How about we just call for more effort from both theists and atheists to understand each others’ POV when discussing the issues. That includes the so-called science vs. creation threads (creationists need to talk about good science and non-creationists need to talk about good religion).
As far as this discussion goes, this nation was founded largely on the principle of freedom of religion. If you can’t figure out why that’s important, then I think you’ve got serious problems. Analyzing the atrocities which have used religion as a shield isn’t very helpful.
If organized religion as we know it didn’t exist, I am convinced that all these good and worthwhile things would still be done. Just as many people would do these various good things.
There’s a big difference between what the world (concievably) would have been like if organised religion had never existed* and what it would be like if you tried now to get rid of it.
*although I’ve heard it argued that it would be different in many ways; some people say that scientific curiosity is merely the clinical and logical extension of the [initially religious] frame of mind that asks “why am I here?, what is the universe all about?” etc…
My major problem with the elimination of religion is that it would make it much more difficult for me to swear in English, and impossible in French (or, more correctly, joual.
Not as frivolous a point as it first seems. Not only religion in general, but specific religions, are so deeply ingrained into cultures that one can’t really avoid them. English literature is a case in point: how on earth can you understand most of the canon without knowing the strictly biblical imagery? You don’t have to go back to metaphysical English poets to grasp this point… why do you think Huxley called one of his novels “Eyeless in Gaza”? Or Steinbeck employed the title “The Grapes of Wrath”? Religious references are so deeply ingrained in our language and culture that there is really no hope of stamping them out.
I think this is what made the US so advanced. When the founders added this to the constitution they were saying you could believe whatever you like. As a bonus, this also meant freedom from religion. In effect religion became secular. Scientists and engineers no longer had to answer to the church in order to research and develop their ideas and inventions.
Similarly, in Europe, the protestant movement also unhooked science from the scrutiny of religious leaders. The sudden explosion of scientists in these countries was no accident. Eventually the start of the industrial revolution in England has led to greater and greater human achievements. Our current level technological advance is unparalleled and can only be surpassed by future generations. All because of people who either dropped religion all together, or ensured that their religious beliefs did not interfere with their work.
When Christianity came to Europe some 1700 years ago, it brought in the dark ages. People lived in fear of torture and death brought on by ignorant accusations of heresy and devil worship.
Scientists were put in jail or were put to death if they proved a fact which the church considered wrong or unholy. People were kept ignorant and illiterate. When soldiers were needed for war, God was the calling and justification for these poor peasants to kill and die. Sadly, I could be describing Afghanistan and I wouldn’t be far off.
I don’t think banning religion will work. It is an effective crutch for those in trouble or pain. However, someone must be responsible for the actions of the ignorant who are influenced by irresponsible leaders. Case in point: After the attack, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson spewed hatred and intolerance against homosexuals, ACLU, and abortion clinics. Now if some ignorant individual decides to bomb an abortion clinic or kill a lesbian in response to this message then Jerry and Pat must be held responsible. Just as we are now holding Bin Laden responsible for the recent attacks on the WTC.
Through education, people will eventually see the light and some day we humans will look back in history and wonder about religion in our time. A bit like looking back at the Greek and Roman religions today. To get there we have to figure it out for ourselves. Enforcing a ban will just encourage fanatics. But, making the leaders responsible. That makes sense.
Finally, can we please get rid of the reference to God on our money? I am offended by it.
Americans made the US great, not some fantastic being of our imagination. To give credit for the greatness of this nation to God insults our own human achievement.
It’s the other way around. Religion was created as an answer to this question.
Scientists have already worked out your why question and they are making great strides on the what question. Both questions which previously were cause for death and torture to the scientist who attempted to answer them.
Well, as I have posted elsewhere, this means there is also no higher authority that would condemn it, either. No God, no morality.
But my point is not just that atheism cannot consistently use moral arguments. My point is that even if atheists deny any higher authority, they still kill in the name of atheism just as surely as (some) theists kill in the name of God.
Stalin and Pol Pot both would deny any higher authority that you or I would call God. But they still held a vision of a society (I am giving them the benefit of the doubt in not simply classing them as evildoers) that did not include a church or any religion. Therefore, part of what they were motivated by when they murdered millions was atheism.
They said, in some fashion, “religion is evil”. Therefore, killing believers was, in some fashion, good, because atheism was, in some fashion, good. Thus, killing in the name of atheism constitutes its own authority. Killing to bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat, or to eliminate the kulaks as a class, or to bring about a purely agrarian society where no one but the intelligensia can read or write or do anything but serve as slave labor for the Khmer Rouge. Whatever it was, it did not include any living believers.
And Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao killed one hell of a lot more people than the Crusades or any abortion clinic bomber.
Compared with the good it has done, religion’s record is pretty good. Focus on the evils if you like. You’re missing the big picture of Mother Theresa and William Wilberforce and Lutheran World Relief and Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army and Alcoholics Anonymous and food shelves and Habitat for Humanity and…
Sort of true. There is no more morality inherent in a lack of belief in God than there is a morality inhernet in a lack of belief in Santa Claus. However, atheists will find many reasons (/higher authorities) to be moral or immoral, it’s just that their nonexistent God isn’t making any moral proclamations. Atheism is a lack of a belief, not a fully rounded belief system (which generally have a morality attached to them); individual atheists will of course have fully formed belief systems including morality, but a specific morality is not part of the atheism (or bare theism, for that matter–some theists do not even think their higher power makes moral laws or cares about morality at all) package.
Bullshit. Please start a separate thread on this so that all can properly address it without futher hijack.
Did you not read my post at all? To kill in the name of something, you must believe that something is a higher authority and says such killing is good. An ideology that requires Godlessness, fine, you can kill in the name of that ideology. But it is that ideology that you feel authorizes you, not atheism.* In a similar manner, if a theist believed all non-theists should die because of a personal belief that killing atheists would result in a better world, then he is not saying that God authorized him, he is killing in the name of his personal ideology. But as soon as he says, “I kill because God says it is good to kill these people,” he is killing in the name of God.
X==evil does not inevitably mean NotX==good. However, that is a technical point, and I believe your example fails because of my counter-example above showing how a theist can believe it right to kill non-theists to bring about a fully theist world without killing in the name of God (although in actual practice, most theists who chose to do such a thing would probably also believe that God supported them).
Er, right. And just because atheists perpertated such acts, or because religious people were hated or killed, does not mean it was done in the name of atheism, any more than Christians murdering atheists mean it was done in the name of Christ. It is a fairly good guess for the latter, because Christians take Christ as their moral authority, so when they consistently and publically act in a way without a hint of shame it is likely they believe Christ thinks their actions are good. An atheist who kills…would it be because their lack of belief is an authority that thinks it is good? No, an atheist who kills “in the name of” something must find some justification besides a lack of belief in God, something to authorize them besides a simple lack of belief.
Wow, pitting three mass killers against a single abortion bomber? Sure you’re not being a little disingenuous in your grouping there? And why no mention of Hitler, who manifestly claimed to have the support of God (he certainly qualifies as having acted “in the name of” God to all appearences (I do believe he was some sort of theist, and believed he had authority from same))?
I am simply arguing a semantic point, which I believe I have correct. If you think I have argued that religion is evil in this thread, I suggest you read a little closer.
*[sub]Similarly, it is not theism that authorizes killing. It is a belief in a God that can authorize killing and can make his wishes known (a belief remarkably common, for better or for worse). A “First Cause” deist who does not believe God authorizes human action, or has not made His wishes known, could not kill “in the name of” God either. [/sub]
Well congratulations on being convinced. I’ll equally assert that I think that they wouldn’t be done.
See, the point of an organized religion is being able to organize in a positive way. Like, organizing support for a region hit by tragedy. Or, organizing to do other things as a group.
Sheesh. I don’t know what so many people have against organization.
It is not always the case that the religion is just a ‘shield’ - something innocuous or virtuous in and of itself, and merely sullied by association with the atrocity. In many cases, the religious belief itself provides the fuel, motivation, justification and inspiration for innocent bloodshed.
In the wake of the recent terrorist atrocities, I can well understand the number of times people have sought solace in their faith, and have involved a belief in God (of one type or another) in their mourning process. However, I am mindful of the fact that the pages of history are dripping with the blood of those slaughtered because they didn’t happen to agree with a given religious view.
Atheists, such as myself, have no more virtues than anyone else, and we know it. But we are also aware that no atheist has ever put someone to death for not agreeing with his or her notion of a big invisible and imaginary friend.
I’ll go one step further. If organized religion as we know it didn’t exist, I am convinced that all evil and destructive things would still be done. Just as many people would do these various evil things.
I can’t speak for anyone else on the board, but MY God and MY religion don’t teach that the killing of innocents is a good thing. I’m a little sick of the biogtry of some posters who seek to tar all religion and those who pracitce with the same brush – as if they’d accept being compared to Stalin and Pol Pot for sharing only a disbelief in a Supreme Being. Shall we go after vegetarians now because Hitler claimed to be one?
Are you sure that no atheist has ever put a religious person to death because they refused to concede that their invisible friend was an imaginary notion?
I dunno… if folks are aiding the poor or giving food/clothing/whatever primarily because they’re afraid of being condemned to Hell if they don’t, there’s something wrong with that. Shouldn’t such things be given freely by empathy, instead of being driven by fear of the consequences otherwise?
I’m decidedly NOT afraid of being condemned to hell if I don’t. Even Mother Theresa said that the aid she gave in India was a selfish act. When I do give to charity, I never think of my faith, beliefs, whatever, I do it because I am inspired to do it, but I can’t tell you why.
I believe in God because it offers me comfort. I don’t dispute that my reasons are entirely selfish. Praying is soothing to me, on the other hand, I can’t prove it does anything else for me. I’m very well educated, broad-minded, and I don’t FORCE my beliefs on anyone, but I’m happy to share if asked. My husband is decidedly atheistic, FWIW.
Evil is done in the name of God/religion, politics, money, sex, power, my son even fights with his friends over toys.
In the wrong hands, and God knows there are plenty of wrong hands out there, religion can be used for evil. But the vast majority of believers do their worshipping quietly among those who believe the way they do, without pushing their beliefs on others. So, explain please, where is the harm in faith among reasonable, intelligent people (I don’t draw a distinction between faith, religion, or beliefs)?
Gaudere: We realize you’re just covering up for the International Organized Atheist Terrorist Conspiracy! :rolleyes:
One thing that (unless I missed a comment somewhere) I find hard to believe is that this thread has reached page two without anybody bringing up the concept that it is a Good Thing that we have the freedom to decide what to believe or not believe. I respect other people’s right to hold what views they choose, and expect the same respect in return. In general, those who come up with off-the-wall ideas and expect to lead others into their errors are defeated by bringing their shoddy merchandise to the marketplace of ideas.
What can be a danger is when a ideologically rigid (including religious-based) viewpoint is wedded to a power base. This is the basis for the complaints against the Taliban – and why Pat Robertson and Gary Bauer are dangerous.
The implication in lolo’s OP seems to be that we, collectively, should get rid of all views based on religiously-held certainty. Would this include David B. and Czarcasm’s right to reject totally the idea of a God? My right to believe in a God who calls for peace, mutual respect and agapetic love towards one another, and individual moral behavior? In what way is this attitude of enforced belief superior to that of those it condemns?