Atheists and theists: Endless confrontations

[Bram Kaandorp]

@Dinwar:

I absolutely agree, and thank you for that illuminating piece.

Some of it I already knew, but I thought it might be good to play devil's advocate for a second, to see whether there was anything I might have missed. Not much, but it is good to read the same things in a different way. It gives a different perspective.

 

[Pup]

The same thing which stops atheists from murdering people will stop disillusioned Bible believers from murdering people. Even the people who deny the reality of morality aren't killing their neighbours.

The assumption that people who follow the bible must be de facto psychopaths who are a dangerous threat to society isn't born out by reality.

The claim that without the Bible, there is no morality, is one typically made by religious people. I agree that it isn't born out by reality, but that doesn't seem to stop them from making it.

 

[Dinwar]

Thank you for the question, Bram. It's good to work it out in my own head, to be sure that I'm thinking things through properly.

Pup, has anyone other than a religious person made the argument that the Bible is necessary for morality? I can't see someone doing it--it'd be the equivalent of saying that any other fictional work is necessary for morality.

 

[Pup]

Pup, has anyone other than a religious person made the argument that the Bible is necessary for morality?

Well, I don't think so. But if I said "always," someone would be sure to come back and say, "I had this great aunt who..."

 

[westprog]

Either read my posts or don't respond. I've already addressed this:

What does it mean to say that religious arguments are "invalid"?

 

[westprog]

The claim that without the Bible, there is no morality, is one typically made by religious people. I agree that it isn't born out by reality, but that doesn't seem to stop them from making it.

And do you agree with it? Or do you think that the evidence suggests the contrary?

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

What does it mean to say that religious arguments are "invalid"?

They are invalid because they only apply to the adherents of that religion.

So if a Christian wants a law passed, and his/her only argument is "Because it's in the bible", then that argument is easily shoved away by anyone who is not a Christian, or by anyone who does not adhere to the specific Christian denomination to which the first Christian belongs to.

Therefore any religious argument will fall flat when presented to a group which doesn't exclusively consist of people from the same denomination.

 

[westprog]

They are invalid because they only apply to the adherents of that religion.

So if a Christian wants a law passed, and his/her only argument is "Because it's in the bible", then that argument is easily shoved away by anyone who is not a Christian, or by anyone who does not adhere to the specific Christian denomination to which the first Christian belongs to.

Therefore any religious argument will fall flat when presented to a group which doesn't exclusively consist of people from the same denomination.

But that's not how democracy works. You don't get to "shove away" views that you think you've refuted. People get to choose what they want. They don't have to justify their wishes.

That's why, incidentally, most democracies restrict the capacity of the citizenry to do harm. This is a non-trivial process.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

But that's not how democracy works. You don't get to "shove away" views that you think you've refuted. People get to choose what they want. They don't have to justify their wishes.

That's why, incidentally, most democracies restrict the capacity of the citizenry to do harm. This is a non-trivial process.

But religious claims only apply to those who are adherents of the religion, not to anyone else.

Any attempt to make it otherwise is an attempt at forced conversion.

 

[Dinwar]

What does it mean to say that religious arguments are "invalid"?

It means that they are not valid considerations. A theist advocating prohibition across the nation because drinking alcohol violates his religion is not advocating a valid law--he is advocating theocracy, which is a violation of the Constitution.

If that religion wishes to abstain from alcohol, great. Honeslty, I mean that--good on them. But they have no right--NONE--to tell people outside of their religion that they must abide by the code of their religion, for the same reason that I can't dictate to them how to practice their religion as an outsider.

Think of it this way: If they can dictate what non-members do, I can dictate how groups *I* don't belong to behave. If you see the problem with the later, you've discovered the problem with the former. If you can't, you seriously need to consider why.

But that's not how democracy works.

You fail at history. The United States IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN a democracy. In fact, the Founding Fathers thought of democracy the way my parents' generation thought of communism--evil, stupid, and something which could only possibly end in war, bloodshed, and death. We are a constitutionally limited representative republic. In part, that means that even if you get a majortiy of people to agree with you, there are things you still don't get to do. We can debate to what degree there are limits, but the verious constitutions of the United States (federal, state, and local) set limits on the power of the governments, and those limits are much mroe than simply "majority rules".

People get to choose what they want.

All I'm doing is applying this logic consistently: All individuals get to decide how they behave. What they do NOT get to do is decide how OTHER PEOPLE behave. If you're going to argue that religions get to dictate what those outside of that religion do, you've abandoned the principle exemplified by this quote--you're saying, in effect, that some people get to dictate what others do, while others merely get dictated to.

 

[Complexity]

Now, as not to be a TOTAL thread derail, I had breakfast with my old Christian friend. This fits with the "confrontation" in this thread, too. The first thing he did, after we were seated, was to reach across the table, take my hands in his and say, "So, what caused you to go so far astray from Jesus and our heavenly father?"

Being the wise-acre I am, I replied, "I was seduced away by the shining silver hooves of the Invisible Pink Unicorn."

He broke down laughing, and that broke the ice.

He did go on quite a bit about how god cannot be denied, just look around at nature, and so on and so forth. He also said god can only be found in our own hearts and if we are willing and open, and...the usual spiel.

We did have a pleasant breakfast, however, caught up a lot, but he then asked if I would be willing to "do some homework." He said he had a few books he'd like me to read, as well as a few sites to visit. I said that I was willing as long as he'd do the same for me. He agreed.

Of course I don't have many books, but I'm sure I can scrape up a few. I do have a couple of Sagan books, a Dawkins one, and Hitchens. But I don't want to give him anything that he'd take as hostile. So I need to think on this a bit.

Hopefully, our future "confrontations" will remain friendly. I think there's hope!

Of course this thread mainly refers to confrontations on a larger scale? Perhaps, but sometimes the small scale ones can be non-hostile and maybe just as fruitful. Even if they only lead to an understanding of the other side and breed respect, there's hope.

However, if my friend does bare his "fangs" too much in the future, he'll certainly end up with them bruised or chipped!

You are far kinder and more patient than I am. I would have shut down the religious discussion, first nicely, then increasingly firmly. I'm glad you found a way to use humor to keep your friendship going, but I don't think I could follow your example any more - I've simply been through too many of these things.

Enjoy!

 

[Pup]

And do you agree with it? Or do you think that the evidence suggests the contrary?

Oh, I absolutely disagree with it, and definitely think that evidence suggests the contrary. From bees and ants to humans, there's an inborn sense in all social animals, that some behaviors which benefits one's family or group more than one as an individual, are the "right thing to do."

The problem is that religion can use some of these basic urges that can actually be helpful, like following a leader to work as a team, and pervert them into things that are actually harmful, like demanding that everyone behave in certain arbitrary ways.

 

[westprog]

Oh, I absolutely disagree with it, and definitely think that evidence suggests the contrary. From bees and ants to humans, there's an inborn sense in all social animals, that some behaviors which benefits one's family or group more than one as an individual, are the "right thing to do."

The problem is that religion can use some of these basic urges that can actually be helpful, like following a leader to work as a team, and pervert them into things that are actually harmful, like demanding that everyone behave in certain arbitrary ways.

Maybe it can. However, that doesn't imply that people who were religious and who then cease to be will suddenly become psychopaths. Indeed, there are a number of posters on JREF R&P who used to be fervently religious and who are now atheists. How many of them began to behave worse when they stopped being religious?

 

[westprog]

But religious claims only apply to those who are adherents of the religion, not to anyone else.

Any attempt to make it otherwise is an attempt at forced conversion.

Any attempt to make a law which is explicitly religious can be struck down by the Supreme Court (in the USA at least). However, the converse of this is that voters involved in the democratic exercise* of their votes can be motivated by whatever they like, and this is protected on the exact same basis.

If laws were to be struck down on the possible motivations of the people who supported them, then few would ever pass.

 

[Pup]

Maybe it can. However, that doesn't imply that people who were religious and who then cease to be will suddenly become psychopaths. Indeed, there are a number of posters on JREF R&P who used to be fervently religious and who are now atheists. How many of them began to behave worse when they stopped being religious?

We're in agreement on that. That's exactly what I've been saying.

It's the religious people who fear that if there weren't religion, everyone (most everyone, at least) would do wrong.

And, to some extent, they're correct by their own definition of wrong, because in Christianity, for example, not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ is a major sin, so if a person stops doing that, they're already doing something majorly bad, from a Christian's point of view, so they might as well just go on to rape and murder. From everybody else's point of view, not believing in Jesus Christ is just meh.

And, ironically, religious people can sometimes do things which they think are good, which others think are evil, like persecuting people who don't believe as they do or don't fit what they think is right, even if the others aren't doing any particular harm.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Maybe it can. However, that doesn't imply that people who were religious and who then cease to be will suddenly become psychopaths. Indeed, there are a number of posters on JREF R&P who used to be fervently religious and who are now atheists. How many of them began to behave worse when they stopped being religious?

Could you quote the post which says that implies that "people who were religious and who then cease to be will suddenly become psychopaths"?

Because if you mean my post, I only said that there are people like that, but not that everyone is like that.

You are engaging in straw man warfare.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Any attempt to make a law which is explicitly religious can be struck down by the Supreme Court (in the USA at least). However, the converse of this is that voters involved in the democratic exercise* of their votes can be motivated by whatever they like, and this is protected on the exact same basis.

If laws were to be struck down on the possible motivations of the people who supported them, then few would ever pass.

Point was not that the law was motivated by something in general, but that they were solely motivated by religion.

An example is the "shops closed on Sunday" law, for which there aren't many non-religious reasons to enforce. If a religious person wants their day off to be on a Sunday, then they can specifically ask for it, in stead of having a national law forcing everyone else to not work on Sunday as well.

Suppose another religion says that working on a Sunday is required in order to be a good person.

What should that person do? Just endure it and be considered a sinner by their religion, whilst the majority religion happily ignores the minorities?

And please don't say yes, because that would mean that you would also approve of any other majority religious rule that would take away your own freedom.

 

[Cayvmann]

It reminded me of a song I truly hate by Carrie Underwood. "Jesus Take the Wheel" I think it's called. It truly illustrates how many believers can't or won't take responsibility for their own lives and actions and instead transfer them to some intangible thing.

You've distilled the essence of my problems with the religious, especially my family. They cannot accept any responsibility for things that they've done, and can't face things that happen to them, because they cast these things on Jesus, or whatever their wording, and pretend that they don't exist. Going to confession, for them, is like erasing their culpability in anything that they've done to others. Problem is, deep down, they don't believe it, and guilt and cognitive dissonance is taking it's toll on their sanity.

I have a brother who committed an atrocity on his daughter, due to not dealing with his own demons ( childhood molestation ), and couldn't take the consequences, and committed suicide. Most of the rest of my siblings are similarly, but hopefully to a lesser degree, damaged. I certainly blame magical thinking for this. I wish I knew how to help them. They, of course, won't listen to me, when I ask them to seek professional help.

 

[Dinwar]

However, the converse of this is that voters involved in the democratic exercise* of their votes can be motivated by whatever they like, and this is protected on the exact same basis.

No, they can't. Again, we don't live in a democracy--we have rules about what can and cannot be voted for. We cannot, for example, vote that all Hispanics be enslaved--that violates an amendment. We can't vote to disband the SCOTUS--it violates the Constitution. We can't vote to deny women the right to vote--it violates an amendment. The average people cannot overturn anything in the Constitution or its amendments, any treaties, or the majority of federal laws. We live in a representative republic.

And please don't say yes, because that would mean that you would also approve of any other majority religious rule that would take away your own freedom.

He believes in democracy. I doubt he'd see the problem with letting the majority do whatever they want, for whatever reason strikes their fancy.

Maybe it can. However, that doesn't imply that people who were religious and who then cease to be will suddenly become psychopaths. Indeed, there are a number of posters on JREF R&P who used to be fervently religious and who are now atheists. How many of them began to behave worse when they stopped being religious?

It's been clearly demonstrated that religions in our day and age don't generate moral norms, but rather co-opt them.

 

[westprog]

Could you quote the post which says that implies that "people who were religious and who then cease to be will suddenly become psychopaths"?

Because if you mean my post, I only said that there are people like that, but not that everyone is like that.

You are engaging in straw man warfare.

My point was that if the only thing preventing someone from committing murder is the bible, and someone else proved that the bible is not a good book of reference for anything, then what is there to prevent the person from murdering?

I'm not saying that "someone who holds the bible in high regard is incapable of contributing to society in a meaningful way". I would never say that.

I'm saying that people who purely depend on the bible (and nothing else) for their morality are missing some vital pieces of information, such as the changes which have happened over the past millennia since its publication.

Also, they are missing the inherent feeling of care which prevents most people from committing murder, or else they wouldn't really need the bible for morality.

I think that most people who say that "without the bible, there is no morality" are actually perfectly capable of being moral people without the bible.

It's the small group who actually do need the bible which I worry about.

It's fairly clear - there are worrying people out there who rely on the Bible for morality, which proves that they lack normal empathy, and hence are likely to "commit murder" say, if the Bible ceases to provide answers.

This diagnosis of Bible following as evidence of psychopathy is fairly unusual. If it were true (and luckily it isn't) then discussing atheism with a fervent Bible believing Christian would be highly irresponsible, as it would probably lead to the creation of a consciousless super-criminal.