Religion is not evil

[Belz...]

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.

You're a little off the track, now. The point is, you can be against an act without being against the person performing the act. You can be against a belief without being against the person having the belief.

 

[Belz...]

Is atheism not a belief?

Ah... well now I know you're not an agnostic, as you claimed.

I see other posters' initial worries were correct.

 

[Belz...]

The idea of a a higher intelligence anywhere in this universe.

The idea of a noodly presence, either. It doesn't mean it's a belief to say it's not true until proven true.

are you going to argue with an 8 year old who still believes in the tooth fairy?

If the kids starts punching other children to steal their tooth and make money from the fairy, yes.

 

[Belz...]

That's semantics; the lack of a belief is a belief that something is not there.

No. You are entirely, completely wrong. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. You are trying to equal non-belief with belief which strongly suggests you are a theist, and more than the run-of-the-mill, not-entirely-sure variety.

 

[dlorde]

what do you think the reason is that there is so much ant-atheism in England?

Huh? I said being an atheist in England is unremarkable, i.e. it's fairly common, and there's no stigma associated - unlike some parts of the US.

Obviously attacks on anyone is wrong and not benign. But for the record, by benign I mean exactly that- your typical neighborhood church/synagogue/mosque that is not spewing hate against anyone.

My point is that elements of the community concerned don't have to be 'spewing hate', for there to be an everyday background level of discrimination. It tends to happen to minority groups in general, and religious communities are no exception.

 

[dlorde]

Yes, and there are parts of the world where people have been jailed by atheists for having religious beliefs. There are people persecuted for religious beliefs by people who hold different religious beliefs. There are people who are atheists who are persecuted by other atheists for having the wrong kind of atheist beliefs. I doubt if the atheists in the USA have the worst of it.

That is, unfortunately, true. I was simply pointing out that that it's more complicated than 'lumping horrible atrocities with benign beliefs', and that a 'typical neighborhood church' community may not be as benign to non-believers as she suggests.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

No. You are entirely, completely wrong. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. You are trying to equal non-belief with belief which strongly suggests you are a theist, and more than the run-of-the-mill, not-entirely-sure variety.

I don't know why this distinction is so important to some people, I'm not a theist but I don't think her statement is all that wrong.

While technically there may be a continuum of belief that goes 'Believing X; not believing X, Believing not X' the middle ground is only really relevant where we are ignorant of what is being discussed.

Do you believe in a flargypumpfrot? Not knowing what one is, I can't believe there are no flargypumpfrots in existence or that they exist without knowing more so I say 'No, I do not believe in flargypumpfrots'. That is meaningfully different from I believe there are no flargypumpfrots.

However, if you then go on to tell me that a flargypumpfrot is an invisible, Portuguese speaking monkey that lives under my bed and steals socks from my sock drawer while I am asleep then either you believe that or you don't. Even if you still feel that intellectually you do not have enough data to make a conclusion then you will still have to decide whether to proceed about your business as if there is a flargypumpfrot or not.

So while there might be some technical philosophical difference between the two propositions, at a practical level there is no difference between the behaviours of 'I don't believe in God' and 'I believe there is no God'

 

[dlorde]

It strikes me as wrong that if only one of those worldviews is correct, so many people believe deeply in something that is false.

It is only your opinion that something is false.

Not really. If you have a bunch of people with conflicting religious beliefs, including atheists, it seems to me that their beliefs can't all be true - simply because they are conflicting or contradictory beliefs. Therefore most of those people have false beliefs. My opinion isn't relevant to the argument. Nicole had said she would think it wrong for them all to believe the same thing, which is an odd thing to say if, for example, what they all believed was true.

 

[dlorde]

Okay, I tried my second link and it too is not working! Can someone tell me if it's working when you click on it?

Both links work fine here.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Ah... well now I know you're not an agnostic, as you claimed.

I see other posters' initial worries were correct.

I'm not an agnostic because I'm calling out atheism for a belief just like any other belief? Agnosticism has nothing to do with the fact that I'm unsure if God exists or not? Ok then.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Not really. If you have a bunch of people with conflicting religious beliefs, including atheists, it seems to me that their beliefs can't all be true - simply because they are conflicting or contradictory beliefs. Therefore most of those people have false beliefs. My opinion isn't relevant to the argument. Nicole had said she would think it wrong for them all to believe the same thing, which is an odd thing to say if, for example, what they all believed was true.

You were missing my point entirely. The fact of the matter is that it is highly doubtful we will ever prove or disprove the existence of God. That being the case, I appreciate the diversity that religion has allowed; it makes our world a richer and more interesting place. And the argument that religions contradict each other is only true to a point. When you get rid of the gobbly gook and get to the POINT of most religions it comes down to: be a good person and that we are part of something larger than ourselves.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Here's a great webpage discussing how love is very different (and much easier to prove to yourself than God(s) ) than belief in God.

http://www.asktheatheists.com/quest...-that-says-you-cant-prove-love-either-but-it/
BTW, welcome to the forum! I am an Atheist but I think your posts are very thoughtful. Its great that you're searching for your own answers to life's big questions. Most people never even bother.

I appreciate that:} I will absolutely look at the link later- I have to go to work.

 

[edge]

Archeological and historical evidence point toward that the exodus is a mythical event that never took place in history. What do you make of that?

Incorrect interpretations of what it actually says in the bible, and misdirection by people hiding the fact so as to discredit the primary religions involved for control over their religion, their people.

 

[arthwollipot]

And yet, centuries and centuries of history have passed since these religions were invented and they still cling to their putrid bathwater for dear life because they simply don't want to give it up.

Well, things have changed in those centuries. The development of the scientific method since the 17th century has given humanity a reliable method of determining what is true - something that wasn't available previously.

If religions are going to be reformed then it seems its not going to come from the religious doing so through choice.

Maybe. I'm not sure. But the undisputable existence of a huge number of moderate (ie. non-fundamentalist) theists suggests that there is hope.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

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.

 

[edge]

After leaving Egypt and crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites arrived at the foot of the holy mountain and gathered there in anticipation of the words of God.


There is absolutely no evidence in the Sinai Peninsula and they keep insisting that is the place, who does that?



This is from a private personal investigation/vacation in Saudi Arabia.




From Ron Wyatt I Know he is one of your favorites.
At 18:42

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/mt__sinai_found.htm

 

[arthwollipot]

Yeah, that's not really on-topic here, edge.

 

[dlorde]

the argument that religions contradict each other is only true to a point.

It's true enough for each to explicitly distinguish themselves from other religions with different deities, and/or rituals, belief systems, etc., and to fight over those differences physically or verbally. Even within religions, schisms seem common; conflicts over the minutiae of ritual and belief.

When you get rid of the gobbly gook and get to the POINT of most religions it comes down to: be a good person and that we are part of something larger than ourselves.

That we are part of something larger than ourselves is obvious - the universe is unimaginably vast. But when the source of morality is attributed to some anthropomorphic supernatural entity or an ancient collection of ambiguous writings, the definitions of what is 'good' and what isn't tend to become overloaded with arbitrary and unjustifiable accretions. These can be used to justify all kinds of discrimination and abuse. In real life the gobbldy gook matters.

 

[Egg]

We are talking about religions here, not individual churches or believers, right? So it's kind of religions that do the whole, lumping together horrible atrocities with benign beliefs, not me.

Would you appreciate an examination of Nazi Germany that looked at the economic and technological achievements of Nazi Germany separate from the whole Holocaust and World War II elements and tried to hand-wave those away by saying 'you can't lump together atrocities with benign beliefs, some Nazis were nice people'?

This analogy really doesn't work for me. The Nazis were one political movement with the leadership sanctioning the atrocities. If you extended it to all Germans perhaps, or all the factions in WWII, it might be a little closer to the broad, umbrella term "religion".

If the kids starts punching other children to steal their tooth and make money from the fairy, yes.

I like this analogy far better. I think a lot of the acts attributed to "religion" probably come under this kind of category. Is the belief in the tooth fairly the problem here or is this kid a bully who would be beating up kids for their lunch money anyway if he didn't belief in a tooth fairy? What would be more effective to stop the harmful behaviour? Trying to teach him compassion and empathy or educating him about his false belief?

I'll throw another analogy into the discussion. If someone complained that marriage was evil and cited many cases of spousal abuse and some kind of "think of the children!" emotional plea, wouldn't most of us suspect that individual had probably had a bad experience and perhaps a messy divorce?

 

[Lamuella]

That's semantics; the lack of a belief is a belief that something is not there.

Do you believe I have car keys in my right hand trouser pocket?

I suspect that until I asked this you had no opinion either way, and thus didn't have a belief in the matter.
I suspect that now you have read the question, you honestly do not know, but could not be said to believe that I have car keys in my right hand trouser pocket.

Both of these are situations where you do not believe something is the case, and yet you also do not believe the opposite is the case.

Follow up question: Do you believe that I am writing this message to you from the home of actor Gary Oldman?

I suspect you don't, and yet I also suspect that you do not have enough information to fully form an opinion, so while you certainly don't believe I am writing this from Gary Oldman's home, and you certainly won't be asking me to get his autograph, you couldn't be said to wholeheartedly believe I'm not doing so. There's no reason to assume I am, but that's not the same as believing I am not.

Must go now, I'm making Gary a coffee.