Religion is not evil

[tsig]

Now this has to be a script, surely? I'd hate to think that a real person came up with it.

Actually it's just what you're saying.


Other than ridicule do you have any answer to it?

 

[jiggeryqua]

Actually it's just what you're saying.


Other than ridicule do you have any answer to it?

Can we do ridicule too? Among the possible answers to it is the elementary observation that the rules of mathematical equations are not directly transferable to language, even if you think the result is cute.

But if you insist on conflating the two, let's not forget that both 2*2=4 and -2*-2=4, which would allow us (if we indulge a taste for 'cute') to claim that -2= 2. Just as nonbelief=belief.

Of course, another of the answers is that just because you don't believe that non-belief is a belief, observing that the two strings of characters are different isn't sufficient evidence that they don't share sufficient characteristics to validate the claim that nonbelief = belief.

And for the poets, bald isn't a hair colour. But atheism is a wig.

 

[the PC apeman]

Can we ridicule too?

Sure but you'll be graded on it.

And for the poets, bald isn't a hair colour. But atheism is a wig.

Hmm. Could you explain that? I'm sincere. What is that supposed to mean? Is it supposed to extend the original analogy? I'm assuming you weren't just trying to be cute.

 

[westprog]

Actually it's just what you're saying.


Other than ridicule do you have any answer to it?

I'm afraid that when you post gibberish and say "that's you, that is" then ridicule is all I can come up with. Sorry.

 

[FattyCatty]

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

But there are things we can't prove either way, but that are truth-apt. Which books were in the Great Library of Alexandria? Was the Bhagavad Gita there? It is possible, but can we we can't know for certain. And yet it is not true for some people but not for others. It either was there or it wasn't.

The "books" in the library at Alexandria were a physical fact of the natural world. Before the destruction of the library, it was possible to prove which books were in the library. If a catalog were found in an excavation, it would be possible to prove which books were in the library. Therefore, it is not the same as something that cannot be proved or disproved. Unless you believe that various manifestations of deities were actual events in the natural world, subject to proof, in which case your comparison is valid.

Your statement:

Belief in god = non belief in god

then divide by "in god"

therefore

belief = non belief.

Your argument only used one possible definition of atheism. Another definition is a belief that there is no god. Atheism^dict:

noun
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

This type of atheism is by definition a belief. Your argument refers back to this quote, which is talking about more than just one atheistic belief system and so includes the "belief" type of atheism:

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.

Also, I think there is a flaw in your argument, although I'm not positive. You wrote:

Belief in god = non belief in god

then divide by "in god"

therefore

belief = non belief.

But if belief in god is q, then your argument is:

q = not q, which is a contradiction.

 

[IanS]

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and explain it just one more time.

A belief system that includes, as a necessary element, the existence of god is a religious belief system.

A belief system that includes, as a necessary element, the non-existence of god is an atheistic belief system.

Other belief systems don't include or exclude the possibility of god. I wouldn't describe those as religious or atheistic.

A belief system that explicitly claims that atheism is true, together with other elements, can reasonably be described as an atheistic belief system. Marxist communism undoubtedly qualifies in both theory and practice.

Claiming that atheism is just the absence of belief doesn't affect this. Communism is much more than just the absence of a belief in god. It includes all kinds of beliefs about the nature of human society. It is quite obviously a belief system, and it's quite obviously atheistic. To claim the contrary is merely perverse.

I think the above makes a mistake about the use of the word “system” -

- organised religion offers a “belief system”, because it provides a physical framework of church buildings, appointed preachers, supposedly divine religious “rule” books, and a variety of instructional practices (preaching & evangelising etc.).

That is a “system” of religious belief which (a)uses a variety of methods to draw new members into it’s faith (inc. dire warnings of hell and the wroth of God for non-believers), and (b) attempts to insist that existing members observe various practices of the faith (attending a church, praying, donating money etc.).

By contrast - whilst it’s true that most, if not all, atheists do actively believe there is no God (which is a “belief“, though unlike religion it‘s a rational belief supported by most if not all known science), it is however, not a “system” of belief deliberately presented and organised as a way of life.

IOW - unlike religion, atheism, is not a systematic way of living ones life (or dictating the way in which others should live).

 

[IanS]

But if you insist on conflating the two, let's not forget that both 2*2=4 and -2*-2=4, which would allow us (if we indulge a taste for 'cute') to claim that -2= 2. Just as nonbelief=belief.

Well that would just be a simple mistake - you are apparently dividing both sides of the equation by "2"; but you should be dividing by "-2" ... which gives you the result -2 = -2.

 

[arthwollipot]

While still fascinating, this is no longer the topic that I started. Please don't stop - I'll still be reading, but I probably won't have much to contribute any more. Thanks to everyone who's participated - many of you gave me some very interesting perspectives and things to think about. I appreciate your contributions.

 

[Legend]

I believe Akhenaten's posts to be some of my absolute favourite stuff in this place. They're funny and contain such intelligent finesse.

In other news...

I was recently asked, "What are atheists fighting for?"

I will never understand the "atheism is a belief system" line. I have tried to in the past but my brain's all like, "Whatever, I'm outta here," and then I go and eat something. Preferably a small child seasoned with Peruvian orphan tears as we're apt to do.

Atheists have one connective string, and that is the lack of a belief in any deity. Any addition you put will fall outside of the "atheist" spectrum, into politics or ethics or philosophy. We are not bound by any moral code, nor any collective trajectory; atheism is not governed by any obligations outside of the prerequisite of holding no belief in any gods. That's why these "belief system" peddlers have to adjust their diction, because there is nothing systemic or plural about this.

This is the reason why explaining someone's political opinions through denoting their atheism sounds disconnected, because it's like pinning down someone as a Democrat due to the fact that they own a poodle.

 

[Pup]

Atheists have one connective string, and that is the lack of a belief in any deity. Any addition you put will fall outside of the "atheist" spectrum, into politics or ethics or philosophy. We are not bound by any moral code, nor any collective trajectory; atheism is not governed by any obligations outside of the prerequisite of holding no belief in any gods. That's why these "belief system" peddlers have to adjust their diction, because there is nothing systemic or plural about this.

This is the reason why explaining someone's political opinions through denoting their atheism sounds disconnected, because it's like pinning down someone as a Democrat due to the fact that they own a poodle.

So here's a challenge. For those who say that atheism is a belief system, what about the similar belief system centered around the fact that Zeus doesn't exist?

I expect that most people could answer yes or no if asked "Does the god Zeus actually exist?" so one could easily identify who was in the group and who wasn't. It's also a loyal and stable group, since most start to identify with the belief at a young age and keep the faith all their adult life.

Do people with that belief, do more harm than good, compared to other groups? What charitable work should they get credit for? Should they get credit for helping end conflict in the Middle East, since it's one thing that both Israelis and Palestinians can agree on?

 

[dlorde]

So here's a challenge. For those who say that atheism is a belief system, what about the similar belief system centered around the fact that Zeus doesn't exist?

Zeus is a God though, so atheism includes lack of belief in Zeus. However, I also don't believe in ghosts or reincarnation or David Icke's reptilian shape-shifters, or any number of other impossible absurdities that have nothing to do with atheism; I suspect my 'lack-of-belief system', such as it is, is related to skepticism, and atheism is just one lack-of-belief in that 'lack-of-belief system'.

 

[Pup]

Zeus is a God though, so atheism includes lack of belief in Zeus. However, I also don't believe in ghosts or reincarnation or David Icke's reptilian shape-shifters, or any number of other impossible absurdities that have nothing to do with atheism; I suspect my 'lack-of-belief system', such as it is, is related to skepticism, and atheism is just one lack-of-belief in that 'lack-of-belief system'.

One can argue that skepticism is a belief system which leads to atheism, in the same way that Christianity is a belief system that leads to aZeusism.

But are all atheists by definition skeptics? Like for example, are Marxist communists by definition skeptics? I wouldn't think so.

 

[Legend]

So here's a challenge. For those who say that atheism is a belief system, what about the similar belief system centered around the fact that Zeus doesn't exist?

I expect that most people could answer yes or no if asked "Does the god Zeus actually exist?" so one could easily identify who was in the group and who wasn't. It's also a loyal and stable group, since most start to identify with the belief at a young age and keep the faith all their adult life.

Do people with that belief, do more harm than good, compared to other groups? What charitable work should they get credit for? Should they get credit for helping end conflict in the Middle East, since it's one thing that both Israelis and Palestinians can agree on?

Well yeah.

For me, whenever I corral the conversation toward the track record of Christian atrocities and whether or not it outweighs the accumulated charity of the Church, the intention is essentially to indicate that as a religion advertising good times for all, it's not doing as good a job as it brags.

The reason I can do this is because Christianity is a structure that governs beyond the belief in a god. As soon as you exemplify atheism, it becomes no holds barred. That is inclusive of the contrary as well. If there is a secular, or indeed atheistic, charity that has produced extensive acts of altruism, it's not a direct consequence of the atheism or secularism. Conversationally I will mention these charities not to claim righteousness, but to brand religion as ineffective or irrelevant in the output of philanthropy.

However, admittedly, there is a sneaky jab that I will entertain. If you are doing an act of good when you do not believe in any almighty reward, I find that selflessness far more honourable than doing it for brownie points from Yahweh.

 

[dlorde]

But are all atheists by definition skeptics? Like for example, are Marxist communists by definition skeptics? I wouldn't think so.

Agreed. Skepticism implies atheism, but not vice-versa.

 

[Legend]

Religion is Like Alcohol

I don't know if religion is evil. Maybe I'm too timid to defame it with a militant absolute; or maybe I'm too sensible. Still, I'm not timid nor sensible enough to retire my unadulterated hatred of religion.

I never waste time pondering whether or not religion is evil. I'm too distracted by the evil that religion unlocks in people, the times when I see religion turn a human being into a soldier, or a missile, or an idiot.

Religion is like alcohol. It makes people feel warm in their skin, when they’re cold to the touch.

"There’s a man named Nick Vujicic who was born with no limbs."

I know who Nick Vujicic is.

If Nick Vujicic has grown philosophically content enough with his head, his torso, and his "little chicken drumstick" to the point where he is able to reconcile with the man whose whim deprived him of so much potential and smile through his misfortune every day, then I bow my head in adoration. But please, do not make a template of this man. You cannot oblige every limbless man and woman to do the same as Nick has.

You cannot oblige them to thank their creator for giving them what they do have, to ask him for advice in the dispensation of their own compassion, to live their lives to please him, and to ask him for his almighty forgiveness when they can't even clasp their hands to ask for such a thing.

This should never be expected of that man or that woman. If you expect them to leap over the mountain and surrender their insecurities as easily as Mr. Vujicic has, then you are ignorantly unsympathetic in the purest of ways. Your views are condemnable, and I'll be the one to condemn them.

And no, I'm not obliged to respect your beliefs. And yes, I can call you that.

This is how I could hate religion without any traceable evil in its essence, and why I dispose of the question. It twists people into the most despicable of positions on the most fragile of topics. Religion has made these people too headstrong to realise their words are acidic, and they'll dance with it as its malevolence masquerades as wisdom because to them there are no victims.

 

[Legend]

I'm not sure I should have put that there, but here is where it fits best. Part of the reason I wrote it is because of this thread's topic. That and a conversation I had today with a Christian. I wanted to write it and I wanted it to be in this thread, I hope it's not too OT.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and explain it just one more time.

A belief system that includes, as a necessary element, the existence of god is a religious belief system.

A belief system that includes, as a necessary element, the non-existence of god is an atheistic belief system.

OK, without going any further then we can see a problem with your argument.

Communism does not include, as a necessary element, the non-existence of god and therefore, by your definition, is not an atheistic belief system.

Communism is a political and economic ideology which does not require any view on the existence of God.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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.

We are talking about religion(s) not individual believers so while it is possible for people to be religious without subscribing to a particular religion these people are irrelevant to the topic we are discussing.

There are simply no atheistic belief systems in the same sense as there are religious belief systems.

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.

But these people are not religions. There are no religions that have only a vague idea of what they believe. Religions encompass and promote a core set of specific beliefs. If they don't then they are religions.

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

Yes, we'd like to discuss the topic of the thread instead of simply bringing up Communism as if it's relevant to a discussion on religion. How many more times do we have to argue around this Atheism = Communism nonsense on this forum? It's about as effective an argument as 'You smell!'

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.

Yes, so your statement was false. If you want to examine whether religion has an effect on peoples' behaviour then you can look at the religious and the irreligious in the same country and see the difference. There's no need to try to compare European Christians (for example) with an East Asian totalitarian Communist regime (for example) because there is a perfectly good comparison to make with Europeans of no religion.

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.

Provided they are comparable then it might be a start. Of course as mentioned above you need to do this because we can simply compare the religious and the non-religious within a given society and see the difference without introducing other confounding factors.

So for example, when my country looks to introduce same-sex marriage legislation we see objections come from the Catholic Church and Islamic groups but none from secular organisations.

Now to revisit a previous point, there is absolutely no need for the Catholic Church to oppose gay marriage. It doesn't have to be a part of their religion but they choose it to be so. Now rather than try to distract from that point why don't you address it?

 

[Lamuella]

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

Only if my definition of "good" is a cosmic abstraction. My definition of "good" has nothing whatsoever to do with the cosmos.

 

[the PC apeman]

Being "a good person" can mean 1) my behavior generally is not in conflict with my own values, and/or 2) my behavior generally is not in conflict with those around me. No cosmic abstraction necessary.