If He is truly loving, that is, perfectly loving, is He not to love the evil man as much as the innocent one? Ought He to rescind the free-will of evil men? If nary a spirit died that day, and if spirit is a man’s essence, then wasn’t the immoral act itself more impotent than a matchstick at the bottom of the sea? Aren’t there thousands of “new” glorified beings who dwell in perfect Goodness today?
I’m afraid you miss-shot the source altogether. The source of the evil on Tuesday was not God, but rather was His enemy — religion, and the pathetically fanatical men who embraced it. Like all fundamentalists, they don’t worship God; they worship a book.
Another "It’s not me, it’s all those other misguided people"ist.
Liberarian, you are religious. You believe in a god and you try to follow this god as you see it to the best of your ability. This is your religion. If you claim that religion is part of the problem, you do not get to exclude yourself as some sort of special exception to the common definition.
Then natural selection may not exclude itself from the “common definition” of survival of the fittest. I thought we were here to fight ignorance, not to propogate it.
So you believe that religion is more or less irrelevant. Fine. Then you should have no religion. Why try to deny it to others? And how is irrelevant in any way equivalent to evil?
Oh, there’s no doubt that there is a large sociological component involved. This IS a purpose in and of itself. That said, People are also hardly surrounded by the same other people for their entire lives; are you suggesting that as an atheist, were you to be surrounded by a bunch of Catholics, you would become Catholic? Or that I would become an atheist if surrounded by atheists? Or that people are incapable of thinking for themselves and that the people who surround you in your formative years determine your religious convictions for life?
Oh c’mon, clair, can we say vast, sweeping generalization? Basically, what you’re suggesting is that religion requires stupidity.
:rolleyes: Attempting to change another’s mind or to defend one’s own position are not attempting to extinguish a belief as a whole. I object to creation science, because I don’t think it’s science. I attempt to convince creationists that they are mistaken. I also defend their right to be, in my view, mistaken, and if someone else wishes to believe in creationism, that’s their perogative.
Religious people do indeed fight atheism, to force their views upon other people. I find this just as reprehensible as I do an attempt to fight religion. Basically, what you’re saying is that your morality allows you to attempt to force your own beliefs down someone else’s throat. That’s up to you, but I find it morally repugnant.
Very noble. It’s an honor to be involved with someone whose clarity of conviction shows that despite the value that other people find in their beliefs, those beliefs are valueless. And to know someone willing to make such blanket condemnations of religion and its practitioners… I am rapidly beginning to suspect that this is a topic on which we won’t even be able to agree to disagree, because our world views are fundamentally different, in which case any further discussion would be futile, and frankly, I have better things to do with my time, as I suspect do you. (Aside: I also feel that condemning something because it CAN have dangerous consequences is miserably short-sighted; a great many things have potentially dangerous consequences without their being any need to condemn them.)
Oh, quite naturally religious differences can and will occur. People are welome to believe differently from me, but I really don’t see how a reading of something like the Bible as a whole can be honestly used to justify murder. YMMV, but my rule of thumb is that if the vast majority of professing people of some religion define it as x, then it IS x. This does not make it “the true religion,” but it does provide a commonly accepted understanding of what the average person means when describing said religion.
So, ignoring the obvious fallacy in religion = Christianity/Judaism/Islam, my question for you is… read the Bible as a whole. Read the Koran as a whole. Taking the entirety into account, using a smidgeon of reason and a dash of common sense, please use the concepts gleaned from the collective body rather than selective quotation to justify what you consider the major crimes commmitted in the name of religion. Also please explain why religion is to be blamed for this, and further explain why any socioeconomic or political motivations for said crimes are insignificant. In other words, explain why the crimes committed in the name of religion are actually due to religion, and why we are so sure that the crimes wouldn’t have been committed anyway.
Ah, evidently I was mistaken in supposing that such ideas as forgiving those who wrong us, in not lying or stealing or killing, and so forth have not been opposed by religion, and in supposing that much of the modern humanist values are rooted in earlier religious values.
My contention, once again, is that these are not done BECAUSE of religion but DESPITE religion. People, at heart, tend to be motivated by self-interest; the fact that this is often so is no criticism of religion.
Well gee, I don’t think you can get much more obvious support for it than “love your neighbor as yourself,” but… I forgot, I’m religious and hence irrational.
Because all people we consider good were atheist. :rolleyes: Clair, could we confine our contentions to things that aren’t pure hyperbole?
No, I’m bloody well not. I fundamentally draw the line between people who use religion to justify what I consider to be evil and people who do not. That this line falls between people who I believe have misunderstood the greater messages of the faith they profess is undeniable, but this is not WHY I draw the line; it’s incidental. My fundamental contention is that people will do things that I (and society) consider to be wrong, that they will use their religion as an excuse, and that this is no grounds for a blanket condemnation of religion as an institution, but rather grounds for a condemnation of the people who actually commit the wrongdoings.
Evidently not, since I haven’t done much in the way of bombing abortion clinics lately.
I say again, science also helps people commit dreadful acts; should we condemn all of science because some small minority has used it to bring us nuclear weapons? Science, of course, has also brought us a great many good things; you seem to contend that religion has not, and I feel that it has. But that’s a matter of opinion, and evidently neither of us is ever likely to concede that the other is totally correct.
For centuries economics has fuelled hate, caused incredible pains and sufferings. Is economics, then, bad?
Simply speaking, I don’t agree that the belief HAS been wrong for so long a time. I accept that beliefs are interpreted differently at different times, but ultimately, it is PEOPLE who do bad things, not beliefs. Books, movies, ideas, and so on are not intrinsically morally right or wrong; actions are. Religion doesn’t kill people, people kill people and BLAME it on religion. I do hope you aren’t claiming that if we were all atheists then we wouldn’t have such problems.
What about the holocaust? That wasn’t a religious motive. What about the people slaughtered or tortured all in the name of medicine (holocaust or early insane asylums)? That’s science, not religion. What about countless Native Americans slaughtered by colonists? That’s political, expansionist motives. These are quick examples but the list could go on.
If you go back and replace fear and ignorance in every place you put religion, it would make more sense. Religion, politics, and science could be used to “justify” anything. Instead it is the breeding of the combination of fear and ignorance that results in the mass murders of people. Religion can be a breeding ground but it can happen with the others as well. Whenever people are sheltered from other people’s perspective, misunderstanding and fear creep up.
Relgion isn’t evil. It isn’t anything without people. People are the cause of evil and they are the ones who pervert religion as well as politics and science. As soon as we figure out a way to ease the human soul, then maybe these acts will stop.
No, Hitler may have been raised a Catholic, but from what I understand, he didn’t put any faith into it. His was more mysticism. I was wrong-he wasn’t an atheist. I appologize.
And let’s PLEASE not start the whole Hitler and the Pope thing.
Wolverine, the Jews weren’t killed because they were religious-they were killed because they followed the wrong religion. They Germans of the 1940s never claimed to be atheists. The same goes for the slaughter of the Indians. They were considered to be “heathens” and thus not of the proper religious persuasion.
Libertarian, to say that you believe in God but are not religious is equivilant to saying that you eat meat and potatoes, but you don’t eat food. This isn’t some silly argument comparing scietific defnitions to common definitions. This is about not letting you get away with changing the definition of religion used by everyone else but you.
So the Holocaust wasn’t an issue of racism or any such thing, but purely an issue of rounding up all them heathens who follow Judaism and killing them expressly because they are “heathens”? The slaughter of the Indians wasn’t about grabbing land and resources but rather a case of killing the pagans?
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see your logic here. Yes, it is no doubt true that the Indians would have been considered heathens, that Judaism would be considered the wrong religion, but tough IANAHistorian, I was not aware that the principle reason behind these crimes is commonly accepted to be religious prejudice and not something else. Were people out there killing Indians because “God told me to slaughter the heathens,” or were they out there killing the Indians because they wanted the land and the resources? There were, of course, religious differences, but unless these religious differences were an actual motive for doing what we would call wrong, how is this relevant?
I sympathize completely with you here, Czarcasm, but in all fairness to Lib, I think what he means is ORGANIZED religion.
What I’m saying is that religion is the fuel that feeds the fire of hatred, and because religion by it’s very nature is almost immune to questioning or reasoning, it is a more dangerous fuel than science(which can be proven wrong with time) or politics(where an individuals’ ideals can be examined). You can change the minds of people about politics or science with reason and understanding, but if you try to change the minds of a large group of people about their god you are evil. Politics by itself can drive people to greed. Add in religion, and you can get people to kill en mass, and they will not be stopped by reason or understanding.
Libertarian, if you were indeed refering to organized religion, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Well, yes, religion is indeed (unfortunately) almost immune to questioning or reasoning. However, what your leaders tell you is not. That is, if your religion really does exhort you to murder the infidels, then I definitely have issues with it. If your religious leaders tell you to murder the infidels, because your faith says so when it in fact does not, the problem is suddenly not one of religion per se but of people USING religion to motivate something; if Joe Sixpack takes the time to think for himself after Fanatical Leader tells him to go on a shooting spree, one would hope that he’d conclude that, in addition to moral considerations, his religion actually tells him that shooting sprees are Bad Things.
I will not contest that religion can be and often has been used to fan the flames of hatred, but I contend that this is a failing of people and not of religion, and that Wolverine is quite correct when he attributes these failings to fear and ignorance.
I’m referring to what Jesus referred to (conservatively paraphrasing):
“They follow the tiniest aspects of the law, like tithing. But they ignore the greater aspects, like love. They put burdens on the shoulders of other men that they themselves are unwilling to bear. They search the ends of the earth to find one convert. And having found him, they make him twice the son of hell they are themselves. They are like whitewashed tombs: on the outside all clean and white, but on the inside, full of dead men’s bones and decay.”
I’m referring to that. I call it religion. The men he talked about called it religion. They called the horrible demon they worshipped “God”. They still do.
I see. We were to have instinctively known that you were refering to this biblical verse when you gave a definition of “religious” that didn’t correspond to the common definition? This may come as a great surprise to you, but:
Not everyone is Christian
Not everyone refers to the Bible when it comes to looking up word definitions
My point was that religion isn’t the only source of fire for hatred. Looking for a more universal answer that can apply to all situations, I believe that fear and ignorance is the main cause of hatred.
Religion can be a place where fear and ignorance abounds. But that is not because of the religion itself. There are few religions that command its followers to persecute unbelievers, and most want their followers to be intelligent and inquisitive. So instead, their must be something else within that religion that could lead to fear and ignorance.
This responsibility comes from two sources and both of them are people. The leaders of the relgion can often twist the religion so that people will follow them and not the true religion. It is a desire for power not God that is driving the leaders. David Koresh and the Branch Davidians come to mind. Other times, even when the leaders are teaching properly, the people fail to hear. Going through their religion becomes one ritual were you don’t consider what’s going on or being said. Then later they take these half understood ideals and twist them for their purposes. If they really knew the religious consequences of their actions, they would consider otherwise. That’s what I believe a lot of the fear and ignorance comes from. They’re even ignorant of their own religion so of course they would be ignorant of other people as well.
Of course, imagine how bad it is when both are corrupted. I would imagine something like the Crusades or the Spanish Inquistion.
Personally, I think that most religions try to do good in the world. They stress loving one another. Giving money to the poor. To be patient and understanding. To forgive. They create a sense of community and friendship. Unfortunately, they are also very easy to twist by both the leaders and the lay people. Even if we eliminate religion, fear and ignorance won’t go away. They’ll just slither over to some other breeding ground.
Including me. At least by the “common definition”.
Yeah, just as not everyone refers to science books when it comes to looking up word definitions. That’s why they think natural selection is survival of the fittest, and why they think the Theory of Evolution implies that “social policy should allow the weak and unfit to fail and die, and that this is not only good policy but morally right.” [sup]1[/sup]
Nevermind that a reasonable person might consider the Bible, and Jesus in particular, to be a reliable source of what religion is. Granted, there are many religions, including atheism.
I do not believe that outward acts bear whatsoever upon the moral nature of a person’s heart. This is well known in the Straight Dope Great Debates community. I do not belive that my own recognition of God’s existence bears whatsoever on any ontological truth. This, too, is well known. Equally well known is that I do not believe God has any power whatsoever over anyone’s destiny, having freely and willingly surrendered His authority over men by the act of according to them free will. Likewise, it is known that I do not believe anyone owes God anything, inasmuch as He has established for us an amoral context of atoms and has allowed us to choose Heaven or Hell freely, and be happy with either choice.
I consider that an insult, deliberately and thoughtlessly delivered for the purpose of doing harm. And you are still ignorant.
You quote the Bible.
You seem to follow the teachings of Jesus as you see them.
You use the Bible to define a word that has a more general meaning outside of the narrow scope you gave it, and assumed we would know that you were using this narrow definition.
I understand you.
Everyone else has “religion”, which seems to you to be something bad. You’ve got “God”.
I’ve insulted you by saying you were religious.
Y’know, you could always start a BBQ Pit thread about how I’ve insulted you. Ghod knows, after the last couple of days I could use the levity that would ensue.
Back on topic. While I fully realize that religion is not the sole source of the worlds great wars and massacres, I still believe that it is the source that is the most difficult to overcome. In a large percentage of religions, people are taught from birth that, at best, their religious leaders know more and are probably devinely inspired, and at worst, speak with direct authority from the god they believe in. This makes it next to impossible to question religious leaders from the inside, and totally impossible to question them from the outside.
Oh come ON, Lib. You chose a definition. One among many, one that does not well mesh with a common understanding of religion; I suspect Czarcasm is far closer to definining religion the way Joe Average would than you are. If you told the average person that you believe in a god and that you try to follow his teachings, he would certainly argue that you’re religious, wouldn’t he? Whether you like that or not is totally immaterial.
I, too, consulted a dictionary (m-w.com), and surprisingly enough, among others, I find religion defined as:
“A cause, principal, or system of beliefs held with ardor or faith.”
“The service and worship of God or the supernatural.”
“A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.”
“Commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.”
And of course, we need “religious” for the latter pair of definitions to be helpful:
“Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.”
Obviousy enough, there was no way to know what exactly Czarcasm meant when he described you as religious, there was no way for him to know what you meant when you used the word until you bothered to actually define it to him. Given that, I’m not seeing how he was being any more deliberately insulting in describing you as religious than you have been in describing him as ignorant.
Really, I can’t say that I disagree with Czar here, either. Basically, what you’ve chosen to do is to use a definition of religion in such a way as to exclude yourself, ignoring the entire rest of the body of understanding of what “religion” means. That’s mere semantics, and is not remotely constructive in addressing the OP. And not wanting to be taken in by semantics is no hallmark of ignorance, but a hallmark of wanting to stay on the bloody topic.
Right, so then we have Czarcasm, with whom I believe I’m starting to maybe reach some consensus.
Indubitably. People will do many many terrible things in the name of religion. Once you have them convinced that what they’re doing is just and right and is what their religion tells them to do, you’ll likely have no luck convincing them otherwise. (Aside: I actually don’t see that religion is even a major source in many of the great wars and massacres (“go out and kill them thar Indians for Jay-zus!”), but it is certainly a source nevertheless.)
Well, I’m not entirely sure about this (eg: the RCC position on birth control. Most Catholics I know personally disregard it, even though it comes from the Pope). But I won’t argue the point in general; it often is hard to question religious leaders. Why, though, is this not at least as attributable to ignorance as to religion? Do people follow Jerry Falwell because he’s a terrific exemplar of Christianity or do they follow him because it’s easier to let him tell them what to do and think than to think for themselves?
I don’t believe it’s ignorance-it’s more a case of indoctrination. If you can catch them at an early enough age, and isolate them from other points of view long enough, sometimes no amount of information can overcome the wall of religion.