[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
IMVHO, if there IS a God, believing in it’s presence would be as natural as breathing!
[/QUOTE]
Try saying that to a priest in an iron lung… 
[QUOTE=Fuji]
If you want to assign the religionists blame, that’s fine with me, as long as they are also given credit for their good, creative works. Fine by me.
[/quote]
Of course THEY get credit for it. Not GOD…the person doing the work. Non believers do it without god every day. Adding religion to the equation does nothing to make it special.
Its an accurate statement. If you’re doing bad things in the name of religion, the only possible answer is that it was done in the name of religion. I didn’t say it; they did!
The numbers might be close to equal, but the weight of those injustices cannot be minimized.
Although I haven’t got a religious bone in my body, if I had to weigh the likelihood of a God based on the balance between Good and Evil, I’d say there was a forceful minority on either side, and a massive number in between that just want to get on with their lives. Good might outweigh Evil, but the ones who are less committed vastly outnumber both groups.
[QUOTE=Fuji]
I just can’t stand it when anti-theists try to have it both ways - the assertion that the evil that is done in the name of religion would not happen without religion, yet the good that is done in the name of religion would happen without religion.
[/QUOTE]
Largely, that’s what would happen. Without religion, much of the motivation for evil would vanish, as would a major excuse for it, AND a major source of poor judgement. Good, however, only requires the fact that it’s good as a motivation, and without religion people can better grasp what is and isn’t good because they are paying attention to reality.
People are NOT demons who kill and enslave and destroy just to kill and enslave and destroy. They need a motive; religion provides that motive, and is the best thing there is at excusing evil. Eliminating religion won’t get rid of all motivations or excuses for evil, but it will eliminate the most destructive ones.
[QUOTE=Fuji]
And presumably you would also agree that this same dynamic is at work when religious leaders manipulate their followers to perform beneficial acts?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but the dishonesty in the reason for the good works is what annoys me. Would these people do good acts without the overlay of religion? If not,* why not?* Doing good works because someone told you you’re going to heaven to live in eternal ecstasy is selfish. Doing good acts because it is helping someone in need does not require religion, nor does religion add anything to the quality of those acts. In my opinion, it detracts from the act of charity if one does it out of fear or promise of personal gain.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Exactly right. I can’t imagine how the Japanese ever got those young men to fly their planes - in some cases, rocket planes designed and built for no purpose other than to crash, terminally! - into enemy ships, just because they thought it was their duty. I guess Shinto really must promise seventy-two virgins and all the rest of that stuff, and the Japanese leaders were really all religious zealots, and they’ve just lied about it to the perfidious Occidentals.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say it was impossible; just difficult. I have my problems with ultra-nationalism, too.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Possibly it doesn’t suit his purposes to do so. Can you explain, yet again, how you could possibly know this scenario to be the truth, to the exclusion of the possibility that you were merely insane? Try not to invoke an additional turtle at the bottom of the stack when you answer.
[/QUOTE]
Can I attempt this one?
How about he gives everyone a sign simultaneously, so then you know either EVERYONE has gone insane, or this is really the Mac Daddy speaking? Or would that be a little tricky for an omniscient, omnipresent being to accomplish?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Religion was the motivation for a lot of went on. We had to fight the godless Communists after all; and since they were godless, ANYTHING was justified.
And a lot of what religion wasn’t driving, it was excusing.
And again, demonizing humans in order to make religion look better.
If someone claims religion is the cause of evil, they are a wild eyed lunatic. If they claim good is done in religion’s name, they are perfectly reasonable. Typical religious double standard. Or are you going to argue that good done in it’s name was done for some other reason ? Or is it only evil that doesn’t count ?
[/QUOTE]
Bull-fucking-shit.
I suggest you go back to history class. We were aiding dictators LONG before the commies came in. And that was merely the excuse.
The US was making money hand over fist. We only gave a shit about the commies because they were putting an end to our exploitation of the natural resources in Latin America.
Evil done for ANY reason, religious, greed, whatever, is evil. One isn’t worse than the other. But either way, it’s NOT right to blame “oh, I did it because god told me to!” No, you did it because you’re an asshole, and you’d better fucking own up to it.
Why don’t you actually ADDRESS the instances I brought up? Go and research them? Do you even KNOW anything about the UFC? Come back after you’ve done some reading, rather than simply thrown back the same argument you’ve used time and time again?
And if I’m using a double standard, it’s merely the opposite of the one you’re using.
And hell YES I’m demonizing human beings! Who the FUCK invented religion in the first place? To claim it was all religion is a fucking goddamned cop out. It takes away from personal responsibility.
Greed, religious beliefs, selfishness, little voices in your head, who gives a shit? It’s still evil.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
And hell YES I’m demonizing human beings! Who the FUCK invented religion in the first place? To claim it was all religion is a fucking goddamned cop out. It takes away from personal responsibility.
Greed, religious beliefs, selfishness, little voices in your head, who gives a shit? It’s still evil.
[/QUOTE]
And what has been the most effective method of fighting evils done in the name of belief systems in the past ? Have the people fighting against racism and sexism accomplished as much as they have by refusing to call racism and sexism evil, or to blame them for people’s motivations ? No, they called those beliefs evil.
And while humans may have created religion, that doesn’t mean religion has no power over people. The claim that people can believe so fervently in religion that they’ll kill and die over it, yet it has no influence on them ( except when it can be given credit for something good ) is ridiculous.
[QUOTE= Der Trihs]
It’s amusing how often I get this argument. “We’re a bunch of thugs, therefore we’re right and you’re wrong !” Despite all the babbling about Christian morality, scratch a Christian’s civilized facade and you’ll find a bully.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, it’s that you’re a dick.
If I’m minding my own business and you come up and start slagging, that makes you a dick. My response doesn’t make me a bully.
You, Der Trihs, are a dick, and there’s no WAY you would act like this in public even if the topic weren’t religion.
You wouldn’t do it if it was Mets-Phillies, you wouldn’t do it if it was that Star Destroyer-Enterprise thing, and you wouldn’t do it if it was curly fries-French fries.
You cannot pretend that this is in the name of fighting ignorance- it’s about your strange hard-on for religion. You’re a dick about it.
[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
Can I attempt this one?
How about he gives everyone a sign simultaneously, so then you know either EVERYONE has gone insane, or this is really the Mac Daddy speaking? Or would that be a little tricky for an omniscient, omnipresent being to accomplish?
[/QUOTE]
You know, they had a Perishers cartoon once where Marlon was advising Wellington on how to bore the Channel Tunnel and make sure it met in the middle. Marlon’s advice was to bore a pilot tunnel. But how do you make sure the pilot tunnel meets in the middle? Well, you bore an even smaller pilot tunnel…
You see, you have added another turtle whether you meant to or not. Suppose you become aware that God has given everyone a sign simultaneously. How do you tell whether your awareness is of truth, or whether you are experiencing a delusion?
And I hope your cough gets better.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Incorrect. The theists have the burden of proof because they are the ones claiming that something exists. Without evidence for it, or even evidence that it’s possible. It’s always the logical burden of the person claiming that something exists to provide evidence.
[/QUOTE]
In this thread, the theists have not been making this claim. Whatever history you want to try to drag in here, you are still shifting the burden of proof for the purpose of this discussion.
(And there is no automatic burden of proof that falls on those who hold that something exists; you are just making that up.)
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Yes, but the dishonesty in the reason for the good works is what annoys me. Would these people do good acts without the overlay of religion? If not,* why not?* Doing good works because someone told you you’re going to heaven to live in eternal ecstasy is selfish. Doing good acts because it is helping someone in need does not require religion, nor does religion add anything to the quality of those acts. In my opinion, it detracts from the act of charity if one does it out of fear or promise of personal gain.
[/QUOTE]
IMO religion with all it’s shortcomings can be a viable and legitimate means of self exploration. A person working charitably because they think “God wants me to” still has the experience and the experience itself can lead to very real personal growth, as well as very real aide to others.
Yes, it detracts from the act if one does it out of fear or for some heavenly reward. I imagine the person receiving the charity would rather not wait until the giver has matured beyond those human foibles. It may well be that whatever the initial motivation, we need those experiences to grow as individuals and as a society.
I don’t think a non believer is more or less likely to preform charitable acts for better motives. Different vehicles work for different people.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Or perhaps they could be motivated by what they SAY motivates them, religion. But of course, anyone doing evil in religion’s name is a liar. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
I never made the argument that anyone doing evil in religion’s name is a liar. If you want to take a person’s statement of their motivation at face value, that’s fine. I only ask that you fairly extend that same courtesy to individuals such as William Wilberforce, Benedict of Nursia, and Johann Sebastian Bach.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never advanced your ludicrous Catholic racist conspiracy theory. I merely opined that perhaps there might be some non-religious basis to their actions.
Wow. I guess I don’t even need to reply to any of your points anymore, since you have already predetermined them in your prescience. :rolleyes:
I will grant you that many of the world’s ongoing conflicts do appear to be religiously based. However, upon closer examination, many of them also happen to be fairly well-grounded in cultural or socio-economic rationales as well. Examples include: Palestine/Israel, Sudan, Chechnya, Nigeria, southern Thailand/northern Malaysia. The recent conflicts in Northern Ireland and the Balkans also had a large cultural component as well.
In many of these cases, it is reasonable to propose that conflict would still exist even if both belligerents were of identical religious factions (or not religious at all).
No, you only answered one of my questions, and ignored (until now) the other.
To you.
Hardly. I provided several reasonable alternate explanations, any one of which would demolish your initial claim that these actions had no other possible basis than religion.
Again, you are falsely attributing to me things I never said. How about actually debating what I’ve said instead of what you think I’m going to say?
Fine. I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll agree that many evil acts simply make no sense unless you assume a religious motivation, if you’ll agree that many good acts simply make no sense unless you assume a religious motivation. Deal?
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
You see, you have added another turtle whether you meant to or not. Suppose you become aware that God has given everyone a sign simultaneously. How do you tell whether your awareness is of truth, or whether you are experiencing a delusion?
[/QUOTE]
Your safest, and most sane bet is to not worry about whether it’s a delusion or not and live your live as a caring, secular human being. Belief in a god doesn’t make his existence so. Cherry-picking god’s attributes could not possibly change the essence of who he really is. If he’s there, and he’s good, we’re all on our way to Happy Land (though I have no idea why our lives would be broken out into these bizarre stages of earthly and non-earthly…why not just make life infinite and resources forever plentiful?). The books that are supposed to guide humans are full of so many contradictions that IF it were divinely inspired, I’d have to ask why his wishes were not made more clear. Why does the message become garbled from person to person, from generation to generation, and from religion to religion? If god is so imperfect as to completely screw up his message to humanity, is he really worth your time, energy and worship?
On the other hand, if god is the evil, intolerant tyrant all the books say he is, we’re all fucked because he’s created an impossible standard. Go directly to hell. Do not collect 72 virgins.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Of course THEY get credit for it. Not GOD…the person doing the work. Non believers do it without god every day. Adding religion to the equation does nothing to make it special.
[/QUOTE]
I apologize for my inaccurate phrasing. I should have said: “If religion gets the blame for the bad acts, then religion should also get the credit for the good acts.”
And again, I keep coming back to the converse of this point: If you’re doing good things in the name of religion, the only possible answer is that it was done in the name of religion.
Fair enough. I would tend to agree.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
there is no automatic burden of proof that falls on those who hold that something exists
[/QUOTE]
Would you explain this a little further? I thought that if someone asserts that something exists, then the burden of proof does fall on him to show that his assertion is true.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
IMO religion with all it’s shortcomings can be a viable and legitimate means of self exploration. A person working charitably because they think “God wants me to” still has the experience and the experience itself can lead to very real personal growth, as well as very real aide to others.
[/quote]
It is an unnecessary component of self-exploration. Whatever is attributed to religion, there is always someone doing a bang-up job without the added layer of superflurous hocus-pocus. That’s all I’m saying.
The person in need doesn’t have to wait. There’s always someone else more than willing to assist. People are generally good, in my experience anyway.
The question then becomes why would someone need the overlay of religion in the first place? Those who believe can see the non-believers doing good deeds every day. We’re a little quieter about it, but the work gets done.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Largely, that’s what would happen. Without religion, much of the motivation for evil would vanish, as would a major excuse for it, AND a major source of poor judgement.
[/QUOTE]
I somewhat agree with you, though I wouldn’t phrase it so forcefully.
Here, however, I have to vehemently disagree. Many of humanity’s greatest benefactors in fact were deeply religious and their religion provided support, if not the actual impetus, for their good works. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
Again, I mostly agree with you here (though I would change “that motive” to “a motive” and “the best thing” to “one of the best things”). It’s all about the use of qualifiers that take your argument from ridiculous black-and-white thinking to more nuanced shades of gray.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Possibly it doesn’t suit his purposes to do so. Can you explain, yet again, how you could possibly know this scenario to be the truth, to the exclusion of the possibility that you were merely insane? Try not to invoke an additional turtle at the bottom of the stack when you answer.
[/QUOTE]
Because God, being all-knowing, would be able to phrase the proof in such a way that it would preclude you from possibly being insane.
I really don’t think people truly understand the potential of a being who is supposedly all powerful and all knowing.