Religious Reasons for Evil

[9thFloor]

**Just like many dysfunctional families. I’ve noticed a tendency among some Christians to wave off certain behavior in the way you describe, providing the “sinner” professes Jesus as Lord. In the meantime a morally decent person who doesn’t see Jesus as Lord is still lost. It’s as if praising Jesus verbally is more important than the actual behavior of the person. I’ve seen similar behavior in families where blood is what matters.You’re expected to overlook bad behavior for the sake of the family. That’s one of the reasons I stress focusing on the actions and making people wholly responsible for their behavior. I also point out to Christians how much behavior is stressed in the NT. **

Gee, I wonder where that tendency comes from. One guess.

My opinion of xian belief, as I held it, was that the actual behavior was in fact not the most important consideration and that belief in JC was more important hence the oft-repeated phrase from the NT that no man will see the father without JC regardless, implicitly, of how decent a ‘moral’ person he is. A concept reaffirmed there in the last pages of the book that’s initially put forth with the Abraham story of choosing god over morality by setting about killing your own son. It was a test of faith. A test of faith not in morality, but in god. The correct moral test, if that were to have been the case, would have been for Abe to refuse god and for god to say ‘good job, Abe, that was the test.’ As we know, that’s not how it goes. And that says it all; that tenor continues abated through the ‘nobody comes to the father but through me’ bit in the NT. God’s name is Jealous. That’s literally true and stated verbatim in every translation of the bible in the OT. Seems to me that a cigar is a cigar.

Now, if other folks come along later and peruse that book and like this part and that part and so on then so be it but that’s not what I’m referring to by religion; that’s just a person that treats the bible as literature and is a secular humanist.

As for Icarus and the Wright Brothers, whether or not technological progress is a good thing is a whole other discussion which is what’s implied in that statement but nonetheless it seems to me that even if that’s true, we’re beyond Icarus now. These beliefs, after all, from millenia past were literally borne of a time when human beings had physically smaller brains with ideas passed down through time and arriving and informing the Icarus mythology folks. I’m hoping we’re progressing and seeing antiquated heuristics as just that. I don’t believe the 9/11 hijackers are doing so. That was evil not simply done in the name of religion, but in fact motivated by religious belief. It was a net negative to secular morality in my view no matter how many poor people were sheltered and fed by those same ideologically dogmatic 9/11 hijacker-type folks because helping others, as posited in the OP, is more arguably something one can convince someone about as opposed to convincing someone to kill themselves by blowing up a building. The impact of religious belief is more pernicious on the whole with its utility being more effectively essential in persuasions towards evil than towards good. That’s my view and it seems to be borne out by a reasonable reading of current events, history, logic, and common sense.

**I have no idea what we might eventually discover about consciousness and other areas where we’ve only begun to explore. I think religion with all it’s problems is a legitimate way for the average person to explore.
**

Depends on the person doing the exploring, of course. But aside from the variants in people that are psycho anyway, I think religion is a highly dubious way to explore meanings given its track record and the very nature of the afterworld premise. It literally includes a consideration that everyone else is leaving out: what happens after you die. And that can’t just be dismissed. It’s critical to religious people that they don’t ‘gain the world’ by losing their souls and it’s often critical to secularists that afterworld considerations be tabled – a request, of course, that is literally impossible to do for the fundamentalists that are devout.

The Israeli/Palestinian argument is one example. One can look at that six hundred different ways through cynical perspectives, power plays, etc. where actually secular people just use religion as an excuse for their own desires. However, they’d have just used something else if there wasn’t religion. But for the other people in that issue – the ones not using religion as an excuse but genuinely motivated by it as their reason for their intractable position – religion fucks things up. It’s not enough to dismiss it; some ideas are truly dangerous and pernicious. Religion doesn’t get a pass, being an idea itself, as inexorably a ‘good’ idea that can simply be ‘misused’ or a ‘neutral’ idea that can be good or bad. There can be, IMO, such a thing as a bad idea on the whole. I believe religion is one of them.
**Having gone through a few belief changes I understand what you’re describing. I do see that people hold on to certain beliefs out of habit or tradition. I also think there is a certain desire to be part of a group. A feeling of belonging and security. Whatever it is it’s strong enough that people accept a lot of whatever the group doctrine is. I don’t belong to any organized religion but I understand the desire to feel a part of something. I can go to a service and enjoy the spirit in the room. I don’t think it matters whether we cloak our group affiliation with secular terms or religious ones. As long as people draw unnecessary lines of separation and form an US vs. THEM mentality similar problems will continue.

btw, stressing the behavior, the action and it’s consequences, is a good way for people to start looking at beliefs in an a la carte fashion. When people focus on behavior and consequences they have a priority shift which makes letting go of certain beliefs a lot easier.**

Sure, but once religion is looked at from a secular perspective it becomes a different thing since religion typically forbids that very thing from being done. Questioning is doubting. It’s very anti-intellectual and resistant to secular analysis in its very construction for believers. There are tons of stories of people feeling terrified of losing their souls for questioning their beliefs. Those are sincere.

As for judging based on behaviors and actions, it’s moot for suicide bombers. They’re already dead, as are their victims. Also, their interpretation of the results of their actions would, be definition, differ from yours and the dead can’t be punished or held accountable.

[9thFloor]

"Some beliefs fly in the face of existing evidence."

That’s the part where someone chimes in with “Well, it can’t be proven so there’s no need for evidence. Faith isn’t based on evidence. And anyway, nothing can be proven even with evidence anyway. Everything is taken on faith ultimately. You can’t even prove your own wife loves you and you take that on faith. Therefore, it’s equally reasonable and logical to believe that god loves you since there’s no irrefutable evidence for either so at the end of the day it’s all faith.”

I believe you did that yourself in another thread, in so many words.

That sentence of yours sums the whole discussion up, in my view.

Either the fact of evidence is relevant to a fundamentalist’s religious beliefs or it isn’t.

Once you go outside of faith and into evidence, you’re the devil. Literally.
As for imams convincing terrorists with islam, it kinda sucks they didn’t get around to that in time to prevent 9/11, no? I don’t know, trying to talk terrorists out of their firmly held religious beliefs seems like a questionable avenue to take.

But I do think you have a point about how to relate to devout people and it may be more effective in achieving a secular avoidance of evil by addressing them within their views at any given time. The teddy bear thing of late might be an example.

My point, however, relates to the pernicious nature of the religious belief itself without which we wouldn’t have to try to figure out how to convince a religious obsessive to avoid what is obviously secular evil but religious good to them.

I used to work in the mental health field for a short while and it’s akin to trying to convince a schizophrenic of something based on his delusional beliefs. In the case of chemical imbalances and genetic predispositions, you may have no other choice short of medication. Not counting the mentally deranged, one would like to hope that religion – unlike schizophrenia – is an idea (albeit a dangerous one) that could be (and often is, as in my case) completely dismissed as where one can’t ‘dismiss’ schizophrenia in a mental patient. In that sense, going down the path of ‘religion is bullshit’ isn’t out of the question (phrased, of course, in a manner consistent with the goal as opposed to the way it’s phrased for Dopers here).

[9thFloor]

"I don’t care because I don’t see it as a belief that directly affects her behavior."

Obviously, you would know since she’s your sister but to me when someone holds to beliefs like that it does affect their behavior and is part of what I mean by the poisonous nature of religious belief.

Of course her belief in that particular story isn’t going to motivate her to some evil.

But it’s not that direct in my view; the troubling thing about such a notion isn’t the belief itself but the illogical tendencies it engenders and the lack of critical thinking it abets in other areas of life. Religious fundamentalists, as a group, would no doubt show up in personality tests with traits that are consistent with narrow-mindedness. And that affects every other discussion from politics to what movie to go watch to how to raise a kid. It’s poisonous. Whether or not that attribution can fairly be given exclusively and completely to religion may be overstating it but religion understood in that manner doesn’t, IMO, help at all and instead provides a fake ‘one-upsmanship’ moral authority that perpetuates hardheadedness.

To the extent that personality tests would show some people to be more anal, for example, than others (my personality must have been largely formed before and during indoctrination as a child with some saying it’s perhaps even mostly genetic) it’s nonetheless true that religion enables the use of that personality in a way that deflects introspection and insight for blind faith in what ‘can’t be understood’ instead of seeing yourself as anal, if that’s the case for example, and thinking gee maybe that’s really what I’m doing here so let me apply this anal retentive personality to something that will unleash my whole brain and is within my own awareness and control like, I don’t know, accounting. The point being that even being that introspective is generally inconsistent with fundamentalist belief. Regardless of chicken or egg on that, religion doesn’t help such people.

I knew a guy with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Some things helped, others hurt. But he knew he was ill. He didn’t subscribe to a set of ideas that allowed him to dismiss his OCD diagnosis. Religion, it seems to me, by its very nature tends towards doing just that despite the fact that others – that are more secularly inclined in their use of religion – can pick and choose the parts that work for them. The god of the OT and NT wouldn’t want man ‘picking and choosing’ what works for them. At that point, the religion is stretched beyond its scope.

[cosmosdan]

@9thFloor

My opinion of xian belief, as I held it, was that the actual behavior was in fact not the most important consideration and that belief in JC was more important hence the oft-repeated phrase from the NT that no man will see the father without JC regardless, implicitly, of how decent a ‘moral’ person he is. A concept reaffirmed there in the last pages of the book that’s initially put forth with the Abraham story of choosing god over morality by setting about killing your own son. It was a test of faith. A test of faith not in morality, but in god. The correct moral test, if that were to have been the case, would have been for Abe to refuse god and for god to say ‘good job, Abe, that was the test.’ As we know, that’s not how it goes. And that says it all; that tenor continues abated through the ‘nobody comes to the father but through me’ bit in the NT. God’s name is Jealous. That’s literally true and stated verbatim in every translation of the bible in the OT. Seems to me that a cigar is a cigar.

Now, if other folks come along later and peruse that book and like this part and that part and so on then so be it but that’s not what I’m referring to by religion; that’s just a person that treats the bible as literature and is a secular humanist.

As for Icarus and the Wright Brothers, whether or not technological progress is a good thing is a whole other discussion which is what’s implied in that statement but nonetheless it seems to me that even if that’s true, we’re beyond Icarus now. These beliefs, after all, from millenia past were literally borne of a time when human beings had physically smaller brains with ideas passed down through time and arriving and informing the Icarus mythology folks. I’m hoping we’re progressing and seeing antiquated heuristics as just that. I don’t believe the 9/11 hijackers are doing so. That was evil not simply done in the name of religion, but in fact motivated by religious belief. It was a net negative to secular morality in my view no matter how many poor people were sheltered and fed by those same ideologically dogmatic 9/11 hijacker-type folks because helping others, as posited in the OP, is more arguably something one can convince someone about as opposed to convincing someone to kill themselves by blowing up a building. The impact of religious belief is more pernicious on the whole with its utility being more effectively essential in persuasions towards evil than towards good. That’s my view and it seems to be borne out by a reasonable reading of current events, history, logic, and common sense.

Of course that’s all IYHO. You seem to be speaking much more of fundamentalists than religion as a whole.
If you check out the last of the “is faith realistic” thread you’ll see a proposal for examining belief systems as a universal human experience rather than separating religious from non religious. IMO it’s a more productive approach than trying to label religion , with it’s human mix of positive and negative, as an automatic minus.

The Israeli/Palestinian argument is one example. One can look at that six hundred different ways through cynical perspectives, power plays, etc. where actually secular people just use religion as an excuse for their own desires. However, they’d have just used something else if there wasn’t religion. But for the other people in that issue – the ones not using religion as an excuse but genuinely motivated by it as their reason for their intractable position – religion fucks things up. It’s not enough to dismiss it; some ideas are truly dangerous and pernicious. Religion doesn’t get a pass, being an idea itself, as inexorably a ‘good’ idea that can simply be ‘misused’ or a ‘neutral’ idea that can be good or bad. There can be, IMO, such a thing as a bad idea on the whole. I believe religion is one of them.

I know you do. So far nobody has come up with a way to establish that or measure the effects in any conclusive manner. Your opinion remains your opinion.

My point about Icarus and the Wright brothers was not about technological advancement. It’s about what I consider an essential part of our humanity.
The same thirst for understanding that prompts mythology and the spiritual journey prompts scientific research. You can approach the details of belief and try to refine those and mature those into something more universally beneficial but IMO attacking religious or spiritual beliefs across the board amounts to attacking an essential part of our humanity. A somewhat non productive endeavour for another human.

Sure, but once religion is looked at from a secular perspective it becomes a different thing since religion typically forbids that very thing from being done. Questioning is doubting. It’s very anti-intellectual and resistant to secular analysis in its very construction for believers. There are tons of stories of people feeling terrified of losing their souls for questioning their beliefs. Those are sincere.

I believe they are. Again you seem to be limiting yourself to the fundamentalists. I believe there is a way to gradually educate people that questioning the details of their particular doctrine is not a lack of faith. Also discussed in the other thread. Examining the consequences of actions does not make it secular. The NT is filled with verses about our actions and how they reflect the inner spirit. It might be as simple as helping people to understand that they don’t have to rely on others to tell them which passages are important and which to ignore. They are not denying their faith to consider the importance of other passages.

As for judging based on behaviors and actions, it’s moot for suicide bombers. They’re already dead, as are their victims. Also, their interpretation of the results of their actions would, be definition, differ from yours and the dead can’t be punished or held accountable.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

People who have aiding and abetted crimes can be dealt with. In the meantime we can also try to deal with the economic and human rights issues , {equality, justice} that help make people like the hijackers susceptible to religious manipulation.

If we truly care about justice, equality , true progress, then we need to find standards that can be applied to mankind rather than continuing to separate humans into groups. Judging by actions and consequences is one way. Evaluating belief systems as a shared human experience is another. IMO

[9thFloor]

**I know you do. So far nobody has come up with a way to establish that or measure the effects in any conclusive manner. Your opinion remains your opinion.

My point about Icarus and the Wright brothers was not about technological advancement. It’s about what I consider an essential part of our humanity.
The same thirst for understanding that prompts mythology and the spiritual journey prompts scientific research. You can approach the details of belief and try to refine those and mature those into something more universally beneficial but IMO attacking religious or spiritual beliefs across the board amounts to attacking an essential part of our humanity. A somewhat non productive endeavour for another human.**

Right, right, and your opinion remains only your opinion. So what?

As for attacking religious beliefs (I’m not talking about spiritual beliefs) across the board being an attack on a part of our humanity IYO, it is IMO an attack on a particular method of dealing with human thirst for knowledge which isn’t the same as attacking human thirst for knowledge. It’s the approach I attack, not the thirst. Some approaches are better than others. Yeah, right, in my opinion. And that’s what I’m saying/asserting/expressing. In my opinion. LOL

[9thFloor]

I believe they are. Again you seem to be limiting yourself to the fundamentalists.

Yes, I am.

[9thFloor]

**Thanks for stating the obvious.

People who have aiding and abetted crimes can be dealt with. In the meantime we can also try to deal with the economic and human rights issues , {equality, justice} that help make people like the hijackers susceptible to religious manipulation.

If we truly care about justice, equality , true progress, then we need to find standards that can be applied to mankind rather than continuing to separate humans into groups. Judging by actions and consequences is one way. Evaluating belief systems as a shared human experience is another. IMO**

You’re welcome. It apparently needed to be stated since you offered ‘holding people accountable for their actions’ as a solution to religious evil. Impossible for them.

Given the fact that you don’t believe the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by their religious belief, stating the obvious seems to be necessary for you.

So, given that stating the obvious is something you apparently require, your “snide remark is empty and meaningless.” Sound familiar?

Oh well, it was beginning to become a good conversation again but here you’ve gone and gotten all pissy when your dismissal of religious evil with ‘well, we can hold people accountable’ was shown to be a pointless and ineffective statement in dealing with the issue at hand when it comes to religious suicide bombers since they’re already dead, as are their victims.

“Religious manipulation” indeed. ROFL You’ll never believe that religion can motivate evil. Apparently all other conceivable ideas can potentially motivate evil. But not religion. Ever. That’s just manipulation. As if manipulation isn’t itself a regularly recurring element in religion (see: Abraham/Isaac). Even given the fact that I’ve accounted for those times when people do use religion as a tactic for their secularly motivated power plays and referred instead to the specific noxious motivations inherent in religious belief, you won’t go there. Oh well.

Talking to you about this is obviously a pointless exercise; you’ve apparently convinced yourself that religion can never be a cause for any evil action. It’s just gotta be something else, doesn’t it? LOL

Your last paragraph above could be taken verbatim from an Al-Qaida website. Blowing up those buildings was justice, to them. It furthered equality by working to take over the entity that perpetuates inequality in the world, in their opinion. The attacks were true progress, in their view, towards the goal of uniting the world under a global caliphate so that man need no longer be separated into warring groups and can finally live harmoniously as one with standards applied to all of mankind. Then, actions can be judged based on results and consequences. You know, like an action of theft resulting in the consequence of having your hand chopped off. Ain’t religion grand? I’m getting misty-eyed just thinking about it.

Yeah, I know, that’s absurd and they couldn’t possibly really believe that. And certainly not due to their religion since nobody ever does anything evil based on their religious belief. :rolleyes:

A notion that, you’d think, would be obviously untrue. Typical xian you are. Out!

[cosmosdan]

@9thFloor

Right, right, and your opinion remains only your opinion. So what?

Just trying to keep the difference between fact and opinion clear given the subject matter.

As for attacking religious beliefs (I’m not talking about spiritual beliefs) across the board being an attack on a part of our humanity IYO, it is IMO an attack on a particular method of dealing with human thirst for knowledge which isn’t the same as attacking human thirst for knowledge. It’s the approach I attack, not the thirst. Some approaches are better than others. Yeah, right, in my opinion. And that’s what I’m saying/asserting/expressing. In my opinion. LOL

The problem is spirituality is linked to and exists within religion. The people who are sincerely trying to be a better person exist within religion beside those who want to control others. I don’t see any way to attack the approach, if religion is what you mean by approach, without attacking the positive and the negative. I don’t see that you have described any clear method to do that.

[cosmosdan]

@9thFloor

I believe they are. Again you seem to be limiting yourself to the fundamentalists.

Yes, I am.

They do make the easiest targets.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
**Thanks for stating the obvious.

People who have aiding and abetted crimes can be dealt with. In the meantime we can also try to deal with the economic and human rights issues , {equality, justice} that help make people like the hijackers susceptible to religious manipulation.

If we truly care about justice, equality , true progress, then we need to find standards that can be applied to mankind rather than continuing to separate humans into groups. Judging by actions and consequences is one way. Evaluating belief systems as a shared human experience is another. IMO**

You’re welcome. It apparently needed to be stated since you offered ‘holding people accountable for their actions’ as a solution to religious evil. Impossible for them.

No it clearly did not. I did not present that as the only solution but as one aspect of it. That’s how our system of justice is supposed to work with an emphasis on equal and fair treatment for all regardless of race or creed.

Given the fact that you don’t believe the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by their religious belief, stating the obvious seems to be necessary for you.

My point was that religion was not the only motivation or reason for them being there and you certainly haven’t shown that to be the case.

So, given that stating the obvious is something you apparently require, your “snide remark is empty and meaningless.” Sound familiar?

The alternative to stating the obvious was actually supporting your argument with evidence. Can I draw any conclusions about why you chose this route instead?

Oh well, it was beginning to become a good conversation again but here you’ve gone and gotten all pissy when your dismissal of religious evil with ‘well, we can hold people accountable’ was shown to be a pointless and ineffective statement in dealing with the issue at hand when it comes to religious suicide bombers since they’re already dead, as are their victims.

I am in no way dismissing evil acts done in the name of religion.
It seems clear that there are historical reasons that have nothing to do with religion for The US to be seen as the enemy and for us to become a target. I’m not denying the religious factor. I’m saying that claiming it was a religiously motivated act of evil is a gross over simplification.

“Religious manipulation” indeed. ROFL You’ll never believe that religion can motivate evil. Apparently all other conceivable ideas can potentially motivate evil. But not religion. Ever. That’s just manipulation. As if manipulation isn’t itself a regularly recurring element in religion (see: Abraham/Isaac). Even given the fact that I’ve accounted for those times when people do use religion as a tactic for their secularly motivated power plays and referred instead to the specific noxious motivations inherent in religious belief, you won’t go there. Oh well.

Talking to you about this is obviously a pointless exercise; you’ve apparently convinced yourself that religion can never be a cause for any evil action. It’s just gotta be something else, doesn’t it? LOL

My point is and has been that religion, like most human constructs, has it’s positive and negative aspects. I’ve agreed repeatedly that beliefs should be challenged and questioned. IMO the whole “religion bad” meme has never been established by those who claim to embrace logic and reason so much more than those silly believers. What I’ve proposed is an examination of belief systems as a universal human experience. In that way the details of any belief , religious, spiritual, or secular can be examined equally. Those crying for removal of religions protected status and eager to criticize someone else’s belief system better be ready to examine there own. It’s easy to point to the fundamentalists and criticize religion as a whole, but since they do not represent religion as a whole I find the practice disingenuous.

Your last paragraph above could be taken verbatim from an Al-Qaida website. Blowing up those buildings was justice, to them. It furthered equality by working to take over the entity that perpetuates inequality in the world, in their opinion. The attacks were true progress, in their view, towards the goal of uniting the world under a global caliphate so that man need no longer be separated into warring groups and can finally live harmoniously as one with standards applied to all of mankind. Then, actions can be judged based on results and consequences. You know, like an action of theft resulting in the consequence of having your hand chopped off. Ain’t religion grand? I’m getting misty-eyed just thinking about it.

Yeah, I know, that’s absurd and they couldn’t possibly really believe that. And certainly not due to their religion since nobody ever does anything evil based on their religious belief. :rolleyes:

A notion that, you’d think, would be obviously untrue. Typical xian you are. Out!

So rather than put any effort into supporting your own argument you misrepresent mine. Interesting technique. Are you a politician by any chance?

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
**Thanks for stating the obvious.

People who have aiding and abetted crimes can be dealt with. In the meantime we can also try to deal with the economic and human rights issues , {equality, justice} that help make people like the hijackers susceptible to religious manipulation.

If we truly care about justice, equality , true progress, then we need to find standards that can be applied to mankind rather than continuing to separate humans into groups. Judging by actions and consequences is one way. Evaluating belief systems as a shared human experience is another. IMO**

You’re welcome. It apparently needed to be stated since you offered ‘holding people accountable for their actions’ as a solution to religious evil. Impossible for them.

No it clearly did not. I did not present that as the only solution but as one aspect of it. That’s how our system of justice is supposed to work with an emphasis on equal and fair treatment for all regardless of race or creed.

Given the fact that you don’t believe the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by their religious belief, stating the obvious seems to be necessary for you.

My point was that religion was not the only motivation or reason for them being there and you certainly haven’t shown that to be the case.

So, given that stating the obvious is something you apparently require, your “snide remark is empty and meaningless.” Sound familiar?

The alternative to stating the obvious was actually supporting your argument with evidence. Can I draw any conclusions about why you chose this route instead?

Oh well, it was beginning to become a good conversation again but here you’ve gone and gotten all pissy when your dismissal of religious evil with ‘well, we can hold people accountable’ was shown to be a pointless and ineffective statement in dealing with the issue at hand when it comes to religious suicide bombers since they’re already dead, as are their victims.

I am in no way dismissing evil acts done in the name of religion.
It seems clear that there are historical reasons that have nothing to do with religion for The US to be seen as the enemy and for us to become a target. I’m not denying the religious factor. I’m saying that claiming it was a religiously motivated act of evil is a gross over simplification.

“Religious manipulation” indeed. ROFL You’ll never believe that religion can motivate evil. Apparently all other conceivable ideas can potentially motivate evil. But not religion. Ever. That’s just manipulation. As if manipulation isn’t itself a regularly recurring element in religion (see: Abraham/Isaac). Even given the fact that I’ve accounted for those times when people do use religion as a tactic for their secularly motivated power plays and referred instead to the specific noxious motivations inherent in religious belief, you won’t go there. Oh well.

Talking to you about this is obviously a pointless exercise; you’ve apparently convinced yourself that religion can never be a cause for any evil action. It’s just gotta be something else, doesn’t it? LOL

My point is and has been that religion, like most human constructs, has it’s positive and negative aspects. I’ve agreed repeatedly that beliefs should be challenged and questioned. IMO the whole “religion bad” meme has never been established by those who claim to embrace logic and reason so much more than those silly believers. What I’ve proposed is an examination of belief systems as a universal human experience. In that way the details of any belief , religious, spiritual, or secular can be examined equally. Those crying for removal of religions protected status and eager to criticize someone else’s belief system better be ready to examine there own. It’s easy to point to the fundamentalists and criticize religion as a whole, but since they do not represent religion as a whole I find the practice disingenuous.

Your last paragraph above could be taken verbatim from an Al-Qaida website. Blowing up those buildings was justice, to them. It furthered equality by working to take over the entity that perpetuates inequality in the world, in their opinion. The attacks were true progress, in their view, towards the goal of uniting the world under a global caliphate so that man need no longer be separated into warring groups and can finally live harmoniously as one with standards applied to all of mankind. Then, actions can be judged based on results and consequences. You know, like an action of theft resulting in the consequence of having your hand chopped off. Ain’t religion grand? I’m getting misty-eyed just thinking about it.

Yeah, I know, that’s absurd and they couldn’t possibly really believe that. And certainly not due to their religion since nobody ever does anything evil based on their religious belief. :rolleyes:

A notion that, you’d think, would be obviously untrue. Typical xian you are. Out!

So rather than put any effort into supporting your own argument you misrepresent mine. Interesting technique. Are you a politician by any chance?

[Der_Trihs]

cosmosdan, your post isn’t showing because you made an error with the quote tags; that sometimes happens. Click on “Quote” on your own “blank” post and you’ll see for yourself; the edit box will show what you typed. And you won’t have to type it again to repost.

[Quartz]

@Thudlow Boink

Why, they might ask, should I ever give anything to charity (at least if no one will ever find out that I gave)? Sure, the people I give to might be helped, but how does that benefit me? …

What answer can we give to such a person that appeals to their self-interest, if that’s all they’re motivated by?

I’ve been reading this thread with much interest, so I thought I’d pick up on this one point. I suggest you appeal to their longer term self-interest. Charity can be seen as a sort of insurance: someday the person in need might be you, or someone about whom you care. For example - and just as an example - you might not have cancer, so in theory there’s no reason to give to cancer-related charities, but someday, you might, and if you give to them now, they might then have a cure. Equally, you might - at some point in the future - find yourself on a boat in distress and dependent upon the RLNI.

[nd_n8]

@Quetzalcoatl

Now that you mention it, things have been kind of quiet around here for a while. I wonder if the class reunion is still scheduled for 12/21/2012? I’ve been getting kind of thirsty

[9thFloor]

@cosmosdan

Just trying to keep the difference between fact and opinion clear given the subject matter.
The problem is spirituality is linked to and exists within religion. The people who are sincerely trying to be a better person exist within religion beside those who want to control others. I don’t see any way to attack the approach, if religion is what you mean by approach, without attacking the positive and the negative. I don’t see that you have described any clear method to do that.

This discussion is a method of questioning and attacking the approach. Worked for me.

[9thFloor]

@cosmosdan

They do make the easiest targets.

Implying that what’s sought is something to target? They cause harm and so they draw my attention. It’s not as if it’s looked into for the sake of having something to target. Speaking of which, if you haven’t read the God Delusion (from earlier stating that there’s no conclusive evidence, etc.) you should check it out; there’s a whole lot of good argument which is itself evidence against religious belief. Conclusive evidence is moot since it’s clear nothing would ever convince you anyway.

What you might enjoy, and hopefully see beyond just the fundamentalists to see where religious belief can logically lead even without that, is The Mist movie that’s out now. It’s a good microcosm of the function and evolution of religious belief albeit obviously in a light fictional context but it does a pretty good job of touching on it.

[9thFloor]

@Quartz

I’ve been reading this thread with much interest, so I thought I’d pick up on this one point. I suggest you appeal to their longer term self-interest. Charity can be seen as a sort of insurance: someday the person in need might be you, or someone about whom you care. For example - and just as an example - you might not have cancer, so in theory there’s no reason to give to cancer-related charities, but someday, you might, and if you give to them now, they might then have a cure. Equally, you might - at some point in the future - find yourself on a boat in distress and dependent upon the RLNI.

Good point Quartz. The international community – which can be used as an excellent example of cynical self-interest – does that very thing. You can appeal to the idea that helping others (countries, populations, or individuals) helps to address socioeconomic issues that can otherwise grow into security threats. Just that simple; or, as you put it succinctly, longer term self-interest. Beyond that, there’s always going to be people that are thinkers on individual vs. global scales and perhaps religion simply attracts those people that are global thinkers anyway that would otherwise act the same way through another vehicle. Cause and effect isn’t self evidently the case that religion is the only way to inspire charity.

[cosmosdan]

@Der Trihs

cosmosdan, your post isn’t showing because you made an error with the quote tags; that sometimes happens. Click on “Quote” on your own “blank” post and you’ll see for yourself; the edit box will show what you typed. And you won’t have to type it again to repost.

Thank you sir. I appreciate the tip. It’s happened a couple of times.

[Der_Trihs]

@cosmosdan

Thank you sir. I appreciate the tip. It’s happened a couple of times.

Including to me.

[cosmosdan]

@9thFloor

Thanks for stating the obvious.
You’re welcome. It apparently needed to be stated since you offered ‘holding people accountable for their actions’ as a solution to religious evil. Impossible for them.

No it clearly did not. I did not present that as the only solution but as one aspect of it. That’s how our system of justice is supposed to work with an emphasis on equal and fair treatment for all regardless of race or creed.

Given the fact that you don’t believe the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by their religious belief, stating the obvious seems to be necessary for you.

My point was that religion was not the only motivation or reason for them being there and you certainly haven’t shown that to be the case.

So, given that stating the obvious is something you apparently require, your “snide remark is empty and meaningless.” Sound familiar?

The alternative to stating the obvious was actually supporting your argument with evidence. Can I draw any conclusions about why you chose this route instead?

Oh well, it was beginning to become a good conversation again but here you’ve gone and gotten all pissy when your dismissal of religious evil with ‘well, we can hold people accountable’ was shown to be a pointless and ineffective statement in dealing with the issue at hand when it comes to religious suicide bombers since they’re already dead, as are their victims.

I am in no way dismissing evil acts done in the name of religion.
It seems clear that there are historical reasons that have nothing to do with religion for The US to be seen as the enemy and for us to become a target. I’m not denying the religious factor. I’m saying that claiming it was a religiously motivated act of evil is a gross over simplification.

“Religious manipulation” indeed. ROFL You’ll never believe that religion can motivate evil. Apparently all other conceivable ideas can potentially motivate evil. But not religion. Ever. That’s just manipulation. As if manipulation isn’t itself a regularly recurring element in religion (see: Abraham/Isaac). Even given the fact that I’ve accounted for those times when people do use religion as a tactic for their secularly motivated power plays and referred instead to the specific noxious motivations inherent in religious belief, you won’t go there. Oh well.

Talking to you about this is obviously a pointless exercise; you’ve apparently convinced yourself that religion can never be a cause for any evil action. It’s just gotta be something else, doesn’t it? LOL

My point is and has been that religion, like most human constructs, has it’s positive and negative aspects. I’ve agreed repeatedly that beliefs should be challenged and questioned. IMO the whole “religion bad” meme has never been established by those who claim to embrace logic and reason so much more than those silly believers. What I’ve proposed is an examination of belief systems as a universal human experience. In that way the details of any belief , religious, spiritual, or secular can be examined equally. Those crying for removal of religions protected status and eager to criticize someone else’s belief system better be ready to examine there own. It’s easy to point to the fundamentalists and criticize religion as a whole, but since they do not represent religion as a whole I find the practice disingenuous.

Your last paragraph above could be taken verbatim from an Al-Qaida website. Blowing up those buildings was justice, to them. It furthered equality by working to take over the entity that perpetuates inequality in the world, in their opinion. The attacks were true progress, in their view, towards the goal of uniting the world under a global caliphate so that man need no longer be separated into warring groups and can finally live harmoniously as one with standards applied to all of mankind. Then, actions can be judged based on results and consequences. You know, like an action of theft resulting in the consequence of having your hand chopped off. Ain’t religion grand? I’m getting misty-eyed just thinking about it.

Yeah, I know, that’s absurd and they couldn’t possibly really believe that. And certainly not due to their religion since nobody ever does anything evil based on their religious belief. :rolleyes:

A notion that, you’d think, would be obviously untrue. Typical xian you are. Out!

So rather than put any effort into supporting your own argument you misrepresent mine. Interesting technique. Are you a politician by any chance?

[9thFloor]

"The alternative to stating the obvious was actually supporting your argument with evidence. Can I draw any conclusions about why you chose this route instead?"

That’s hilarious. As if you’ve shown any evidence for your absurd claim that the 9/11 hijackers weren’t exclusively motivated by their religion; which is an assertion you made and left unsupported. It’s not as if you believe in evidence anyway so trying to provide you with evidence of their motivations (such as, oh I don’t know, what they SAID) would be a huge waste of time in your case.

People that question religion are by definition people that question their own beliefs; religion’s the side with ‘don’t question’ in it as an aspect of its belief, not agnosticism.

As for being disingenuous, bullshit. Speaking of fundamentalists isn’t any kind of dishonest argument; it’s a genuine attack on their beliefs. If you want to redefine the meaning of the word religion to include a secular assessment of religious belief as part of some human exploration and journey, enjoy yourself but that’s not religion. Then again, you and the dictionary have been shown to not be on speaking terms so knock yourself out making up your own words and strawmen.

As for evil done in the name of religion, you again misrepresent my point. And then, comically, assert that I’m misrepresenting yours. Who’s the politician?

I, once again, am not speaking of evil done “in the name” of religion. I’m speaking of evil done BECAUSE of religion. Evil done in the name of religion is a separate subject easily addressed with the observation that some people will use any excuse to perpetrate their evil. I’m not speaking of that rather obvious group.

I’m speaking of people who are genuinely motivated by their religious belief to move towards committing secular evil (like, say, Abraham!).

And those people that act in secularly evil ways due to their genuine religious belief are called…oh yeah, fundamentalists. So yes, that’s where we end up.

And that’s where the trouble is at its most pure and harmful.

If you want to argue against someone who’s castigating religious people that aren’t fundamentalists, don’t believe in afterworld considerations, and are not driven to secular acts based on their god beliefs then talk to someone else because that’s not what I’m doing.

Commandeering in non-fundamentalist quasi-religious vaguely spiritual people with loosely held, provisional beliefs about the nature of the universe simply…um, moves the goalposts. That’s not what I’d call religion. Just fuzzy thinking.

Religious types always have the same stupid reply of some version of “well you haven’t proved your side either” as if proving to you that the universe wasn’t created last Tuesday would be possible to the satisfaction of your mind. (That was a great Tuesday line from another thread, czarcasm maybe I don’t recall).

When you want to provide some proof that the the 9/11 hijackers were not just motivated by their religious belief – even though they said they were – then get back to me. Until then, I think the obvious is obvious.

Anyone who doesn’t think the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by their religious beliefs is really just beneath discussion, defensive, and/or boneheaded.

What would prove to you that someone committed an evil act exclusively due to their religious belief? I thought so.