Religion is not evil

[westprog]

The problem, as has been communicated to you several times and you have ignored, with your approach is that you want to equate the absence of religion with a very specific case of the absence of religion which was confounded by the presence of a number of other factors not least of which was a fairly violent revolution and the imposition of a totalitarian regime.

Since the OP and the responses to it dealt with whether it was valid to judge religion as a whole on the basis of specific examples, I don't believe that it can be invalid to apply the same standard on both sides.

You are unwilling or unable to separate these factors and instead are presenting the case that the absence of religion and the imposition of a totalitarian regime are somehow connected.

I consider that it is at least valid to ask the question. For example, if we compare the Communist model with that of numerous other left-wing political movements, we can see what the major differences are philosophically, and we can see what the practical application of the systems is, then it's not entirely unreasonable to say that the differences of behaviour might be due to the differences between the systems.

When someone can post a list dealing with various misdemeanours associated with scientology, in considerable detail, and then finish the post with the insistence that all the above should be applied to religion as a whole, I feel entitled to ask whether the same approach should be taken in the reverse direction - and if not, why not?

If you really really really insist using the comparison of Communist China with religious societies then we can do so. Having lived in Communist China for a period I think I can pretty safely say that generally modern Chinese society does not miss religion all that much on a day to day basis (although the idea that all Chinese people are atheist doesn't match up with my personal experience.)

Yes, life would probably be better without the presence of a totalitarian Communist government but that's got nothing to do with religion. I'd rather live in largely religion-free China than the Catholic Philippines, Muslim Indonesia, pretty much any Middle Eastern Islamic state or religion-addled Africa.

If you just take a snapshot of China right now, and ignore Chinese history since the overthrow of the Kuomintang, then it looks better than some places. I'd like to scrutinise The Great Leap Forward and The Cultural Revolution to get a better impression. After all, critics of religion have no qualms about going back to the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[westprog]

Westprog's example seems pretty clear to me and I don't understand how it's being mistaken for equivocation (or conflation or whatever everyone seems to think it is). Maybe I'm missing something..? But as I see it:

To say that atheism is a necessary element in a belief system is obviously not the same as claiming it is the same thing as the belief system.

For example, how 'bout materialism: atheism is a necessary element of materialism; you can't be a materialist while believing in god(s). But that does not imply that atheism = materialism, nor does Westprog's post imply that atheism = communism, unless I totally misunderstood it.

Secular humanism (emphasis on secular) would be another example, not of an "atheistic" belief but of a non-religious one, at least. A nonreligious stance (including but not limited to atheism) is a necessary element in that particular worldview, but that is obviously not the same as saying they are the same thing. Just being non-religious doesn't necessarily mean you are also a secular humanist.

Disclaimer: I'm still 4 pages away from the end of the thread so maybe this has been resolved by now.

I can see how humanism, communism, or existentialism might be regarded as something other than a belief system, but if they incorporate both a view as to the objective truth of reality, and a proscriptive idea of human behaviour, then calling them belief systems doesn't seem untoward. The terminology is not, and is not intended to be, disparaging. I haven't described them as religions, and I haven't claimed that they operate on exactly the same footing as religions, but obviously they are competing in the same arena.

 

[westprog]

It is if one wants to be a Party member.

One can certainly pretend to belief one does not possess to be a communist, but the same getout is available to religions as well.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Communism isn't a belief system.

Actually, I think it is. As a political philosophy, Communism can only work if the people involved clap their hands and believe in a great many things. Believe that if only they work hard enough, and sing in creepy unison loud enough, and ignore the gulags and planned famines, true Utopia will be theirs or some such. The only thing keeping it from being a full-on religion is the lack of a People's Glorious Afterlife to go to when you die. The Soviets even had their own paramilitary indoctrination equivalent of the Boy Scouts, for pete's sake.

So Communism includes atheism the same way Catholicism does: "thou shalt have no other gods before me." Somehow though, I doubt that westprog is willing to accommodate such a subtle shade of meaning unless it works toward his false dichotomy.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Since the OP and the responses to it dealt with whether it was valid to judge religion as a whole on the basis of specific examples, I don't believe that it can be invalid to apply the same standard on both sides.



I consider that it is at least valid to ask the question. For example, if we compare the Communist model with that of numerous other left-wing political movements, we can see what the major differences are philosophically, and we can see what the practical application of the systems is, then it's not entirely unreasonable to say that the differences of behaviour might be due to the differences between the systems.

When someone can post a list dealing with various misdemeanours associated with scientology, in considerable detail, and then finish the post with the insistence that all the above should be applied to religion as a whole, I feel entitled to ask whether the same approach should be taken in the reverse direction - and if not, why not?



If you just take a snapshot of China right now, and ignore Chinese history since the overthrow of the Kuomintang, then it looks better than some places. I'd like to scrutinise The Great Leap Forward and The Cultural Revolution to get a better impression. After all, critics of religion have no qualms about going back to the Spanish Inquisition.

Ah right. I was under the misapprehension that you had something to contribute to the discussion but you were only interested in point scoring. No agenda at all. Right.

 

[Trent Wray]

Back to the OP ...

John Albert posted this thread concerning a 22 year old woman who was jailed recently for stabbing her sexual partner, apparently in the name of her trying to be a werewolf.

Do we conclude from this that werewolves are evil, and so are the laws of their packs ?

 

[westprog]

Ah right. I was under the misapprehension that you had something to contribute to the discussion but you were only interested in point scoring. No agenda at all. Right.

Another irregular verb. I have serious arguments, you are point scoring, he's a troll. Of course it's legitimate to list the awful things done by people who profess a religion. It's quite out of the question to even mention things done by people who profess none.

 

[FattyCatty]

Ah right. I was under the misapprehension that you had something to contribute to the discussion but you were only interested in point scoring. No agenda at all. Right.

To me it seems as though the ones not contributing are those point-scoring and showing their agenda by willfully misrepresenting westprog. He must be saying something you don't like to hear.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

To me it seems as though the ones not contributing are those point-scoring and showing their agenda by willfully misrepresenting westprog. He must be saying something you don't like to hear.

He's been asked enough time to clarify his position and refuses to. At that point you lose any sympathy for being misinterpreted.

Anyway, I,m out. No point continuing with someone who won't engage in discussion openly and honestly.

Happy to discuss the OP further with yourself if you have a point to make.

 

[FattyCatty]

He's been asked enough time to clarify his position and refuses to. At that point you lose any sympathy for being misinterpreted.

Anyway, I,m out. No point continuing with someone who won't engage in discussion openly and honestly.

Happy to discuss the OP further with yourself if you have a point to make.

Well, in part my point is that westprog seemed to "engage in discussion openly and honestly." Those that ganged up on him, not so much. His position was clearly stated. There have been some posts deliberately misinterpreting him then claiming he wasn't being this or that. When he refuses to buy into that gambit, he is accused of refusing to clarify his position, etc. It just seems like a big pile on by people who are unhappy at the idea that atheism could have anything negative said about it.

And in part my point is that I agree with westprog that if you want to discuss whether religion is evil (or more fairly, some religions are evil sometimes), you can legitimately compare religion to other systems. Also, I think it is the people who are evil or who make the systems function in an evil way. I don't think a system itself is evil.

That being said, I'm not a big fan of most organized religions (even though I believe in God). I think that they (or the people in them) can be divisive and do harm, even though they can also be unifying and do good. But then, so can other, non-religious, systems. As westprog's mention of Marxist communism indicates. Maybe people in groups automatically go into us- against-them mode. And us-against-them thinking is what seems to cause a lot of the problems in the world.

 

[Krikkiter]

Religion makes people do things they wouldn't otherwise do. Both good and bad. Not unlike Communism. In fact, Stalin was definitely evil but he wasn't stupid. Religion was a fantastic template for him.

 

[westprog]

That being said, I'm not a big fan of most organized religions (even though I believe in God). I think that they (or the people in them) can be divisive and do harm, even though they can also be unifying and do good. But then, so can other, non-religious, systems. As westprog's mention of Marxist communism indicates. Maybe people in groups automatically go into us- against-them mode. And us-against-them thinking is what seems to cause a lot of the problems in the world.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the above, but I think it's far more fruitful to examine in detail the structures that lead to people behaving in ways of which we disapprove than to make blanket statements like the subject header.

 

[westprog]

Well, in part my point is that westprog seemed to "engage in discussion openly and honestly." Those that ganged up on him, not so much.

I'd like to say - I've no problem with "being ganged up on". There's no reason why anyone should refrain from putting his or her point of view because it happens to coincide with that of other people.

However, I'm pleased to see that my supposedly obfuscated, confusing and changeable posts were perfectly clear to a number of people, who've summarised my position quite accurately. I'm now not so concerned about whether I've been inconsistent or obscure.

 

[westprog]

He's been asked enough time to clarify his position and refuses to. At that point you lose any sympathy for being misinterpreted.

Anyway, I'm out. No point continuing with someone who won't engage in discussion openly and honestly.

Happy to discuss the OP further with yourself if you have a point to make.

It was a bit easier to pretend that I was debating dishonestly when nobody was claiming to understand what I was saying. When people came forward to say that they understood me perfectly well, and were able to summarise my views perfectly accurately, that argument fell apart.

I've noticed that sometime, when unable to come up with a refutation of an argument, that the response is to deem the argument invalid in some way. Sometimes there's an angry demand to make one's beliefs clear. There's an accusation of a hidden agenda. There's a claim of inconsistency. All this done, naturally, without actual quotations, or proof.

LOTF thinks that LOTF's views are right and wise and good. So if LOTF can't come up with a ready argument against Westprog, it must be because Westprog is doing something devious and tricky and wrong. He "refuses to clarify his position". He won't debate "openly and honestly".

I wish I did know some kind of debating judo where it's possible to twist things around so that you can hide your position and flee into the mists. In fact, failure to make your position clear is to concede the argument. That's why I've been at pains to keep clarifying and reclarifying. Luckily I've received confirmation that what I'm saying is capable of being correctly interpreted when people want to do so.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Atheism doesn't have to be the belief that God does not exist. Atheism can be the lack of belief that god exists.

I once heard it stated rather pithily:
"Calling atheism a 'religion' is like stating that not collecting stamps is a hobby."

 

[jiggeryqua]

I once heard it stated rather pithily:
"Calling atheism a 'religion' is like stating that not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Only once?

 

[Leumas]

Yes....religion is a party....or Stockholm Syndrome

 

[tsig]

Back to the OP ...

John Albert posted this thread concerning a 22 year old woman who was jailed recently for stabbing her sexual partner, apparently in the name of her trying to be a werewolf.

Do we conclude from this that werewolves are evil, and so are the laws of their packs ?

Congratulations for defeating entropy one more time.

 

[Trent Wray]

Yes....religion is a party....or Stockholm Syndrome

I have often found parallels between certain religious types and what I understand the Stockholm Syndrome effect to be ...

 

[Trent Wray]

Congratulations for defeating entropy one more time.

Yay someone noticed that post .

ETA: Oh, and thanx Although I will admit this is the first year I can remember being a bit depressed at my age