Oh come on. Anything can be divisive. And in this discussion, for example, it is the atheists who are being divisive. I don't see any Christians saying "if you don't believe in Christ then you're an idiotic moron," but see a lot of "if you believe in Christ than you're an idiotic moron." Let's place the blame where it actually lies: with PEOPLE who are divisive. No, they just happen to say "if you don't believe in this Christ fellow then you're going to hell". Yeah, that's a lot better. Shrug. Why do you care? And how is that any worse than people who say that my religion is false, that I am an idiot for believing it, and so on?
Jeez. Sticks and stones, people. If I were forcing you, fine, complain about that. But I am not, so who cares?
And please, no more anecdotal "evidence" about how you've never heard anybody say that. Why would I?
It's pretty accepted Christian doctrine that non-believers will be relegated to some kind of eternal suffering. Yes, so how is that similar to the things I said I'd not heard?
You realize, of course, that the notion that this is "bad" cannot be proven or disproven? So either you are being a hypocrite, or you are conceding that it is not absolute fact that this is bad. Either way you are undermining your own argument.
Who said "bad" can't be "proven or disproven".
First, I didn't say "bad" can't be. I was speaking in a specific context.
Second, I would still maintain it can't be proven, because the word "bad" is not an objective term. It's inherently subjective, unless it is defined further.
You can look at the damage done to an organism, an environment or a community and judge whether it is beneficial for yourself, or a community.
Since when is lack of direct or obvious benefit "bad"? Could not the damage done make the individual or community stronger in the long run? And how could you possibly know what all of the indirect consequences are? Unless you can see the entire picture, isn't it impossible for you to say?
Further, maybe the damage done to that organism is "good" because it is my dinner for tonight.
You're the one being a hypocrite. First you tell me that I am right about not needing to believe in God to have a morality then you tell me I can't prove what's right.
I fail to see how that is hypocritical. You are the one who brought "proof" into this. "Proof" is a higher standard of conclusion. I can say 2+2=4, and I can prove it. I can say I am not merely a head in a jar imagining this world, but I cannot prove it.
And YOU are claiming that anyone who doesn't believe in this God is NOT necessarily mistaken. How is that any better? Because you say so? Not very rational.
In that statement, I am only claiming that if there is a single God, then the majority of people on the planet are mistaken, and that everyone who does believe in a single God to the exclusion of others therefore has a point of contention which can lead to conflict. That's quite rational, I'm afraid.
No, it's not, because you are saying it as though the people who have this belief in God are the problem. Why is it that those who do NOT are not the problem? As we've seen in this discussion, it is the NON-believers who are causing the conflict.
False.
Stating that something is false without backing it up means you've proven nothing.
Um. I was responding to your claim "Both of these things are socially destructive, and irrational," and I did back that "False" up... far more than you backed up your original claim, since you only did it with contradictions and fallacies.
As it cannot be disproven, you must concede therefore that the world MAY be that way, instead of asserting it is not.
There are many things I cannot disprove, but I do not make my decisions based on the fact they are true if I can't prove them.
Yes, you absolutely do (unless you don't actually exist, in which case, you don't do anything at all). Every day, all the time. You're only fooling yourself here.
If you present someone with "faith" with disproof of what they believe they continue to believe it.
That's a common claim, but it is simply false, and obviously spoken by someone who doesn't understand religious faith. Granted, SOME people with faith won't change their beliefs with "disproof." But many others will. It happens all the time.
If you present me with proof that something I hold is true is incorrect, I will believe you. Prove to me that I'm a brain in a jar and I'll happily believe it.
Perhaps you would, but many other atheists and scientists would not. You recall The Matrix, right? That stuff about freeing a mind past a certain point? Granted, it's science fiction (as far as we know), but there's a lot of truth to that. Most adults, I think, couldn't handle it. We ar
Science as we know it today was brought into existence by religious people who Contrary to what your statement could be interpreted, it is not BECAUSE they were religious that they were great scientist, and searched for more than "god did it". For some of them, yes, it was. For Newton. He was a theologian first, scientist second, and did science because of his religious convictions.
Science... was done IN SPITE of them being religious. False.
Actually you would be hard pressed to find openly non-religious people in such period of time Perhaps. But Newton, as noted above, was about as far as you could get from non-religious. He wrote more about theology than he did about science, in fact, and called it his true love.
Justice. It is from religion that we get the idea that all men are created equal, that equality before the law, equality of rights, equality of worth are good and right and true. WHAT ???? That coming from a culture which ENSLAVED black african people and said they were NOT people and had no soul ? What does "culture" have to do with anything? It was the strongly religious people -- in the UK and U.S. -- who brought about the abolition of slavery, and opposed it from start to finish. It was the far less religious people -- Deists, for example -- who were primarily those who fostered slavery in the U.S.
Again, I am not making a silly claim that all religion -- let alone religious people -- had positive concepts of justice and equality. I am making the obvious claim that religion played a pivotal role in shaping those concepts that we share today.
Show me where in history for example have religion said that those NOT belonging to their religion had equal rights. Um. Christianity, all through history. Granted, many Christian people and sects did NOT hold to this, but that's people corrupting the ideas. But religion was not a CAUSE of that, just like atheism was not a cause of the tens of millions who died at the hands of Stalin and Mao.
And for your information most of the US founding father (which cited something similar) were either DEIST or atheist. False. That is a generally accepted, but thoroughly incorrect, claim. I cannot think of any who were atheists (although some might have been), and only a tiny handful for Deists. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin (for a time). Washington, Adams (both), and most others were Presbyterians, Unitarians, Episcopalians, and similar.
There's two tendencies at work, here: one is on behalf of non-religious (especially anti-religious) people to downplay religion in our nation's founding. The other is that the religion of many of our founders was, in fact, different in many ways from Protestantism of today, and this seems to have caused people to lump them all as "Deists." But it's inaccurate at best: Deism was a philosophy that denied supernatural involvement in the natural world, and yet Washington -- widely beleived to be a Deist today -- over and over proved he was not, when he referred to the Hand of Providence guiding the path of America. No Deist would say such things.
The sad thing is that anyone thinks this needs to be proven. The sad thing is that there still are people in this world who think things don't necessarily need to be proven to believe them. Oh please. ALL humans believe things that are not proven. ALL.
Do you believe in evolution of man from an aquatic life form? Do you believe in anthropogenic global warming?
Do you believe you are what your senses tell you: a human being among billions of others on the planet Earth, rather than a brain in a jar floating around in nothingness?
It is because of Isaac Newton's religious beliefs that he brought so much knowledge to our world. Oh really? Had he been an Atheist he couldn't have done it? That question is irrelevant. Borrowing an example I used in a previous comment: we have the theory of relativity because of Einstein. Would we have had the theory of relativity if there had never been an Einstein? (Almost surely, yes.) Does an affirmative answer disprove the prior claim? (Absolutely not.)
Justice. It is from religion that we get the idea that all men are created equal, that equality before the law, equality of rights, equality of worth are good and right and true. Gee, you truly are ignorant. False.
The concept of equality of people comes from the French revolution, an eminently Atheistic movement. Not from religion. Wow. So when Thomas Jefferson wrote that it is self-evident that all men are created equal years BEFORE the French Revolution, this came FROM the French Revolution?
Be careful using that word "ignorant"... it may come back to bite you on the ass. Yes, the French Revolution was strongly atheistic, though it also had strong religious elements to it as well; but its concept of equality was very much influenced by the Reformation that directly proceeded the Enlightenment. Of course the Magna Carta, also strongly influenced by the Church, had a major influence as well.
A religion-based world like the Middle Ages' society was far from egalitarian. Yes. And what, you think post-revolution France was egalitarian? Please. We are talking about ideas and principles here, not the "facts on the ground," as it were.
Paraphrase: Religion was not a requirement for these positive occurrences, but it was strongly associated with them, so we should give credit where credit is due No, that paraphrase is inaccurate. Whether or not religion was a requirement for those things, it was a significant contributing factor nonetheless.
Would we have had the theory of relativity without Einstein? Eventually. Does that mean he shouldn't get credit?
Paraphrase: Religion was merely associated with these negative occurrences, not a required catalyst, therefore we shouldn't blame them on religion. Where "merely associated" means "was not a significant contributing factor of," yes.
The argument you presented in this particular post is internally inconsistent. I disagree.
The religious types would *like* to portray Hitler as an atheist, but their evidence is shakey. I didn't say Hitler was atheist; I implied his REGIME was atheist. It used Christian symbology -- although, far more often, nationalism -- as a means to rally the people here and there, but it was essentially non-religious. Same thing with Mao and Stalin. I am not saying they were atheists, but that their regimes were: that religion (except, perhaps, hatred of certain religious groups) had nothing to do with why they killed millions of people.
If you would prefer "secular" to "atheist," fine. I don't care. The point is not to beat up on atheists, far from it. The point is to destroy the insipid argument that religion is the primary cause of such tragedies.
Mao doesn't even count: Chinese history is separate from Western Oh please. Yeah, screw the tens of millions that were killed in China, they don't count. Bollocks.
... and atheism doesn't even come into the equation, as much as Christians want it to. I never said or implied that anyone was killed BECAUSE of atheism, if that is what you are implying. I am simply stating the fact that you don't have to be religious to kill lots of people. Atheist regimes do it too.
Which leaves us with Stalin. Stalin's atrocities - and I'm not defending the man - wasn't qualitatively the same as Hitlers on the industrial scale. Correct. They were far, far worse than Hitler.
The majority of Stalin's "work" comes from stuffing people in prison and letting them rot - see a Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich as an exampl. True, he did this to a large number of people, and sometimes to nearly whole ethnic groups but the point is, he didn't have gas ovens. Since you brought it up... I don't think Solzhenitsyn would agree with you that somehow Stalin wasn't as bad as Hitler.
"Religion was no more inherent to the Crusades than Nationalism was to the Holocaust." Here speaks someone who has never been to the Langue d'Oc in France. Have a look around for details of the Albigensian crusade and in particular the statement of Papal Legate Arnaud-Amaury when the town of Beziers was sacked - "Kill them all, God will know his own!"
You are quick to take some of the goods that have come out of science but just as quick to reject the appalling things that have come out of religion. Read some of my other comments in this discussion, I already addressed your concerns.
Please not that the idea that all men were NOT created equals is also often attributed to religion Sure. I hope you didn't think I anywhere stated or implied no bad ideas ever came from any religion.
Which leads me to believe that all the ideas you praise were due to specific people, not religion in general. Well, specific religious ideas. Yes, not religion in general. I never implied otherwise.
To prove your point, maybe you should point out why religion help develop these ideas I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. Christianity (for example) teaches that God loves everyone fully and equally, that he knew each of us before we were conceived, etc. We therefore have equal worth.
You tried about science, but I don't see why the existence of God should imply the ability to understand Its rules. It doesn't, necessarily. Again, I never implied it did. As above, specific religious beliefs, not religion in general. In this case, the belief that God is a logical being. That is at the very core of the understanding of the Christian concept of God. The word "logos" (which means literally, "word," and is the same root for our word "logic") was used to describe God.
It seems to me that at least some of the biggest religions claim that Its ways are mysterious. There's a difference between mysterious and chaotic. At the time, there was a commonly held opinion that there were not even any RULES or ORDER of any kind. Now many Christians -- Newton included -- have believed that we cannot uncover all the mysteries of the physical universe. But that doesn't mean it is chaotic, that there are no rules to follow, and that many of those rules aren't discoverable.
You don't need to believe in God to come to a similar conclusion. But people who did believe in God came to that conclusion because of that belief and had a profound influence on science because of it.
Not all scientists have had a religious background. Most of the earliest scientists we know of certainly didn't believe in the same God or Gods people believe in today. Shrug. None of that has anything to do with what I said. I never said otherwise.
Actually there's plenty of religious teaching that rabbits on about "God's chosen people" and plenty of religious teaching that suggests that non-believers be treated differently. DItto.
We do not need religion to have a concept of justice or morality. I never said you do.
Oh but there are bad things in religion:
1) All religions work on the basis that you should believe things as absolute fact that cannot be proven or that can actually be disproven You realize, of course, that the notion that this is "bad" cannot be proven or disproven? So either you are being a hypocrite, or you are conceding that it is not absolute fact that this is bad. Either way you are undermining your own argument.
2) Monotheistic religions teach that there is only one God and that anyone who doesn't believe in this God is mistaken. And YOU are claiming that anyone who doesn't believe in this God is NOT necessarily mistaken. How is that any better? Because you say so? Not very rational.
Both of these things are socially destructive, and irrational. False.
The first encourages us to see the world as something that it is not. Why is this important? Because people will make moral and rational choices based on bad information. First, that is the question-begging fallacy. As it cannot be disproven, you must concede therefore that the world MAY be that way, instead of asserting it is not.
Second, EVERYONE does the same thing. Including you. Everyone has beliefs that they hold to absolutely that may not be true. Hell, as far as you know, you're just a brain in a jar. Yet you believe you are not, and you encourage others to believe the same. Everyone necessarily does this. To make a categorical statement that this is bad is irrational (and of course, unprovable, thus falling afoul of your first statement).
This criticism is only useful when pointed at specific information, and specific choices based on that information. Saying it is bad to make moral and rational choices on bad information is nonsense. Saying it is bad to make the choice to abort your baby based on the bad information that your baby had an incurable is obvious. So give me an example.
The second is very divisive and an enabler for people who want to grab power and wage war to brainwash those around them. Oh come on. Anything can be divisive. And in this discussion, for example, it is the atheists who are being divisive. I don't see any Christians saying "if you don't believe in Christ then you're an idiotic moron," but see a lot of "if you believe in Christ than you're an idiotic moron." Let's place the blame where it actually lies: with PEOPLE who are divisive.
I think its pretty interesting that you didn't really address the main points of my arguments
I didn't READ most of your post.
You targeted the stuff that was easy to target.
Shrug. I took that "easy to target" nonsense as representative of the rest, and skimmed it. If there was something actually interesting in there, I didn't see it.
Christianity does not recognize people as religious, generally speaking, and certainly not just for going into a building to listen to people talk. And as to someone's interpretation, shrug, Protestantism in particular encourages everyone coming up with their own interpretation. And Christianity, in fact, is not about dogma, but the absence of it. And whether it related to the modern world is a mere opinion, and, I submit, an uninformed one.
Are you saying that significant portion of Christianity does not simply treat being religious as going to church and doing some other random BS?
The overwhelming majority that I know... and I know a lot. Yes, absolutely.
Come on, we both know that is untrue.
Not at all.
Wow Protestantism encourages people to have their own interpretations, is that why megachurches are so successful?:)
Those two things are unrelated.
So how Christianity not about dogma?
How IS it about dogma?
Is going to church not a dogmatic action?
No, it's not. Indeed, I do not regularly attend church, myself. I probably should, but not because of dogma, because I view it as beneficial.
Is baptism not dogmatic?
Nope. I can't think of any Protestant sects that require baptism, off the top of my head. They may require it for church membership (as mine did, since I went to Baptist churches), but certainly not in order to call yourself a Christian. Baptism is a mere symbolic rite, not a requirement.
Is this obsession with marriage being holy not dogmatic?
Correct, it is not. There's a difference between dogma and belief. A belief that marriage is holy is not dogmatic. That doesn't make linguistic sense.
Who the fuck allowed you to start defining what marriage is?
Um... what are you babbling about? Anyone is allowed to define marriage for themselves. No one "allows" it.
What right to do you have to tell people whether they can marry or not?
Again, no idea what you're babbling about. I've never told anyone whether they can marry or not.
This is growing increasingly tiresome.
If I make a religion that focuses on taking dumps in churches (in front of everyone) while the sermon is on, would you be respectful of that?
You mean, if you came into MY church (if I had one) and did that? Of course not. I would make a citizen's arrest and call the police. I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
Why can't Christians learn to accept that times change?
Question-begging fallacy. You assume that morality is totally arbitrary.
How does Christianity address various cosmological questions?
Which ones?
How can you say that Christianity is not dogmatic?
Very easily.
Why do so many Christians dislike sex and nudity?
Shrug. Again, almost all Christians I know like sex and nudity.
There is no objective reason for disliking sex and nudity, they are both very natural things.
Sure. Duh. What's odd is that you think there's something about Christianity opposed to those things.
Are you saying that Christianity's initial opposition to casual sex was not based on techniques to improve survival?
I don't know what casual sex has to do with liking sex and nudity. I like sex and nudity a lot; I dislike casual sex. And yes,
So, the bad stuff done in the name of religions are not "related to religion," yet the good stuff inspired by religious ideas are "related to religion"? Well, no, if I were going to make the latter argument, then I would have said something like, "well, Christianity produced the United States which gave us the car and airplane and Internet and all sorts of other great advances." The few examples I gave were, while not things that necessarily could not have been produced otherwise, were fairly unique -- at the time -- to religious thought, such as the equality of man, the order of the universe, etc.
And, you really make a fool of yourself trying to say the Crusades were not related to Christianity. Only if you take my words to mean something I clearly didn't intend. I am merely saying it was not something specific to religion that caused the Crusades. Religion was used a means to promote the venture; it was not the reason for it. It would have happened, all other things being equal, if they were a bunch of atheists. They would have used nationalism or race or something else instead.
Take the good with the bad. If you ignore all of the bad you just look like an idiot. Shrug. Then you do the same: if Christianity caused the Crusades, then Christianity caused America, which indisputably has essentially created the information age.
But I personally don't think Christianity is responsible for either one.
Let's shift the goal posts back then. You want to know how religion in itself contributes to bloodshed and torture? Very simple, by keeping people stupid. I smell the question-begging fallacy...
How do they achieve this? By indoctrinating people. Look at Christianity, you are considered to be 'religious' if you go to some building to listen to some dude talk about his interpretation of some ancient moral codex which was designed for the retards of 2000 years ago. Christianity is all about dogma and other pointless BS that has no relation to the modern world. Bingo! Mix in a little bit of straw man and red herring, and voila! In fact, Christianity does not recognize people as religious, generally speaking, and certainly not just for going into a building to listen to people talk. And as to someone's interpretation, shrug, Protestantism in particular encourages everyone coming up with their own interpretation. And Christianity, in fact, is not about dogma, but the absence of it. And whether it related to the modern world is a mere opinion, and, I submit, an uninformed one.
And finally, you have not established that you are any less retarded than the people 2000 years ago.
You've said nothing interesting so far, and glancing quickly ahead, I see nothing else interesting. I am not going to take time responding to each of your points, because it is clearly a waste of our collective time. However, I will respond to one more thing, because I think it shows quite clearly how irrational you're being.
Do you realize how fucked up it is to reduce religion to a bunch of statements: "God hates fags, taxes and baby-killers. God loves America!" Yes, it is fucked up to reduce religion to such statements. So why are you doing it? Very few Christians -- and none that i know personally -- believe God hates any of those things. Some do, and the views of those people are categorically rejected by the overwhelming majority of Christians. And yes, God loves America in the mind of most Christians, the same way God loves everyone and everything, except sin. God also loves China and Russia and Cuba.
Your whole post is full of ignorant claims, but this one shows quite clearly that you are not even attacking Christianity at all. You probably wouldn't know Christianity if it fell in your lap.
"Christians, like communists, are generally the worst advertisements for their beliefs." I totally agree with that.:-)
Trying to disown Hitler's Christianity is trying to remove one of the sh*ttiest examples of a Christian, simply because he's a bad advertisement for Christians. But he was a Christian. I don't believe he was. He may have drawn some of his beliefs from the Bible, but in my opinion, he was an occultist. It goes beyond being merely superstitious: I do not believe that Hitler believed Jesus Christ was the Son of God and that the he died to save us from our sin. I believe he had belief in a coming German Messiah -- possibly himself -- and that spells and incantations and even sacrifices could help bring this about. It is a belief system that is not merely inconsistent with what I call Christianity, but entirely incompatible,
However, this is a topic of much debate with people far more learned than me (and perhaps than you, as well).
You pointed out a logical fallacy. I think you're committing one yourself in your post. I think arguing that Hitler wasn't a Christian is an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. If my statements were based on the notion that because he was an evil man, or had superstitions, that therefore he wasn't a Christian, yes, I would agree. But my view is that his religious beliefs were in almost every way contrary to Christianity, so there's no fallacy at work here.
You are correct in your argument regarding the crusades, but the same reasoning applies to your other points. Neither science or justice were spawned directly from religion. The Greeks (e.g., Aristotle, Plato) predate Newton and the scientific and philosophical achievements of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. I am not making the argument that those things happened exclusively because of religion, of course. But religious thought -- which, granted was also influenced by other factors, such as the Greeks -- was a significant contributor.
Who's to say there would be no science, no mechanics, etc. without religion? Can you really say it was the sole and/or primary factor? I didn't say such things.
How exactly is religion responsible for the works of Locke and Rousseau? I think it is pretty clear that the Bible, and the Reformation in particular, played a key role in Western notions of liberty and human worth and dignity.
But again, as with science, I am not saying those thoughts are exclusively religious. I didn't make that point, and I apologize for any confusion that led you to believe I was. I am just saying it was a significant contributing factor.
I realize that religion was a motivating factor behind humanism, but at this point, I think I (or we) are starting to steal credit from the great thinkers and dump all of it (good and bad) onto something else, like religion. Well yes, if nothing else, this exercise can show that it is folly to -- as many of today's atheists attempt -- lay all of evil at the feet of religion, or to -- as you apparently, and mistakenly, thought I was trying to do, but as others surely do -- lay all of the good there, either.
By the way, public secondary education is horrible. Just in case you didn't know. Oh, I do.:D
Religion is personal conviction. Regardless of "inherent characteristics," it's people who end up being described as "good" and "evil," and I think those terms are slightly inappropriate for an abstract construct. It's the way religions is utilized, viewed, etc., which all brings us back to humans. Exactly my point. Religion didn't cause people to kill and torture in the Inquisition any more than atheism did in 20th Century China.
We are talking about the Pope here. Of course I am talking about the Roman Catholic Christian Church. But my comments -- and the ones I was replying to initially -- were not specific to the RCCC. It was about religion in general.
I do not content that it follows from everything else: they do. Granted. But you cannot show the "parent" belief is irrational by showing a "child" belief is irrational, unless you can show that the "child" belief DOES necessarily flow from the "parent" belief. Maybe it is the flow of logic from "parent" to "child" belief that is in error, which then does not touch the "parent" belief.
Regardless, the RCCC has nothing to do with me, or anything I am talking about, except to use as an example.
Oh, really? Yes.
That's a very bold statement. Shrug. If you say so.
I, for example, can think of some extremely dangerous side effects of religion, like being brain washed since birth into believing nonsense... Shrug. None of that happened to me.
... or perhaps the worst of all: faith. Faith, as you know, is essentially a back-door into your mind, and it has been abused many many times. That is entirely false. You do not understand faith. Everyone has faith. You do, certainly, as everyone else does. Just walking down the street requires faith, as you never know if your foot might not touch street, but might fall into nothingness.
Faith is not bad, it is absolutely necessary in order to function. It is the object of faith that may be a problem. Good luck showing any object of my faith is a problem.
While most (to be gentle) points of dogma are of course beyond rational discourse (for or against them, actually), there are lots of positions which are, according the the Church itself, essentially Christian, which can be very well be called irrational with a lot of logical, reasonable, scientific backing. Just to mention one, consider the Christian position with regards to the use of condoms.
There isn't one, unless you define "Christian" as "Catholic," which I do not. And I have no idea what the Catholic position on condoms is. But there is, I re-assert, no "Christian" position on the use of condoms.
Further, what I know about Catholics and condoms (which is very little) also cannot be called irrational by any logical, reasonable, or scientific backing. Specifically, all I know is that Catholics have said that man shouldn't interfere with the procreation process, and so shouldn't wear condoms. I don't see how you can possibly show that to be irrational scientifically or logically, unless you are going to argue from the Bible itself. But you might know more about the Catholic position on condoms than I do, and can identify something about it that is irrational.
You could retort that this is a side issue in the big systemthat Christianity is, but the position of the Church is that in fact its stance with respect to condoms follows from everything else. Just as a physical theory is rationally rejected when its consequences contradict observation, you can proceed in this case. No, that is not true, unless you can prove that they are CORRECT that their position on condoms a. is irrational and b. DOES follow from everything else. While, as I stated above, it is possible that the position on condoms (if it is more than I know of) can be shown to be irrational, I'd content that you cannot prove that it properly follows from everything else.
Pudge, if you actually studied religion fairly, instead of relying on what the religion itself claims, you would know that "its positive effects far outweigh its negative ones" is a highly contentious statement. Being highly contentious doesn't make it wrong.
For you to parrot it as if it were fact demonstrates disturbing ignorance. No, in fact, it does not. You are a bit confused. All it demonstrates is that I believe it to be true; it says nothing at all about why I believe it to be true. And, in fact, it is out of many years of study that I've come to believe it is true.
I suggest you read "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" by Dr. Daniel Dennett. I suggest that it's a logical fallacy to assume that my disagreement with you is a sign of ignorance.
And I leave you with a quote that I hope will at least give you the slightest reason to question the dogma that has control of you. Another logical fallacy. In fact, no dogma of any kind has any control over me.
"Good men will do good things, and evil men will do evil things, but for a good man to do evil things--that takes religion." And that is bullshit. You can only arrive to such a conclusion by redefining "good," "evil," and "religion" to suit your whims. Find me a good person who has done evil things because of religion, and tell me why he is good and not evil. I won't hold my breath.
I'm sorry, I see a question mark in there, but I didn't bother reading what your question is because you have proven yourself to be incapable of rational discourse. You must be religious!:D
Maybe it's just the media, but when was the last time you heard about Christians actually helping people? Every day. Just today I heard from a good friend of mine who is helping to set up computer networking for people in Papua New Guinea. Yesterday, another friend helping a couple whose child is very sick. That same friend, by the way, also was down in New Orleans last year, helping Katrina victims. It happens all the time, but they just don't tend to make a big deal out of it.
Not that this is unique to Christians, of course: most people are like that. Well, most people I know, anyway.:-)
None of the outspoken Christians even seem to follow the moral teachings of Jesus or their holy book. You won't find a much bigger critic of some Christians than me. I have many times criticized, for example, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and many televangelists. That is, of course, not a reflection on either religion, or other religious people (except the people who follow them).
Basically, what I'm getting at, is that for my entire life, living in what is one of the most Christian places in Canada, I have never seen this 'good' side of Christianity; "If you actually knew religion well." you say. I know it well enough. I don't think you do, though I could be wrong... but I doubt it. You are talking about viewing Christians at a very shallow level: looking at the news, seeing some of them occasionally in public. That is not a very strong form of knowledge.
I've seen classmates at school berate and threaten other kids because they believe in evolution, or had a homosexual relationship. Sure. And I've seen classmates at school berate and threaten other kids because they were religious. This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with people hating differences. It's not a good thing, certainly, but it is not a "feature" of religion.
In my eyes, Christianity only gives people a reason to bully other people, no more. That only proves you really, in fact, do not know Christianity well at all.
Hm. It is, in fact, irrational to say Christian beliefs are irrational. You can't back it up with logic or reason. Can you back this up? Well, you have it a LITTLE bit backward. It is true that it is not possible for me to back that up completely (well, it may be, but that's another discussion). However, I will say that no one has ever been able to do it. Ever. I will gladly entertain attempts, though.
Far more people have been executed and tortured at the hands of atheist regimes than religious ones. [citation needed], first of all. I already gave you enough information. The 20th century saw more deaths by nations than all previous centuries combined, and those were almost entirely at the hands of atheistic regimes.
Secondly, the bodycount difference you're talking about is due to difference betweens methods (industrial VS manual), not motivations. There WAS no difference in motivation.
As far as motives, how can you dissociate religion from a desire of control? Pretty easily.
Your religion does not ask that you live by their rule? Absolutely not. I am a Christian.
Sorry, not ignorant, I know religion all too well and have seen what it does to people. No, you have not. You have seen what it does to SOME people. If you actually knew religion well, you would know that its positive effects far outweigh its negative ones. As discussed at length in the book 'Breaking the Spell', you made a statement, now come up with the evidence. Prove it. If you think religion has such a great history of positive effects show it: statistically not anecdotally. The sad thing is that anyone thinks this needs to be proven. What are they teaching in schools these days?
Start with science. Science as we know it today was brought into existence by religious people who -- unlike their atheist contemporaries -- believed that, because God exists, the universe must have order, and rules, and that those rules are discoverable. It is because of Isaac Newton's religious beliefs that he brought so much knowledge to our world.
Justice. It is from religion that we get the idea that all men are created equal, that equality before the law, equality of rights, equality of worth are good and right and true.
I could go on but dinner is approaching. Now, to turn things around, all the things mentioned to me -- the crusades and so on -- don't appear to me to be related to religion at all. Religion was no more inherent to the Crusades than Nationalism was to the Holocaust. Those were both just tools used to promote other fascistic ideas about conquering and destruction. You could make the case that unthinking religion or nationalism is bad, but that's nothing new, and not unique to any particular idea. For example, courage is not bad, but courage without wisdom is bad, and so on. There's nothing bad inherent in religion.
Now, maybe there's bad things inherent in a particular religion, such as Scientology. But that's a separate discussion.
If you actually knew religion well, you would know that its positive effects far outweigh its negative ones. Warm fuzzy feelings far outweigh torture and genocide?
Because the negative side of religion is death and persecution, and those are pretty consistently applied by theocracies. Oh come on. Be rational. That has nothing to do with religion. Far more people have been executed and tortured at the hands of atheist regimes than religious ones. The Twentieth Century was a veritable bloodbath: the Soviets, the Chinese, Nazi Germany. None of those were caused by religion (unless you are going to blame the religious groups that were persecuted). Granted, Hitler used Christian symbolism, but he clearly wasn't a Christian by any large sect's standard, and his motives for hating the Jews were certainly not religious. And even then, the Soviets and Chinese killed many more millions than Hitler did.
Further, what does "theocracy" have to do with anything? You are committing the logical fallacy of "shifting the goalposts." We are talking about religion, not theocracy.
So I reject your premise on two fronts: that any torture or murder done on behalf of religion has specifically religious motive, rather than deeper motives of control of people who are different, and further, that what "theocracies" do are representative of religion.
But why talk about anything "rational", when such an "irrational" reaction like yours is acceptable? After all, EVERY day is bash-a-christian day. As long as they continue in their irrational beliefs so very publicly... Hm. It is, in fact, irrational to say Christian beliefs are irrational. You can't back it up with logic or reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Jeez. Sticks and stones, people. If I were forcing you, fine, complain about that. But I am not, so who cares? And please, no more anecdotal "evidence" about how you've never heard anybody say that. Why would I? It's pretty accepted Christian doctrine that non-believers will be relegated to some kind of eternal suffering. Yes, so how is that similar to the things I said I'd not heard?
You realize, of course, that the notion that this is "bad" cannot be proven or disproven? So either you are being a hypocrite, or you are conceding that it is not absolute fact that this is bad. Either way you are undermining your own argument.
Who said "bad" can't be "proven or disproven".
First, I didn't say "bad" can't be. I was speaking in a specific context.
Second, I would still maintain it can't be proven, because the word "bad" is not an objective term. It's inherently subjective, unless it is defined further.
You can look at the damage done to an organism, an environment or a community and judge whether it is beneficial for yourself, or a community.
Since when is lack of direct or obvious benefit "bad"? Could not the damage done make the individual or community stronger in the long run? And how could you possibly know what all of the indirect consequences are? Unless you can see the entire picture, isn't it impossible for you to say?
Further, maybe the damage done to that organism is "good" because it is my dinner for tonight.
You're the one being a hypocrite. First you tell me that I am right about not needing to believe in God to have a morality then you tell me I can't prove what's right.
I fail to see how that is hypocritical. You are the one who brought "proof" into this. "Proof" is a higher standard of conclusion. I can say 2+2=4, and I can prove it. I can say I am not merely a head in a jar imagining this world, but I cannot prove it.
And YOU are claiming that anyone who doesn't believe in this God is NOT necessarily mistaken. How is that any better? Because you say so? Not very rational.
In that statement, I am only claiming that if there is a single God, then the majority of people on the planet are mistaken, and that everyone who does believe in a single God to the exclusion of others therefore has a point of contention which can lead to conflict. That's quite rational, I'm afraid.
No, it's not, because you are saying it as though the people who have this belief in God are the problem. Why is it that those who do NOT are not the problem? As we've seen in this discussion, it is the NON-believers who are causing the conflict.
False.
Stating that something is false without backing it up means you've proven nothing.
Um. I was responding to your claim "Both of these things are socially destructive, and irrational," and I did back that "False" up ... far more than you backed up your original claim, since you only did it with contradictions and fallacies.
As it cannot be disproven, you must concede therefore that the world MAY be that way, instead of asserting it is not.
There are many things I cannot disprove, but I do not make my decisions based on the fact they are true if I can't prove them.
Yes, you absolutely do (unless you don't actually exist, in which case, you don't do anything at all). Every day, all the time. You're only fooling yourself here.
If you present someone with "faith" with disproof of what they believe they continue to believe it.
That's a common claim, but it is simply false, and obviously spoken by someone who doesn't understand religious faith. Granted, SOME people with faith won't change their beliefs with "disproof." But many others will. It happens all the time.
If you present me with proof that something I hold is true is incorrect, I will believe you. Prove to me that I'm a brain in a jar and I'll happily believe it.
Perhaps you would, but many other atheists and scientists would not. You recall The Matrix, right? That stuff about freeing a mind past a certain point? Granted, it's science fiction (as far as we know), but there's a lot of truth to that. Most adults, I think, couldn't handle it. We ar
Again, I am not making a silly claim that all religion -- let alone religious people -- had positive concepts of justice and equality. I am making the obvious claim that religion played a pivotal role in shaping those concepts that we share today. Show me where in history for example have religion said that those NOT belonging to their religion had equal rights. Um. Christianity, all through history. Granted, many Christian people and sects did NOT hold to this, but that's people corrupting the ideas. But religion was not a CAUSE of that, just like atheism was not a cause of the tens of millions who died at the hands of Stalin and Mao. And for your information most of the US founding father (which cited something similar) were either DEIST or atheist. False. That is a generally accepted, but thoroughly incorrect, claim. I cannot think of any who were atheists (although some might have been), and only a tiny handful for Deists. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin (for a time). Washington, Adams (both), and most others were Presbyterians, Unitarians, Episcopalians, and similar.
There's two tendencies at work, here: one is on behalf of non-religious (especially anti-religious) people to downplay religion in our nation's founding. The other is that the religion of many of our founders was, in fact, different in many ways from Protestantism of today, and this seems to have caused people to lump them all as "Deists." But it's inaccurate at best: Deism was a philosophy that denied supernatural involvement in the natural world, and yet Washington -- widely beleived to be a Deist today -- over and over proved he was not, when he referred to the Hand of Providence guiding the path of America. No Deist would say such things.
Do you believe in evolution of man from an aquatic life form? Do you believe in anthropogenic global warming?
Do you believe you are what your senses tell you: a human being among billions of others on the planet Earth, rather than a brain in a jar floating around in nothingness? It is because of Isaac Newton's religious beliefs that he brought so much knowledge to our world. Oh really? Had he been an Atheist he couldn't have done it? That question is irrelevant. Borrowing an example I used in a previous comment: we have the theory of relativity because of Einstein. Would we have had the theory of relativity if there had never been an Einstein? (Almost surely, yes.) Does an affirmative answer disprove the prior claim? (Absolutely not.) Justice. It is from religion that we get the idea that all men are created equal, that equality before the law, equality of rights, equality of worth are good and right and true. Gee, you truly are ignorant. False. The concept of equality of people comes from the French revolution, an eminently Atheistic movement. Not from religion. Wow. So when Thomas Jefferson wrote that it is self-evident that all men are created equal years BEFORE the French Revolution, this came FROM the French Revolution?
Be careful using that word "ignorant"
Would we have had the theory of relativity without Einstein? Eventually. Does that mean he shouldn't get credit? Paraphrase: Religion was merely associated with these negative occurrences, not a required catalyst, therefore we shouldn't blame them on religion. Where "merely associated" means "was not a significant contributing factor of," yes. The argument you presented in this particular post is internally inconsistent. I disagree.
If you would prefer "secular" to "atheist," fine. I don't care. The point is not to beat up on atheists, far from it. The point is to destroy the insipid argument that religion is the primary cause of such tragedies. Mao doesn't even count: Chinese history is separate from Western Oh please. Yeah, screw the tens of millions that were killed in China, they don't count. Bollocks.
... and atheism doesn't even come into the equation, as much as Christians want it to. I never said or implied that anyone was killed BECAUSE of atheism, if that is what you are implying. I am simply stating the fact that you don't have to be religious to kill lots of people. Atheist regimes do it too. Which leaves us with Stalin. Stalin's atrocities - and I'm not defending the man - wasn't qualitatively the same as Hitlers on the industrial scale. Correct. They were far, far worse than Hitler. The majority of Stalin's "work" comes from stuffing people in prison and letting them rot - see a Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich as an exampl. True, he did this to a large number of people, and sometimes to nearly whole ethnic groups but the point is, he didn't have gas ovens. Since you brought it upYou are quick to take some of the goods that have come out of science but just as quick to reject the appalling things that have come out of religion. Read some of my other comments in this discussion, I already addressed your concerns.
You don't need to believe in God to come to a similar conclusion. But people who did believe in God came to that conclusion because of that belief and had a profound influence on science because of it.
1) All religions work on the basis that you should believe things as absolute fact that cannot be proven or that can actually be disproven You realize, of course, that the notion that this is "bad" cannot be proven or disproven? So either you are being a hypocrite, or you are conceding that it is not absolute fact that this is bad. Either way you are undermining your own argument. 2) Monotheistic religions teach that there is only one God and that anyone who doesn't believe in this God is mistaken. And YOU are claiming that anyone who doesn't believe in this God is NOT necessarily mistaken. How is that any better? Because you say so? Not very rational. Both of these things are socially destructive, and irrational. False. The first encourages us to see the world as something that it is not. Why is this important? Because people will make moral and rational choices based on bad information. First, that is the question-begging fallacy. As it cannot be disproven, you must concede therefore that the world MAY be that way, instead of asserting it is not.
Second, EVERYONE does the same thing. Including you. Everyone has beliefs that they hold to absolutely that may not be true. Hell, as far as you know, you're just a brain in a jar. Yet you believe you are not, and you encourage others to believe the same. Everyone necessarily does this. To make a categorical statement that this is bad is irrational (and of course, unprovable, thus falling afoul of your first statement).
This criticism is only useful when pointed at specific information, and specific choices based on that information. Saying it is bad to make moral and rational choices on bad information is nonsense. Saying it is bad to make the choice to abort your baby based on the bad information that your baby had an incurable is obvious. So give me an example. The second is very divisive and an enabler for people who want to grab power and wage war to brainwash those around them. Oh come on. Anything can be divisive. And in this discussion, for example, it is the atheists who are being divisive. I don't see any Christians saying "if you don't believe in Christ then you're an idiotic moron," but see a lot of "if you believe in Christ than you're an idiotic moron." Let's place the blame where it actually lies: with PEOPLE who are divisive.
I think its pretty interesting that you didn't really address the main points of my arguments
I didn't READ most of your post.
You targeted the stuff that was easy to target.
Shrug. I took that "easy to target" nonsense as representative of the rest, and skimmed it. If there was something actually interesting in there, I didn't see it.
Christianity does not recognize people as religious, generally speaking, and certainly not just for going into a building to listen to people talk. And as to someone's interpretation, shrug, Protestantism in particular encourages everyone coming up with their own interpretation. And Christianity, in fact, is not about dogma, but the absence of it. And whether it related to the modern world is a mere opinion, and, I submit, an uninformed one.
Are you saying that significant portion of Christianity does not simply treat being religious as going to church and doing some other random BS?
The overwhelming majority that I know ... and I know a lot. Yes, absolutely.
Come on, we both know that is untrue.
Not at all.
Wow Protestantism encourages people to have their own interpretations, is that why megachurches are so successful? :)
Those two things are unrelated.
So how Christianity not about dogma?
How IS it about dogma?
Is going to church not a dogmatic action?
No, it's not. Indeed, I do not regularly attend church, myself. I probably should, but not because of dogma, because I view it as beneficial.
Is baptism not dogmatic?
Nope. I can't think of any Protestant sects that require baptism, off the top of my head. They may require it for church membership (as mine did, since I went to Baptist churches), but certainly not in order to call yourself a Christian. Baptism is a mere symbolic rite, not a requirement.
Is this obsession with marriage being holy not dogmatic?
Correct, it is not. There's a difference between dogma and belief. A belief that marriage is holy is not dogmatic. That doesn't make linguistic sense.
Who the fuck allowed you to start defining what marriage is?
Um ... what are you babbling about? Anyone is allowed to define marriage for themselves. No one "allows" it.
What right to do you have to tell people whether they can marry or not?
Again, no idea what you're babbling about. I've never told anyone whether they can marry or not.
This is growing increasingly tiresome.
If I make a religion that focuses on taking dumps in churches (in front of everyone) while the sermon is on, would you be respectful of that?
You mean, if you came into MY church (if I had one) and did that? Of course not. I would make a citizen's arrest and call the police. I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
Why can't Christians learn to accept that times change?
Question-begging fallacy. You assume that morality is totally arbitrary.
How does Christianity address various cosmological questions?
Which ones?
How can you say that Christianity is not dogmatic?
Very easily.
Why do so many Christians dislike sex and nudity?
Shrug. Again, almost all Christians I know like sex and nudity.
There is no objective reason for disliking sex and nudity, they are both very natural things.
Sure. Duh. What's odd is that you think there's something about Christianity opposed to those things.
Are you saying that Christianity's initial opposition to casual sex was not based on techniques to improve survival?
I don't know what casual sex has to do with liking sex and nudity. I like sex and nudity a lot; I dislike casual sex. And yes,
But I personally don't think Christianity is responsible for either one.
And finally, you have not established that you are any less retarded than the people 2000 years ago.
You've said nothing interesting so far, and glancing quickly ahead, I see nothing else interesting. I am not going to take time responding to each of your points, because it is clearly a waste of our collective time. However, I will respond to one more thing, because I think it shows quite clearly how irrational you're being. Do you realize how fucked up it is to reduce religion to a bunch of statements: "God hates fags, taxes and baby-killers. God loves America!" Yes, it is fucked up to reduce religion to such statements. So why are you doing it? Very few Christians -- and none that i know personally -- believe God hates any of those things. Some do, and the views of those people are categorically rejected by the overwhelming majority of Christians. And yes, God loves America in the mind of most Christians, the same way God loves everyone and everything, except sin. God also loves China and Russia and Cuba.
Your whole post is full of ignorant claims, but this one shows quite clearly that you are not even attacking Christianity at all. You probably wouldn't know Christianity if it fell in your lap.
However, this is a topic of much debate with people far more learned than me (and perhaps than you, as well). You pointed out a logical fallacy. I think you're committing one yourself in your post. I think arguing that Hitler wasn't a Christian is an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. If my statements were based on the notion that because he was an evil man, or had superstitions, that therefore he wasn't a Christian, yes, I would agree. But my view is that his religious beliefs were in almost every way contrary to Christianity, so there's no fallacy at work here.
But again, as with science, I am not saying those thoughts are exclusively religious. I didn't make that point, and I apologize for any confusion that led you to believe I was. I am just saying it was a significant contributing factor. I realize that religion was a motivating factor behind humanism, but at this point, I think I (or we) are starting to steal credit from the great thinkers and dump all of it (good and bad) onto something else, like religion. Well yes, if nothing else, this exercise can show that it is folly to -- as many of today's atheists attempt -- lay all of evil at the feet of religion, or to -- as you apparently, and mistakenly, thought I was trying to do, but as others surely do -- lay all of the good there, either. By the way, public secondary education is horrible. Just in case you didn't know. Oh, I do.
Regardless, the RCCC has nothing to do with me, or anything I am talking about, except to use as an example.
... or perhaps the worst of all: faith. Faith, as you know, is essentially a back-door into your mind, and it has been abused many many times. That is entirely false. You do not understand faith. Everyone has faith. You do, certainly, as everyone else does. Just walking down the street requires faith, as you never know if your foot might not touch street, but might fall into nothingness.Faith is not bad, it is absolutely necessary in order to function. It is the object of faith that may be a problem. Good luck showing any object of my faith is a problem.
While most (to be gentle) points of dogma are of course beyond rational discourse (for or against them, actually), there are lots of positions which are, according the the Church itself, essentially Christian, which can be very well be called irrational with a lot of logical, reasonable, scientific backing. Just to mention one, consider the Christian position with regards to the use of condoms.
There isn't one, unless you define "Christian" as "Catholic," which I do not. And I have no idea what the Catholic position on condoms is. But there is, I re-assert, no "Christian" position on the use of condoms.Further, what I know about Catholics and condoms (which is very little) also cannot be called irrational by any logical, reasonable, or scientific backing. Specifically, all I know is that Catholics have said that man shouldn't interfere with the procreation process, and so shouldn't wear condoms. I don't see how you can possibly show that to be irrational scientifically or logically, unless you are going to argue from the Bible itself. But you might know more about the Catholic position on condoms than I do, and can identify something about it that is irrational.
You could retort that this is a side issue in the big systemthat Christianity is, but the position of the Church is that in fact its stance with respect to condoms follows from everything else. Just as a physical theory is rationally rejected when its consequences contradict observation, you can proceed in this case. No, that is not true, unless you can prove that they are CORRECT that their position on condoms a. is irrational and b. DOES follow from everything else. While, as I stated above, it is possible that the position on condoms (if it is more than I know of) can be shown to be irrational, I'd content that you cannot prove that it properly follows from everything else.
I'm sorry, I see a question mark in there, but I didn't bother reading what your question is because you have proven yourself to be incapable of rational discourse. You must be religious! :D
Not that this is unique to Christians, of course: most people are like that. Well, most people I know, anyway.
Start with science. Science as we know it today was brought into existence by religious people who -- unlike their atheist contemporaries -- believed that, because God exists, the universe must have order, and rules, and that those rules are discoverable. It is because of Isaac Newton's religious beliefs that he brought so much knowledge to our world.
Justice. It is from religion that we get the idea that all men are created equal, that equality before the law, equality of rights, equality of worth are good and right and true.
I could go on but dinner is approaching. Now, to turn things around, all the things mentioned to me -- the crusades and so on -- don't appear to me to be related to religion at all. Religion was no more inherent to the Crusades than Nationalism was to the Holocaust. Those were both just tools used to promote other fascistic ideas about conquering and destruction. You could make the case that unthinking religion or nationalism is bad, but that's nothing new, and not unique to any particular idea. For example, courage is not bad, but courage without wisdom is bad, and so on. There's nothing bad inherent in religion.
Now, maybe there's bad things inherent in a particular religion, such as Scientology. But that's a separate discussion.
Because the negative side of religion is death and persecution, and those are pretty consistently applied by theocracies. Oh come on. Be rational. That has nothing to do with religion. Far more people have been executed and tortured at the hands of atheist regimes than religious ones. The Twentieth Century was a veritable bloodbath: the Soviets, the Chinese, Nazi Germany. None of those were caused by religion (unless you are going to blame the religious groups that were persecuted). Granted, Hitler used Christian symbolism, but he clearly wasn't a Christian by any large sect's standard, and his motives for hating the Jews were certainly not religious. And even then, the Soviets and Chinese killed many more millions than Hitler did.
Further, what does "theocracy" have to do with anything? You are committing the logical fallacy of "shifting the goalposts." We are talking about religion, not theocracy.
So I reject your premise on two fronts: that any torture or murder done on behalf of religion has specifically religious motive, rather than deeper motives of control of people who are different, and further, that what "theocracies" do are representative of religion.