctimonious, what would the OP have us do about the information s/he presented?

I have a modest suggestion to propose: Teach people to require evidence for their beliefs and not accept anything based on authority alone. Teach them that "revelation" is not a reliable way to obtain information. Teach people to explain these ideas to others they encounter. Always strive to adhere to these principles, and be willing to engage others to defend them in a reasonable and humane manner.

That is not going to solve all the ills of the world, and it is not going to prevent mentally ill people from performing atrocities. But, it is a start.

 

[articulett]

Ah Ok, thanks for sharing your wisdom and insight. Just a couple of little things...what the hell are you talking about and how has it got anything to do with what I was saying?

I'll spell it out since you seem a little slow. When people believe that some entity is testing their faith by making them do crazy things... and that entity determines whether they will live happily ever after... then they will do anything to please that entity... even if it's agains the law. We're talking eternity... remember? If you really believed your god was telling you to do some crazy thing as a test of your faith--and you really believed your eternity and/or the ETERNITY of your loved ones depended on it--then you would do ANYTHING, right?

This isn't quite the same with art, CDs or "lack of belief". None of these things are said to effect our eternity. None of these can be confused with schizophrenic delusions or voices in ones head or self delusion. None of these things are testing our faith or holding "belief in unbelievable things" as the highest thing humans can do.

Why do you do this imagination of what the other poster must be thinking thing based on minimal evidence? Please stick to discussing the arguments.

I don't have to imagine what you are thinking... I am basing it on your words. You seem to be having your own conversation where you are convincing yourself that non belief is bad and faith has nothing to do with the actions of the man in the OP. If that isn't your point, then perhaps you may want to clarify. It's hard to address arguments when people move the goalposts. Perhaps you had some other point... maybe someone else can translate?

How do you determine which of your thoughts (or internal messages to yourself) are ones which you should act on and which are the ones best kept to yourself?

It's not a big scary question because I don't believe an invisible judge is putting notions into my head. I don't believe that I need to prove my faith to anyone. Words don't hurt people. Rape does. See the difference? Driving airplanes into buildings does. Sending your kids to their "eternal bliss" early to ensure their salvation does. As much as you want to pretend that faith has nothing to do with evils committed in the name of faith (such as witch hunts)-- there are some evils that are only committed in the name of faith. All evils committed because someone thinks that their invisible savior is tellilng them to do something is EXACTLY such an evil.

I did not say that lack of belief inspires anything. Please try responding to what I actually write. The argument was about art inspiring action and anti-religious rhetoric helping to provide a climate for some people to act on such ideas, as a logical follow on from your argument.

You've inferred it on multiple occasions. It's a common theist meme. They think the world will fall apart if people stop believing in whatever magic man they believe in.

Ah a quite brilliant argument, like if I was to say "you think there is a difference because your irrational hatred of all things relating to religion ensures that you are blind to the implications of your own arguments" or "I'm right and if you disagree you must be stupid".

Sometimes I think your arguments should be presented to students of skepticism as a game of "name that fallacy". Anyone get more than 3 on that post?

I think you are playing the "mindreading" game here. I don't have any hatred... you are seeing something that isn't there just like the voices in the OP man's head. I don't hate religion anymore than I hate astrology or rain dancing. I don't like the sloppy reasoning that it encourages in believers... I think it makes them sound like you, and I find many believers self-important and very bigoted against anyone who dares to say they find believing in invisible magic men ridiculous. I understand they have to do so, because otherwise, they would have to examine whether the non-believer is making a point... and that might deflate their self important opinion of themselves as diplomatic and kind and moral and smart and reasonable.

As for name that fallacy... I think that's one where you might want to brush upl and look in the mirror. You attribute character flaws and words to others they did not say and do not exhibit... and imagine yourself as being more logical and more aware of logical fallacies then is warranted.

You want to believe that people who find fault with faith "hate religion" or "hate god", because otherwise you might have to examine whether faith really is all you've imagined it to be.

 

[uruk]

Not true. If there were no religion, that doesn't mean that people seeking power or authority couldn't find it elsewhere.

True, but its not quite the same.
You can get away with more with religious authority than you can with legal authority.
People are willing to break the law for religious reasons and there is less resistance to your authority seeing as it comes from a "higher" source.

Equally untrue. Religion does not hold the corner market on justifications. Name an action, and I'll provide you with a non-religious justification for it.

Not taking your daughter to a doctor to be treated her for a potentialy deadly desease (that could have been easily cured) based the belief that a god would listen to prayers and miraculously cure her.

Realize that legaly doctors cannot treat a patient who refuses to be treated for religious reasons.
And CPS has very little power when a mainstream religion is involved.

Religion offers you moral justification. Everything else just offers you legal justification.

It's the difference between jail and eternal damnation.
People are willing to go to jail for religious reasons and feel moraly justified. Seeing as they are in good company of saints and so forth. You don't go to jail if you are legaly justified.

 

[articulett]

Hey, wait a minute. I just caught this. Isn't this along the same lines as what the fundies try to tell me? That if I don't believe what they believe, or the way they believe it, it's because I'm blocking in some way?

Is it? How would you know if you had absorbed a belief that made you see everything to do with faith in a good light and everything to do with atheism in a scary light? I certainly was raised that way, but didn't understand I had such a bias until I examined it. I'm sure at one time I was a person who defended faith and saw "militancy" in anything an outspoken atheist says.

Here's the difference... evidence. You can actually examine your words and plug in some other belief system that you don't feel kinship for and see if you have such a visceral protective reaction. You can examine the words of an atheist as though they were criticizing believers in rain dances or virgin sacrifices and see if it really sounds as "militant" as what you say.

Faith tells you to believe--just because it's god's favorite quality in a person... you "have to have faith"... they tell you it's ennobling... that it's "arrogant" to question god (and by proxy your religious leaders)--

Truth isn't afraid of questions... the evidence for the truth accumulates... the evidence for gods is always ephemeral, insubstantial, subjective, self affirming signs, etc. Faith is the idea that something is true if you believe it...

Reason means that you use evidence to reach your conclusions... and they are provisional--subject to new information. When has faith ever allowed for that?? What is the error correcting mechanism for faith based notions?

I would never tell anyone to believe what I believe... but I'm always glad to provide evidence if they are curious as to why... moreover, I'm willing to examine evidence, but we've already determined that everyone's god is indistinguishable from the god of the man in the OP... god is the equivalent of a "higher authority" that is indistinguishable from a voice in your head as far as I can tell. I'm not asking anyone to believe that... but if they want me to accept god or faith or religion as more than superstitious behavior... they need to provide evidence for such a claim. I see no difference between one brand of woo (Scientology, Astrology... and another... it's just that everyone thinks their woo is true and the "others" are wrong and deluded and so forth.) Faith is based on egotistical notions, promises of rewards, and fear of punishment. That's manipulative. Reason isn't. I don't need anyone to "believe" or disbelieve as I do or to share my opinion. I just want the right to express myself as freely as those who believe differently or hold different opinons express themselves.

The truth is the same for everybody no matter what people believe or opine. Either there is a god communicating to people telephathically (or whatever) or their isn't. I see no reason to believe there is... therefore, I conclude all people who believe such things are delusional or misperceiving reality because of cultural indoctrination. Is there any evidence to believe otherwise?

 

[RobRoy]

True enough, but its is hard to find a better authority than appeal to an almighty creator. It is likely one of the reasons religious systems were invented in the first place.

Agreed. I would say that it depends on the persons as some individuals are unmoved by religious appeals, obviously, and thankfully, the judge in this case is one of those. But your point is certainly taken.

Perhaps, but the problem is, religion is the only appeal to authority that has insulated itself from criticism in the modern world. I cannot think of any other ideology that large numbers of people feel they cannot criticize. Not that people don't criticize religion, they do, but they are a small minority.

Really? See, I can't think of a single ideology that isn't criticized, starting with religion. It might not be wise to discuss religion with friends, along the same lines that it's not wise to discuss politics with them, but that's a matter of social harmony. The fact that this particular forum, within the JREF set of forums, exists is proof of the ability to criticize any and all religions.

It is also the only authority based ideology that a large number of people accept. There are always other possible justifications, but it is hard to find ones that are as universally accepted uncritically as those proffered based on religion.

When you state "authority based" do you mean "God".

I am also not convinced there are not actions that are only justifiable via religion.

Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this?

For example. the withholding of medical care from children because the parents are convinced that God will heal the child seems hard to justify on non-religious grounds.

Here, let me help you out with just a few justifications for withholding medical care from children:

The treatment is too painful.
[Insert medicine type here] is woo.
[Insert medical professional] adheres to woo.
The treatment is part of a government conspiracy.
The treatment causes other, more terrible problems.
Death would be kinder.

I can go on, if you'd like. Justification comes in all forms, and religion does not hold the corner market on it.

I would say the problem is unquestioning acceptance of dogma via an authority. That was the problem with Communism, and that is the problem with most religious systems today. Once someone thinks there are a list of tenets that must be adhered to and cannot be questioned, all other evils follow. The authority is simply used to back up the tenets, and the best authority people have found is appeal to a god or gods.

Again, agreed, and I think you said it best in your final statement, "the authority is simply used." It isn't religion doing this, it's people using an authority that they've established.

 

[RobRoy]

Is it? How would you know if you had absorbed a belief that made you see everything to do with faith in a good light and everything to do with atheism in a scary light? I certainly was raised that way, but didn't understand I had such a bias until I examined it. I'm sure at one time I was a person who defended faith and saw "militancy" in anything an outspoken atheist says.

Is this aimed at me? I haven't defended faith in any way, shape or form. I've defended religion, and not a particular religion, but the concept of religion in general against the idea that it is fundamentally flawed because bad people do bad things.

Neither have I decried atheism, nor do I find it "scary".

But thanks for playing.

Here's the difference... evidence.

Nothing I've said in this discussion lacks for evidence. If you see something where you would like more evidence, kindly point it out for me, and I'll gladly provide it.

You can actually examine your words and plug in some other belief system that you don't feel kinship for and see if you have such a visceral protective reaction. You can examine the words of an atheist as though they were criticizing believers in rain dances or virgin sacrifices and see if it really sounds as "militant" as what you say.

I'm sorry, I've read this a couple of times now, and I have no idea what you're trying to say here. This is not meant to be sarcastic either. I would like to know what you're trying to tell me here specifically. I have no idea what you're driving at.

Faith tells you to believe--just because it's god's favorite quality in a person... you "have to have faith"... they tell you it's ennobling... that it's "arrogant" to question god (and by proxy your religious leaders)--

Really? I had understood that hope was the greatest for some, understanding that life is pain for others, and a grasp of the sense of self and other for still others. <shrug> Apparently you have only one in mind . . . it would probably make it easier for us to discuss if you could let me know which one you're going on about.

Who are "they" by the way? And why is it "arrogant"?

Oh, and which ones are "[my] religious leaders"?

Truth isn't afraid of questions... the evidence for the truth accumulates... the evidence for gods is always ephemeral, insubstantial, subjective, self affirming signs, etc. Faith is the idea that something is true if you believe it...

Reason means that you use evidence to reach your conclusions... and they are provisional--subject to new information. When has faith ever allowed for that?? What is the error correcting mechanism for faith based notions?

What does this have to do with the concept that if someone who claims a faith doesn't understand you, then they must have a flaw their reasoning. This is the exact same thing that the fundies try to tell me when I don't agree with them, there's a flaw in me, which was exactly what I was pointing out to you.

 

[articulett]

Robroy... that was in response to the idea that I was trying to get people to "believe" what I believe like like a fundamentalilst would.

If that wasn't what you were saying, then perhaps I misunderstood.

I believe a fundamentalist would say that I didn't understand because a devil was tempting me or something or I didn't have enough faith.

I think I was saying that Egg doesn't follow because of a cultural bias that he/she may not be aware of.

The devil is unfalsifiable... god testing you is unfalsifiable...
flaws in reasoning can be examined and falsified or tested...

Do you really not see the difference?

 

[RobRoy]

Robroy... that was in response to the idea that I was trying to get people to "believe" what I believe like like a fundamentalilst would.

If that wasn't what you were saying, then perhaps I misunderstood.

No, you understood. To me it smacked of a parallel with fundies. Your use of a cultural biased meme is similar to, as you said, a fundies use of "a devil" that prevents one from understanding/believing as you or the fundy does. <shrug>

The devil is unfalsifiable... god testing you is unfalsifiable...
flaws in reasoning can be examined and falsified or tested...

Do you really not see the difference?

It's not a difference between flaws in reasoning and "unfalsifiable" concepts. It's the blanket statement that if someone doesn't understand, then there must be a flaw in them that is preventing understanding. For you, it's a meme, for a fundy, it's the devil.

To me, then, no, there is no difference in your argument in this regard, and that of a fundy.

 

[articulett]

Ugg... forget the tangents...

I think it's quite obvious that we can expect a certain percentage of people who believe that god talks to them to be doing very abhorant things because they truly believe god told them too. That's what the OP is about. As far as I'm concerned, all the distractions are about apologists rushing to defend and distance themselves from the OP because their "faith" is "good" and could never lead them to do anything bad.

Their invisible friends doesn't tell them to molest kids... it's those other "faiths" that are bad and those "others" that are crazy.

I think all believers are equallly "wrong"-- though some with worse consequences to humanity than others. I don't find the faithful to be better or more moral people as a whole--they just seem to think they are. I don't find those that defer to faith or think it's off limits for scrutiny are people that are benefitting anyone but their own egotistical notions about what is best for humanity in general.

I think the tangents of believers are all to keep them from examining this. Is faith good? Should we be promoting this notion that faith is good and atheists are "militant" for using nothing more than words to promote thinking and reason and evidence??