Religion is not evil

[arthwollipot]

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

Sure!

The devastation of AIDS perpetuated by the RCC, and USian xtian orgs.
The burning of 'witches' in Africa (Uganda I think) VIDEO HERE NSFW Graphic warning.
Genital mutilation of very young girls and boys, often performed with sharp stones rather than sterile surgical implements. VIDEO HERE NSFW, graphic warning, (I couldn't bring myself to watch it YMMV)
The 'Limbo' farce.
The bombing of abortion clinics.
Murdering Doctors.
Flying planes into buildings.
Suicide bombers.
Sectarian violence.
Faith schools.
Creationism.
Back slapping and embracement of Fascism.
The KKK.
Mother Teresa.
This is just a very small sample of the atrocious behaviour supported and/or perpertrated by religions of every flavour. I could go on. And on. And on.

This behaviour is in no way counteracted by the very small percentage of religious orgs that offer aid with no strings attached. To be brutally honest, I'd rather see 10 tents less on a plane to an area devastated by an earthquake than see another witch burning video like the one posted above. And for the few that get a personal satisfaction from their own religion then watch the 3yr old girl have her clitoris removed in 2nd vid and tell me what did their god do to stop it. What has any religion done to condemn and more importantly, stop this kind of behaviour. For chrissakes, the pope nor head of the C of E condemned Islam for 9/11. If they can't or won't police themselves or each other then let's be rid of them all. They are nought better than smallpox.

Please don't tell me that religion is benign, you are far too intelligent to support that pov.

 

[arthwollipot]

I have never heard a Christian say that?

It's not common or mainstream, but it has been said. Apparently because it was said once by one person, that means every Christian thinks the same way.

 

[tsig]

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.

When someone says that without belief in god they'd go raping and killing it says more about them than it does about the validity of god.

ETA: The whole 'you can't be moral without god' argument says nothing about the reality of god's existence.

 

[Resume]

When someone says that without belief in god they'd go raping and killing it says more about them than it does about the validity of god.

ETA: The whole 'you can't be moral without god' argument says nothing about the reality of god's existence.

Oh indeed.

 

[Lamuella]

I have never heard a Christian say that?

At least one person in this very thread has used this exact argument.

 

[Lamuella]

Sure!

in the post you quoted, mention is made of religious organizations giving aid with no strings attached. Can you point me to an example in this thread of someone saying that "Religion can only be all harm"?

It's not common or mainstream, but it has been said. Apparently because it was said once by one person, that means every Christian thinks the same way.

Strawman. Nobody in this thread has said that every christian thinks the same way, on this or any other issue.

 

[Pup]

Sure!

But that doesn't say "Religion can only be all harm."

It lists the harm that religion has done, notes that a small percentage offer "aid with no strings attached" (emphasis added) and then makes a judgment call on the good vs. bad that the majority of religion does: "To be brutally honest, I'd rather see 10 tents less on a plane to an area devastated by an earthquake than see another witch burning video like the one posted above."

Maybe we're interpreting "Religion can only be all harm" in different ways. I'd take it to refer to a claim that everything religion did was bad, but if you interpret it to mean that the bad in religion outweighs the good so it's bad overall, well, then, yes, that's not unusual to hear.

 

[Pup]

Originally Posted by 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 never heard a Christian say that?

From this thread a few pages back: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7724752&postcount=265

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.

 

[Lamuella]

to be fair, pup, I think Nicole has claimed to be agnostic.

To also be fair, I didn't mention christians in my original post.

 

[Akhenaten]

Simply because you say atheism is not a believe does not make that statement true. Until science can prove that God does not exist, atheism is a belief.

Drivel.

 

[FattyCatty]

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.

You didn't read my post carefully. Here it is, to refresh your memory:

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?

I was talking about belief in the sense of faith, that is, belief in things that cannot be proved or disproved. Your examples do not fall into that category and, thus, do not refute my point. In addition, my comment about "don't demand that others believe the way they do" was about belief (remember that I'm using it in the sense of faith). And, in fact, many religions, and other groups, do demand that "others believe the way they do." Wars have been fought over the issue of conflicting 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.

I agree that claims of a belief that are testable can be objectively labeled true or false.

I disagree that conflicting beliefs cannot all be true/correct. If we cannot know (i.e., have proof) about beliefs, then we cannot know that they are not all correct. Maybe there is a god who is all things to all people (being each thing to each person), even when they conflict. We don't know. So I do not call someone's belief (faith) "false" compared to mine. It is merely "different" from mine.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

to be fair, pup, I think Nicole has claimed to be agnostic.

I'd peg her as a Deist, in the Age of Enlightenment tradition. She has a positive belief in a vague, unknowable Creator, which despite being unknowable is still known to be Abrahamic and not, say, Zeus on steroids. Said Creator is also the wellspring of all morals and goodness in the world, though he does not interact with reality in any testable sense. She believes scripture is largely metaphor and "gobbly gook," and that its true meaning is a smiling beard in the sky who just wants you to be a good person.

Since Deism as a term went out of vogue in the 19th century, it's not surprising "agnostic" is the best she'd found to describe her beliefs, but a Deist she is regardless.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

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.

Sorry, I don't believe you, because that is one of the single biggest arguments I have heard by Christians, that God is the only thing keeping people from being immoral serial killing baby rapists. In just the last week alone I can think of two peole on JREF, Jude Brando and Epix, who have made that claim. Whenever I click on any news story about Christianity or atheism, that is in many of the comments. For instance, when there was an article the other day by Penn Gillette about his proposed 10 commandments for atheists, in just the first page of comments, there were 3 making the argument that without God, they'd all be evil. I honestly can't keep track of how many preachers I've heard, or seen quoted here or elsewhere, saying that God keeps us from being evil.

I just don't believe you could have lived in the world and never once heard this argument when I hear it more than any other pro deist argument.

Though all the argument does is make me think man, we better NOT debunk Christianity, because apparently a lot of Christians are actually evil and the only reason they don't rape and kill us all is because of fear of getting hellfire for it.

In regards to the OP though - I had a very positive Christian upbringing. I went to a liberal Catholic Church. There was no gay hating or bashing the non religious or other religious, and we didn't really talk about Hell much at all. And when it did come up, it was presented to us that only really bad people went to hell, you didn't go there for not being Christians. They weren't Bible fundamentalists and we were taught evolution to be true.

They just focused on volunteer work, charity, being a good person, forgiveness, and acceptance/tolerance, as well as stressing good deeds towards the poor, weak, and sick.

Yeah, you could get that without religion, but honestly, I liked the superstitious stuff. I loved the saints and the rituals and the mysteries and the traditions. The songs and psalms and festivals and holidays. I honestly enjoyed my Christianity and all the trappings that came with it.

Of course, this isn't to say it excuses all the misdeads of the RCC as a whole.

But for me personally, I actually would still be Christian if I could. I loved my church and my priests and everything about it. I just don't believe it anymore, and I just can't trick my own brain into believing something that isn't true. But even if I did still believe in it, I probably wouldn't be able to be Catholic anymore due to the actions of the Church in regards to homosexuals and pedophilia in the last decade.

 

[westprog]

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?

You apparently have a belief system that involves good and evil, and that it objectively matters what happens to people. That's fine - whatever works - but I don't see how your belief in these cosmic abstractions is superior than someone else's more personalised concept. Add an 'o' to God, take a 'd' off the devil, and there's not a lot of difference.

There are the sterner atheists with a more rigourous approach, who regard good and evil as human fictions. There is no better or worse in their universe - which doesn't stop them insisting that atheism is better than religion, in some non-objective yet not totally subjective way.

 

[westprog]

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.



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'

You can't derive a homophobic stance from the statement "god does not exist". Nor can you derive it from "god exists". Atheism and religion both start with a blank sheet. Religion is not the same thing as "the bibilical god exists".

It's perfectly possible to have a vague atheism, or a vague religion. A vague religion isn't going to lead to any particular view on homosexuality - but it might allow a personal prejudice to operate.

If you want to compare like with like, you have to compare a particular belief which is religious, with another that is explicitly atheistic. Marxist communism is explicitly atheistic, it's a belief system that runs the lives of over a billion people, and it's been used to justify all kinds of persecutions.

I'm deliberately leaving aside belief systems, such as Naziism, which are religion-neutral*. It's perfectly possible to be a Nazi and to be an atheist or not be an atheist. It's not possible to be a (Marxist**) communist and profess a religion without contradiction.

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

Religion doesn't teach or encourage homophobia. Particular religious beliefs do, and particular atheistic beliefs do. So do certain orthogonal secular beliefs.

Comparing like with like doesn't mean comparing generic atheism with specific religions.

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.

It's simply absurd to claim causality when A and ~A lead to the same result.

*Clearly a lot of people who had professed religious beliefs were also Nazis. There might well be a conflict between fervent Naziism, and fervent Catholicism, but many people managed to work around it.
I assume that the *********** belt buckle will get another airing.

**I specify Marxist communism because otherwise some irrelevant religious commune will get brought up.

 

[westprog]

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

I'm referring to disagreements directly related to atheist or religious belief systems, not just belief systems that don't relate directly to religious belief.

 

[westprog]

It's not common or mainstream, but it has been said. Apparently because it was said once by one person, that means every Christian thinks the same way.

IME, most Christians behave well (insofar as they do) for the same reasons that atheists behave well - because they think it's right to do so. They just happen to have a basis for thinking that there is such a thing as right and wrong. It's not surprising that they would say that behaving well rests on a belief that there is actual right and wrong.

 

[iknownothing]

IME, most Christians behave well (insofar as they do) for the same reasons that atheists behave well

Agreed so far.

I would say that Christians simply mistake the reason for why they behave well. They don't give themselves enough credit for being decent people.

They just happen to have a basis for thinking that there is such a thing as right and wrong.

Are you completely unaware of the non-religious arguments made for why people have a sense of right and wrong?

Here's a question for those who believe religion is needed to be good: Animals, just like people, can do some things that are terrible and some that are wonderful. You can see animals doing things that are, to all appearances, selfless and loving. Why do they do that? Is it because they have some kind of animal religion? Do they fear the wrath of God? What is it that keeps a wolf from rampaging around, killing off his packmates?

 

[Lamuella]

You apparently have a belief system that involves good and evil, and that it objectively matters what happens to people. That's fine - whatever works - but I don't see how your belief in these cosmic abstractions is superior than someone else's more personalised concept. Add an 'o' to God, take a 'd' off the devil, and there's not a lot of difference.

Stop making things up about what I believe. At no point did I claim any belief in "cosmic abstractions".

Is inventing positions for other people to hold really the best you can do?

 

[tsig]

You can't derive a homophobic stance from the statement "god does not exist". Nor can you derive it from "god exists". Atheism and religion both start with a blank sheet. Religion is not the same thing as "the bibilical god exists".

It's perfectly possible to have a vague atheism, or a vague religion. A vague religion isn't going to lead to any particular view on homosexuality - but it might allow a personal prejudice to operate.

If you want to compare like with like, you have to compare a particular belief which is religious, with another that is explicitly atheistic. Marxist communism is explicitly atheistic, it's a belief system that runs the lives of over a billion people, and it's been used to justify all kinds of persecutions.

I'm deliberately leaving aside belief systems, such as Naziism, which are religion-neutral*. It's perfectly possible to be a Nazi and to be an atheist or not be an atheist. It's not possible to be a (Marxist**) communist and profess a religion without contradiction.




Religion doesn't teach or encourage homophobia. Particular religious beliefs do, and particular atheistic beliefs do. So do certain orthogonal secular beliefs.

Comparing like with like doesn't mean comparing generic atheism with specific religions.



It's simply absurd to claim causality when A and ~A lead to the same result.

*Clearly a lot of people who had professed religious beliefs were also Nazis. There might well be a conflict between fervent Naziism, and fervent Catholicism, but many people managed to work around it.
I assume that the *********** belt buckle will get another airing.

**I specify Marxist communism because otherwise some irrelevant religious commune will get brought up.

For the atheist it stays blank.