This is why religion is a problem

[articulett]

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>



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.

Wrong... in the world of reason, people "don't understand" for reasons. It could be a failure of communication on my part in which I can aim to rephrase and clarify... or it could be a bias on the part of the listener where they hear things that are not there... they infer meaning from things not said... and I've become pretty good at picking out such people. You can't discuss things with them because their opinons are like their faith--not amenable to reason. I don't need to convince you that there is a difference though I can do my best and try... you may not be capable of understanding the difference anyhow.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a difference or that others can't understand it. There is no difference to YOU. I assure you, many people see the difference between an opinion one is willing to support with evidence and an opinion stated as a claim of fact when it 's far from such.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Appeal from ignorance-

While having sex with a 14 year old is rape by UK definition, is it actually a crime to have sex with one's own daughter Iif above the local age of consent) , either in the UK or US or elsewhere? Or is this simply a taboo?

 

[RobRoy]

Ugg... forget the tangents...

What tangent? You made an argument that someone who claimed to have a faith couldn't understand what you were driving at because of a flaw in them. This is exactly the same thing as a fundy claiming that I can't understand where they're coming from.

Two sides of the same coin.

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.

What percentage and as compared with what?

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.

I thought we were arguing whether or not religion makes/gives folk the right to do bad thing, or if its the reverse and that bad people might use religion to justify their actions. <shrug>

I didn't know we were in a faith versus atheist argument.

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??

Again, I didn't see any specific arguments for or against atheism. Not certain where that came from. Could you point out these arguments so I can have a look. I must have missed them.

 

[Zygar]

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

A position of authority exists that would not otherwise exist. Yes, people could seek authority, but there would be fewer positions to fill.

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.

I never said it cornered the market on it. And even if I had, you'd still be wrong. It provides additional justification that would not otherwise exist.

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

Not at all. Having good intentions doesn't mean you do good.

 

[RobRoy]

A position of authority exists that would not otherwise exist. Yes, people could seek authority, but there would be fewer positions to fill.

Sorry, this is simply not true. In the OP the rapist self-proclaimed a position. He didn't fill one that was open. He created his own. People have been doing that for years. Idi Amin claimed to be "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular."

There's no end to positions that can be claimed, and removing religion from the running wouldn't necessarily remove positions that could be sought or claimed.

I never said it cornered the market on it. And even if I had, you'd still be wrong. It provides additional justification that would not otherwise exist.

That's not what you said originally. You said, "Religion allows people to justify actions they could otherwise not justify." This is patently false. But if you're certain of this, please name such an action and I'll provide you with alternate justifications for it.

I agree that religion provides an "additional justification that would not otherwise exist" in the same way that patriotism and race equally provide "additional justification that would not otherwise exist". That seems quite obvious to me, but this is far removed from your original statement.

Not at all. Having good intentions doesn't mean you do good.

This is not part of my argument. <shrug>

 

[skeptical]

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.

Yes, religion is criticized, but it is always a minority of people who do so. In my experience, religion is one topic that it is seen as impolite to criticize in social company, although one can criticize just about any other ideas that people have. It is not as one-sided as it once was, but there is still a lot of deference to religious ideas that is not given to other wacky ideas that are not religious in nature.

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

Not necessarily. I was thinking of other authority based systems such as Communism. Communism is nearly universally seen as a system of failed ideas, whereas the major religions have only the few non-believers pecking away at the edges.

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

Quite right, that was sort of my point.

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 think I chose my words poorly. I was thinking of situations where the treatment is not that painful, is known to work, and the disease if very amenable to treatment, but the parents say that God will heal their child and they reject out of hand all modern medicine. I am not aware that even the staunchest woo rejects all of modern medicine, but I could be wrong on that.

I also consider the woo-ridden to be a type of religion. They typically have belief systems that are non-evidence based and rely on proclamations from authority figures, exactly like religions, so IMO they amount to about the same thing.

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.

However, most religious systems are the paradigmatic example of systems based on dogmatic authority. Any religion based on a "revealed" text is, by definition, based on an unquestionable authority. Revealed religions are by far and away the chief authority based systems used to propagate bad ideas and control people in the modern world. They are not the only ones, but they are the primary intellectual target because they are the systems that a lot of people blindly follow.

 

[RobRoy]

Yes, religion is criticized, but it is always a minority of people who do so. [snip]

This has not been my experience, but then I grew up non-LDS in Utah, so perhaps I'm looking at it through Golden Plate-colored glasses.

Not necessarily. I was thinking of other authority based systems such as Communism. Communism is nearly universally seen as a system of failed ideas, whereas the major religions have only the few non-believers pecking away at the edges.

I forget what my point was in regards to your response. I'll have to kick-out of this argument.

I think I chose my words poorly. [snip]

No no, your words are not chosen poorly. It's your argument. The statement was made, which I was responding to, that, "Religion allows people to justify actions they could otherwise not justify." But that's patently false. Religion doesn't have the corner market on certain justifications. It doesn't matter how reasonable the justification is, since "God told me too" or "the Devil made me do it" is just as reasonable or unreasonable a justification as "woo made me do it" or "a meme made me do it". The point being that simply removing religion from the equation doesn't remove the ability to justify an action. Name an action and I can provide at least one non-religious justification for it.

I also consider the woo-ridden to be a type of religion. They typically have belief systems that are non-evidence based and rely on proclamations from authority figures, exactly like religions, so IMO they amount to about the same thing.

That's fine. For simplicity sake, I won't get into the semantics of this argument. I still provided non-woo justifications for the action you provided me.

Revealed religions are by far and away the chief authority based systems used to propagate bad ideas and control people in the modern world.

Wait, wait, wait. Define "bad ideas" which the revealed religions are propagating. I agree with the control portion, and pretty much everything else, but I'll need to know what "bad ideas" we're discussing before I can continue.

They are not the only ones, but they are the primary intellectual target because they are the systems that a lot of people blindly follow.

Not certain what you're saying here with "the primary intellectual target", although I think I'm in agreement here. Though this still doesn't make the case that religion, the concept itself, is inherently bad. Nor does it make the case that one pedophilia-rapist, attempting to justify his crimes, reflects a fundamental problem with the concept of religion in general.

In my opinion, its just the opposite. Religion isn't the bad guy here, it's the people who try to justify actions that are clearly wrong.

 

[Jon.]

Appeal from ignorance-

While having sex with a 14 year old is rape by UK definition, is it actually a crime to have sex with one's own daughter Iif above the local age of consent) , either in the UK or US or elsewhere? Or is this simply a taboo?

It is a crime in Canada.

There was a recent case in Germany regarding that country's incest laws.

I will let posters from other countries comment on their own countries' laws, but I suspect that incest (usually defined as parent/child or sibling/sibling intercourse) is illegal in most countries.

 

[RobRoy]

I will let posters from other countries comment on their own countries' laws, but I suspect that incest (usually defined as parent/child or sibling/sibling intercourse) is illegal in most countries.

Incest is against the law in the U.S. with variations regarding how close the familial link is. Almost all "close blood" relative incest relations are illegal. First cousin marriages, however, vary from state to state.

 

[Moochie]

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?

M.

 

[skeptical]

<some snipped as we are mostly in agreement on other points I think>

Wait, wait, wait. Define "bad ideas" which the revealed religions are propagating. I agree with the control portion, and pretty much everything else, but I'll need to know what "bad ideas" we're discussing before I can continue.

I think telling people to accept things based on "faith" instead of evidence, and even denigrating evidence, is a bad idea. Boiled down to its essence, most religious systems encourage blind obedience to dogmatic authority, and discourage questioning and letting conclusions follow the evidence. Those are bad ideas IMO.

Not certain what you're saying here with "the primary intellectual target", although I think I'm in agreement here. Though this still doesn't make the case that religion, the concept itself, is inherently bad. Nor does it make the case that one pedophilia-rapist, attempting to justify his crimes, reflects a fundamental problem with the concept of religion in general.

I simply meant that the focus of debate on the question of dogmatic systems should focus on religious systems as opposed to other dogmatic systems. I threw in the "intellectual" so that no one would mistake me for calling for physical or violent actions.

As far as "religion" itself being bad or not, I would say that any religious system based on a revealed text must at its core value faith over evidence and dogma over research. I cannot see how it could be otherwise, and I consider systems that encourage those values to be inherently bad. There are of course religions that are not based on a revealed text per se, and this particular argument would not apply to them.

In my opinion, its just the opposite. Religion isn't the bad guy here, it's the people who try to justify actions that are clearly wrong.

As I see it, the problem is teaching people from the time they are children that blind acceptance of authority and dogma is a virtue, and questioning and evidence seeking a sin. I am of course not saying that the people who perform these actions are not wrong, they are. However, there are many atrocious actions perpetrated by people all over the world that are accepted without argument by their culture simply by an appeal to religious authority. Such an appeal could not be made without being roundly challenged if people were not trained from birth to accept these appeals to authority without question. That is the core of the problem I see with all dogmatic authoritarian systems, and with revealed religious systems in particular.

 

[RobRoy]

I think telling people to accept things based on "faith" instead of evidence, and even denigrating evidence, is a bad idea.

What religious system tells people to accept things based on "denigrating evidence"?

Boiled down to its essence, most religious systems encourage blind obedience to dogmatic authority, and discourage questioning and letting conclusions follow the evidence. Those are bad ideas IMO.

Sorry, disagree. I think most religious systems boiled down to their essence carry a fundamental basis of "do unto others". That within the practice of that religious system they become a dogmatic authority bent on obedience I wouldn't dispute.

I simply meant that the focus of debate on the question of dogmatic systems should focus on religious systems as opposed to other dogmatic systems. I threw in the "intellectual" so that no one would mistake me for calling for physical or violent actions.

Thanks for the explanation.

As far as "religion" itself being bad or not, I would say that any religious system based on a revealed text must at its core value faith over evidence and dogma over research.

Already disagreed with. The core value I see is "do unto others". The authority based around the practice is one that teaches blind faith, which is most unfortunate.

[snip]That is the core of the problem I see with all dogmatic authoritarian systems, and with revealed religious systems in particular.

And on this, I would agree. But this does not make religion a "problem" or "bad". This is a symptom of misuse, misguidance, and misapplication of religion. The same as it is with using religion to justify an action that is morally reprehensible.

 

[articulett]

The article in the OP referenced a crime committed by a man. If you believe that there are gods that talk to people or give them signs, you have 3 options to choose from: god really told the guy to do what he did; the man is delusional; or the man is lying because things appear lest awful in society when attached to a god (see the horrors in the bible as an example)--that is he's using god as a manipulation.

Moreover, a believer has no way to tell the difference between the 3... if he believes that god talks to people and lives in a society where that notion is endorsed... then those seem to be the only options and they are all directly related to faith... that is, this series of events would not have happened except for faith... religion... exactly as the OP implied. Yes, people commit incest... but when they can convince their victims via god or when they believe that god really told them to do so, then faith shares in the blame-- no matter how you try to pretend it doesn't. His daughter was a victim of the trust she placed in a person to tell her what god wanted. All believers are in a sense, somewhat victim, to their indoctrinators. They believe in a god, not because of evidence... but because someone told them something was true. They believe because it feels good or they are afraid not to or because they trusted the person who told them about it.

I look at it and see only the last two options... he's either delusional or he lying to manipulate people by using a socially accepted way to manipulate people. And I feel religion is a culprit in this tragedy and many tragedies for which it escapes the blame.

I'm not saying all religion is bad. I'm just saying that this "faith is good" meme makes people unable to see when it is directly implicated in tragedy. It's the same inanity which allows people to believe the bible is a "moral guide" or a "good book" or the inerrant word of an all loving god! Moreover, they could examine their bias by pretending the guy did it because of Islam or Scientology or Voo Doo and suddenly they would see the connection and/or the ones pointing out the connection wouldn't be demonized. They wouldn't rush to pretend that religion and faith have nothing to do with what happened while making tangential arguments and ignoring the OP.

I agree with the OP. I don't think anyone has presented any evidence that this doesn't have anything to do with religion. Moreover, this notion that people who point out the connection are saying "all religion is bad" or that they "hate" religion" and the other exaggerated statements are entirely unsupported by evidence. It's a diversion used to keep people from acknowledging the fact that this was an evil that occurred BECAUSE of faith. There is no evidence that faith or god or appeals to god and faith make people nicer and more moral. But people want to protect it because they have learned to associate belief with the believer and faith with salvation from the highest source.

Plug in a different brand of delusion and see for yourself. Some people just go out of their way to protect some brands of some religion by fighting straw man versions of those who point out the connections between religion and unsavory behavior committed because of faith and people manipulated by their faith.

Atheists don't get delusions of god talking to them. Should they commit incest, you could rule out that excuse. Nobody is saying that atheist never do this. But I am saying, that this crime was facilitated by religion. Many crimes are. And people seem to go out of their way to ignore the connection... while exaggerating the evil of those who do point them out.

 

[articulett]

Do unto others? You mean others that believe like oneself, I suppose... or that show allegiance to one's own opinion. I think reciprocity is an inherited algorhithm... we're not the only animals that cooperate... there are lots of species for whom more cooperative members pass on more genes than their socially aberrant counterparts. Game theory-- do unto others maximizes benefits to all.

Religion may codify and put this basic "value" into words-- but were the people burning witches really doing "unto" others? Are the people who would deny homosexuals the rights they want for themselves really doing unto others? If you must love god above all others... then his word (or his imagined word) seems to trump the feelings of others anyhow. Did this man think that he'd like to have sex that he found abhorrent before inflicting it upon his daughter? Because it looks like he may be getting exactly that in prison...

Where is the evidence that religious people are better at "do unto others".... I think they might think that... but they are used to believing things without evidence. Evidence doesn't matter when you have faith and you get signs of approval from the invisible magic man of the universe.

And yes, I think that the people defending religion are hearing things that nobody said. Someone accused the OP of being provocative-- but if he suppose the guy used Scientology as his excuse and the OP said "this is why Scientology is a problem"-- would anyone have been as reactionary to those who agreed with the OP?

To me, the problem is promoting faith as something good-- a way to know something-- something to protect-- something to inflict on trusting people-- where is the evidence that it is? Why should religion get special protection from scrutiny?

 

[articulett]

Appeal from ignorance-

While having sex with a 14 year old is rape by UK definition, is it actually a crime to have sex with one's own daughter Iif above the local age of consent) , either in the UK or US or elsewhere? Or is this simply a taboo?

Both are crimes. Some states allow first cousin marriage (who share 1/8 of their genes in common)--but that's as liberal of a union as far as degrees of relatedness that is allowed by law. The rest is incest... as well as statutory rape. I imagine consensual sex between more related adult individuals would be hard to prosecute... but this won't be.

 

[Egg]

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.

Oh it sounded like you were telling me what I believed. Looking back, it still looks that way, but now I think you're saying this is how all theists think. Quite a lot of "when"s and "if"s and assumptions in there. So, all you're trying to say is that this is different from acting on inspiration from art because the stakes are higher? So what are you actually saying, that religion makes it more likely for someone to act like this than some other influence?

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.

Do we know that this "self-proclaimed" pastor in South Africa actually heard voices? I'm not sure the article makes it clear that he even suggested that he actually heard voices. Do we know if he said that he felt he had to do these things as a test of his faith? All we know is that he claimed that the passages in the bible led him think God was telling him to do these things. He could be lying, he could be using the bible to try to justify his actions or maybe he genuinely thought that's what God wanted him to do.

Where does this idea of yours about anyone claiming that "belief in unbelievable things" as the highest thing humans can do come from?

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?

What goalposts have been moved?

I was equating acting on crazy interpretations of the bible with acting on crazy interpretations of Heavy Metal music. You said that nobody is propping up the notion of there being hidden messages in CD and then suggested that all believers prop up the notion that God might tell you to rape your daughter, as defending faith encourages this kind of insanity.

Is this a fair summation so far?

My argument was then to suggest that it would then follow that anyone who was inspired into some kind of action by art is in the same way encouraging the people who claim that they are inspired into criminal action by art.

I also suggested that it would also follow that even moderate anti-religious rhetoric would be propping up those who might choose to commit atrocities against religious people.

I'm not arguing to support these points, I'm using them to argue against your propping up notion.

One thing though, even if we accept that moderate believers are helping to create an environment in which extremists can thrive, what are you suggesting as a solution to this problem?

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.

It wasn't intended to be a big scary question, it was intended to shed light on what I suspect is really to blame here.

Words don't hurt people.

What on earth did you think I was meaning to have added this?

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.

...all acts condemned by the mainstream religious groups. what you cite are abuses of religion, not religion. I would agree that religion can be twisted to justify some pretty terrible things, just like many other things can be twisted.

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.

I did?
Earlier in this thread I said "I don't think Stalin did what he did just because he was an atheist - as if atheism by nature leads to such atrocities"

Where are these multiple occasions when I've inferred that lack of belief alone might inspire anything? It's not something I believe.

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.

Erm...I was actually demonstrating your fallacy by inventing a similar fallacy aimed at you (as shown by the "like if I was to say" and the quotation marks). I guess you must have missed that.

For the record, I do try to look at the points you make, and give them some thought. I think you often make some really good points. I just think it's a shame when they're surrounded by rhetoric, ad-homs against theists and what comes across as a patronising tone, because it moves us away from a civil exchanging of viewpoints and a rational, objective discussion to a mud-slinging contest, which I have little interest of taking part it.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

What religious system tells people to accept things based on "denigrating evidence"?

"Denigrating evidence" sounds like a verb here, so she's saying that the religions are 'denigrating' evidence or telling people that they shouldn't rely on it.

 

[articulett]

Oh it sounded like you were telling me what I believed. Looking back, it still looks that way, but now I think you're saying this is how all theists think. Quite a lot of "when"s and "if"s and assumptions in there. So, all you're trying to say is that this is different from acting on inspiration from art because the stakes are higher? So what are you actually saying, that religion makes it more likely for someone to act like this than some other influence?

Egg, not only was I not telling you what you believe... I was telling you my opinion of why you are not aware of how you come across. I perceive you as very much an apologist for religion. It's an opinion. You were the one claiming that I hate religion. That's pretending to KNOW what I think. I don't hate anything. I think religion is like astrology or scientology but scarier, because people believe it more strongly... they feel moral and worthy of salvation for FAITH. They think it makes people better or nicer, but there is no evidence to suggest this is the case at all. Moreover, there are some horrors that are ONLY due to religion. The witch hunts for example. People rush to defend religion and find fault in everything else and everyone else who dares to point out that FAITH is the cause of much human suffering.

Do we know that this "self-proclaimed" pastor in South Africa actually heard voices? I'm not sure the article makes it clear that he even suggested that he actually heard voices. Do we know if he said that he felt he had to do these things as a test of his faith? All we know is that he claimed that the passages in the bible led him think God was telling him to do these things. He could be lying, he could be using the bible to try to justify his actions or maybe he genuinely thought that's what God wanted him to do.

Or he could really be talking to God. If you believe that god gives messages to people and you tell people that they could be getting messages from god--then you have no reason to conclude that it's not god talking to him. I have a very good reason. There is NO EVIDENCE of any invisible form of consciousness of any sort communicating with anybody... but lots of people seem to believe in all sorts of signs of demons, angels, gods, thetans, alien visitors and signs from beyond. I think it's a human quirk in rationality based on our having evolved to notice agency... it's a tangential conversation, but there is much evidence that our mind evolved to be fooled in certain ways... to attribute supernatural causes to things we don't understand rather than just say we don't understand.

Where does this idea of yours about anyone claiming that "belief in unbelievable things" as the highest thing humans can do come from?

Most religions say eternal rewards belong to those who have faith. Faith is belief without or despite evidence... god supposedly wants nothing more than you to have faith... faith that he killed his kid for you or faith that he wants you to fly airplanes into buildings or faith that he would never misguide you when telling you that you must have sex with someone or other. Heck, Polygamous men get their new brides supposedly on "direct request from god"... if you think god is talking to people... you haven't got a leg to stand on when you deny that god wouldn't say that. Why? Because no human is the authority on what invisible people communicate to mortals.

What goalposts have been moved?

It's the same with the gun lovers. Every time someone mentions something bad done because of faith, the apologists rush in to demonize that person and everything except faith. It's like they just can't admit that there are some things that are really bad about encouraging people to believe that there's a god giving them messages. Those who mention this are seen as worse than those using purported messages from god to manipulate others... I don't care whether they believe it or not... I don't believe there is a god telling anyone anything and I think it's wrong to encourage people to listen to the voices in their head and imagine that it's coming from some higher source.

I was equating acting on crazy interpretations of the bible with acting on crazy interpretations of Heavy Metal music. You said that nobody is propping up the notion of there being hidden messages in CD and then suggested that all believers prop up the notion that God might tell you to rape your daughter, as defending faith encourages this kind of insanity.

The bible is thought by many people to be the guide book written by the inerrant creator of the universe who holds your eternity in his hands. I didn't say all believers prop up the rape notion... just the notion that god talks to people... all someone has to do is get a message and believe or convince themselves or others to believe it came from god. No work of art or CD has quite that authority or holds quite that much (ETERNITY) over anyone's head.

Is this a fair summation so far?

No. I've corrected your errors, but I don't hold out hope that you will understand the corrections. You would rather believe you assessed me right the first time. But you were incorrect on many points.

My argument was then to suggest that it would then follow that anyone who was inspired into some kind of action by art is in the same way encouraging the people who claim that they are inspired into criminal action by art.

Wrong again. Art is visible... it's not something one can confuse as a message from god.... it's not a "voice in one's head" or a "feeling" or a "sign" that one must "believe" or suffer for all eternity. There's no punishment for not having faith in someone's art interpretation... but if you ignore messages from the invisible man in the sky... you might suffer for eternity... best to be on the safe side.

I also suggested that it would also follow that even moderate anti-religious rhetoric would be propping up those who might choose to commit atrocities against religious people.

Who are these people committing atrocities against religious people other than other religious people who believe god favors them over those "others"? Anti-religious rhetoric is on par with anti-Scientology rhetoric or anti-astrology rhetoric... it's not a call to arms... it's just a call to reason. It's a call to dismantle this inane notion that "faith" is worth protecting at all costs... and to stop this silly bigotry where those who question faith are treated more harshly than those who manipulate others via faith. Psychics don't like Randi for a good reason... I'd say that is the same reason I see unwarranted offense aimed at those who criticize faith and unwarranted protection of faith as well. People who want psychics to be real or who believe they are psychic or benefit from other people believing so--often have a lot of tangential bones to pick with Randi. I see many believers doing the same thing. They shoot the messenger to avoid hearing the message. That is my opinion, but I believe I can support it rather well. If we plugged in other woo--one that wasn't a sacred cow-- the apologists would not be so angry at the critics... they wouldn't hear them saying things that weren't there... and they sure as hell would be rushing in to defend the woo at all costs as though the critic had said that believers should die. And yet with faith, this kind of reaction is par for the course.

You can tell the apologists because they ignore discussing the message in the OP and instead go after the messenger and those who agree with it.

I'm not arguing to support these points, I'm using them to argue against your propping up notion.

One thing though, even if we accept that moderate believers are helping to create an environment in which extremists can thrive, what are you suggesting as a solution to this problem?

Stop this silly deference towards faith. React to those criticizing faith as though they were critisizing art or a superstition you didn't believe. Quit pretending that the Emperor is wearing clothes. Trusting people look up to you... do you want to be giving them the idea that it's fine for people to think that a magic man gives them messages in their head. Should they also believe that their naughty urges come from Satan? That their problems are due to body thetans? That bad things happen because they don't believe enough or others didn't?

It wasn't intended to be a big scary question, it was intended to shed light on what I suspect is really to blame here.

What on earth did you think I was meaning to have added this?

...all acts condemned by the mainstream religious groups. what you cite are abuses of religion, not religion. I would agree that religion can be twisted to justify some pretty terrible things, just like many other things can be twisted.



I did?
Earlier in this thread I said "I don't think Stalin did what he did just because he was an atheist - as if atheism by nature leads to such atrocities"

Where are these multiple occasions when I've inferred that lack of belief alone might inspire anything? It's not something I believe.

I didn't see any scary question... just poor reasoning. You hear disbelievers giving a message they are not giving in order to make it look like they "hate religion". I think you do this to keep from wondering about whether faith is something you should be protecting. If you were to promote the notion that "god talks to people" to the young girl being raped by her dad... she could look to you as confirming exactly what her dad told her. Don't you see that? When I was a kid, it seemed like adults knew what they were talking about... they all seemed to believe that ETERNITY depended on them believing the right story... which was confusing once I found out that their stories didn't mesh. How the hell was I supposed to tell a true prophet from a false one... a revelation from a delusion. If I couldn't do it... why in the world would I trust that someone else could? But if my ETERNITY is at stake, I better trust someone... especially since the invisible magic man KNEW whether I believed or not. Heck, I lived in fear of "getting a calling" to be a nun.

I think it's wrong to promote these kinds of ideas. People who don't believe in gods or devils don't have them talking to them or tempting them. They can address their thoughts in a more productive and adult manner.

Erm...I was actually demonstrating your fallacy by inventing a similar fallacy aimed at you (as shown by the "like if I was to say" and the quotation marks). I guess you must have missed that.

No, I didn't miss it. You tried to equate belief in something with non-belief. Non belief isn't anything. Faith is belief without evidence. All faiths are equally unsupportable when it comes to what "god" wants. Non belief in gods is NOTHING... like non-belief in astrology. It doesn't inspire anything. But theists promote this notion that it is another faith. Is your lack of belief in rain dancing another faith? Does it inspire rhetoric that can hurt people? You've been lead to believe that atheism is somehow more than that... When people do horrific things it's not because of all the things they don't believe in-- it's because of the things they do believe... the ideals that drive them.

For the record, I do try to look at the points you make, and give them some thought. I think you often make some really good points. I just think it's a shame when they're surrounded by rhetoric, ad-homs against theists and what comes across as a patronising tone, because it moves us away from a civil exchanging of viewpoints and a rational, objective discussion to a mud-slinging contest, which I have little interest of taking part it.

I think you are confused about what an ad hom and logical fallacies in general, but I won't go there. I don't make ad homs against theists. They just hear me arguing against faith as an attack on the person. I think you need to read up on what exactly an ad hom is. I'm not attacking believers... yes, I think they are wrong and biased, but it's their arguments... their beliefs... that I find unsupportable... I understand they might really believe in what they say and for very strong reasons... but that doesn't make me believe it. I listen to what other people say... but when they state opinions as facts... and there is no evidence to support it, what can I do, but just assume they are not in a place to have conversation. They have a belief they want to protect or a bias they don't want to examine-- all my explanations in the world won't do any good at all. I believe you have a need for "faith" to be noble or good... you want that to be true... you want it to be good to believe in a god... and so you filter everything a non-believer says through that lens. And you rush to defend faith so you never have to examine whether faith really is something worth defending. I think you are afraid to find out that you may have been fooling yourself or nurturing a bias.

I'm not afraid to find that out... but I don't believe it just based on people's assertions. If you think I'm committing the fallacy of ad hom... study what they are and give an example. Otherwise, it's just an assertion... I can't fix it...because I believe you don't even know what an ad hom is.... and you bring no evidence to the table. The only thing left is to explain to myself why you said such a thing. I believe it's because you are afraid to let go of the "faith in faith" meme. What else is there to conclude? You've given me nothing else. I think you entered this thread for the same reason that gun owners enter threads whenever any mass murder was committed because the wrong person had all to easy access to a weapon made to kill people. They enter those threads not to comment on the OP--but to defend their gun ownership... as though someone was threatening it. I think the faithful enter these threads to defend their faith--even if they never say what that faith is... because they are afraid that questioning it or examining it might make it go away--with imagined dire consequences.

You seem to think religion had nothing to do with the OP and art and CDs can be just as much of a catalyst as faith... you think I hate religion. I think you've missed the boat all around because you want to believe that your faith is "right".

 

[articulett]

duplicate

 

[Egg]

I did not claim that you hate religion. As I tried to point out, I was attempting to demonstrate your "you have a faith protecting meme" was an ad-hom and just as bad as if I said you didn't understand because you hate religion. I didn't have enough evidence to say you hated religion, just like you didn't have evidence that I have a faith protecting meme, let alone that such a thing might even exist. So I was saying that if I said that, it would be an unreasonable thing to say.

"Faith is belief without or despite evidence" - I don't consider this to be the definition of faith. Using such a definition will lead to you arguing at cross purposes and just knocking down a few straw men. Faith is more along the lines of trust, hope and confidence. It might sometimes involve belief without evidence, but that is not what religious people usually mean by the word.
I agree with you that belief without any evidence at all or despite evidence to the contrary could lead to some crazy behaviour...but faith? It depends what your faith was in.