This is why religion is a problem

[Egg]

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.

You corrected the rape part. What were the other errors in that summation?

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.

Art may be visible (or audible) but the messages, feelings or inspiration one gets from it are not.

If one person watching Schindler's List is inspired to fight injustice and another person is inspired to become a Nazi, where do we place the blame? On the movie? On the person who propped up the notion that one can be inspired by the movie into action by going off an fighting injustice?

Not all religious people believe in heaven and hell, and even those that do often don't believe that they go to heaven by pleasing their deity, so your eternity argument is a little limited in its scope.

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.

Person A: Religion is a mind virus.
Person B: What do we do with viruses? We stamp them out!
Person A: Indoctrinating children with religion is child abuse.
Person B: What do we do in a case of child abuse? Lock up the parents and take away their children!

As I have already tried to point out, I'm not arguing this position. I'm pointing out how anything can be twisted round to justify some pretty lousy behaviour and that it could be argued that moderate anti-religious rhetoric could just as much be propping up those who do such things and moderate belief props up the religiously inspired crazies.

 

[Egg]

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?

So, practically, how would you propose to achieve these aims globally?
How do you stop "this silly deference towards faith"?

 

[articulett]

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.

What would be enough evidence that people had a bias towards something that they were unaware of? I think your responses in this post illustrate your "faith in faith" meme. That is my opinion... it's based on the fact that you went out of your way to deny the role faith had in the egregious acts of the character in the OP while also going out of your way to vilify non believers and make invalid comparisons that the faithful tend to pick up from their preachers (this inane notion that "non belief" is as much of a faith as belief for example. Or this idea that mortals should pick and choose in their heads or whatever what is the real word of "god" or the real inspired scriptures and what isn't.) Or even your shifty hard to pin down definition of faith... it reminds me a lot of shifty god definitions. You say a lot of things that are along that line of reasoning. That is my evidence. I was the same way. So was M_Huber, the person who started this thread... so yes, we do recognize it. People who once thought this way, recognize it in others just as you recognize people who believe as you once did... as well as their rationalizations.

I do have enough evidence to voice my opinion. You however have no evidence on which to base the assertion that I hate religion. I stated an opinion as an opinion with multiple examples... that doesn't compare to an opinion stated as a fact with no examples. That makes your comparison a straw man--and then you fought that straw man instead of the actual argument. See? That's a logical fallacy. And yes, I do believe that your biases are making it so that you cannot notice that. If you really wanted to examine whether this was the case, I gave you evidence as to how. You can look up the definition of ad hom and straw man and apply it to your words and my words, but you seem not to understand what they even are while claiming I am making them! You can't learn what they are because you imagine that you already know. And you expect me to respect YOUR opinion in the matter. I will respect it about as much as you've respected mine, thanks. There is a forum of smart people here who would be glad to illustrate for you what various logical fallacies are, but I don't think anyone is going to agree that you understand what they are as much as you seem to think so.

You don't want to find out if maybe my opinion has validity. You want to believe you don't have a bias and that you "understand" logical fallacies. If you refuse to look at the evidence then how is that different than the guy who refuses to look at whether the voice in his head was god? You make it so you cannot tell if a proposition is true or false because you would rather believe you "know" rather than find out you were wrong.
You have no interest in testing the null hypothesis... testing to see if you might be wrong... might be fooling yourself. I could test and see if I was actually using ad homs if you knew what they were and provided an example.

Yes, I do think faith in any invisible form of consciousness is unsupportable by evidence... and yes, I think all faith is based on the notion that such a thing is true. If you don't believe in ghosts... you don't see them. If you don't believe in thetans, you aren't bothered by them. If you don't believe in gods, they don't talk to you or give you signs in biblical passages or feelings or anything else. If you don't believe in demons, you don't get possessed. If you aren't told that the bible is a moral guide, you don't see it as a "moral guide'-- you see the barbarism that believers are blind to ... just as bible believers can see the barbarism in th quoran that such believers are blind to. It's very simple. And yes, this kind of thinking is the basis of most religions... most faiths... and I think it's all equally invalid and prone to error and not amenable to fixing or reason... this thinking IS always prone to extremes-- if faith is good and salvation worthy, then what could be better than EXTREME faith?

I think it's wrong to inflict it on trusting people. I think you can trust that people will be manipulated by it, explain delusions with it, see "signs" for what they've come to believe or want to be true and filter their world through that bias. Moreover, they'll be afraid of not believing, afraid of questioning faith, ever ready to defend anything done in the name of faith and ever ready to hear things in the words of non-believers that they never said. My lack of belief in your god is the same as your lack of belief in the OP's god... in all gods... in Scientology, and astrology. No more. No less. And no more inspirational.

Whatever it is you define faith as-- to me and to many dictionaries, it's belief without or despite evidence. In the bible, it was bad to be the "doubting Thomas"... arrogant to question god... and you should stone people who tried to get you to believe in other gods. Oh, and a "fool" has said in his heart there is no god.

These are very manipulative memes. Moreover, they are opinions of primitive peoples trying to manipulate the behavior of other peoples. And people treat these as words of wisdom. You seem to have adopted some brand of these memes in your thinking.

Yes, you don't want to see faith as belief without or despite evidence... because you want to believe that you have evidence for whatever it is you believe or want to believe-- but that doesn't make it so. There is no evidence that there is any invisible form of consciousness-- there is no evidence that consciousness can exist absent a brain. When people think that it can--they are ripe and ready to interpret feelings as whatever invisible beings they believe talk to people.

Yes... religions IS responsible for that. It is responsible for your fuzzy definition of faith... you refuse to say what you actually believe because you fear it won't stand up to scrutiny... and so you criticize those who don't believe it and give yourself away. You do a smoke and mirrors routine to pretend the OP has nothing to do with faith... to avoid even talking about the OP... to make excuses for anything that ties it to any belief which you also share.

Instead you even try to tie it to lack of belief. But does your lack of belief in Islam or Scilentology cause you to oppress people or do bad things in the name of it?
Neither does atheism. It's just that believers have been taught to see non belief in their "faith" as another religion-- the bad one. It's smart for preachers to spread this view. Otherwise believers might understand that atheists disbelieve their religion as much as the believer disbelieves all that "other woo". Believers might realize that they've been trusting the wrong people for an eternity that cannot exist and judging others merely because they didn't and couldn't believe the same nebulous nothingness. In fact, they might learn, as I did, that they have been demonizing the very people that would show them the facts--straight up--no faith required. Pure and simple like Randi's demos-- if they wanted to know, that is. But they don't want to know, I think-- they may be afraid that there is no invisible guy watching out for them and rewarding them for "believing" a certain way... or for there impassioned defense of "faith".

What the guy in the OP did was bad... it was directly related to religion... he used faith to manipulate is daughter and possibly to gain leniency in the eyes of others. Whether he believes it or not is irrelevant because, you can't tell the difference between a liar and a delusional person when it comes to god... and you sure as hell can't tell if anyone really speaks to one since you can't show evidence that god exists any more than demons do. The evidence for both is nil. The evidence that anyone talks to god is on par with the evidence that people can be possessed. Would you want to be spreading that delusion? Would you vilify those who spoke out against such superstition or harms committed due to it? It promotes bigotry against the mentally ill. Belief in god, promotes bigotry against those who don't believe. It has to--to "keep the faith".

God belief is alway a faith based idea. Always. There is NO EVIDENCE that any invisible entity exists... and even if they did... they are absolutely indistinguishable from all the ones that people have believed in that don't exist... that never existed--schizophrenic delusions, dreams, imaginary friends, Greek Gods, Gaia, reincarnated entities, characters in books, etc..

Defending belief in invisible entities that talk to people... means you are defending it no matter what the voices say or who they claim the entities are. You are spreading the idea that this is something that is true... you are covering for the lies and delusions and manipulations of faith in my opinion.

If you have faith in the notion that there are invisible entities that talk to people-- you are implying that people "should" be hearing messages from "beyond"-- that it's good to do so. You do this so you can believe you hear such messages... but that's the same reasoning those you think are crazy use. They just think YOU are the deluded one or that God isn't really talking to you... he's saved his more important messages for them.

 

[articulett]

So, practically, how would you propose to achieve these aims globally?
How do you stop "this silly deference towards faith"?

This is irrelevant to the topic, but I can see why you want to avoid the topic-- namely that faith leads people to do unthinkable things in the name of it--

If you can get people to believe in a god that speaks to you, you can manipulate them to do all sorts of things by believing in that god. That's what the father did. And he may truly believe god was talking to him. If you believe gods can talk to people, you have no reason to disbelieve that god was talking to him.

But what do I do, you ask inferring that atheists are going to do something "scary". I post on this forum. And lots of people read it and think and actually pm me and thank me. I post in a way that I wish I could have heard when I was stuck in the faith miasma. I don't ever imagine that I will change the mind of someone who "needs" to believe or can't examine their biases-- but I might plant a seed that will grow in another mind just as James Randi has done for me. I might prod questions that lead others in a direction I'm very glad I went. I think that's what this forum is for. There is only one truth... and humanity as a team has been pretty good at hammering it out with no help at all from "holy books".

I think religious people fear that atheists are going to do something to them, when it's other believers they need to fear more-- the ones whose gods are giving them different messages. I think religions promote this fear and cause people like you to hear things that aren't there and then argue against a straw man version of what is said.

I am tired of having to explain things to you. I have tried my best. I trust that those who can understand or get something from my words have and will. I don't expect you to. I expect you to do what theists do-- hear everything I say as "mean" and "an attack" and continue your straw man delusion that atheists are out to oppress people... while promoting your own kind of oppression and delusion and imagining yourself humble and moral and righteous while doing so. It's what religions teach people to do. I see no difference between your defense of faith and rconk's defense of Mormonism or Tom Cruise's defense of Scientology or Sylvia Browne's bad-mouthing of Randi. To me, they are all attacks on the messenger to avoid having to hear the message. I have been given no evidence to conclude otherwise and I can't tell why I should respect one brand of woo over another.

I don't care if you agree or "get it" or hear me. Your ignorance is of no concern to me. I care about those who want the freedom to think and doubt and reason, but they are afraid to because they fear not believing (thanks to the "faith is good" meme) and think that faith is to be protected at all costs.

Faith encourages people to see disbelief as a personal attack. Instead, they should see it as a reason to examine their faith and determine why it's more valid that the faith they don't believe in and the opinions they don't share. I want people to examine this for themselves. Because the truth shouldn't be afraid of scrutiny... it doesn't need people to "believe in" it... it just needs to be understood and shared. And it is the same for everybody no matter what they believe. I want people to have the freedom of thought and the understanding of the power I've reason that I'm developing in myself. I don't want people to feel like they "have" to believe something because some invisible guy will be angry if they don't.

I learn from other peoples words and reasoning abilities; I trust that people are also learning from mine. But I don't expect you to be such a person. You haven't given me a good reason to consider your ever changing point. I find your point hard to nail down and your examples fallacious and your analogies flawed in a way that many theists use.

You ignore my point and the OP which I've endeavored to explain and then you accuse me of ad homs without knowing what they are and committing the very fallacies you imagine in my words. You could cut and paste and show me where or why I made a logical fallacy if you knew what they were... just as I showed you that it's invalid to compare a faith based notion with "lack of faith". You lack faith in all sorts of things-- how can that be tied to oppression or anything else? And yet you bend over backwards from seeing that faith played a major role in the actions of the OP... and it does over and over and over. I'm not saying all religions or all believers-- I'm saying prove to me that faith is good for something or does something beneficial for society or quit lecturing others who don't have it or who notice the harms caused by it. You CAN'T notice the harms by it... those who indoctrinated you ensured that.

Here's another horror caused by faith: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/04/national/main3994946.shtml?source=mostpop_story

Now the apologists can pretend that I'm trying to wipe out believers or that I'm saying all religions are bad or equally bad.

I'm not... but as far as I can tell the vast majority are very manipulative and not based on any facts whatsoever. Moreover, believers are made to feel "chosen" or "moral" for believing and proving they are obedient to their "faith". I'm tired of having to defend my lack of belief to people coming to lecture skeptics on how they should be more deferent and coddling to "faith". Why?!

Oh, I think raising your child to be racist is child abuse too... I don't advocate taking away kids from racist parents... just education. I don't think you need to worry about people who are "too rational". It's the "too faithful" that are much more likely to inflict suffering on others... though you have ensured that you don't see that.

 

[articulett]

And my eternity argument is not limited in it's scope. Many people do believe that their eternity is based on them being obedient to god in this life... that translates to them being obedient to the voices in their head or the messengers of god... and proving it-- to ensure their salvation.

Andrea Yates killed her kids because she really believed they were going to heaven... most theists would agree (about the kids being in heaven for eternity right now). And if they are going to be starting their eternity, why shouldn't they start it early? What if they stayed alive and sinned bad enough to go to heaven.

Faith has consequences. Whey you are answering to a higher authority--the opinions of your fellow humans doesn't matter as much as the opinions you assign to whatever invisible entities you believe in. Quit ignoring that message. When you say faith is good, you are implying that extreme faith is even better. How can it not be? But nobody agrees on which faith is better... none believe that the other people are really hearing god... they believe that just THEY are.

Is this really impossible for believers to understand? Moderate belief is just watered down belief to the "true believer"-- to them, you just don't take your faith as seriously as they do... and thus aren't pleasing the invisible creator of the universe as much as they are. To them, they are taking out an insurance policy on eternity while the moderate believers are being cavalier with the whole thing. Nobody thinks their beliefs would lead THEM to do evil. The problem is, people have very differing ideas as to what evil is and what god wants. I don't want my life messed up by anyone's imaginary friend.... including yours.

 

[articulett]

You corrected the rape part. What were the other errors in that summation?




Art may be visible (or audible) but the messages, feelings or inspiration one gets from it are not.

If one person watching Schindler's List is inspired to fight injustice and another person is inspired to become a Nazi, where do we place the blame? On the movie? On the person who propped up the notion that one can be inspired by the movie into action by going off an fighting injustice?

Not all religious people believe in heaven and hell, and even those that do often don't believe that they go to heaven by pleasing their deity, so your eternity argument is a little limited in its scope.



Person A: Religion is a mind virus.
Person B: What do we do with viruses? We stamp them out!
Person A: Indoctrinating children with religion is child abuse.
Person B: What do we do in a case of child abuse? Lock up the parents and take away their children!

As I have already tried to point out, I'm not arguing this position. I'm pointing out how anything can be twisted round to justify some pretty lousy behaviour and that it could be argued that moderate anti-religious rhetoric could just as much be propping up those who do such things and moderate belief props up the religiously inspired crazies.

Straw man. This is how people imagine atheists think so they can vilify them. Racism is a mind virus... we don't kill people for being racist. We mock them or educate them. I think Archie Bunker did a lot to alleviate racism in my father's generation. Nobody wanted to be him.

And I'm not talking about placing blame or that all theists believe in heaven and hell. I'm talking about the dangers of faith. Quit putting words in my mouth and then arguing against things I never said. That is a "straw man". Look it up. It's a way of harnessing a discussion to prop up what you want to believe instead of addressing the issues. You mischaracterize someone else's position so you don't have to examine your own or actual arguments brought up. Is faith good? You seem to think so--but you've made no case for it. Is probing faith or criticizing it bad or damaging? Again you've made no case. Was the act in the OP done in the name of faith-- YES. to pretend otherwise is to delude yourself. There are some evils that only happen because of religion. As far as I can tell-- there are no benefits that come exclusively from religion--though all believers seem to believe as much about their religion. Where's the evidence? It's word games and nebulous gods and semantic games about what "faith" is and what "atheists" are trying to do to "stamp out" religion.

It's superstition I'd like to stamp out... or rather help people rise above. It's time. It's too late for the impregnated daughter in the OP.

Teaching your child to be a bigot or to think a blood transfusion will make them go to hell is child abuse... but we aim to educate and over ride the stupidity of parents whose faith is causing their child harm. At least I do. Theists cover for it... they keep it off limits for scrutiny... they pretend that faith is good... when they really just mean that the faith they have is good. Sure--all believers think so. And all parents think their kids are the bestest. They advocate obedience to authority over reason and thinking for oneself.

Anyhow, I'm not going to respond to your tangents anymore, Egg. The OP is about how the "faith in faith" meme allows people to manipulate others and extrapolate voices in their head and their own desires as coming from god. If you think faith is good or that god talks to people and you endorse that notion... then you provide a shield for this sort of behavior... an automatic defense and protection from scrutiny just as surely as people who believe in psychics or make t.v. shows promoting such a belief are shielding and encouraging people like Sylvia Brown. If you believe otherwise, it's up to you to show why with evidence. All the other claims about art and movies and hypotheticals and what atheists might do to "stamp out" religion are irrelevant, and you've provided no evidence to support your opinions of me nor your opinions in general. You proffer bad analogies to prop up what you want to believe about yourself and your opinions. Your point is all over the place. I don't think anyone but you knows what it is... or that anyone else thinks you understand what logical fallacies are though you accused me of making several. I don't think any atheist is lead to do things like the OP in the name of atheism or "because of" atheism. But people do all kinds of crazy things in the name of faith. Why wouldn't they if they truly believed it was good and the key to salvation? Why wouldn't they manipulate others with it since it works so damn well? What wouldn't you do if you really, really believe god wanted you to? Would you have sex with your dad? Your kid? If you really, really believed god wanted you to? Sure "your" god would never say such a thing... but others apparently do... we don't get to choose our imaginary friends or what indoctrination our family will inflict upon us.

 

[articulett]

Sylvia brown causes harm because people believe in psychics or think some psychics might be real. When she falsely told Shawn Hornbeck's family that he was dead, we all feel revulsion... we don't rush to protect psychic powers because "not all psychics do evil"... and "not all psychics claim to know where missing children are"--we don't point out all the other scam artists and vilify those who point out that belief in psychic powers is to blame. We don't point out that "non-psychic"s mislead people too. We don't accuse people of acting like fundies because they point out that maybe someone is being less than rational because they have a need or desire to believe in psychic powers. We don't pretend that anyone is trying to "stamp out" believers in psychics nor do ewe promote bigotry against "anti psychic believers" as though they were the "real threat". Nobody rushes to shield "belief in psychics" from scrutiny nor do they mislabel non believers with fallacies that they don't seem to have a clue about. And yet, so many people do when it comes to faith. Why does faith get this kid glove treatment? Are preachers better than psychics? Is one woo better than another? Which woo has the greatest potential for harm-- ? Which woo manipulates the most people and gets the most people to do uncivil things in the name of some "higher authority"?? How is what I am saying different than the examples above? And if you can't explain, then spare me your opinions. I'm perfectly capable of drawing conclusions on my own.

(Hint: straw man is fighting an issue that you pretend another holds by some semantic game and inference-- rather than actually arguing their position. An ad hom is when you make an argument against someone by attacking the person saying it rather than the argument itself. You have to know what the argument is to make an ad hom. If I said, religion is bad because the guy in the OP is religous-- that is an ad hom... instead of addressing the faults of religion-- I used the character of someone who believes to draw a fallacious conclusion. If I said that your argument is fallacious because you are a ditz-- that is a an ad hom. You might be a ditz, but that doesn't make your argument fallacious. If I said faith is bad because it leads people to do things they wouldn't do if not for faith-- that is NOT an ad hom. Learn these if you want others to take your opinions as seriously as you take them. You can learn this if you don't imagine you already know everything there is to know on the topic.)

 

[articulett]

I did not claim that you hate psychics. As I tried to point out, I was attempting to demonstrate your "you have a psychic protecting meme" was an ad-hom and just as bad as if I said you didn't understand because you hate psychics. I didn't have enough evidence to say you hated psychics, just like you didn't have evidence that I have a psychic 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.

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

This is how you sound to me. And I could do that to every post... and if anyone said the above you would recognize how ridiculous it sounds... and realize that the person did not know what logical fallacies were-- not a straw man nor an ad hom.

And yet you are saying no more than that-- just using a different woo. That's how you recognize biases. Not by false analogies.

Test the null hypothesis. Plug in a faith you don't have and see how you are biased towards the one you do have.

 

[m_huber]

I was talking to one of my distant relatives tonight, and he was talking about how Hindus have a depraved culture, because they believe that your past life determines your present situation (reincarnation). One of my other relatives pointed out that Christians also believe that your present actions affect your future situation (eternal life). It amused me how quickly my first relative defended Christianity whilst simultaneously attacking other religions (he went on to Muslim after that).

 

[Egg]

The belief that God can speak to you, either through a voice in your head or through reading a "holy" text is dangerous because people can hear voices or read things into that text and be deluded into thinking that God may be speaking to them and telling them to do something that to everyone else would seem terrible, but because the message is from God, they think is the "right" thing to do.

These people can have no way of knowing if this message is really from God (except those who don't believe there is a God who can be pretty certain that it is not) and this has been shown in the case of this South African pastor and other examples where people have committed heinous acts and claimed they acted on messages from God.

People who believe in God have everything to lose (for eternity) by not acting on these messages and are therefore likely to do absolutely anything in order to please their deity, whether that be raping their children or flying planes into buildings.

While moderate believers might condemn such actions and argue that God would never ask anyone to do such awful things, their acknowledgement that God can speak to people through feelings, voices or scripture lends support to the more extreme kinds of behaviour which is claimed to be based on such messages.


So, Articulett, is this the argument (minus the use of the "faith" word) or is there something I don't understand because there's a "meme" blinding me to something?

 

[Egg]

This is irrelevant to the topic, but I can see why you want to avoid the topic-- namely that faith leads people to do unthinkable things in the name of it--

I think this is entirely relevant to the topic, actually. A problem has been highlighted. What do we do about this problem? Will our solutions help this problem or might they cause problems of their own?

But what do I do, you ask inferring that atheists are going to do something "scary".

This "inference" is only in your own head, I merely asked the question which seemed to me to follow on from the argument. I was suspending any further opinion until you answered.

I post on this forum. And lots of people read it and think and actually pm me and thank me. I post in a way that I wish I could have heard when I was stuck in the faith miasma. I don't ever imagine that I will change the mind of someone who "needs" to believe or can't examine their biases-- but I might plant a seed that will grow in another mind just as James Randi has done for me. I might prod questions that lead others in a direction I'm very glad I went. I think that's what this forum is for.

Ok, so using my argument from earlier:

Person A: Religion is a mind virus.
Person B: What do we do with viruses? We stamp them out!
Person A: Indoctrinating children with religion is child abuse.
Person B: What do we do in a case of child abuse? Lock up the parents and take away their children!

I wasn't originally referring to you in this argument at all, but if I were to be making any reference to your position, I would be comparing you to person A, not person B.

I take it from what you've said here, that it would please you very much if someone were to tell you that they used to be a believer, but thanks to reading your posts they have seen reason and dropped their previous god beliefs.

Now, if someone else turned up on the evening news having burned down a church with a full congregation inside it and when interviewed, cited your posts as leading him to see the evils of religion, I'm sure you would be absolutely horrified.

Would there be any justification to say that agreeing with the things you say in your posts was the cause of this terrible act? I don't think so. You were never suggesting that such acts could ever be justified. In fact, if looked at as a whole by a rational person, it would be clear that you would be against any such actions, but taken out of context and twisted round by some sick mind, suddenly, just like the bible in the example of this pastor, believing the things you say in your posts could be argued to be "dangerous".

While there is a difference in this example in that there's no reason that someone would be trying to please you because of fear for their eternal soul (not that that might stop some loonies), the principle is in that both the crazy pastor and this imaginary nutter are doing the thing that they believe is "right" based on their own twisted version of something.

 

[skeptical]

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

All revealed religions value trusting authority over questioning that authority. They all value faith over the search for evidence. If the evidence disagrees with tenets of the faith, one is to disregard the evidence. That is what I meant by denigrating evidence.

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.

Regardless of whatever particular moral injunctions a particular revealed religion might have, the overarching superstructure is based on dogmatic authority. That some of the dogmas are actually good principles I would not deny, but that does not alter the fact that it is dogma. No revealed religion allows for the idea that you can reject the authority of the revelation. Protestants cannot reject the authority of the Bible and still be protestants, RC's cannot reject the authority of the Pope and still be RC's. That is the definition of authority based dogma.

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.

Without the "practice", revealed religions could not exist. They require blind adherence to the tenets of the faith. Some of the actual tenets could change by being "reinterpreted" or by receiving a "new revelation", but they cannot exist without deference to the dogma of the authority. That is why I say it is a core value.

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.

I cannot see how a revealed religion can be separated from the requirement of obedience to dogmatic authority. Any system that teaches people to value authority over evidence is part of the problem, and as I cannot see how a reveled religion could _not_ teach this, that is why I say they are a problem. If a system is based not on its accumulation of evidence, but on people accepting the authority of a book or person, then it is difficult to see how that system could suddenly start teaching people to value evidence over authority and still survive.

I might add that thousands of years of experience back up this claim. I am not aware of any religion based on revelation that has ever _not_ taught blind obedience to authority. However, even if I am wrong and there are exceptions, that would simply be the few exceptions that prove the rule.

 

[RobRoy]

Do unto others? You mean others that believe like oneself, I suppose... or that show allegiance to one's own opinion.

No, I don't. I mean that most religious, at their core, are founded on the principal of "do unto others" regardless of if they "believe like oneself . . . 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.

I would agree with this.

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?

No.

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...

I don't believe that this man in the OP did this. I believe he used religion as a shield to justify what he knew was wrong.

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.

I haven't made this claim.

Evidence doesn't matter when you have faith and you get signs of approval from the invisible magic man of the universe.

Agreed, and it can become a slippery slope from there when adherents try to justify what they know to be morally reprehensible actions, rather than turning to the most basic tenants.

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?

I'm uncertain if the basic tenants of Scientology contain the "do unto others" structure. If they do, then I would defend them in the same fashion. The basic premise is a decent one, the use of the faith as a shield to justify morally reprehensible actions is untenable.

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?

I guess it depends on if you buy into the argument that at the core, most religions are based on "do unto others". If you don't then, faith in such a religion is at fault. If you do, then it's the application by the adherents that should be addressed, and not the basic premise itself.

Why should religion get special protection from scrutiny?

It shouldn't.

 

[RobRoy]

All revealed religions value trusting authority over questioning that authority. They all value faith over the search for evidence. If the evidence disagrees with tenets of the faith, one is to disregard the evidence. That is what I meant by denigrating evidence.

Gotcha. Thanks.

Regardless of whatever particular moral injunctions a particular revealed religion might have, the overarching superstructure is based on dogmatic authority. That some of the dogmas are actually good principles I would not deny, but that does not alter the fact that it is dogma. No revealed religion allows for the idea that you can reject the authority of the revelation. Protestants cannot reject the authority of the Bible and still be protestants, RC's cannot reject the authority of the Pope and still be RC's. That is the definition of authority based dogma.

Okey dokey.

Without the "practice", revealed religions could not exist.

This is not in contention. My meaning is that the practices wrapped around some religions become faulty the further they stray from the core belief structure, or attempt to justify morally reprehensible actions, since that contradicts the basic core tenets.

They require blind adherence to the tenets of the faith.

I don't agree with that they require blind adherence.

Some of the actual tenets could change by being "reinterpreted" or by receiving a "new revelation", but they cannot exist without deference to the dogma of the authority. That is why I say it is a core value.

Agreed.

I cannot see how a revealed religion can be separated from the requirement of obedience to dogmatic authority. Any system that teaches people to value authority over evidence is part of the problem, and as I cannot see how a reveled religion could _not_ teach this, that is why I say they are a problem.

I see your point, I just don't agree with your conclusion that religion itself is inherently flawed.

If a system is based not on its accumulation of evidence, but on people accepting the authority of a book or person, then it is difficult to see how that system could suddenly start teaching people to value evidence over authority and still survive.

This is not my contention.

I might add that thousands of years of experience back up this claim. I am not aware of any religion based on revelation that has ever _not_ taught blind obedience to authority. However, even if I am wrong and there are exceptions, that would simply be the few exceptions that prove the rule.

I only disagree with your concept of "blind obedience to authority". Buddhism, Catholicism, Mormonism, Lutheranism, etc. do not require "blind" acceptance, in my understanding. That the practice of this results in blind acceptance, I can't and won't deny. But that's a failing of the adherents, which is my point.

 

[articulett]

I was talking to one of my distant relatives tonight, and he was talking about how Hindus have a depraved culture, because they believe that your past life determines your present situation (reincarnation). One of my other relatives pointed out that Christians also believe that your present actions affect your future situation (eternal life). It amused me how quickly my first relative defended Christianity whilst simultaneously attacking other religions (he went on to Muslim after that).

I know... my brother loves it when I mock other religions... but when I mock the one I was raised with (Cathoicism) his tune changes. Believers love to mock other woo and love clever parody of other woo... but in order to protect their own beliefs they demonize you when you poke fun at a woo that hits close to home.

When people get blustery and over react and hear things I never said-- I know I've hit the private "belief" they are trying to protect. Sometimes I goad... sometimes I just tiptoe away. I try to figure out what it is they are "lying" to themselves about... and then I'll test every once in a while with an offhand phrase to refine my knowledge. Believers never really say what belief they are protecting... they don't want it open for scrutiny... instead they send you off on tangents and toss out straw men and change the subject. I'm sure I've done the same... maybe that's why I recognize it. I wonder if some part of them knows? I think it must set off some little worry signal in their brain... they don't want to think about a certain something and so they do everything they can to keep themselves from "getting it". They attack the messenger, so they can avoid the message. I like to figure out what that message is. Their points are all over the place, so it can be hard...

 

[articulett]

The belief that God can speak to you, either through a voice in your head or through reading a "holy" text is dangerous because people can hear voices or read things into that text and be deluded into thinking that God may be speaking to them and telling them to do something that to everyone else would seem terrible, but because the message is from God, they think is the "right" thing to do.

These people can have no way of knowing if this message is really from God (except those who don't believe there is a God who can be pretty certain that it is not) and this has been shown in the case of this South African pastor and other examples where people have committed heinous acts and claimed they acted on messages from God.

People who believe in God have everything to lose (for eternity) by not acting on these messages and are therefore likely to do absolutely anything in order to please their deity, whether that be raping their children or flying planes into buildings.

While moderate believers might condemn such actions and argue that God would never ask anyone to do such awful things, their acknowledgement that God can speak to people through feelings, voices or scripture lends support to the more extreme kinds of behaviour which is claimed to be based on such messages.


So, Articulett, is this the argument (minus the use of the "faith" word) or is there something I don't understand because there's a "meme" blinding me to something?

That's pretty much it. Good job. It's wrong to promote "faith" as a means of "higher knowledge" or something "salvation worthy"... it's wrong to promote the idea that invisible entities are giving people signs or messages. There is no reason to think this is true... and all people are better served when critical thinking is valued over it's opposite-- faith.

 

[articulett]

I think this is entirely relevant to the topic, actually. A problem has been highlighted. What do we do about this problem? Will our solutions help this problem or might they cause problems of their own?


This "inference" is only in your own head, I merely asked the question which seemed to me to follow on from the argument. I was suspending any further opinion until you answered.



Ok, so using my argument from earlier:

Person A: Religion is a mind virus.
Person B: What do we do with viruses? We stamp them out!
Person A: Indoctrinating children with religion is child abuse.
Person B: What do we do in a case of child abuse? Lock up the parents and take away their children!

I wasn't originally referring to you in this argument at all, but if I were to be making any reference to your position, I would be comparing you to person A, not person B.

I take it from what you've said here, that it would please you very much if someone were to tell you that they used to be a believer, but thanks to reading your posts they have seen reason and dropped their previous god beliefs.

Now, if someone else turned up on the evening news having burned down a church with a full congregation inside it and when interviewed, cited your posts as leading him to see the evils of religion, I'm sure you would be absolutely horrified.

Would there be any justification to say that agreeing with the things you say in your posts was the cause of this terrible act? I don't think so. You were never suggesting that such acts could ever be justified. In fact, if looked at as a whole by a rational person, it would be clear that you would be against any such actions, but taken out of context and twisted round by some sick mind, suddenly, just like the bible in the example of this pastor, believing the things you say in your posts could be argued to be "dangerous".

While there is a difference in this example in that there's no reason that someone would be trying to please you because of fear for their eternal soul (not that that might stop some loonies), the principle is in that both the crazy pastor and this imaginary nutter are doing the thing that they believe is "right" based on their own twisted version of something.

And where it's wrong and self serving is that we don't live in a society where it's ennobling and salvation worthy to have your faith tested via internet postings or art. We rightly consider that crazy. But we live in a world where it's an honor and a sign to get revelations from god. And there is fear of punishment should you ignore them. We live in a society where everyone agrees not to point out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes...(it's taboo)-- and it causes the people who notice his nakedness to feel like they are the crazy ones... and the people who see "clothes" to feel "chosen"-- they are empowered... elevated to guru and prophet and wise man. They truth is, they delusional and self-important. Their followers are trusting victims, but society pretends it's all fine and dandy and super duper and punishes those who say, "hey, the Emperor sure looks naked to me!"

Apologists say, "No, no-- he's wearing clothes... you just can't see them because you aren't worthy-- they are magical clothes after all." They never really say they see the clothes, but they sure want to believe there are clothes there and that maybe they got a glimpse of his "robe" that one time. They enforce a paradigm built on a sham because they want their version of that sham to be true.

Conversations aren't "true or false"--nor is art. But either invisible entities give messages to people or they don't. You support the false paradigm that they very well could be doing just that. You lose your right to say who or what is getting real messages from which invisible entities when you do so, because there is no way to tell one from the other. They are all built on subjective nothingness and indistinguishable from a delusion.

 

[Egg]

And where it's wrong and self serving is that we don't live in a society where it's ennobling and salvation worthy to have your faith tested via internet postings or art. We rightly consider that crazy. But we live in a world where it's an honor and a sign to get revelations from god. And there is fear of punishment should you ignore them. We live in a society where everyone agrees not to point out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes...(it's taboo)-- and it causes the people who notice his nakedness to feel like they are the crazy ones... and the people who see "clothes" to feel "chosen"-- they are empowered... elevated to guru and prophet and wise man. They truth is, they delusional and self-important. Their followers are trusting victims, but society pretends it's all fine and dandy and super duper and punishes those who say, "hey, the Emperor sure looks naked to me!"

Your part of the world may resemble this. I don't think you can extend that to everywhere else. Perhaps you should look to move to the UK where you're more likely to see raised eyebrows if you start talking about God as some kind of reality. I think you might like it over here .

Anyway, assuming your premise about society, we don't, however, live in a society where it's ennobling and salvation worthy to think God is telling you to rape your children or any other such atrocity. Claims that God told you to do such things tend to be somewhat frowned upon I think, even in the most religious of societies. I do not see that your suggestion of society's attitude to religion supporting or facilitating such actions is self-evident. Do you know of any studies that might back up such a claim?

 

[articulett]

Believing and encouraging the belief that it's good or noble or a sign of some higher truth when invisible entities give signs... makes you a part of the problem, not the solution. You have no control over what the voices say, since everyone's imaginary friend is built to their liking.

If you lived in a society where people promote the use of psychics and believe some are real and encourage the "gift"-- you support a paradigm where the likes of Sylvia Browne can prosper.

If you support the paradigm that sacrifice of some sort can please "god"-- then you support whatever sacrifice martyrs make to please their god.

Your cherry picked god and interpretation of what he says just encourages others to do their own cherry picking and interpretation with your encouragement.

You don't want studies... that's why you are vague and you don't really ask questions or say anything. You want to believe that you really got some message from some god and you don't want to believe that it could be a delusion... you want it to be fine to encourage this kind of thinking because otherwise you have to admit that maybe your indoctrination is responsible for your belief or delusion-- not anything good or real or true.

Just because you don't do something that hurts other people or that society disapproves of based on your understanding of whatever it is you've been indoctrinated to believe... doesn't mean that the "faith is good" paradigm that you are supporting isn't dangerous and won't lead to exactly what we see in the story... exactly what we saw on 9-11... exactly the kid who died because her parents thought prayer could heal better than doctors...

You are saying, "I like my faith watered down"--it's harmless that way. Others hear this and say, I want my faith "full strength" to get maximum rewards.

I'm saying faith sucks as a means of knowledge. It makes people feel like they know some "higher truth" while being delusional. Moreover it keeps them from understanding actual truths and is the very opposite of critical thinking. It causes them to fear and get angry at those who might help them see this.

Humans have always invented explanations for things they don't understand... often they involve invisible entities and magical forces... as science accumulates knowledge, humans share this with each other so that superstitious thinking eventually disappears. But faith is endlessly fighting to keep the superstitious thinking alive. It has too. It can't have people probing it or looking for evidence. It must call the atheists strident and make people fear them. It must make believers feel chosen and to find the non-believers arrogant. It must pretend to offer a "higher truth". It must pretend that faith is a virtue and can help you live happily ever after.

This has nothing to do with what country I'm in... this has to do with how civilization and humanity has evolved. Sure it sucks to find out you've been deceiving yourself... but it's human... the only way we can grow and learn the truth that exist whether you believe it or not. The truth that is the same for everybody. The truth as to whether there IS or even can be an invisible form of consciousness-- a thinking entity without a brain. There is NO reason to believe or promote the belief that this is so-- not for gods, demons, souls, ghosts, angels, sprites, Thetans, demons, or any of them... they are all equally unlikely-- all built on the same delusion promoting notion that humans are so prone to use to reason fallaciously.

 

[articulett]

Do you support the notion that "god" gives people signs or messages? Do you think it's good to believe this? To spread this knowledge and encourage it? To get people to look for signs? Do you chastise those who say god is an illusion? If so, congratulations, you are implicated in whatever results occur from the messages people get.

If gods were real, why does anyone care if others think god beliefs are delusional? I submit they care, because they fear that it might be so.