Dan, and while I do not think preists are especially likely to be sex abusing molesters, it is clear that faith isn’t enough to deter it either. Still religion is not needed for humans to commit atrocities. Again Hashoah was not committed in God’s name. This dark side is part of us all.
I agree with the first paragraph. but the second one is a non-sequitur. You think because humans can find other reasons to be violent, removing one reason wouldn’t make any difference. That is obviously false.
Hitlers atrocities wasn’t motivated by faith, true. But 9/11 was.
That’s an interesting insight, but it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. The posting that you responded to addressed the question of whether people would believe that murder is evil would have no inclination to commit such an act. Clearly, that’s a naive view of humanity.
Were the Mafia bosses religious? Arguably so. At best though, that would merely imply that their religious beliefs were inconsistent, or perhaps merely external. It’s hardly unusual for people to hold inconsistent beliefs, whether with regard to science, ethics or religion.
No, because Christianity teaches that repentance must be genuine. In other words, you cannot “get away with murder” by planning to repent later on, as such repentance would not be genuine. (Note: This does not necessarily preclude genuine repentance from taking place at a later date. Rather, my point is that any pre-planned repentance is by no means sincere or genuine.)
Hmm, I’m not sure if I do. I can’t decide if breaching copyright is wrong. Anyway, we can agree that people do. But I’m discussing murder here, specifically this statement:
As for your second question, I clearly stated
Almost everyone is not everyone.
That’s not really what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that there are moral people, and there are immoral people. Moral people would not kill, even if they were atheists. Immoral people do kill, even if they are religious.
By external, do you mean that they only pretended to be religious? If so, do you have any reason to think so, other than your own idea that christians are good people?
And, if it is necessary to have consistent beliefs to be considered religious, then no one is a christian.
What Christianity teaches and what people believe it teaches are two different things. Over the years people have taken Christianity to excuse or require all sort of hienous acts.
Really? Or was faith used as a handy justification? It seems to me that the Islamists are more fighting against modern culture, not for faith. Religion is great rallying cry, but it is a result of human nature, not a cause of it. Sort of like you yourself say
except that none of us are totally moral or immoral; given the right circumstances we are all capable of great evil. Social structure can constrain it or encourage it. Religion is no different than any other social structure in that regard.
In which case it’s disingenuous to blame religion for things that individuals commit. You can’t have it both ways.
No, not at all. Religion is fundamentally a non-rational belief system. As such, it encourages people to do things that they would not otherwise do: not eat meat on Friday? Sure. Avoid that tasty shrimp? Why not. Cover myself head to toe in cloth? OK. Blow myself up in a bus full of children? Sounds like a plan.
If that were true, then we shouldn’t be placing any blame on religion itself.
Moreover, I think that’s a woefully simplistic view of mankind. You can’t just classify people into “moral” and “immoral,” any more than you can group them into “hot” or “not.” People have varying degrees of morality, and none of us ever behave in a perfectly moral fashion.
That’s one possibility. Another possibility is that they adopted the external trappings of religion without following its moral principles. Human beings are funny that way.
I’m offering it as a possiblity.
Nonsense. One can have beliefs that are perfectly consistent. This does not mean that we always act in accordance with those beliefs.
Moreover, I did not claim that perfectly consistent beliefs are necessary for someone to be religious. Rather, I’m objecting to the notion that religion itself must be blamed when someone behaves in an inconsistently religious manner. That’s like saying that we should reject the principle of love, just because a parent fails to practice it in a perfectly consistent manner.
I’ve seen this type of argument repeatedly here on the SDMB and heard it from others in their “I disdain religion” rants. I think it’s a little ridiculous.
IMHO what we attribute to religion seems to be the unfortunate truth about the many flaws of humanity both in and outside religion. The idea that atheists or agnostics are somehow much more rational by definition is an assumption I disagree with. The idea that those more rational in limited areas are somehow more likely to be moral is also ridiculous.
A guy cries “Praise Allah!” and sets off a bomb in the marketplace. Some nut carries a “God Hates Fags” sign at a soldier’s funeral. It’s easy to blame religion but it seems all too superficial to me.
First, from the believer’s viewpoint, atheism is the non-rational belief system - as just creation alone declares God’s existence. But there’s no contest about your statement that many religious systems are not conformed to the true teachings of Christ and they only add His name to them in an attempt to legitimize them. Jesus never taught to make converts by waging a crusade, and He certainly didn’t inspire such things as the Inquisition. However, a distinction should be made between Christianity and Islam because Mohammed’s teachings incorporate the use of a “holy war” to attain its goal of world domination for Allah. The concept of “love your neighbor” only extends to those of the Muslim faith, not to unbelievers. The jihadists therefore are actually practicing the tenets of their faith, while the more tolerant actually are not. And where does all this leave Dawkins and the other faithful atheists? Crushed at the bottom of the wine press without a hope either in this world or the next - truly a pitiable state. It’s like Lyndon Johnson said about his problems with Viet Nam, “ it’s like being caught in a Texas hailstorm - you can’t run, you can’t hide, and you can’t stay where you are.”
Proving that your hypothetical believer has no idea what the word ‘rational’ or the phrase ‘belief system’ actually mean.
And, of course, you certainly don’t speak for all, most, or a substantial number of “believers”. I’m sure that more than one of them has actually studied logic.
I cannot begin to enumerate the factual and theological errors in this post. Essentially, you’re saying of your own particular take on Christian belief what the doting mother said of her new-recruit son, “Oh, look, they’re all out of step but Johnny!” For most people, this would be occasion to sit back and review the data. I leave that to your own good judgment, hopefully guided by the Spirit of Truth, who is not customarily in the habit of fostering divisiveness.
I don’t think you know what the word “rational” means. It’s not a definition which varies according to viewpoint.
Circular logic (calling the universe “creation” is assuming your own conclusion)and argument from assertion. What do you see in the universe which proves the existence of a magical “creator?” Be specific.
No they don’t. Mohammed’s concept of jihad (“struggle”) referred to an internal, spiritual struggle, not holy wars, and the Qur’an condemns the use of violence as a means of conversion.
False.
False on both counts. Where do you get your information on Islam?
What are they afraid of?
Cite?
Content free preaching.
“Reviewing the data” in the light of Christ’s teachings reveals which of His followers are “out of step”. And the Truth is divisive by nature - Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to part asunder a man from his father, and a daughter from her mother, and a married wife from her mother-in-law; And a man’s foes will be they of his own household” (Matt10:34-36). The Spirit of Truth has come to separate and divide men from the falsehoods they embrace.
Indeed, it is not a new point that belief in God (using most common understandings of the term ‘god’ and this “god’s” attributes) is delusional.
While Dawkins has been espousing this point longer that I have, I also believe God-belief to be delusional and have said so on these boards to a mixed reaction.
I think the “new thing” that Dawkins brings to the table* is an attempt to popularize, via today’s mass media, the fact (in my opinion, a fact) that under most people’s definition of “delusion”, belief in God is indeed delusional and by extension, much of this planet suffers from a mass delusion that can (and usually is/does) be dangerous and thwart progress.
People sometimes like to mention “the last taboo” (sorry-- I can’t cite any specific common examples of other’s “last taboos” right now, but it’s a term that I know gets thrown about sometimes.)
I believe the last taboo–well not reall the LAST, but the strongest and most intractable–is even the mere mention of the seemingly obvious idea that belief in God is delusional. People, having been indocrtinated with this thought from birth, would often rather kill you than listen to you advance this view.
- “new” only because he is a well known, respected scientist who currently has the cache to have his “distasteful” (atheistic) ideas bandied about by those beyond the intelligensia. So it’s not news to most of us here on the SDMB, but to many out there, it sure seems like some “crazy new wciked thought from Satan”.
I think I misspelled/mis-used “cache” can someone snarkily correct me?
There is a very interesting section about the evolutionary benefit of faith.