Religion is not evil

[Beelzebuddy]

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

Not true at all. The second law of thermodynamics routinely demands a near-continuous sacrifice of energy just to keep my car running and my house lit.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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.

Well morality and ethics are completely subjective. Belief in God doesn't resolve that issue as shown by the multitude of ethical positions held by God believers.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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.

What are atheistic beliefs and what societies follow them?

In any case, what you ignore is the causality. I don't like homosexuals because God tells me homosexuality is wrong vs I don't like homosexuals because God doesn't exist. Have you ever heard the latter argument?

If we are to judge religion on the beliefs it peddles and the results of those beliefs then we can do the same for atheism - I agree. The problem is that there is no causal link between not believing in God and doing horrible things.

And why do you suggest these issues are ignored when they are unconnected with religion? They aren't. If you want to condemn Communism then condemn away. If you want to condemn racism among secular people then I agree. If you want to rail against homophobia then great. That doesn't excuse religion for actively peddling the stuff.

 

[Pup]

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.

"Belief" can be used different ways. There's belief based on evidence, subject to change as evidence changes. For example, "I believe we have some milk, but let me check the fridge. No, the kids must have used it up. We're out."

Then there's belief held without evidence, or even in the face of contrary evidence, a deep-seated and important attitude. For example, "I believe that all people are created equal, and I can picture the day that we will all have the same rights and opportunities."

Theists are usually using the second meaning when they talk about their religious beliefs. If that's also how they're using it when they talk about atheism, that can be insulting to the kind of atheist who would be perfectly willing to change his mind if he checked the fridge and found a god in there. It implies close-mindedness in the face of evidence, which is praised among religious people because it's an example of keeping the faith despite temptation, but is not something that a lot of atheists enjoy being accused of.

 

[the PC apeman]

Theists are usually using the second meaning when they talk about their religious beliefs. If that's also how they're using it when they talk about atheism, that can be insulting to the kind of atheist who would be perfectly willing to change his mind if he checked the fridge and found a god in there. It implies close-mindedness in the face of evidence, which is praised among religious people because it's an example of keeping the faith despite temptation, but is not something that a lot of atheists enjoy being accused of.

Hear, hear!

Nichole, as eloquently expressed above plus the insinuation that without a moral god people are less likely to behave morally, that you can (inadvertently, I do not doubt) come across being just as condescending as those you so accuse?

 

[dlorde]

- when a lot of people all believe the same thing, there is very little correction to that belief being taken to extremes.

I don't see how that follows - particularly with atheists. Can you get more extreme than not believing in God? But atheists apart, any large group will tend to have liberal and extremist outliers around a mass of moderates. Why would there be a tendency to extremes in the absence of other groups? ISTM it could equally well be argued that you're more likely to get growth of extremist factions when there is competition between groups.

All of this applies to atheists as well.

In what way would one atheist be intolerant of another's atheism?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Well, what if your neighbor doesn't believe in the wrong god? You gonna just stand by and let someone like that move into your neighborhood?

 

[dlorde]

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?

By thinking through a rational morality (if not through simple empathy). Far better to have good reason for the actions we take than to take them under the arbitrary dictat of some supernatural entity.

If we're not here in this universe for a higher power, then morality and ethics are completely subjective.

Well, yes - in as much as judgements are involved, they are. That doesn't mean we won't or can't broadly agree on them.

This video explains very clearly the difficulties with Christian God-derived morality (e.g. Euthyphro dilemma), and explains how a rational morality can be constructed. Please bear with the idiosyncratic delivery - the points he makes are worth hearing if you haven't given much thought to these arguments:

 

[Polaris]

Human Development Index
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/UN_Human_Development_Report_2010_1.PNG/800px-UN_Human_Development_Report_2010_1.PNG[/qimg]

Corruption Perception Index
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/World_Map_Index_of_perception_of_corruption_2010.svg[/qimg]

Importance of religion
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Religion_in_the_world.PNG/800px-Religion_in_the_world.PNG[/qimg]


Does anyone see some sort of correlation?

Vietnam as religious as Saudi Arabia? Really?

 

[Trent Wray]

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.

This is exactly what I hear those who say "without God we would all do evil" are telling me ... that if they didn't believe in moral absolutes, then they would absolutely be selfish, depraved, and not care one whit about their fellow man. And they assume we all would be this way.

I still don't see how they don't understand they are implicating themselves by their own beliefs as being the very thing they accuse others of being ... I think it is linked to a myopic, self centered world view similar to what a child has to grow out of at some point when they realize that the universe isn't all about them and that ... yeah, you don't steal from the cookie jar even when someone isn't watching or going to judge you for it.

Nicole, would you cheat on your husband if there were no God ? Would you rape the hot guy who turns you down ? Would you murder babies who frustrated you because they wouldn't stop crying ? Would you run over old ladies in the street ? Would you shoot people out of road rage ? Even if we didn't have laws against it, and there were no consequences here on godless earth (i.e. jail) ... would you do it ?

One of my favorite movies is Legion ... about the angels. I don't like it because it's some cinematic piece of art or something, I like the message:

God tells the angels to wipe out mankind. All of them get ready to do God's bidding. "God knows best. His authority and desire is absolute and good. Who are we to question and understand it ? He's as awesome as we think he is ... just look at how awesome our lives are as angels." And they set out to kill every man, woman, and child.

Except Michael .... he loves people so much, and values them, that he defies god, and his own brethren, in order to protect and defend them. He even cuts his own wings off, and removes the collar around his neck that binds him to God ...

In the end, the angels who obeyed God get punished and lose, and Michael who disobeyed God gets his wings restored and honored.

The point, is that Michael didn't need to be told to love or kill as though it were a command ... he did it NATURALLY. He was taught it, and it "took" .... he valued humans, life, and love without having to be commanded to do so. Thus, he "proved" he was a "real angel" inherently ... the very thing the others claimed to be, he didn't have to claim to be. He just was.

Not everyone needs to be commanded to love and value others, and protect them from those that place no value on them.

 

[Leumas]

Nicole,

If you had not stated that you were an agnostic, I would have sworn that you were a fundamentalist.


ALLLLLL your assertions are TRITE, HACKNEYED and STALE arguments that have been debunked countless times by countless people in books and debates and forums over the past 250 years.


If you are agnostic as you claim then GO READ SOME books or spend some time watching some debates on youtube.


All, and I mean ALLLLL your assertions and statements and arguments and reasoning are LOGICALLY, SCIENTIFICALLY and EPISTEMOLOGICALLY FAULTY and have already been DEBUNKED time and again.

If you were really an agnostic then you would SEARCH and enquire......not just repeat musty arguments from the days of Augustine onwards that have been debunked by numerous people.

This just hot of the press video I think addresses a few of your points. However..... there are so many wrong assertions in your posts (e.g. 133, 137, 144, 160, 162, 187, 210) that I do not know where to begin answering them.......Moreover, I think it is quite futile ultimately to try to do so since it is quite obvious what you are. Another trait of fundamentalist is to keep repeating the same argument without any consideration to the DIRECT rebuttals.


You are only agnostic about your deep rooted fundamentalism....that is the only thing you are actually agnostic about due to a chronic COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.


No attack or derision intended….just stating facts.


Just as a quick example….. a Rabbi who advocates interfaith marriage and homosexual relations might be a great guy…..but he is NO BLOODY RABBI of any Torah…..

Why call yourself a Rabbi of Judaism if you are going to ANNUL the Mitzvot? If you annul the Mitzvot then you are not Jewish…..go start a new religion. But the Mitzvot are one thing that is very clear in the Torah….. it is to be obeyed to the letter FOR EVER.

Another little aside….. how can human senses detect AM of FM radio? So you see science is more than human senses….in fact that is precisely what science tries to overcome….e.g. microscope and telescope and MRI and Geiger Counter and so on and so forth.

 

[Leumas]

The CT sub is thataway --->

 

[Leumas]

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

 

[tsig]

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"?

Because it isn't "everyman for himself". Two can overcome one.

 

[Leumas]

To the OP,

I am just going to state a few points without too much elaboration on them because I think they have been made many times in the past by many people:

• Bad people will do bad things regardless. Good people will do good things regardless. But Religion makes good people do bad things or at the very least acquiesce to bad things being done or have apathy towards evil.
  
• If I shoot you and then carry you to the hospital to be saved…. Am I good or evil?
  
• Religion is a DRUG….. if someone was addicted to a drug or is an alcoholic but is happy and contented to be in a stupor….would you advocate leaving them alone? Would you advocate letting ALL members of society be high?
  
• Herds tend to stampede
  
• Hives tend to swarm
  
• In a Petri Dish virulent bacteria feed on a benign sugary matrix.
  
• When people are encouraged to abandon reason there is no end to what they can abandon.
  
• When people’s epistemological foundations are faulty then Cognitive Dissonance is always a risk unless they are never exposed to anything that might challenge the fabric of their delusions. Isn’t it better to build on more valid and solid grounds so as to avoid pain when the delusions are shattered by the world of science we live in today? Maybe people are not unhappy because of science…maybe they are unhappy because of fractured puerile delusions and immature illusions.
  
• Watch this video http://vimeo.com/31505142
  
• As stated in other posts….. charity is in fact much more effective through secular and international charities than through religious ones.
  
• Religious people when they had power, they abused and ran amuck. Don’t kid yourself. For example….try to buy a drink on Sunday or after 11 pm in places like Georgia or Alabama. Do you think if they had the power they would refrain from outlawing any business on Sunday? Do you think they would allow abortion?
  
• 

 

[westprog]

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.

I'm not saying "in regards to morality". I mean the precise claim that the atheist's reasons for behaving well are inherently better than those who profess a religion. And by compelling, I mean sufficiently persuasive that I would consider amending my beliefs accordingly.

 

[westprog]

What are atheistic beliefs and what societies follow them?

They are belief systems that include atheism as part of their philosophical stance. It's really not difficult to find such ideas. The most populous country on the planet is one place to look.

In any case, what you ignore is the causality. I don't like homosexuals because God tells me homosexuality is wrong vs I don't like homosexuals because God doesn't exist. Have you ever heard the latter argument?

Or alternatively, I love homosexuals because God told me to love my neighbour - or I hate them because there is no God, and homosexuality is an affront to nature. Both of which are also real-world arguments.

I'm amazed that there are people who've never encountered an atheist homophobe. Perhaps they don't believe in them.

If we are to judge religion on the beliefs it peddles and the results of those beliefs then we can do the same for atheism - I agree. The problem is that there is no causal link between not believing in God and doing horrible things.

And why do you suggest these issues are ignored when they are unconnected with religion? They aren't. If you want to condemn Communism then condemn away. If you want to condemn racism among secular people then I agree. If you want to rail against homophobia then great. That doesn't excuse religion for actively peddling the stuff.

Well, if you are going to claim that you can divide people into group A and group B, and then when group A do something, say that it's because they are part of group A, and when group B do exactly the same thing, say that it's happenstance and no basis on which to judge group B, I doubt whether objective judgement is being used.

 

[westprog]

In what way would one atheist be intolerant of another's atheism?

I didn't say that. I said that atheists with different belief systems would be intolerant of each other, because of the areas in which they differed, not the ones which they had in common.

People who believe in god don't disagree about the existence of god. They disagree about other things. Same with atheists, as we see in Real Life.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

There have been atheist groups for decades. And some of them do charity work. However, as has often been stated, getting atheists to do anything as a group is like herding cats. Churches have organisation and heirarchy, which are definite advantages to actually achieving things.

Slavery gets **** done too. I have to respectfully disagree with your premise.

 

[psionl0]

So, what is the correct word for someone who believes there is no god? Most such people call themselves "atheist" but anybody who defines atheism as the belief in no god gets shouted down in the howls of protest.