All Religion is Bad.

[Wolfman]

Your intellectual dishonesty has to do with the your claim on a public list you received e-mails from other members which make derogatory statements about Articulett and then refusing to disclose what they actually said or who they were so your statements can be checked.

I would agree that it was bad form for TA to make such claims when he was not willing or able to support them; however, in pretty well every forum I've ever been a member of, Private Messages are just that -- PRIVATE.

Public disclosure within the forum of private messages, without the permission of the person who sent the PM, is usually grounds for severe reprimands, often banning. in this case, I think that both of you are showing complete disregard for private communications. TA for referring to them, when he had neither permission to do so, nor intention of revealing them; and you for demanding that private communications should be revealed just because you say so.

Apparently not. Of course, they are not all bad . . . we just don't know of a good one. It would seem to me a simple matter to find one but . . .

This has got to be one of the flat-out stupidest arguments that I've heard here. If you are going to look at religions as a whole, of course you can always find examples of abuses and atrocities. But that does not mean that individuals who hold those beliefs are guilty of that, or in fact that their beliefs cause any harm to anyone at all.

The only way you can make your argument is by gross generalization. "Christians have done bad things, therefore Christianity is bad". Your argument falls apart entirely if forced to look at individuals, rather than large, faceless groups. This is a tactic successfully used throughout history by those seeking to promote intolerance of others.

The only valid criteria for judging whether any individual's beliefs are "good" or "bad" is the effect of those beliefs on that individual, and on the people around them. Arguing that because someone else did something wrong, therefore this person's beliefs can be dismissed as "bad", is an exercise in promoting bigotry and intolerance.

 

[Hokulele]

Hokster -- thank you very much, that was exactly the point I was hoping someone would raise One of the common complaints about "theists" is the way that they can twist and interpret their "scriptures" any way they want, in order to justify any action they want to take.

The thing that such people ignore is that moral judgments cannot be scientifically or quantifiably determined. Atheists are just as capable of taking 100% true information, and twisting and interpreting it in order to reach a wide range of possible moral conclusions.

Yes, the atheist brother could have looked at this information and chosen peace. And he could have looked at this information and chosen war and revenge. There is nothing implicit in his being an atheist, or in the factuality of the information he has, that dictates what is the "scientifically correct choice". It is a moral choice.

And the fact that he makes the decision based on true facts in no way renders it superior to or inferior to a decision made by a theist based on false beliefs.

Again, agreed. I my main problem with religion as it applies to the OP is that it seems to allow practicioners an excuse for their actions and an option to disclaim responsibility for the outcomes of their actions, good or bad. In my mind at least, this is always bad.

Of course, if you start another thread with a better worded OP, you may get a different answer from me.

 

[Wolfman]

Again, agreed. I my main problem with religion as it applies to the OP is that it seems to allow practicioners an excuse for their actions and an option to disclaim responsibility for the outcomes of their actions, good or bad. In my mind at least, this is always bad.

Of course, if you start another thread with a better worded OP, you may get a different answer from me.

Hokster -- I know that you and I don't really disagree, just wanted to comment on your conclusions above. It seems to me that you are equating a limited number of religions (ie. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.) with "religion" in general. Not all religions believe in infallible gods. Not all religions teach unquestioning obedience to their gods. Not all religions teach an absolute morality.

Take the Greek or Roman religions. They were very religious. But they had numerous gods, all of whom were fallible, all of whom had weaknesses and were limited in power. There were tons of stories of humans challenging these gods and proving the gods wrong, or beating the gods in various contests. It was quite acceptable to question a god's teachings, or even to disobey a god (in fact, again, there were a number of stories where humans ended up being rewarded for disobeying a god).

I will grant that these are not religions we'd generally consider terribly 'active' today, but they serve to illustrate my point: having theistic beliefs does not, in and of itself, mean mindless obedience to dictates of an omnipotent god who cannot be questioned or challenged. Even within Christianity, there are some who question and challenge biblical teachings, and declare some of those teachings to be "wrong" or "immoral". Of course, such individuals would not be considered "real Christians" by fundamentalist types, but they are most certainly theists.

And in regards to using religion as an excuse to do these things, atheists are equally capable of that. They just substitute politics, or philosophy, or any other such reason. If someone wants to find a rationalization or justification for their acts, they will find it -- theist, or atheist. The fact that the people who do such things are atheist does not mean it is because they are atheist; just as the fact that others who do such things are theists does not mean it is because they are theists.

 

[Hokulele]

Hokster -- I know that you and I don't really disagree, just wanted to comment on your conclusions above. It seems to me that you are equating a limited number of religions (ie. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.) with "religion" in general. Not all religions believe in infallible gods. Not all religions teach unquestioning obedience to their gods. Not all religions teach an absolute morality.

Take the Greek or Roman religions. They were very religious. But they had numerous gods, all of whom were fallible, all of whom had weaknesses and were limited in power. There were tons of stories of humans challenging these gods and proving the gods wrong, or beating the gods in various contests. It was quite acceptable to question a god's teachings, or even to disobey a god (in fact, again, there were a number of stories where humans ended up being rewarded for disobeying a god).

I will grant that these are not religions we'd generally consider terribly 'active' today, but they serve to illustrate my point: having theistic beliefs does not, in and of itself, mean mindless obedience to dictates of an omnipotent god who cannot be questioned or challenged. Even within Christianity, there are some who question and challenge biblical teachings, and declare some of those teachings to be "wrong" or "immoral". Of course, such individuals would not be considered "real Christians" by fundamentalist types, but they are most certainly theists.

And in regards to using religion as an excuse to do these things, atheists are equally capable of that. They just substitute politics, or philosophy, or any other such reason. If someone wants to find a rationalization or justification for their acts, they will find it -- theist, or atheist. The fact that the people who do such things are atheist does not mean it is because they are atheist; just as the fact that others who do such things are theists does not mean it is because they are theists.

Hmm, I think part of the problem is that there is a major difference between stating that the religion is bad, and that the people practicing it are bad. Many of your arguments relate to the individuals, whereas I am mostly arguing about the principles. Of course, it is easy to say that many religions promote "good" principles that can be twisted to be used in a "bad" way, but those principles tend to be the ones that do not rely upon the supernatural (or the "philosophy" part of religion). Sure, you can argue with Zeus, and even beat him in a game of tiddly-winks, but I don't remember seeing this behavior as being promoted as "good". Often times, the final result of beating a god in both Greek and Roman mythology ends up with fairly dire consequences.

And yes, I know we don't really disagree, but it is an interesting discussion, and I have had to rethink several of my opinions. However, I still hold my final conclusion, at least as it relates to this thread.

 

[Nosaj]

Nice, black and white comment. Not, "most religions are bad" or "some religions are bad", but ALL. I have covered the matter several times and that is a fair description. "Bad" will equate to "causes mental or physical harm", the contention being that belief in god is bad, of itself.

Everyone,

From my perspective, all religion is not bad per se. I think that religion can influence people to do things that cause mental harm or physical harm, but religion can also influence people to do things that cause non-harm.

For example, while religion can influence people to harm other people who do not hold the same views or beliefs, religion can also influence people to actively go out and help other people that are in serious need of help.

Therefore, I am unable to say that the statement "all religions are bad" is true, even though religion does have the potential to influence people to cause harm, because it comes down to what people do with those beliefs.

Sincerely,

Jason

 

[Wolfman]

Hokster,

I'm not sure how you can separate the religion from the people who practice it; as it is quite literally impossible to quantify a specific religion's beliefs. Oh, of course, you can quote various scriptures, but if you take any religion, any scripture, any religious teaching, you will find numerous different interpretations of what that means, and how it should be applied.

Are you arguing that the simple belief in something that is "not true" is, by definition, "bad"? Or are you arguing that the actions that come as a result of that belief are "bad"?

If the former, please elucidate; if the latter, then one must look at the individuals, as it is impossible to ascribe specific actions to all members of a particular religion. Different people, taught exactly the same religion, will still make very different decisions, and take very different actions, based on those religious beliefs.

Let me illustrate. Does the Bible teach that killing others in the name of God, even committing genocide, is acceptable? Yes, it does. Does the Bible teach that we should love one another, turn the other cheek, and treat everyone as our brother? Yes, it does.

There are those who will read the Bible, focus on the former, and use it as justification for actions that are reprehensible and evil. And there are those who will read the Bible, focus on the latter, and use it as justification for actions that are noble and inspiring.

Now, consider atheists. There are atheists who look at the facts of evolution, who will use scientific facts to justify acts of racism, genocide, and euthanasia, based on the principle of "survival of the fittest", getting rid of weak or inferior genes in order to make the human race stronger as a whole. There is a very valid and supportable scientific argument for such actions, if you remove any sense of morality from it, which has nothing to do with any belief in god, and which is based entirely on verifiable scientific data.

And there are atheists who will look at the facts of evolution, and see that despite superficial physical appearances, all humans regardless of race are virtually identical on a genetic level, and use that to promote an agenda of equality and egalitarianism. (For that matter, there are atheists who will entirely disregard terrestrial evolution as a natural process, and instead attribute it to aliens...some people make the mistake of equating atheism with a belief in evolution)

But I am straying a little...illustrating a point I've already provided previous illustrations for. Let me return to the main question, which will help me better understand your argument. To whit:

Are you arguing that the simple belief in something that is "not true" is, by definition, "bad"? Or are you arguing that the actions that come as a result of that belief are "bad"?

 

[Hokulele]

Hokster,

I'm not sure how you can separate the religion from the people who practice it; as it is quite literally impossible to quantify a specific religion's beliefs. Oh, of course, you can quote various scriptures, but if you take any religion, any scripture, any religious teaching, you will find numerous different interpretations of what that means, and how it should be applied.

Are you arguing that the simple belief in something that is "not true" is, by definition, "bad"? Or are you arguing that the actions that come as a result of that belief are "bad"?

No, I am saying belief in something that is supernatural is bad, mainly because there is no way you could ever prove it either true or untrue. A belief that can be proven true or not true is not bad. (OK, I know that in reality, there are different shades/level of badness and not badness that would apply to a belief system.)

If the former, please elucidate; if the latter, then one must look at the individuals, as it is impossible to ascribe specific actions to all members of a particular religion. Different people, taught exactly the same religion, will still make very different decisions, and take very different actions, based on those religious beliefs.

Let me illustrate. Does the Bible teach that killing others in the name of God, even committing genocide, is acceptable? Yes, it does. Does the Bible teach that we should love one another, turn the other cheek, and treat everyone as our brother? Yes, it does.

There are those who will read the Bible, focus on the former, and use it as justification for actions that are reprehensible and evil. And there are those who will read the Bible, focus on the latter, and use it as justification for actions that are noble and inspiring.

Now, consider atheists. There are atheists who look at the facts of evolution, who will use scientific facts to justify acts of racism, genocide, and euthanasia, based on the principle of "survival of the fittest", getting rid of weak or inferior genes in order to make the human race stronger as a whole. There is a very valid and supportable scientific argument for such actions, if you remove any sense of morality from it, which has nothing to do with any belief in god, and which is based entirely on verifiable scientific data.

And there are atheists who will look at the facts of evolution, and see that despite superficial physical appearances, all humans regardless of race are virtually identical on a genetic level, and use that to promote an agenda of equality and egalitarianism. (For that matter, there are atheists who will entirely disregard terrestrial evolution as a natural process, and instead attribute it to aliens...some people make the mistake of equating atheism with a belief in evolution)

But I am straying a little...illustrating a point I've already provided previous illustrations for. Let me return to the main question, which will help me better understand your argument. To whit:

Are you arguing that the simple belief in something that is "not true" is, by definition, "bad"? Or are you arguing that the actions that come as a result of that belief are "bad"?

As an aside, the whole atheist bit is somewhat of a red herring. I am not suggesting that the lack of religion would be bad/good/none of the above. Just because I am stating that religion is bad, I am not stating that the lack of religion is good. It might be equally bad for all I know. I know that sounds strange, but again, I would blame the black/white dichotomy forced upon me by the OP.

 

[sphenisc]

No, I am saying belief in something that is supernatural is bad, mainly because there is no way you could ever prove it either true or untrue.

This makes mathematics bad, and Gödel the evilest person who ever lived.

 

[Hokulele]

This makes mathematics bad, and Gödel the evilest person who ever lived.

Nah, those are just theorems.

 

[Faithkills]

Religious people are not lying more oftenly than irreligious ones. Your assertion is null and void.

They are always spreading lies, whether they are aware of this or not.

You don't even know my position. You never ask. You just spit out yours.

People ask you don't answer, though it's apparent from your posts. Prove me wrong. Tell me your position please.

A mistake is no lie. That's why in all languages I know of, there's a word for "mistake" and one for "lie".

You need martyrs to further your aims. You tell me that that if I martyr myself killing infidels I will go to paradise and be supplied with virgins.

I believe the lie. I tell my buddies, with utmost sincerity, the same fable. He believes it. Has it become not a lie now? Because I believe it it is now true?

It's crap. It's a lie and it's lethal. What difference does it make if I believe it or not? Except that my sincerity can convince other people to believe the lie as well.

In English, German, Spanish, Italien, French etc. there is such clear distinction. Also, there is no alternative word for "lie", like there is for many other words. This is to avoid any kind of misunderstanding of what it's meant by saying "lie". In particular, "mistake" is not equal to "lie".

We've been over this. The word covers both uses, and you decided to produce dictionary references to support your narrow usage and I provided dictionary references to show other uses. Do we need to do it again?

Regardless you are (attempting to) using semantics to evade the point. You are waving your hands to avoid addressing the fact that they are lies (noun) being told, regardless of whether you want to restrict the term of liar such that the unwitting teller are not liars.

The damage is the same, arguably worse. You won't address this because you cannot, and it's the part that upsets you so much.

Didn't Mr Einstein show that Mr. Newton was fundamentally mistaken? Do you care if Newton believed the lies he tried to tell everybody? No, you don't!

Newtons ideas were not right in all cases but they were mostly valid for our context at the time and demonstrated scientifically and were a building block for later developments. There is no religious analog. Religion 'progresses' by learning better slicker lies to tell to manipulate people.

Well, then you assault the book Principia Mathematica by Mr. Newton to be propagating lies. Actually, every scientific theory must be a lie, because sooner of later it is replaced by a better one.

Science is nothing but lies, right?

Ok so now you don't understand science? See I don't believe you anymore. I don't think you actually believe the absurd intellectually dishonest things you say. But just in case you have managed to live this long and failed to comprehend the scientific method..

Theories are named 'theories' specifically for this reason. Theories are not cannon. It's not the Universal Truth of General Relativity Accepted theories are just the best available working information. Scientists live for disproving other theories, and so they should. They aren't lies because it's known up front this is just the best thing we understand till now.

Is the Standard Model a lie? I don't see how it could be because they know it fails in some situations! No proton has been seen to decay. No Higgs has been found.

What will not happen is they say 'Well the Higgs is there in this data, but only if you believe. If you can't see it, it's because you don't believe in the Higgs. Clap your hands if you believe in the Higgs!'

Sciences retreats from falsehood. Religion embraces it and rolls in it like a warm blanket of manure.

Can you explain at what part of the propagation of a lie it becomes ok? Is it the first time there is a gullible believer? Is it when I believe I will go to paradise for martyring myself? From then on it's true? Or not destructive?

Can you adress that question? Or will you hand wave some more?

 

[articulett]

The most successful religions promise rewards to believers they cannot verify and punishments to doubters they cannot mete out (except in this life time). Like a chain letter, they encourage you to recruit and spawn other believers and you can infect the new spawns with the memes from birth. Religions proffer this notion that you cannot be good, or happy, or saved, or fulfilled without them--that non-believers are bad people and that believers are "chose"--more moral than those who don't believe. And they all have to cover for each other, because to criticize another religion means that your own is up for scrutiny... but as long as all religions attack the non-believers nobody has to look to closely at their own faith... and that is what all these semantic games (not ALL religions) are about from my perspective. Any sort of sidetracking will do just so long as you vilify those who speak out against religion-- (because not ALL religions are bad and do harm)-- rather that examine the harms of delusion on a mass scale--especially in a world where people can bring huge amounts of suffering on their fellow humans in the name of some invisible somebody who we are told it's arrogant to question.

Why this dickering over the word ALL instead of discussing whether this mass delusion is worth it... shouldn't we all be planting the seeds to show others that faith is a bad way to know anything true and that people can and are perfectly moral human beings without religion... in fact, there is much suffering specifically because of religion. Sure, not every religion is equally responsible for causing suffering to other human beings... but everyone who pretends that faith is a good way to know truth promotes this falsehood... and encourages its infliction on innocent kids... who may well be the religious zealots of tomorrow.

I think religion should be treated the same way as all similar beliefs --astrology, Scientology, crystal healing, propaganda, racism, schizophrenic delusions, doublespeak, and other claims not supported by facts. We should be able to discuss it's claims in public without being vilified for expressing our opinions and we should be free to mock and challenge religion and believers. It's the only way to let religion die from within and quit spreading. It was the way humans eventually stopped having slavery... and understood that the bible did not have the correct interpretation as to the shape of the earth or other scientific facts. Religion has a strong need to keep believers spawning and converting more believers--and silencing those who speak out. Who cares if it's "all"-- who cares about the semantics? It isn't true and it prevents people from learning actual true and useful facts that scientists have worked long and hard to bring forth and that humans can understand for the first time. I don't want to dicker over whether it's ALL. I just want the paradigm dismantled.

Who cares about semantics and opinions. Don't you care that humans have access to all knowledge without fear that they will suffer forever if they accept it? Everyone suffers from an ignorant populace... certain that they have "the truth". Such people vote, hold office, rise to power, and inflict their prejudices and ignorance on the trusting.

 

[The Atheist]

(By now, this is mostly just to piss off TA for playing semantic games with a serious subject.)

That's fine, but I wasn't playing semantic games at any stage. I checked, re-checked then clarified that the words as I wrote them were identical to the meaning I saw. All religion is bad - i.e. it does no good at all. I even tried to make sure "bad" was qualified by equalling "causes harm".

Well, obviously, i disagree with the way that TA set up the poll. I think it leads to a discussion that includes only extreme positions, which automatically lends itself to use of exaggeration and polarization of respective positions.

Which was exactly my point to begin with, in the other thread when I pointed out that some parts of religion are not actually that bad.

Your intellectual dishonesty has to do with the your claim on a public list you received e-mails from other members

No, mate. That's not intellectual dishonesty, that's just plain common-sense, and telling you to mind your own business.

Intellectual dishonesty would be claiming to have said one thing while demonstrably having said something esle.

Sound like anyone?

Nice little poll though, too bad you lost.

Really?

I gather that along with flexibility of opinion and past posts, your universe indulges in inverse mathematics!

As I see the poll, it appears to be an ever-widening margin in favour of my position. The voting pattern has been interesting - at first, a flood of "true" votes came in, but as time has passed and a wider spread of people have voted - less extreme people probably visit less frequently - the gap first opened and is now widening.

The conflict is in your mind. In order to address it you will have to seek professional help. Perhaps getting some reading comprehension help from a kindergarten teacher. Perhaps some psychological help for your delusions. I don't know exactly, you will have to figure it out.

And you respond with ad hominem. Proof of a losing position, I'd say. So, between you and your buddy, I either have a brain tumour or need professional psychiatric help and reading comprehension.

Nice team you have going there. Thank god I'm not part of it.

Again, agreed. I my main problem with religion as it applies to the OP is that it seems to allow practicioners an excuse for their actions and an option to disclaim responsibility for the outcomes of their actions, good or bad. In my mind at least, this is always bad.

Of course, if you start another thread with a better worded OP, you may get a different answer from me.

I may try again, one day. What wording would you suggest?

I'd be also interested to hear how any of the OP, my position or the poll & question in any way enables you to make this claim:

allow practicioners an excuse for their actions and an option to disclaim responsibility for the outcomes of their actions, good or bad

I excuse nothing. I don't claim the good outweighs the bad and I certainly don't claim any sect or religion is "good", per se.

 

[qayak]

Possibly, but not necessarily. If a strong believer follows the Pope's doctrine - it's fine. If somebody ignores the Pope's doctrine - it's also fine.

A few points. First, you're telling me that the catholic charities are only helping catholics. If this is true, it isn't charity.

Second, the catholic workers themselves are not allowed to hand out condoms because of the popes declaration regardless of the denomination of the people they are treating.

Third, you seem to be saying that AIDS is punishment from god for people not listening to the pope. What about the catholics who are not listening to the pope and using condoms. Shouldn't god be punishing them with some horrible disease too?

As I said: you cannot devaluate the Pope's doctrine with pure logic. You need data to support the claim, that the RCC causes damage in the fight against AIDS. I tried to get that thru to Arti, in vain of course.

The people on the front lines say it does.

And I studied the WHO's report on AIDS thoroughly and I could not find any evidence that catholic countries suffer from higher infections rates that non-catholic countries in the same area. This would have been strong evidence against the RCC. So, try better if you want!

Seeing as you are so fond of it, you won't mind if I ask for a reference to those reports would you?

I also studied extensive reports on particular African countries which make clear what really matters. Did you know that many African governments officially denied the existence of AIDS for many years calling it "Western propaganda against Africa"? And then, after the problem could no longer be ignored, did not do anything against it for quite a while? And now these countries face an incredible devastation caused by the ignorance and incompetence of their governments?

Yes, just like religious people here said it was a gay disease and didn't want money spent on research. If this diseaes had of been attacked properly from the outset, things wouldn't be nearly as bad as they are. However, none of this has any bearing on the subject.

Did you know that women have practically no rights in many African societies? That African men hate to use condoms? That women have no chance at all to force condom usage even if they know their men are ****ing around?

Apparently that is changing and condom use was on the rise. African people aren't stupid, they just don't have the information we do. They also have the baggage of their old religions along with the new ones brought by Europeans. That's going to take a long time to overcome. The pope is fighting it at every turn.

If you don't look into the details of how African societies function, you won't be able to make any case, I'm afraid. Don't look at that Pope, look at Africa!

If the discussion was about Africa we would be looking at it but it is about religion so we are looking at the pope aspect right now.

You seem to have a habit of ignoring any discussion about the problems of religion and trying to confuse the issue with a bunch of off topic rhetoric. Try sticking to the subject.

 

[qayak]

No, mate. That's not intellectual dishonesty, that's just plain common-sense, and telling you to mind your own business.

It's definitely intellectual dishonesty.

Intellectual dishonesty would be claiming to have said one thing while demonstrably having said something esle.

Or failing to correct an error when you notice it. Or refusing to correct an error when it is pointed out. Or lying to try to make people come to a conclusion you want them to arrive at. Or lying to discredit an opponent in a debate.

Sound like anyone?

Everyone of them sounds just like what you have been doing.

I gather that along with flexibility of opinion and past posts, your universe indulges in inverse mathematics!

As I see the poll, it appears to be an ever-widening margin in favour of my position. The voting pattern has been interesting - at first, a flood of "true" votes came in, but as time has passed and a wider spread of people have voted - less extreme people probably visit less frequently - the gap first opened and is now widening.

You have failed to add in all the people who didn't vote in the poll but have instead PM'ed me telling me they agree with my position. Your side isn't even close.

 

[The Atheist]

You have failed to add in all the people who didn't vote in the poll but have instead PM'ed me telling me they agree with my position. Your side isn't even close.

Gotta hand it to you - you'd make a great comedian.

I'm happy to rest. All of the posts are there for anyone concerned to read them.

Nice chatting with you! Please do keep posting - it bumps the thread nicely.

 

[qayak]

I would agree that it was bad form for TA to make such claims when he was not willing or able to support them; however, in pretty well every forum I've ever been a member of, Private Messages are just that -- PRIVATE.

Public disclosure within the forum of private messages, without the permission of the person who sent the PM, is usually grounds for severe reprimands, often banning.

Absolutely! It was bad enough that AT brought the private messages up, that is completely unethical but to add to that, he brought them up to discredit an opponent in a debate. He should be censured and made to apologize.

If his defence is that the e-mails are true, it is up to him to prove it by making them public. If he cannot, he needs to apologize for his dishonesty.

in this case, I think that both of you are showing complete disregard for private communications. TA for referring to them, when he had neither permission to do so, nor intention of revealing them; and you for demanding that private communications should be revealed just because you say so.

I am not showing disregard for anything. You did not see me try to discredit AT with such a disgusting tactic. In all my discussions on the internet, I have never seen someone who is so desperate as to pull this stunt actually have any e-mails. They are always lying. Now, TA maybe the exception to this and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but . . . if he cannot produce the messages or if the authors will not allow them to be made public, he must apologize for his dishonesty.

I also cannot believe that on a forum like this, this type of dishonesty is allowed to go unchecked.

This has got to be one of the flat-out stupidest arguments that I've heard here. If you are going to look at religions as a whole, of course you can always find examples of abuses and atrocities. But that does not mean that individuals who hold those beliefs are guilty of that, or in fact that their beliefs cause any harm to anyone at all.

Well, you are the one making the argument so if it is ridiculous, you should change your view. I never said all people who hold religious beliefs are bad. I sad all religions are bad.

The only way you can make your argument is by gross generalization. "Christians have done bad things, therefore Christianity is bad". Your argument falls apart entirely if forced to look at individuals, rather than large, faceless groups. This is a tactic successfully used throughout history by those seeking to promote intolerance of others.

You are making a error in logic. If you are not going to allow the bad things done by people in the name of religion then you certainly cannot allow the good things. In that case it has a sum of zero and has no impact on people which is obviously absurd.

The only valid criteria for judging whether any individual's beliefs are "good" or "bad" is the effect of those beliefs on that individual, and on the people around them. Arguing that because someone else did something wrong, therefore this person's beliefs can be dismissed as "bad", is an exercise in promoting bigotry and intolerance.

Not an argument I have made so you will have to argue it with someone else.

 

[Herzblut]

Seeing as you are so fond of it, you won't mind if I ask for a reference to those reports would you?

Here:

http://www.unaids.org/en/HIV_data/2006GlobalReport/default.asp

Herzblut

 

[The Atheist]

I never said all people who hold religious beliefs are bad. I sad all religions are bad.

Religion is a lie. It is all made up with not a shred of evidence to support it. All Lies = All Bad.

 

[Wolfman]

You are making a error in logic. If you are not going to allow the bad things done by people in the name of religion then you certainly cannot allow the good things. In that case it has a sum of zero and has no impact on people which is obviously absurd.

It is amazing -- you have just summarized the very point I am trying to make! You are quite correct -- if you are not going to allow the bad things done by people in the name of religion, then you cannot allow the good things.

And, conversely, if you are not going to allow the good things done by people in the name of religion, you cannot allow the bad things!

Go back and actually read what I've posted...you've ignored the vast majority of it, where I've given very clear and explicit illustrations of my argument. Nowhere have I argued that "bad things done in the name of religion" should be ignored. I have argued that any examination must include the following factors:

1) If you're going to use examples of bad things done in the name of religion, you must include good things done in the name of religion (it would be pretty damn hypocritical for you to argue this is not true when you've just argued that discounting bad things also means discounting good things).

2) If you're going to use examples of how religious people can use their beliefs to justify abuses, you must also consider examples of how atheists can use their beliefs to justify abuses.

You argue in a vacuum. You entirely ignore all my illustrations of how atheists can be guilty of exactly the same abuses, and of how "concrete facts" and an atheistic worldview can still be used to justify abuses just as easily as any religious person.

The only intellectually honest method of examining this question is to look at all the groups involved. Which you, consistently, fail and refuse to do. Instead, you rely on gross stereotypes of one group ("religions"), while entirely ignoring another ("atheists").

Let's say we remove all religion from the world tomorrow. Every single human being was an atheist. What would be the result?

We'd have Communist atheists, Fascist atheists, racist atheists, mysogynistic atheists, wife-beating atheists, slave-owning atheists...as well as the democratic atheists, the peace-loving atheists, Humanist atheists, etc. And every single one of those groups would still be able to find rationalizations for their actions, without any need to appeal to a god or religion at all.

Heck, if we're classifying "religion" as "belief in the supernatural", we'd even have atheist religions still existing. Raelians, for example, are 100% atheist, do not believe in any supernatural being; they do, however, believe in a superior alien race that is responsible for the genetic engineering of every life form on our planet.

Being "atheist" does not implicitly mean being more rational, more "good", or any other such term.

 

[articulett]

Gayak... don't even try to argue with an apologist... they can only hear you saying ALL religions are ALL bad... they will avoid talking about anything bad about religion and demonize you. The more you try to clarify the less likely they are to understand. They cannot admit to you or anyone that religion is a lie. They will twist words and opinions to call you a liar while ignoring their own actual dishonesty and the the dishonesty disguised as "higher truths" proffered by religions. --All to support the lie that religious delusions are good for something or someone--they sure ARE good for something-- it's a good way for a guy to get allegiances, funds, and respect without having to do anything real-- plus you get a whole slew of mental midgets fighting your battles for you in brainwashed knee-jerk defense.

Don't worry about dogging TA for quotes. Given his tendency to miscarachterize and twist things, I don't give any credence to anything he says. Apparently not many people do... certainly not the people I find the most informative and knowledgeable on this forum. His goal is to win the imaginary argument that is always going on in his head and to shout down all perceived dissent while telling everybody how open minded and fair he is.

If you put him on ignore, you'll be surprised at how seldom he appears in other quotes... he's only making sense to himself.

BS still stinks no matter how pretty the package you wrap it in.

And, with TA, it isn't fixable... the more you call him on it... the more crazed he gets. Just put him on ignore and warn the people you like so he doesn't drive away good posters. And when someone insults you, consider the source--I find that usually the insult is better suited for them. They are just too blinded to know it.

What else is an apologist to do but berate you? The facts just really don't support the notion that religion is good overall--and they most certainly claim to have truths that they do not have. The lie depends on demonizing those who speak out against "faith in faith".