Religion is not evil

[Mudcat]

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"?

Maybe because this is something that would be contrary to the evolution of our species and our continued survival.

 

[FattyCatty]

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.

But beliefs aren't true or false, they are just what people believe are true or false. Beliefs in the sense of faith are about things there can't be evidence for, that can't be proved or disproved. So truth and falsity are just opinions regarding beliefs.

If John believes A, A is true for John but not true for Jane, because Jane believes B. The problem arises when John thinks Jane must believe the same way he does. As long as people don't demand that others believe the way they do, why are differing beliefs a problem?

 

[Lamuella]

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.

and as we have explained several times, not all atheists have this belief. It is not one of the requirements for being an atheist.

 

[Lamuella]

So, what is the correct word for someone who believes there is no god?

The one I've heard most often is "strong atheist"

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.

The definition of ice cream doesn't say that it tastes like chocolate, but that doesn't stop chocolate ice cream from existing. It just means that there are other flavours as well.

 

[Belz...]

That's never really done much for me ... if I'm threatened by someone or something or taking it personally I'm usually more direct with my release of aggression. Plus, I'm not much for "boxing" where there's rules and mouth guards in place. I either walk away or I like the result of my punches to be where the thing I'm punching doesn't get up again. And treating something like crap ... I personally don't like playing with crap. Flush it away and get it TFA from me . It's almost the equivalent to petty smack talking or bullying to me ... about as satisfying as having sex with no orgasm. Or maybe what having sex with a blow up doll must feel like

Well I'm sorry you feel that way, assuming I even understand half of your post.

 

[Belz...]

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

You are aware that love is physical, right ?

Your condescending tone is not helping your cause.

Your ignorance isn't helping yours.

 

[Belz...]

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.

How many miles do you get by virgin ?

 

[Lamuella]

I've always been curious and a little confused about the argument that without their religion, religious people would see no reason not to commit [insert horrible act here].

I have no religion, and I avoid committing horrible crimes by being a good person and caring about how my actions affect others. Does that mean I'm just more inherently moral than most religious people?

 

[Humes fork]

But beliefs aren't true or false, they are just what people believe are true or false. Beliefs in the sense of faith are about things there can't be evidence for, that can't be proved or disproved. So truth and falsity are just opinions regarding beliefs.

If John believes A, A is true for John but not true for Jane, because Jane believes B. The problem arises when John thinks Jane must believe the same way he does. As long as people don't demand that others believe the way they do, why are differing beliefs a problem?

Postmodernism rears its face.

If I believe that the Earth is flat, is it true for me? If I believe the law of gravity is just a social convention, does it mean that if a society decides to reject it, it ceases to exist?

And people can discuss things without "demanding" that everyone agrees.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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.

Not the question that was asked. You have cause and effect the wrong way around. Yes there are belief systems that include the property atheism. That doesn't mean they are a subset of atheist beliefs or that those beliefs derive from atheism.

Or to put it another way, vegetarianism is a belief system that includes the property not eating pork, not eating pork does not make you a vegetarian nor is vegetarianism a belief system of those who do not eat pork.

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.

No, I have never seen the argument 'I hate homosexuals because there is no God'. This is simply not a real world argument as shown by the fact that you had to tack on an irrelevant 'affront to nature' qualifier to make your point. Atheism does not teach that anything that is an 'affront to nature' should be condemned or anything of the sort.

You simply cannot start at the premise 'God does not exist' and arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong without introducing other unrelated assumptions. You cannot say the same about the statement 'The Biblical God exists'

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

Not the question and not even a very good attempt at moving the goalposts. Atheist homophobes exist. Atheism does not teach or encourage homophobia.

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.

I doubt you missed the point so I'll assume you are just deliberating evading it. If people in Group A actively endorse the message that 'we should do something' and then people in group A do something there is a clear causal link. That there are other ways to arrive at the same behaviour doesn't make it OK for Group A to promote and encourage horrible behaviour.

Your argument is similar to saying that medicine doesn't work because some people get better by themselves or that vegetarianism doesn't lead to people not eating pork because some people who aren't vegetarians don't eat pork too.

 

[dlorde]

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.

OK. I had thought the discussion was focused on issues directly related to atheism or religion.

 

[dlorde]

But beliefs aren't true or false, they are just what people believe are true or false. Beliefs in the sense of faith are about things there can't be evidence for, that can't be proved or disproved. So truth and falsity are just opinions regarding beliefs.

Yes, I had a feeling this might happen; I assumed (for the very reason you stated above) that it would be understood that I was referring to the claims or objects of the belief, which can be objectively true or false, real or unreal; e.g. I believe that man walked on the moon - true; I believe that the moonshots were a hoax - false.

My apologies for not spelling it out more clearly.

With regards to beliefs in the sense of faith - the claims the beliefs refer to may be unfalsifiable, but, as already explained, if the claims are conflicting, then the claims cannot all be true/correct. It was a trivial logical point that has caused far more trouble than it was worth.

 

[arthwollipot]

An example of this is Operation Christmas Child.

Operation Christmas Child looks to me like a crap charity, and one that wouldn't sign up to a code of conduct such as the one we have in Australia.

You can look through it on ACFID's website (full disclosure - I work for this organisation): http://www.acfid.asn.au/code-of-conduct. I particularly would like to draw your attention to Section 2.7:

Funds and other resources designated for the purposes of aid and development will be used only for those purposes and will not be used to promote a particular religious adherence or to support a political party, or to promote a candidate or organisation affiliated to a political party.

This is the code that organisations such as World Vision Australia, Oxfam, Save the Children, and how about I just give you a link to the list of ACFID members? http://www.acfid.asn.au/about-acfid/inside-acfid/current-members

There are similar lists of organisations in the US and the UK - I would encourage everyone to look for such a list when deciding which charities to support, and support only those organisations that sign up to a code of conduct that promotes organisational integrity and transparency.

Just because there are some bad religious charities doesn't mean that they all are. Similarly, just because some Catholic priests are paedophiles or paedophile enablers, doesn't mean they all are.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There are as many evil religions as there are evil people. Everybody has their own religion, so this naturally follows.

 

[Lamuella]

Just because there are some bad religious charities doesn't mean that they all are. Similarly, just because some Catholic priests are paedophiles or paedophile enablers, doesn't mean they all are.

If you're using the good that religious charities do as evidence of the good religion does, doesn't logic dictate that other people can use the harm that religious charities or institutions do as evidence of the harm that religion causes?

 

[CriticalSock]

A huge number of posts can happen in 24 hours, and I'm sorry that I won't be able to address all of them. There have been some really good posts on both sides of the discussion. Some really pointless ones on both sides too. Some that have made me wonder why the poster has continued to participate in this thread at all.

Even more in 48 hours! I knew I shouldn't have gone on holiday!

Has atheism been accepted as a lack of belief rather than a belief yet (and that there is a difference)?

I'd like to address this: Someone asked me if I felt that the good of religion outweighs the evil. My answer is that I don't know. Some days I think it does - other days I think it doesn't. As I said yesterday, I don't believe such a comparison is quantifiable. Metaphors seem to be popular right now, so I'll offer this one:

We can all agree that the bathwater is putrid. But can't we recognise that there's still a baby in it? Let's rescue the baby and clean it up so that we can put it in some clean water. Yes, I think that religion can be reformed and changed to get rid of the bad parts. The change will inevitably be slow - most likely over a number of generations. And once this happens, I believe that religion itself will probably atrophy and become redundant - again over several generations. I can imagine a future where the good that religion provides becomes redundant and is completely replaced with secular motivations. But we're not living in the future, we're living now, and religion isn't going away any time soon.

That's all well and good. A baby isn't partly bathwater. There isn't a grey area that's part bathwater part baby. Taking the good bits out of religion and throwing out the bad would leave all that is meaningfully religion draining away down the plug hole and a beautiful little human in your arms!

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for remaining civil and polite in this thread. When I posted it I felt that there was a real risk of heated arguments and multiple reports and splits to AAH. I'm happy that such a contentious subject (on this forum, at least) can be discussed with such politeness and good humour.

You're so cute!!

Another one that's making the rounds at the moment is this: Religion is like a penis. It's all very fine to have one, and even to be proud of it. But please don't whip it out in public and wave it about, and don't shove it down my children's throats.

 

[Resume]

I've always been curious and a little confused about the argument that without their religion, religious people would see no reason not to commit [insert horrible act here].

I have no religion, and I avoid committing horrible crimes by being a good person and caring about how my actions affect others. Does that mean I'm just more inherently moral than most religious people?

Conversely, I can think of several christians, or several who claim such, that have flatly stated that without Jesus or christianity, they'd rape and kill with impunity. I can remember the first time I heard this jaw-dropper like yesterday and the guy who uttered it. I had no doubt.

ETA: Just to clarify, the christians I am talking about here were born and raised in the faith, and were discussing the consequence of "sin" and hellfire.

 

[arthwollipot]

If you're using the good that religious charities do as evidence of the good religion does, doesn't logic dictate that other people can use the harm that religious charities or institutions do as evidence of the harm that religion causes?

Of course it does! We have no disagreement here. Religious charities are capable of both harm and good. I've been saying this all along, but some people seem to have trouble with the idea. Some people believe that religion can only be all harm, and it is this that I have a dispute with.

 

[Lamuella]

Of course it does! We have no disagreement here. Religious charities are capable of both harm and good. I've been saying this all along, but some people seem to have trouble with the idea. Some people believe that religion can only be all harm, and it is this that I have a dispute with.

can you point me to an example in this thread of someone saying that "Religion can only be all harm"?

 

[edge]

I've always been curious and a little confused about the argument that without their religion, religious people would see no reason not to commit [insert horrible act here].

I have no religion, and I avoid committing horrible crimes by being a good person and caring about how my actions affect others. Does that mean I'm just more inherently moral than most religious people?

I have never heard a Christian say that?
Whether I was an atheist or a Christian the laws against those crimes is a deterrent firstly, Jail or prison is what a normal person is afraid of, Isolation and a lack of freedom is a deterrent.
I would think they are not Christian if they say that and their heart isn't with Christ.
Your on the right track though.