Religion is not evil

[Beelzebuddy]

So if I'm getting this right,

Individuals often do good in the name of their religion.
Individuals often do evil in the name of their religion.

Seems to me that the religion should take credit for both, or neither. Either way it's not a good argument for religion, because in the latter case it's unnecessary and in the former case it tends to drop the ball on discouraging evil behavior within its ranks.

Religion itself is not evil. But it does either obfuscate or shelter evil, neither of which is very much better.

 

[fishbob]

See, this is the kind of antitheist rhetoric that annoys me. I have acknowledged that religion is the source of much harm. I have no argument with that. My point is that this harm can be addressed without destroying the good things that religion provides. This kind of kneejerk response does no help at all. It is purely destructive.

How do you do that?

It seems to me that any actual good done in the name of religion is merely incidental to the primary goal of perpetuating a particular mythology.

 

[HansMustermann]

How do you do that?

It seems to me that any actual good done in the name of religion is merely incidental to the primary goal of perpetuating a particular mythology.

More to the point, the harm is incidentally another product of the same process. You can't have the incidental good from muddying people's data with BS fairy tales, without the incidental harm caused by believing in the same BS fairy tales. It's like trying to have a magnetic mono-pole. It can't work that way.

 

[westprog]

All true. But it's also a breeding ground for fanaticism. And that's where the problem lies.

People are a breeding ground for fanaticism. Religion isn't necessary.

 

[James Fox]

Hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars are given to churches every year and I suspect a very small percentage of that money is used for what could reasonably called charity. Most of the money given to churches is used to finance the ongoing operations of the organization and for recruiting (in reality poaching members of other churches and denominations) new members. Unfortunately (IMO) all monies given to churches are labeled charitable giving, which is tax deductable. I would think a reasonable argument could be made that financial giving to churches actually substantially reduces the overall level of giving to proactive charities thus causing more harm than good.

And as an anecdote, I’ve worked in the child welfare field for 25 years and the religious foster homes I’ve dealt with have tended to be the most demanding, unreasonable and judgmental toward the damaged and needy children placed in their care and the professionals working with them. And while this doesn’t prove anything it has been my consistent experience for 25 years as well as the experience of my colleagues. And these negative attitudes seem to be largely a product of religious instruction.

 

[Trent Wray]

I don't think the anti-theist is against religious people but against religion in itself.

That's my point. It's throwing punches at thin air no matter how it's phrased.

Where does religion reside? In the minds of people.

 

[epix]

Not always, anyway. Religion gives millions (billions!) of people all over the world comfort and hope in a world that seems bleak and uncaring.

I do not condone those evils that are perpetrated by religion (child abuse, terrorism, subjugation of women, etc), but nor do I overlook the tremendous good that religion is capable of.

Many if not most religions include charity as a cardinal virtue. This drives people to genuinely work for the betterment of others. It's an interesting fact that the places where people state that religion is most important to them overlaps quite strongly with areas that are poor and most in need of charitable work. Churches are perfectly placed to provide aid and development to these areas. They have an already-established community and infrastructure, and while it is true that some faith organisations provide aid with evangelical strings attached, many of the largest ones such as World Vision and Caritas subscribe to a code of conduct which ensures that evangelical work and development work are kept firmly separate.

I'm tired of the relentless antitheism that is displayed not only on this forum, but in the skeptical community as a whole. Let's not seek to utterly destroy a source not only of comfort, but of much-needed charitable work. Instead, let's try and weed out the unethical and immoral aspects of religion and harness the good to make this a better world for everyone.

Just save your breath. It has become more than obvious that the bunch of hostile atheists who can't think straight, as evidenced around here, is not up to anything else than attack religion with primitive weapons. Those folks just found religion a target to compensate for their personal failures. Anything can be abused and that obviously includes religion. So what do you expect that the atheistic fundies would gather around to urinate on?

 

[Dinwar]

It has become more than obvious that the bunch of hostile atheists who can't think straight,

A perfect example of "You're wrong because you smell funny"--"You're hostile atheists who can't think straight, so you're wrong, regardless of the arguments".

 

[the PC apeman]

Just save your breath. It has become more than obvious that the bunch of hostile atheists who can't think straight, as evidenced around here, is not up to anything else than attack religion with primitive weapons. Those folks just found religion a target to compensate their personal failures on. Anything can be abused and that obviously includes religion. So what do you expect that the atheistic fundies would gather around to urinate on?

Is that a beam of urine in your eye?

 

[RedRatSnake]

And most faith-based organisations aren't cults by any definition of the word.

It's a cult in my book because it trys to brainwash people.

 

[Trent Wray]

Is that a beam of urine in your eye?

Ewww

It's a cult in my book because it trys to brainwash people.

I used to call the "average church" come-and-go cults because people don't have to stay "on the compound" in order to be under the influence and control. They can still go to Vegas on vacation and stay indoctrinated.

 

[Belz...]

Homeopathy doesn't do much actual harm, and makes a lot of people feel better, but it stands in the way of real treatment.

Religion works the same way with short-term feel goodiness, but standing in the way of real understanding and real solutions.

+1

In fact, +1,000,000.

 

[Belz...]

That's my point. It's throwing punches at thin air no matter how it's phrased.

Where does religion reside? In the minds of people.

Now you're playing with words a bit, no ? Attacking religion itself, not religious people, is like attacking fast food rather than fat people. I see a clear difference, even though the fast food is in the fat man's stomach.

 

[Belz...]

Just save your breath. It has become more than obvious that the bunch of hostile atheists who can't think straight, as evidenced around here, is not up to anything else than attack religion with primitive weapons. Those folks just found religion a target to compensate for their personal failures. Anything can be abused and that obviously includes religion. So what do you expect that the atheistic fundies would gather around to urinate on?

Which brings up a question: why are you still here ?

 

[Fascination]

Religion is not, in and of itself, evil. This is true.
It is in fact, quite the opposite (or the idea itself is meant to be)...
The point of religion is to provide comfort to the majority of people who find the notion of death terrifying, and would suffer unendurable grief at the loss of a loved one if not provided with some hope that "there is more!" Religion is meant to provide this hope.

The problem with the system is two-fold. In the first place, religion has progressed from a charming notion to an organized institution with a power structure; and power corrupts. Thus, even if a religion itself is not evil, those at the top of the power hierarchy with the greatest access to the collection plates are likely to become evil, or at the very least, greedy.
Second, and building on that last, there is more than one organized religion. Hence the need to quarrel and squabble and ultimately wage wars over which religion is "correct". The charming notion of "do not despair; there is something else out there" becomes the far more unpalatable "we know the exact name of the something else, and we know he wants you to give your tithes to this religion and no other."

As to a solution to the problem; regrettably, there probably isn't one. The need for hope that lost loved ones are still okay will never be absent from humanity, and as such, religion will never entirely 'go away'. The best that can be hoped for would be making religion into a more individual aspect of life rather than an institutional one (Jesus himself suggested this, see Matthew 6 and 7; but sadly, most of Jesus' biggest fans have never actually read the Bible), or failing that, somehow getting the major religions to declare a cease-fire and admit that there are enough tithes for everyone.

The common tactic of the "Internet Atheist Activist" on the other hand, only makes matters worse. These are the ones who scream and complain that Christians demand everyone else believe the same thing they do, and then they target a Christian and follow him through a dozen threads demanding that he believe nothing. Pointing out things like 'pot and kettle' and 'fight fire with fire' and 'hypocrisy' rarely has any effect except to anger the so-called atheist, and his attacks have no effect on the Christian except to strengthen his existing beliefs with a layer of indignation and self-righteousness.

Atheists need to focus all of their energy not on 'converting' others away from the church, or on 'attacking God' and calling his followers stupid, but merely on making sure the division between church and state remains in place. It is when the churches gain power, enough to influence things like the public education system, and start trying to have their 'beliefs' accepted by the courts as 'laws' that they cross over into what could categorically be defined as evil.

^This^


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.305285,-119.786148

 

[Trent Wray]

Now you're playing with words a bit, no ? Attacking religion itself, not religious people, is like attacking fast food rather than fat people. I see a clear difference, even though the fast food is in the fat man's stomach.

Whether it's playing with words or not, I don't know ... but yes, your analogy is along the lines of what I'm saying.

Saying that fast food is the culprit is pulling out a gun and shooting holes into the wrong thing. Fast food is not an entity with a will. It is not evil, nor good. It is fast food ... it has no will, no intent. Holding it hostage with a gun to it's head, or trying to eradicate it ... it's fast food. It didn't hop into the fat man's stomach where it's now taunting you and laughing at you. The fat man ate it.

Take away fast food, and the fat man is going to find something else to do. If he has some condition that makes him over eat ***** food, then that condition is the culprit. If it's for an emotional crutch, then he's going to find something else to be the crutch. Regardless, taking away fast food, isn't the issue. It's a case by case basis ....

If my neighbor walks around with a puppet, and claims that everything he does is in the name of that puppet, me forming an alliance that the puppet is evil, is along the same vein as the neighbor who believes the puppet is giving him directions. And if my other neighbor steps up to defend belief in the puppet as being good, or attacks me for finding the puppet to be evil .... why are we giving all this power and attention to a puppet ? The real issue is still being avoided. It's wasting all this time on nothing.

I don't think I'm so much playing with words, as I'm trying to point out the opposite ... that playing with words doesn't get very far when you start ascribing entity like properties to them, or things that aren't entities, etc and so forth.

 

[Humes fork]

Just save your breath. It has become more than obvious that the bunch of hostile atheists who can't think straight, as evidenced around here, is not up to anything else than attack religion with primitive weapons. Those folks just found religion a target to compensate for their personal failures. Anything can be abused and that obviously includes religion. So what do you expect that the atheistic fundies would gather around to urinate on?

But religious beliefs are false (and primitive).

 

[Mudcat]

As I have been *sigh* arguing all along, it provides hope and comfort to millions

What you are describing is the Linus Security Blanket effect, and humanity will outgrow the need for it though there will be individuals that will refuse to give it up because that 'comfortable feel good' effect is nothing more than endorphins which are making them feel good. While, yes, that's a natural effect it is habit forming and can lead to addiction and psychological/physiological dependency on it.

and practical aid to the poorest.

Before or after they're done exploiting them?

Those 99% occupying everywhere? While I support them and their motives, they have it sweet compared to many thousands in Somalia or Cambodia who have no food or clean water.

This fallacy? You do understand that this line of thinking is what allows the cycle of human suffering to persist, right?

Except it's not a tool. It's a set of false data and rules to base some decisions on.

Except that a data set (even a false set of data like religion) are a set of tools, though I'll admit that comparing a physical tool (like hammers) to a data tool (like religion) is a lot like comparing apples to oranges.

You can be perfectly rational in deciding to use a hammer for X or not for Y, because the hammer itself doesn't screw the rules and data involved in that decision. Just having a hammer won't make you think that it's rational to bash someone's head in.

Unless you are hearing voices in your head and think the hammer is telling you to do something, like bash someone's head in. Religion is a lot like that.

A hammer doesn't do that. You don't see people thinking, "I won't fall off the roof today because THE HAMMER is with me!"

Actually, I had known someone made such a claim in real life.

 

[Limbo]

But religious beliefs are false (and primitive).

One kind of fool think they are factually, historically, literally true.

Another kind of fool thinks they are false, lies, manipulation, delusion, ect.

The religion vs secular thing is just... fool vs fool.

In the opening pages (3ff) of Campbell’s book Thou Art That, he tells an amusing yet profoundly important anecdote about a run-in with a hardnosed radio host who started off by saying that a myth is a lie.

Campbell writes:

So I replied with my definition of myth. “No, a myth is not a lie. A whole mythology is an organization of symbolic images and narratives, metaphorical of the possibilities of human experience and the fulfillment of a given culture at a given time.”
“It’s a lie,” he countered.
“It’s a metaphor.”
This went on for about twenty minutes. Around four or five minutes before the end of the program, I realized that this interviewer did not really know what a metaphor was. I decided to treat him as he was treating me.
“No,” I said. “I tell you it’s metaphorical. You give me an example of a metaphor.”
He replied, “You give me an example.”
I resisted, “No, I’m asking the question this time.” I had not taught school for thirty years for nothing. “And I want you to give me an example of a metaphor.”
The interviewer was utterly baffled and even went so far as to say, “Let’s get in touch with some school teacher.” Finally, with something like a minute and a half to go, he rose to the occasion and said, “I’ll try. My friend John runs very fast. People say he runs like a deer. There’s a metaphor.”
As the last seconds of the interview ticked off, I replied, “That is not the metaphor. The metaphor is: John is a deer.”
He shot back. “That’s a lie.”
“No,” I said, “That is a metaphor.”
And the show ended.

 

[Dinwar]

One kind of fool think they are factually, historically true.

Another kind of fool thinks they are false, lies, manipulation, ect.

So the conclusion is that they are neither true nor false?

Remember, people are being murdered because of these beliefs, and many have been murdered in the past because they believed X story was allagorical (not discussing secularism here, just religion, and it's a simple fact that schisms have resulted in bloodshed over just such disagreements). Such side-steps as "Well, it's true but not literally true" don't appear to be sufficient (you'd be called a heretic and be murdered, for one thing).