Whatever one may happen to believe, in the context of any given discussion, only what is put forth in the discussion is pertinent. If a person actually believes that the moon landings were hoaxes but never posts that belief, then that belief is not something that person needs to defend in a discussion of robot exploration of Mars.
In the context of this particular thread, the theists have not been asserting that (a) god exists*; pretending that individual posters bear a burden of proof for that idea is nonsense. (It is, of course, perfectly acceptable to insist that, in the course of history, theists bear the burden of proof for their overall beliefs, but the context of my remarks and the comment to which I responded was the specific discussion in this thread.)
It is a long, rather boring thread and I may have missed some assertion by some theist, but it has not been an assertion that appears in the comments of theists (or their non-theistic co-debaters) and it was not an assertion made by the poster who was challenged to defend it.
The point I’m making is that even if I did attribute good acts to religion, the fact that religion was behind a given act doesn’t make it “better” in any way. Consider this scenario: A homeless guy is on the corner with a money cup. A christian, motivated by religion, puts a $10 bill in his cup. A godless person also puts a $10 bill in his cup. What difference could it possibly make whether or not the charitable act was motivated by religion? There’s no added value.
I suppose I could just say, “I feel a strong “something” sensation that says there’s no god” and it would be as strong as any argument in favor of the existence of god as I’ve ever seen.
Malacandra, it seems you’ve danced around my main question. If you are asking people to prove to you that God doesn’t exist, what would you accept as evidence of this claim?
As far as my wanting proof of God’s existence goes, it’s very simple-a claim of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing omnipotent creator of the entire universe that is totally invisible to all know methods of scientific inquiry would be an extraordinary claim, so I would demand extraordinary evidence, such as God reading my mind and knowing exactly what it would take to convince me. Even if I cannot know what that evidence might be, he certainly would-He’s God, for god’s sake!
Probably. Hey, I’m not religious myself and it scares the shit out of me whenever religion and politics become intertwined. I just don’t feel the need to crusade against it when it’s not in the political sphere. And I also object to those who cherry-pick all the bad things done in religion’s namd while pooh-poohing the good that was done as well.
But it IS in the political sphere. I’m forced to claim that I trust in god every time I make a purchase. I’m forced to co-mingle god and patriotism when I say the pledge. I’m forced to listen to the endless requests by politicians to god for blessings for this nation while completely ignoring truly needy nations in their desire for a shout-out from the almighty. Why no “god bless the world and all it’s inhabitants?” The shallowness of it all is insulting. And people are annoyed if I refuse to capitalize words that have no superior meaning to me? :rolleyes:
Of course, you are correct. However, I think a more valid analogy might be to imagine that the same guy, absent of religion, doesn’t give the $10 bill at all. Whereas, maybe the guy who’s a Christian* gives the homeless guy the $10, then on his way home spots two guys kissing and says: “You dirty fags are going to hell!” I leave it to you to determine whether the good outweighs the bad in this case.
I would never assert that the non-religious don’t do many good things (hell, I’m one of them myself!)
*This is not meant to impugn Christians as a group, but rather to represent the broader aspects of religiously-motivated behavior as a whole.
Or maybe the person who claims to be a christian won’t give him money because the homeless are an eyesore and they might stick around to beg for another day, if encouraged. My point is that your religion may tell you to be charitable, and you may ignore that command entirely, and still call yourself a christian. You are not kicked out of church if you don’t follow the rules. Religion doesn’t automatically make better people. PEOPLE make themselves better people.
To the extent that it is in the political sphere, I agree with you that it is inappropriate. I’m far more aware of this now than I was before I left the US, and believe me, it does make America look a bit odd to those of us on the other side of the pond. Nevertheless, I just don’t take it as seriously or as personally as you seem to do. Obviously, YMMV.
You do realize that thia is never going to happen, don’t you? Der Trihsknows that religion is the source of all evil that has ever been done in the history of humanity and cannot possibly ever result in anything good. He has repeatedly stated that anyone who believes in God is inherently irrational and, being incapable of rational thought, so people who claim that they are doing good because of their religious beliefs are obviously poor, deluded souls who are unaware of their true motivations.
His mind is made up. There’s no point in trying to get him to admit anything contradictory to the Truth (of which he is the sole arbiter) because that would men acknowledging that somebody else might know something that he doesn’t.
Agreed. However, and I know I sound like a broken record here, but the converse also applies. Religion doesn’t automatically make worse people, either. There are many Christians who don’t take that Old Testament stuff about killing gays, witches, or adulterers seriously, much like there are many Muslims who don’t take that “slay the unbeliever” shit to heart, either.
You’re probably right, though I would note that his last reply to me in this thread is a tad bit less heavy-handed than usual, so I will (probably foolishly) take that as some tiny bit of progress.
Kalhoun and I are having a nice, reasoned discourse (in the Pit, no less!), so it certainly is possible to talk reasonably about religion if both parties are willing to do so.
Religion creates co-conspirators through tacit agreement (i.e., financial support, to name just one). I’ve asked this question before. Let’s assume for the sake of this argument that a person affiliates with a religion as a means to make the world a better place.
If you can do good without religion, and religion does both good and bad, why not just drop the religious affiliation and stick with doing good on your own for the sake of doing good? Why would you choose to affiliate yourself with the horrendous acts that cause serious damage to lots and lots of people?
My point is that you have no way of knowing what is or isn’t necessary for another person’s self exploration. You can correctly observe that some people carry on quite well without religion and that works for them. What works for others is beyond your reach of really knowing. Claiming that the same good works, or the same bad influences and deeds would happen with or without religion is just guessing. The fact that millions of people are in fact doing good works {and some bad ones} based in part on their faith.
Another guess. Look at City Harvest program to feed the poor. If we took out the religious groups that participated could the others easily take up the slack? It doesn’t look that way.
That’s one question. Another is , what works best for person A? It may not be the same thing that works for person B. I think religion keeps changing as well as humanity grows. I’ll be glad to see religion let go of unnecessary myth and superstition and all the dogma that separates people. In the meantime millions of people use the vehicle of religion for their own personal journey and it works for them and truly benefits others. Just as they shouldn’t decide what you ought to believe or not believe {and I know many do} you have no realistic way of knowing whether they would be better or worse people without their faith based belief system.
But then it wouldn’t be religion, because religion relies on myth and superstition. Without the omniscient factor, we’re all just people helping each other get through our turn on the timeline. For better or for worse, at least it’s honest on its face.
All in all, it seems a shame the level of discourse on this topic on the SDMB falls so far so fast. Further, if we Dopers are so uncivil on the subject, imagine all those poor civilians out there.
Suppose religion disappeared tomorrow.Not just outlawed, but actually proven to the satisfaction of all believers that there is no god. Are you saying that these same people wouldn’t be helping the poor without it? I don’t believe it. I believe people are basically good (with many exceptions, of course). It serves as a vehicle for doing good deeds, but it is not a necessary component. Human compassion would pick up the slack. Secular organizations would ramp up their efforts and those who worked through churches would assist in that endeavor.
