Religion is not evil

[westprog]

Obviously. But apparently even that's not enough for some people.

I was told by one member of a group of friends, who are nice enough otherwise, that he wouldn't want me at any of their funerals, even if I didn't say or do anything to express my thoughts, simply because he knows what I'd be thinking.

While I'm used to the idea that Christians want atheists to sit quietly at the back of the bus and not say or do anything disrespectful (metaphorically speaking), that was the first time someone told me I wouldn't even be allowed on the bus.

Well, it's their private bus. And that's the point, really. Are you going to carry on allowing people to arrange their own funerals, and deciding who can go and who can't? What's the alternative?

 

[westprog]

Sure, religion can bring people together to do good, but it isn't necessary. It can provide a ready made network of charitable types, but so can lots of other things. Thus, religion is not a force for good, merely one in any number of groupings that can potentially bring people together. Even if you ignored the evils of the world caused by religion, it's a wholly worthless artefact when it comes to doing good.

Not necessary in what sense? If you ask someone why he does good deeds, and he says "I think that helping other people is God's purpose for me", then how do you disentangle that? How do you explain to him that in fact, he has no purpose, the universe has no meaning, his actions are just an infinitesimal speck in space and time - but he should help out anyway?

 

[RedRatSnake]

That's never really done much for me

I hear there, anyone starts to preach that crap too me i just get mad in seconds, they can leave me alone or risk what could be a really dumb snap decision on my part.

Now here is some George Carlin to lighten things up ~

When it comes to ********, big-time, major league ********, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest ******** story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good ******** story. Holy ******

 

[westprog]

Does anyone see some sort of correlation?

Not in the absence of a key to the first chart.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Not necessary in what sense? If you ask someone why he does good deeds, and he says "I think that helping other people is God's purpose for me", then how do you disentangle that? How do you explain to him that in fact, he has no purpose, the universe has no meaning, his actions are just an infinitesimal speck in space and time - but he should help out anyway?

Excellent point. If there is no God I would hope that we as human beings would still want to do good for the betterment of everyone, but why would many of us want to? If we're not here in this universe for a higher power, then morality and ethics are completely subjective.

 

[westprog]

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'?

And you didn't address my earlier point? Why haven't these nice, fluffy, valuable religions eliminated the nasty elements of their dogma in the past centuries?

Why does the Catholic Church continue it's stance against contraception when we know the issues it causes? If God is an unknowable force for good in the universe, then the Catholic Church just made up this requirement, right? They can just as easily decide it's no longer the case.

Why do many Christian churches continue their stance against homosexuality, same sex marriage, when we know the issues it causes? If God is an unknowable force for good in the universe, then they just made up this requirement, right? They can just as easily decide it's no longer the case

Why does Judaism encourage parents to cut off a bit of their sons anatomy in order to be part of the club?If God is an unknowable force for good in the universe, then they just made up this requirement, right? They can just as easily decide it's no longer the case.

And if the good outnumber the bad in religion why don't they rise up and sort these things out? Why aren't all the religious charities doing good work in Africa, uniting to spread the word that God doesn't mind if you wear a condom and that the Catholic Church are nasty ****s for perpetuating this nonsense?



Why does the thought of everyone understanding reality frighten you? Do you find it frightening that people all believe the same thing about gravity? After all, whatever the answer is, there can only be one correct one. You are basically arguing that you hope some people continue to be wrong about something as important as this?



Oh, I could think of a test that would demonstrate whether you truly value your husband more than your own life, though I doubt that anyone would let me run it, but anyway...

..surely you accept that 'just knowing' is not an argument for anything? It could be used as a justification for absolutely anything at all. It's also demonstrably an unreliable way to assess anything. I'm sure plenty people 'just knew' they loved their spouses and would do so forever and then got divorced not too long after.

This is an argument for not thinking and it's the kind of nonsense that religion peddles that doesn't help anyone.

So in societies that follow atheistic beliefs*, is there persecution of homosexuality? Is same-sex marriage allowed? How should we deal with this? Do we take this as something that is an inherent problem with atheism? If not, why not?

*Yes, I know that atheism is not a belief system. However, there are belief systems which are explicitly atheist. If we are to judge religion as a whole based on the behaviour of the various religions, then we should judge atheism as a whole based on the various atheistic beliefs. It makes no sense to criticize religion for particular issues, and to ignore those issues when they surface unconnected with religion.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Of course you can.



That might have something to do with the fact that you don't understand science, evidence, or the world around you.

You know how to scientifically prove how much I love my husband?

Your condescending tone is not helping your cause.

 

[the PC apeman]

If there is no God I would hope that we as human beings would still want to do good for the betterment of everyone, but why would many of us want to? If we're not here in this universe for a higher power, then morality and ethics are completely subjective.

Oh what a dim view you have of your fellow humans. If this thinking a product of 'benign churches and temples in every neighborhood', then I think you have inadvertently rebutted the title of this thread.

 

[Humes fork]

Excellent point. If there is no God I would hope that we as human beings would still want to do good for the betterment of everyone, but why would many of us want to? If we're not here in this universe for a higher power, then morality and ethics are completely subjective.

God's existence to morality is irrelevant.

And of course humans can be good to each other without gods. Though the world is awfully imperfect, one the whole we have become less cruel to one another over the course of recorded history.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Let's see:

I don't believe in god = I believe in god.

divide by "in god"

then:

I don't believe = I believe.

Seems like there's a contradiction here.

LOL that is a very funny but logical analogy. I find it interesting that so many on here are so upset by the label of "belief". Saying that atheists have a belief does not mean that they are theists, just that they have a belief; in this case the belief is that God does not exist. Yeesh.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

God's existence to morality is irrelevant.

And of course humans can be good to each other without gods. Though the world is awfully imperfect, one the whole we have become less cruel to one another over the course of recorded history.

Why is God's existence irrelevant? How will morality not be subjective? The only way I can see that morality would be completely objective is if there are basic laws that govern the entire universe. Also, as I said, many people hopefully would want to still do good things for each other and contribute to the advancement of our civilization. However, if we all know that God does not exist and this is it; we're here for no reason, why wouldn't many people just believe in "every man for himself"?

 

[westprog]

Excellent point. If there is no God I would hope that we as human beings would still want to do good for the betterment of everyone, but why would many of us want to? If we're not here in this universe for a higher power, then morality and ethics are completely subjective.

It's often claimed that the atheist's reasons for behaving well are superior in some way to the Christian's or Muslim's reasons (often by insisting that religious people only act well out of fear). I've never seen a compelling argument.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

No it don't.

I'm pulling this out because my objection to it is the same as to Arthwollipot's OP: you don't get to cherrypick others' religion like that. Freedom of religion is a funny thing. In return for being allowed to act and think what you will in the name of your god or lack thereof, you have to grant the same consideration to everyone else. For many people the "gobbly gook" is the POINT, while hippy-dippy being a good person crap will get you sent to Hell... and they're just as correct as you are.

Deism may work fine for you, but you can't write off the offensive elements of religion as individuals missing the POINT. Ultimately it's their baby and their bathwater. Respect it all or reject it all, you don't get to pick up the baby for them to throw the rest out.

If you take any scripture literally then you'll end up with what you described. If you read it for metaphor and deeper meaning, what I said makes sense.

 

[the PC apeman]

Why is God's existence irrelevant? How will morality not be subjective? The only way I can see that morality would be completely objective is if there are basic laws that govern the entire universe. Also, as I said, many people hopefully would want to still do good things for each other and contribute to the advancement of our civilization. However, if we all know that God does not exist and this is it; we're here for no reason, why wouldn't many people just believe in "every man for himself"?

Did you read or are you familiar with the Euthyphro Dilemma? Which horn, if either, do you accept? Your questions were answered 2500 years ago in the Euthyphro.

 

[Resume]

It's often claimed that the atheist's reasons for behaving well are superior in some way to the Christian's or Muslim's reasons (often by insisting that religious people only act well out of fear). I've never seen a compelling argument.

Never? That seems hard to believe. Now I've been an atheist for running on nearly 40 years and I would be intellectually dishonest if I claimed that I've never seen a compelling supporting argument made by a theist in regards to morality. Not saying convincing ultimately . . . but to say never? I'm not buying it.

 

[Pup]

Well, it's their private bus. And that's the point, really. Are you going to carry on allowing people to arrange their own funerals, and deciding who can go and who can't? What's the alternative?

It's a sign of what you said in your previous post:

"when a lot of people all believe the same thing, there is very little correction to that belief being taken to extremes. When a number of different people believe different things, and are tolerant of each other's beliefs, then the extremes are corrected."

There's nothing one can force people to do, of course. It's more of a lesson learned. I saw that at least one person who seemed tolerant and friendly on the surface, would try to circle the wagons against me in a second, merely because of who I am, even if he didn't think I would do or say anything unacceptable.

It made me trust people like him less and realize that they could be very different from me. It would never occur to me to exclude someone I was otherwise friendly with, only because they thought differently from me.

 

[Pup]

Excellent point. If there is no God I would hope that we as human beings would still want to do good for the betterment of everyone, but why would many of us want to? If we're not here in this universe for a higher power, then morality and ethics are completely subjective.

Bees. They don't believe in god, as far as I know, but they work selflessly for the good of the hive.

The reason many of us would still want to do good for the betterment of others is the same as bees: we're bred to be social animals, who survive best when we cooperate. Those without the urge to work together were more likely to die off without reproducing, leaving the successful extended families and tribes to breed.

In fact, when it comes to religion and doing good, I'd say it's the other way around: We created religions because we as humans had such a strong urge to organize and cooperate, that we felt it must have come from an awesome, incomprehensibly powerful lawgiver. Religions were a way to articulate this sensation, codify it and enforce it on those at the end of the bell curve who had less of an urge.

If we didn't have an inbred sense of morality, we each would have done our own thing and never would have bothered to create religions.

 

[RedRatSnake]

Nice Post Pup

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Why is God's existence irrelevant? How will morality not be subjective? The only way I can see that morality would be completely objective is if there are basic laws that govern the entire universe. Also, as I said, many people hopefully would want to still do good things for each other and contribute to the advancement of our civilization. However, if we all know that God does not exist and this is it; we're here for no reason, why wouldn't many people just believe in "every man for himself"?

I like the implication of this; that a firm belief in an unknowable Creator is all that's keeping Nicole from flipping out in an immoral frenzy of face punching and other heinous activities. Like a remake of Falling Down directed by Mel Brooks.

If you take any scripture literally then you'll end up with what you described. If you read it for metaphor and deeper meaning, what I said makes sense.

Reading it for metaphor and deeper meaning doesn't invalidate the interpretation of those who take it literally. You are equally correct, or incorrect, as the case may be, and must be painted with the same brush. The title of the thread is "Religion is not evil," not "Some religions are not evil." The latter is certainly true, but neither you, nor I, nor anyone else has the right to decide which.

 

[Humes fork]

Why is God's existence irrelevant?

Are you familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma?

How will morality not be subjective?

It is. God's existence is irrelevant.

The only way I can see that morality would be completely objective is if there are basic laws that govern the entire universe.

There are basic laws that govern the universe. But they are completely silent on how human beings should behave.

Also, as I said, many people hopefully would want to still do good things for each other and contribute to the advancement of our civilization.

Indeed. Are you familiar with the relatively secular countries in northern Europe? Would you agree that they have made some relevant contributions to human civilization?

However, if we all know that God does not exist and this is it; we're here for no reason, why wouldn't many people just believe in "every man for himself"?

In 15th century Sweden, the murder rate was about 100 times higher than today. Yet we were a much more Christian country then. Today we are one of the most highly developed and one of the most peaceful countries in the world. So secularization didn't result in chaos, apparently.

The Skeptic's Dictionary writes well on this subject.