Fed2k Showdown: Religion

[Hawat]

Now im confused. You don't want rip off anyones religion, but religion must go. Regardless how. It's your opinion...

[Acriku]

I realize that religion must go, but I also realize that I must let history take its course. I'll be speaking against religion (institutionalized religion as you put it) while I'm waiting though ;)

[Phage]

Acriku, I do understand what you're trying to say, don't get me wrong. But you can't blame a religion for what people do, which is what I think you're doing

Then what about the people on the board that "blame" religion for all the good it does...why haven't you criticized them?

Also are you saying ideas do not influence behavior? Because that's a bit far fetched.

That's kind of like saying you can't blame Nazism for the Nazis actions. Or racism for the KKK. It's "Just people."

Just people....doing things randomly? Or do they have a reason?

And could that reason possibly be religion? I mean they are only saying it is themselves.

[Hawat]

Ok, then let's see what course history will take. Should be exciting... im just as convinced of my ideals and their progress as you're of yours.

[Phage]

Sounds like a noble cause. The only problem is that you won't rise awareness with your approach. You said that you listened enough to the "defenders of religion", but obviously you didn't. Several people spoke out against religion as institution and against opression through christian ethics, but you're still bashing faith and generalize it as religion.

Well that can be seen as blaming the sympton and not the cause.

Can't you just accept that there are people who are taking the bible more serious than you and are using it as inspiration for their faith?

Of course we can, that doesn't mean we see it as a good thing. I think they are incorrect and so of course wish to change their minds. The alternative is subverting the truth and allowing what I believe to be a falsehood to perpetuate.

Also you forget Xianity, Islam and some Buddhism are missionary religions. Meaning it is fundamental to their doctrine to try and spread throughout the world. Why shouldn't atheists be allowed to do the same?

Are you not trying to spread your own belief of "non-spreading" through this very post?

Even if you think of the bible as the work of some intolerant racists, for god's sake, stop attacking it all the time. If you're right with your theseis and you want to convince other people of it stop underlining the falsity of their beliefs.

So he's not allowed to criticize the Bible? That's a bit closed minded.

[Phage]

The US *does* have a religion-based government, with president Bush and the war agains Iraq this has become even more apparent.

From the pledge of allegiance:

"... the United States of America

and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,

indivisible,..."

In public appearances of the US president and other officials, it is often stated that there is one God, and that he is on the US side, and that God should bless America.

Yes the Pledge, added with "Under God" added in the 1950s under Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare,. Good point, I guess the founding father's really had time to deal with that?

In fact the only reason why "Under God" is allowed in the Pledge and dollar is because the courts have stated that it is not sufficiently explicit enough to be an endorsement of religion, more a saying. Which you yourself show to obviously be untrue.

So yes, I would say that the US is a religiously led country.

In some sense yes, but it was never intended to be by the constitution and the founding fathers. This is also a nation ruled by Law remember, not Pledge, not man.

Because a religiously lead country obviously interferes with freedom of conscience. Coercing the minority to believe as the majority.

On the rest of the discussion: I think that opposing so strongly against religion (as you do) makes atheism a religion or belief in itself. Btw, "atheism" litterally means having no god(s), the meaning of the word has been extended somewhat to "having no religion", but it still does not exclude spirituality IMHO.

Atheism can even have a religion technically.

And in any event saying "being strongly against religion makes nonreligion into a religion" is like saying "being strongly against racism, makes nonracism into racism."

Also if you look up the definition of spirituality, in the dictionary, you will see it is strongly tied to religion. LIke atheism and materialism.

And, being a physicist, I know that science and rationality have little to do with beliefs/religion, and conflicts between those are results of fanatically applying statements from the one onto the other.

And being a phycisist you should realize that you have no authority in matters of philosophy. Furthermore 93 percent of the people in the National Academy of Sciences are non-theists.

http://www.polar.org/antsun/oldissues2001-2002/2001_1223/religion.html

In any event science can help with the issue indirectly by informing philosophy and making God superfluous.

If a scientist looked through Huble and found God you wouldn't be saying "science has nothing to do with God" you would be saying science had proven God.

Likewise if after years of searching we have found the universe to operate on a purely physical level, based on all acumulated evidence for the past four hundred years, it is safe to generalize and say, at least at a provisional level: that the universe is completetly material, and there is no God.

This is not so much a matter of falsifying God directly,(only some God's can be disproven in this manner) but showing God to be superfluous, given a more parsimonious materialist alternative.

That is not to say this conclusion is absolutely true, in the future we could find evidence to change our minds and hence believe in God. And then I would be arguing the opposite of what I am saying now.

However anyone that goes by reason and evidence now, must admit the God concept is superfluous and very, very improbable.

[Dude_Doc]

Should we ban all violent games and movies too? Because youngsters are taking up arms and killing teachers and other children?

[Acriku]

There's no direct correlation between violent games and real world violence. There is, however, direct correlations between religion and the people in that religion doing things because of their religion.

[exatreide]

thats not linked to movies and games in any way. Millions of kids play those games and watch those movies and only a select few kill their teachers.

such arguments are insane in the least.

[Dude_Doc]

thats not linked to movies and games in any way. Millions of kids play those games and watch those movies and only a select few kill their teachers.

such arguments are insane in the least.

Just like millions of Christians read the bible, and only a selected few are actually killing people to this day.

[Nyarlathotep]

Then what about the people on the board that "blame" religion for all the good it does...why haven't you criticized them?

Also are you saying ideas do not influence behavior? Because that's a bit far fetched.

That's kind of like saying you can't blame Nazism for the Nazis actions. Or racism for the KKK. It's "Just people."

A) Why would people "blame" religion for something good it does ? I have a hard time understanding what you say there...

B) Sure ideas influence behaviour, of course it does. That doesn't mean it's bad or does it (neither did I say it didn't) ?

C) Since when is Nazism or racism a religion ??

D) You missed my whole point what I was discussing with Acriku. My point is that we should not generalize people.

[JB]

Yes the Pledge, added with "Under God" added in the 1950s under Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare,. Good point, I guess the founding father's really had time to deal with that?

In some sense yes, but it was never intended to be by the constitution and the founding fathers. This is also a nation ruled by Law remember, not Pledge, not man.

You are right, the US are not founded on religion, but the way the current president is using his beliefs to advocate the actions of the country he represents(*) tends to be very polarising, and uses relegion as one of the discerning attributes between good and evil. ((*) I'm avoiding the term "leading" there, that would deny the amount of freedom that individuals have, and the postmodern nature of the way the US is governed)

Because a religiously lead country obviously interferes with freedom of conscience. Coercing the minority to believe as the majority.

Quite right, but the borders are dangerously narrow.

"being strongly against racism, makes nonracism into racism."

touche! :)

And being a phycisist you should realize that you have no authority in matters of philosophy. Furthermore 93 percent of the people in the National Academy of Sciences are non-theists.

I don't think anyone has authority in philosophy, that is one of the elusive sides of philosphy itself. Still I wonder why a lot of people I talk with think that because I work in (astro)physics I know something about philosophy,

"I am put into an ivory tower, and while I like the view :), I don't think anyone belongs here."

Those conversations can get quite difficult when I try to convince people that that everybody (even they themselves) can think about and "do" philosophy.

This is not so much a matter of falsifying God directly,(only some God's can be disproven in this manner) but showing God to be superfluous, given a more parsimonious materialist alternative.

There might be new "levels" of thinking on which religion will be important for humans; Individuals might do without religion, but everyone is on his own there, so people seem to cling to religion as a way to lead their lives. But I really am at a loss here, as I find it very difficult to grasp the way religious people think about these things.

I would be arguing the opposite of what I am saying now.

That is very human indeed, but I doubt if these matters can ever be proven/falsified in the way you sketch here.

[Caid Ivik]

There's no direct correlation between violent games and real world violence. There is, however, direct correlations between religion and the people in that religion doing things because of their religion.

Isn't it your religion, which yells on attack against Ten Commandements?

[Edric O]

Acriku:

And what good things has religion done lately that cannot be achieved in any other way?

This is ridiculous. Like Scrinlord pointed out, it is not a question of whether it COULD be done another way, but a question of whether it WAS done another way. And the answer is that it hasn't. Maybe atheists COULD create some sort of happy utopia where people sing, dance and smell the pretty flowers all day, but the fact is that they haven't DONE it. The fact is that Christian charities fight hunger and crippling diseases by helping people all over the world.

I have read 5 chapters before the Psalms verse, and 5 chapters after. The meaning does not change in context, as the 10 chapters I have read is all about how god is great, the wicked evil, and asking the great god to save "me" from the evil wicked - "mine enemies". In context, it actually helps my argument. The christian bible acknowledges enemies of the christian believers.

Looks like you have some sorting out to do. The christian bible attacks the nonbelievers, calls them enemies that doeth no good, and yet tells you to love thy neighbor as thyself. If I was a christian I'd be asking my pastor this.

Perhaps you would find the answer for yourself if you read a little bit more, up to the point where it says LOVE YOUR ENEMIES. There is no contradiction, Acriku. And there is no intolerance: The Bible calls a group of people our enemies, and then tells us to love them. Ooooh, that's sooooo evil and intolerant! ::)

Acts of great good that can be achieved otherwise, without the evils.

Yeah, and pigs could fly... ::)

Let's assume that you are correct. Atheists COULD do all these wonderful things, but they choose NOT to. Christians, on the other hand, go ahead and actually DO them. Now what does this tell you about Christianity and atheism?

If you are referring to Stalin's acts, this was not an act of atheism. It was in fact an act of instilling order in his communist country. It nothing to do with atheism. It was his communism that made him abolish the churches in his country, because the churches caused disorder in his communist country. I don't know why this isn't hard to understand.

Really, Acriku, you know better than to call Stalin a communist! I can understand it if you're upset and wish to lash out at me, but you're making an awful lot of honest communists roll in their graves by comparing them to the likes of Stalin...

And believe me, I understand perfectly how STALINISM sought to enforce order by outlawing religion. What I don't understand is how come you use completely different standards when it comes to the Spanish government controlling dissent through the Inquisition, for example. You constantly refuse to apply the same standards to both religion AND atheism.

Scrinlord: I'm afraid I have to correct you. Communism is not by definition an atheist system of government and communists do not have to be atheists. I'm living proof of it.

However, enforced atheism has been used side by side with "communism" as the official ideology of many stalinist governments. This has nothing to do with communism; it's just that stalinists usually hate to share any power with anyone...

[Phage]

Should we ban all violent games and movies too? Because youngsters are taking up arms and killing teachers and other children?

Never ever said ban. I believe in freedom of conscience. Also the idea that video games influence behavior is very questionable. Because people know the difference between fantasy and reality there.

But with religion its different, religion is what people actually believe to be reality.

Also religion is a matter of belief, whereas video games is more a matter of taste.

[Phage]

Just like millions of Christians read the bible, and only a selected few are actually killing people to this day.

That's true. And I admit most Xians are not violent. However there is more to this then induction but deduction and testimony.

Many abortion clinic bombers and the Inquisition admited that they did what they did *for* their religion. I mean when they admit their own motive, why doubt it?

Unless they use it as an excuse *video games* but like I said video games are known by everyone to be fantasy, whereas violent religions are not.

Also my main criticism of religion is that it leads to violence, but that it makes such violence more probable and compromise less probable.

When religion enters a political or ethical issue its no longer a mere social problem, but absolute Good vs absolute Evil problem. With compromise being equivalent to dealing with Satan.

Religion also tends to enshrine certain traditions, one of the greatest strengths and weaknesses of it, which makes improvement when these traditions are no longer efficient less likely/take longer.

Lastly my main problem with all religion is that I think it untrue. And if it is untrue then we should not adhere to it, because then we will be abondoning our core value of truth, as well as inviting confusion.

[Phage]

A) Why would people "blame" religion for something good it does ? I have a hard time understanding what you say there...

It obviously meant "give credit" now you are nit picking.

B) Sure ideas influence behaviour, of course it does. That doesn't mean it's bad or does it (neither did I say it didn't) ?

But the point is it does, and when the behavior is bad it was a bad influence.

C) Since when is Nazism or racism a religion ??

They are not. One is a belief system, the other a faith. Much like religion. And both influence ideas.

D) You missed my whole point what I was discussing with Acriku. My point is that we should not generalize people.

Missed that point? I just assumed it wasn't your point, cause attacking that would feel like a straw man.

Can't make generalizations...why not?

I'll make some right now:

People breath air.

People eat food.

Xians believe in souls and heaven.

KKK members are white and don't like blacks.

And those would hold true more then 50 percent of the time. Which is why they are called generalizations, not universals.

Religion I admit is not as easily generalized nor can religion itself be generalized as "violent" or intolerant.

Perhaps a specific religion can, or a specific sect of a specific religion.

Religions can get very different, from fundamentalist Islam which is very violent, to Tibetan Buddhism which is very passive.

All religions have a few things in common though which is why we can call all these different beliefs religions. One being a certain amount of faith and supernaturalism, which I believe is overall untrue and clouds judgement. As well as makes critical inquiry of their claims impractical.

For example the issue of geocentrism, was that not a religious belief, Galileo would have had less trouble with it. But since it was a religious belief, it was slow to change and met with great opposition. Same with creationism.

When issues are matters of evidence, they can change as new evidence is acquired, new facts known. When they are matters of faith, they cannot change with the evidence, or correct their mistakes, because the belief was never based on evidence.

Another the cannonization of certain ethical codes and practices, making it difficult to change them when needed, as we learn more or as times change. The Muslim rule against eating pork, and the Hindu rule concerning cows are examples of this. By far more harmfull, the Hindu idea of caste.

Hence my main problem with religion(but perhaps with specific religions) is not any violence, or intolerance:

but with the method. With how religion is A) Not true. and B) Creates barriers for necessary change/objective discourse.

[Phage]

Let's assume that you are correct. Atheists COULD do all these wonderful things, but they choose NOT to. Christians, on the other hand, go ahead and actually DO them. Now what does this tell you about Christianity and atheism?

Depends on the atheist and what you mean by achievement. Being an atheist just means you don't believe in something, not really a strong basis for a generalization. Technically in history racist societies have achieved more then nonracists, but that is meaningless. Because it is very difficult to generalize based on what a person or group does not believe in.

Darwin for example was agnostic and discovered our origins. Corliss Lamont, helped overthrow McCarthyism. Isaac Asimov made great works and advocated human progress, and was an atheist. James Randi exposes frauds and tricksters everyday. Dawkins argues against creationists. Shermer, director of the skeptic's society, challenges charlatans and holocaust deniers (technically he's a nontheist though).

And many atheists I know serve in the military, one even served in the Iraqi war.

Yes atheists haven't done as much as Xians....but that's because there are a lot less atheists then christians. And a lot less humanistic/rational atheists (whose viewpoint I am arguing for) then the other kinds.

Humanistic/rationalist atheists have actually done a lot less bad, even for their small numbers in proportion to Xians.

Also many great people in this nation were not Xian such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson(deists), some like Thomas Paine were even hostile towards Christianity(Age of Reason).

Really, Acriku, you know better than to call Stalin a communist! I can understand it if you're upset and wish to lash out at me, but you're making an awful lot of honest communists roll in their graves by comparing them to the likes of Stalin...

Stalin was a communist. Whether or not he was a "true communist" is another matter, concerning the "no true scotsman fallacy".

In any event I agree, the term communism is far too vague for stalin to have any impact. Even catholics like Thomas Moore were communists.

However Stalin was a Marxist, and his actions can be seen as an example of Marxism in practice, much like Hitler's was Nazism in practice.

[ken124578]

IMO Religion is one big lie and it was IMO created by power hungry people, oh please, believe in "God" (i wrote god with the capital g ;) ::) ) OR go to HELL.

There is no hell on earth and in my entire life i haven't been able to see 'god's empire' (heaven) in the sky.

There have been some faults with the creation of the new testament too, there were actually 2... err, well, you all probably wouldn't understand and i will never ever in my entire life get that video with all its evidence back. :-

~Party on, people and ignore my post. ;)

[Acriku]

Edric, I don't suppose you know what the British and American Red Cross is? A secular organization that goes out into the world and gives them aid, education, help, food, etc. So yes, secular people can do the same thing, and we do do the same thing.

[Caid Ivik]

Organisation was founded by a christian. Also the signs (cross and halfmoon) aren't very secular as well. But you are true, even atheist can be good...

[Acriku]

Even so, the organizations are strictly secular. No religion in any thread of it whatsoever.

[Caid Ivik]

As most. I don't know much organisations, excluding churches, which have priests, specifical rituals, commandements etc.

[nemafakei]

"Edric, religion does not have a monopoly on charity. You also misrepresent the figures... since by definition, you can't do something in the name of atheism as you can in the name of some god. More charities than not are 'agnostic'... they don't do things to please a god or whatever, they do it because it is right."

- 8 March 2002, The Religion Thread.

[Phage]

Objectivist and secular humanist groups have ethical rules/codes.