What is good about religion?

[Undesired Walrus]

Cucumber sandwiches.

And people who want to live their lives without a bunch of Atheists who make the rest of us look bad getting their pants in a twist.

 

[scotth]

No. If you really believe in hell, and you really believe that molesting a young boy is a guaranteed ticket to hell, then you will simply not do it. No if's, and's, or but's about it.

The reason authorities do these things is because they don't really believe it. Just like the reason a man kills another man in the heat of a robbery is that he doesn't, in that moment, really believe the police will catch him eventually.

The brand of christianity that is prevelant around these parts pretty much allows you to get away with any attrocity. The doctrine is: if you confess your sin to Jesus and ask forgiveness you are all set. The only unforgivable sin is to doubt or deny the holy spirit.

So it isn't that simple, at least not in all the cases.

 

[scotth]

I do not have solid evidence such as studies, that religion helps improve morality.

But I do know that it teaches it. That preachers tell people how important it is to help other people, and to be kind, and to be generous. And so, their ideals are reinforced. This is why I think religion helps.

You think that secular people don't teach morals? They do, and apparently do at least as good a job.

And I ask you, what is more moral?

A) Helping another to avoid hell and achieve heavan (basically for your own personal gain), or...
B) Helping another purely out concern for their well being.

And here is some fun reading for ya.... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

 

[rocketdodger]

I also considered other sources, like this Time Magazine Article from December 23, 1941, which clearly shows that Hitler was oppressing and killing Christians:

. . .

Anti-Christian propaganda in Nazism isn't something that only comes from Table Talks or Christian Apologism.

What you are failing to realize is that our example of Hitler, in the context of showing why we dislike religion, has nothing to do with Hitler's faith, or the faith he claimed to be, or the faith of his followers, or anything like that.

We are using him as an example of what happens when people buy into a taught morality. Quite simply, the reason Hitler had any power at all was because people let him convince them his morality was the morality, and all sorts of bad sh-- happened as a result.

This pattern has been seen time and time and time and time and time again in history, and I dare say that anyone who either disputes it or lets themselves fall into it is not just a fool, but an extremely dangerous fool -- the kind that are responsible for most of the evil we have to deal with.

We are not singling out religion here -- any virulent meme that preaches an absolute morality is an enemy.

 

[rocketdodger]

A) Helping another to avoid hell and achieve heavan (basically for your own personal gain), or...
B) Helping another purely out concern for their well being.

Strictly speaking, it can be shown that all humans only act out of personal gain, even if only on a subconscious level. So it becomes a question of whether helping people for A) or B) leads to more positive or negative consequences in our environment (which are themselves subjective...but usually people can agree on them).

That is why I usually steer clear of trying to argue why secular morality is "better" than religious morality in some idealistic way -- we are all just selfish bastards at heart. It is much more powerful (but also requires non-idiots at the receiving end) to show why secular morality benefits everyone more than religious morality. In other words, use utility theory.

 

[articulett]

The first would make a lovely Christmas Card, don't you think? It was painted by Adolph Hitler.

The second seems to be the God's plan for many fundamental faiths, eh?
(click to enlarge).

The faithful imagine that what they believe matters more than what they do. That is inherently immoral to me.

 

[JetLeg]

We are not singling out religion here -- any virulent meme that preaches an absolute morality is an enemy.

What would you say about a "virulent meme" that preaches that people have to be kind to one another?

 

[Apology]

The first would make a lovely Christmas Card, don't you think? It was painted by Adolph Hitler.

The second seems to be the God's plan for many fundamental faiths, eh?
(click to enlarge).

The faithful imagine that what they believe matters more than what they do. That is inherently immoral to me.

The painting proves nothing. He was a painter when he was a very young man and presumably still a Catholic. It's said that his early rejection as an artist may have spurred him on to Nazism, although I think that's speculation. I have painted religious paintings myself under assignment in art school, all without one whit of religiousity.The painting might have been intended for his new Aryan religion, who knows.

I'm willing to accept that Adolph Hitler was just a crazy man. He was completely inconsistent with his religious sentiments and statements throughout his life. He had no problem persecuting Christian and atheist alike. You seem to have a vested interest in blaming his craziness on Christianity. I just don't think the evidence is there to make that case. The Holocaust was Hitler's fault. It's senseless to try and lay blame like this.

Edit: as a matter of fact, the little boy in the picture looks pretty darned German for a Jewish child from Israel. I'm going to say intended for the new Aryan religion.

 

[articulett]

What would you say about a "virulent meme" that preaches that people have to be kind to one another?

It seems that non-believers are as kind to each other as theists. Moreso, from what I see. Theists tend to think the "do unto others" clause really only means "others who believe as they do"-- they ready to kill Muslims and spread bigotry and hatred about those who don't from what I see. Where are these fabulous theists who are so very kind... and how much do they personally profit from their supposed kindness... and what exactly is required of those they are being "kind" to is what I want to know. Moreover, I don't think religion invented the meme... although they may have put it into language. All primates have social rules and are kind to their "in group" and infants in their group. It evolved because those who are socially cooperative survive better to pass on more of those cooperative genes. Theists think they own niceness or love... like there would be none without their invisible man--

Normalbobsmith responds well to this... moreover, the vapidness of the faithful is just so blatant-- http://www.normalbobsmith.com/hatemail346.html

Instead of thinking you just "believe"... you learn to associate all that is good with god and to tell yourselves that without your magic man everything will be horrific.

 

[JetLeg]

They are also not true scotsmen.

The definition of a christian is not just "any person that claims to follow jesus".

This is not a sensible definition. If it were so, one could say that he believes that the NT teaches that every person has the duty to rape people with green eyes (not justifying it at all), and according to the above definition, he would be still called a christian. But it would be absurd to criticize christianity by pointing to the behaviour of such "christians".


A sensible definition of a christian is "a person that actually follows the teachings of jesus".

 

[JetLeg]

It seems that non-believers are as kind to each other as theists. Moreso, from what I see. Theists tend to think the "do unto others" clause really only means "others who believe as they do"-- they ready to kill Muslims and spread bigotry and hatred about those who don't from what I see. Where are these fabulous theists who are so very kind... and how much do they personally profit from their supposed kindness... and what exactly is required of those they are being "kind" to is what I want to know. Moreover, I don't think religion invented the meme... although they may have put it into language. All primates have social rules and are kind to their "in group" and infants in their group. It evolved because those who are socially cooperative survive better to pass on more of those cooperative genes. Theists think they own niceness or love... like there would be none without their invisible man--

Normalbobsmith responds well to this... moreover, the vapidness of the faithful is just so blatant-- http://www.normalbobsmith.com/hatemail346.html

Instead of thinking you just "believe"... you learn to associate all that is good with god and to tell yourselves that without your magic man everything will be horrific.

So do you think that a virulent meme that teaches people to be kind to another is a good thing or not?

 

[Apology]

Also, we already have the Spanish Inquisition, the Witch Hunts, and the Crusades, which are much more obvious proof of religious violence. We really don't need Hitler to make the violence point. We've also got the church bombers like Eric Rudolph and the Federal Building Bombers like Tim McVeigh to tie Christianity to violence in modern times. We just don't need Hitler.

 

[articulett]

So do you think that a virulent meme that teaches people to be kind to another is a good thing or not?

What does it matter when YOU are the one defining what is sensible and not?

And what is Christian or not?

Or why the Muslims have a different kind of faith or "love" in their heart than you do?

 

[JetLeg]

What does it matter when YOU are the one defining what is sensible and not?

And what is Christian or not?

Or why the Muslims have a different kind of faith or "love" in their heart than you do?

I did give reasons for my definition of christians.

I would also say that a good definition of a muslim would be a person that really follows the teachings of Mohamed.

Otherwise a person that believes that Mohamed taught that learning math is the most important thing in the world would be considered muslim.

 

[articulett]

Also, we already have the Spanish Inquisition, the Witch Hunts, and the Crusades, which are much more obvious proof of religious violence. We really don't need Hitler to make the violence point. We've also got the church bombers like Eric Rudolph and the Federal Building Bombers like Tim McVeigh to tie Christianity to violence in modern times. We just don't need Hitler.

True... that whole tangent evolved because of Jetlags demands that I support a certain claim... although I can't imagine him ever supporting any claim of his other than, "that's just common sense"... "that's sensible".... "it would be lunacy to give your possessions away"... etc.

Whatever is good about religion... it sure isn't reflected in the spewings of jetlag. If you could show that religion was responsible for his failure to reason--would that be enough to encourage you to keep it away from the kiddies until they could learn to reason?

 

[JetLeg]

that whole tangent evolved because of Jetlags demands that I support a certain claim

I would be very surprised to learn that Nazis murdered atheists for being atheists. It would be interesting to know, if true.

 

[rocketdodger]

What would you say about a "virulent meme" that preaches that people have to be kind to one another?

I am opposed to all virulent memes, except what I call the "guardian" meme (which is the current meme I am running). The guardian meme simply says "if a meme instructs you that all other memes are wrong by default, don't load it."

Furthermore, the notion of people "having to" be kind to one another is paradoxical. Suppose person A doesn't want to be kind to person B. Then to be kind to person A, person B needs to "let them off the hook" and let them out of the "mandatory" kindness circle. But then A doesn't need to be kind to B, which violates the rule.

Furthermore furthermore, why should everyone be kind to everyone else? I can tell you right now there are people on Earth I would kill on sight, no questions asked. I will be damned if someone tells me I "have" to be kind to such people.

 

[JetLeg]

Furthermore, the notion of people "having to" be kind to one another is paradoxical. Suppose person A doesn't want to be kind to person B. Then to be kind to person A, person B needs to "let them off the hook" and let them out of the "mandatory" kindness circle. But then A doesn't need to be kind to B, which violates the rule.

Furthermore furthermore, why should everyone be kind to everyone else? I can tell you right now there are people on Earth I would kill on sight, no questions asked. I will be damned if someone tells me I "have" to be kind to such people.

This is interesting, but not to the point. My question was if there is a virulent meme says you a good thing (you decide what it is) - would you opt for its existance? For example a meme that says that there is a blue invisible hypo floating around which asks us to be creative. Or a meme that says that there is a blue invisible hypo floating around which asks/commands us to have a seperation of church and state.

 

[JetLeg]

I can tell you right now there are people on Earth I would kill on sight, no questions asked.

Who?

 

[scotth]

Strictly speaking, it can be shown that all humans only act out of personal gain, even if only on a subconscious level. So it becomes a question of whether helping people for A) or B) leads to more positive or negative consequences in our environment (which are themselves subjective...but usually people can agree on them).

That is why I usually steer clear of trying to argue why secular morality is "better" than religious morality in some idealistic way -- we are all just selfish bastards at heart. It is much more powerful (but also requires non-idiots at the receiving end) to show why secular morality benefits everyone more than religious morality. In other words, use utility theory.

I would very deliberately not want to use utility theory. I would much rather try to construct a moral framework from a few precepts that would be universally agreeable. Richard Carrier's "Sense and Goodness Without God" is a pretty good stab at it. I would encourage you to at least read that before abondoning ship. (That's the second time tonight I got to recommend that book)