Religion is not evil

[tsig]

Drivel.

But, but, It's Divine Drivel.

 

[westprog]

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?

You said you were "a good person". If you think that means anything, then you are subscribing to a cosmic abstraction.

Making assertions about what other people believe is 35.4% of the traffic on this forum, according to recently made up statistics. You've certainly done your share.

 

[westprog]

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.



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?

There are people who claim that they behave as they do because that's how nature formed them. The trouble with that as a basis for behaviour is that it's equally applicable however they behave. It's not a guide to anything.

 

[westprog]

For the atheist it stays blank.

I've a feeling that most Wehrmacht atheists just wore the buckle and forgot about it.

 

[tsig]

For the atheist it stays blank.

I've a feeling that most Wehrmacht atheists just wore the buckle and forgot about it.

What does the state of mind of Wehrmacht atheists have to do with what I posted?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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".

Except religions don't teach 'god exists'; religions teach 'our God exists' and go on to provide explicit guidelines as to what that God wants or doesn't want and/or about how followers of that religion should act.

You simply cannot argue that atheism does the same.

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.

No you can only have a vague atheism, because there is no specific conclusion that can be drawn from a lack of belief in a supernatural deity no matter how much you may like to pretend there is.

And you cannot have a vague religion because if you believe in something then you believe in a specific thing.

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.

Garbage.

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

No, particular religions do. And they do so because of what their religion professes.

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

So you think its absurd to claim medicine works?

 

[Leumas]

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?

Not to mention all the very at hand empirical data of incarceration rates in countries that are religious compared to less religious ones as well as the rates of religious compared to atheists in the prisons.


So my question is....if they were brought up religious and yet still committed the crime.....what is the difference if they were not brought up to be religious?


Of course all the criminals who are brought up as religious people and yet still committed their crimes are not TRULY religious....they will claim.


Alleviating Cognitive Dissonance manifests in all sorts of illogic despite (and perhaps because) of facts.

 

[Egg]

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.

Is it a belief that God is keeping people from being immoral or is it the belief in God that is keeping people from being immoral? They're two quite different arguments.

 

[Egg]

...as well as the rates of religious compared to atheists in the prisons.

How do these rates compare with the rates of prisoners who believe that claiming to be religious may put their case in a more favourable light?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Is it a belief that God is keeping people from being immoral or is it the belief in God that is keeping people from being immoral? They're two quite different arguments.

But used fairly interchangeably by proponents. In the Protestant circles I frequent the former is more popular: without God directly influencing every moment of your life you are completely unable to do anything good ever for any reason. Any evil you do of course doesn't merit the same consideration, that's all your doing.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

And most faith-based organisations aren't cults by any definition of the word.

Except for the first two definitions, perhaps.

cult
noun, often attributive \ˈkəlt\
Definition of CULT
1
: formal religious veneration : worship
2
: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3
: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4
: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5
a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult?show=0&t=1320345817

 

[Mudcat]

Except for the first two definitions, perhaps.

I would say all except #3 would describe religion, even the mainstream ones. Though, applying #3 to them would not be a stretch.

 

[westprog]

Except religions don't teach 'god exists'; religions teach 'our God exists' and go on to provide explicit guidelines as to what that God wants or doesn't want and/or about how followers of that religion should act.

You simply cannot argue that atheism does the same.

If you are going to subdivide "religion" into "what this particular religion believes" then why should you not subdivide "atheism" into "what this particular atheistic belief system believes". Is it possible to be an atheist without subscribing to one of these atheist belief systems? Of course it is, just as it is possible to be religious without subscribing to a particular formal religion.

No you can only have a vague atheism, because there is no specific conclusion that can be drawn from a lack of belief in a supernatural deity no matter how much you may like to pretend there is.

And you cannot have a vague religion because if you believe in something then you believe in a specific thing.

There are plenty of people who have only a vague idea of what they might believe in. In fact, religious belief is far more likely to be vague because it deals in things that are ill-defined and unimaginable.

Garbage.



No, particular religions do. And they do so because of what their religion professes.

And you for some reason only want to consider what the religions do, and ignore the atheistic belief systems.

So you think its absurd to claim medicine works?

Can I use that for future examples of the over-stretched analogy?

If we want to find out if medicine works, we compare what happens when people take the medicine with what happens when people don't take the medicine. A test that only dealt with one and not the other wouldn't tell us whether the medicine was very good.

If you want to know if religion is, in a general sense, good or bad for society, you have to look at societies with and without religion.

 

[westprog]

Garbage.

If you want to defend communism against my particular assertions, then you might want to expand from your one word claim. If you don't actually want to defend communism, then you might need to be a bit clearer as to what you do mean.

 

[Leumas]

Is it a belief that God is keeping people from being immoral or is it the belief in God that is keeping people from being immoral? They're two quite different arguments.

The point is not that they ARE religious.....the point is that they were BROUGHT UP in religion. In other words, they were TOLD about god and religion and all that.....yet they still went ahead and did the crimes.

So in other words…. the fact that one is aware of a god concept and is told about this god's punishment for crimes and rewards for goodness is not a preventative against criminal actions.

So the argument that not being REARED under a religious doctrine and Godly fear is conducive to criminality is a false argument.

In fact it can be the other way around. Some people commit crimes that they may have never done had they not been religious…… dying in the name of your country or tribe or religion or king or cause may not be possible if the person thought that this life is it and there is no return or heaven for eternity.

I argue that religion is in fact a great RALLYING BANNER to induce people to do crimes on a much bigger scale than individuals can achieve.

Evil people will be evil regardless and good people good regardless of religion. Only religion can induce good people to do evil things and still sleep at night with a clear conscience.

ETA: People may be a lot less SHEEPISH to tyrants and despots and a lot less willing to PUT UP with injustice had they not believed that there is a REVENGE TAKER for them and that they will be rewarded for their suffering eventually.

 

[westprog]

How do these rates compare with the rates of prisoners who believe that claiming to be religious may put their case in a more favourable light?

There are considerable numbers of people imprisoned for being religious. If that's to be used as evidence that religious people are more likely to be criminals it's fairly self-sustaining.

 

[Leumas]

There are considerable numbers of people imprisoned for being religious. If that's to be used as evidence that religious people are more likely to be criminals it's fairly self-sustaining.

The statistics are taken in countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, England, Germany and so on.

So you are saying that these countries imprison people for their religions?

 

[Akhenaten]

If you are going to subdivide "religion" into "what this particular religion believes" then why should you not subdivide "atheism" into "what this particular atheistic belief system believes".

Because there's no such thing as atheistic belief systems.

Is it possible to be an atheist without subscribing to one of these atheist belief systems?

Given that they don't exist, yes.

Of course it is, just as it is possible to be religious without subscribing to a particular formal religion.

Whether or not your observation about religion-for-one has any merit, your conclusion that what applies to religion also applies to atheism is not logically valid.

There are plenty of people who have only a vague idea of what they might believe in. In fact, religious belief is far more likely to be vague because it deals in things that are ill-defined and unimaginable.

You seem to be saying this like it's a good thing.

Frankly I find this airy-fairy, wishy-washy, going-through-the-motions-of-belief because "it's the done thing" to be quite pathetic.

And you for some reason only want to consider what the religions do, and ignore the atheistic belief systems.

Not for "some reason" but for the quite obvious reason that they don't exist.

If we want to find out if medicine works, we compare what happens when people take the medicine with what happens when people don't take the medicine. A test that only dealt with one and not the other wouldn't tell us whether the medicine was very good.

If you want to know if religion is, in a general sense, good or bad for society, you have to look at societies with and without religion.

Yeah, done that.

What on Earth makes you think that the result of doing this would favour the pro-religion argument?

 

[Pup]

Is it a belief that God is keeping people from being immoral

Haven't heard that one much. Most religious people seem to say that God allows for free will, so God himself doesn't directly control people.

or is it the belief in God that is keeping people from being immoral?

That's the usual claim, not a belief in God so much as a belief in the rewards and/or punishments that God metes out.

 

[tsig]

If you are going to subdivide "religion" into "what this particular religion believes" then why should you not subdivide "atheism" into "what this particular atheistic belief system believes". Is it possible to be an atheist without subscribing to one of these atheist belief systems? Of course it is, just as it is possible to be religious without subscribing to a particular formal religion.



There are plenty of people who have only a vague idea of what they might believe in. In fact, religious belief is far more likely to be vague because it deals in things that are ill-defined and unimaginable.



And you for some reason only want to consider what the religions do, and ignore the atheistic belief systems.



Can I use that for future examples of the over-stretched analogy?

If we want to find out if medicine works, we compare what happens when people take the medicine with what happens when people don't take the medicine. A test that only dealt with one and not the other wouldn't tell us whether the medicine was very good.

If you want to know if religion is, in a general sense, good or bad for society, you have to look at societies with and without religion.

"atheistic belief system"

Is that like hair styles for the bald?