So Jews are right out then?
If I was the template… damn right. War would cease to exist, because the world of Bryan is too lazy to wage it.
Good point. But i’m not really sure we can attribute it to atheism specifically. I don’t see what there is about something not giving you a moral imperative that means it is the reason behind doing so. I could say to you that you do not get a moral imperative through your liking of eating cake; does that mean that your needing to do so stems from your liking of cake? I wouldn’t say so. Likewise, I don’t see that not getting a moral imperative from atheism means it is that athiesm that means I must do so.
Well, like I said, I have heard Christians (or at least people who claimed to be Christian) say differently.
I would disagree with your assessment of Christianity, anyway; I am certain some forms (even perhaps the majority of forms) do teach that, but not all. Ever heard of prosperity theology? Word of Faith? Perhaps you do not consider people who believe either to be true Christians, maybe?
You have Religion to thank for the idea that “evil” or “honest” carry any different weight than the choice for goodness or deceit–i.e. that there is such a thing as “bad for me to do this” rather than a relativistic concept such as “bad for the survival of the species.”
Where men have used religion to manipulate the weak-minded, or where they have constructed elaborate systems which distort original teachings, the problem is who we are as a species and not our religion. I would sooner have leaders who adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ than leaders who have no belief that what he taught has Absolute value, even if the latter are correct. What Religion has done to those teachings may be a different thing altogether, although I find it common to blame Religion even where the probem is obviously the underlying depravity of the supposed followers.
It would be more accurate in the case of Christianity to argue that Christianity failed to change the depravity of its followers than to argue that Christianity is at fault. I nevertheless hold that Christianity has done more than atheism to ameliorate dogs eating dogs than has atheism. I am anxious about a world in which science defeats Religion, and we are all set free to be as narcissistic as we want.
Then you withdraw your assertion that “you aren’t going to be moral if you are convinced your own desires are absolute truths.”? Or do you intend to hold contradictory views?
You realize, of course, that if a newbie saw that statement without knowing you’re (allegedly) an atheist, he might well assume you’re a religious nutter.
Maybe God hates religion as well. What makes you think He sanctions the evil done in His name? Just because He allows it? I’d wager that if He didn’t allow man to act freely, you’d lambast Him for that as well.
I’d be interested in learning who these people are who claim that absolutely no harm can come from following that religion. That certainly is not what the Bible teaches. It is quite explicit about saying that great suffering and persecution can come from following the faith.
I’m quite familiar with them; in fact, I’m teaching a class right now where we touched on their twisted theology. I don’t think that supports your point, though. These people falsely claim that God promised a life of health and prosperity, but that’s entirely different from claiming that no harm can ever result from following Christ. Do you see the difference?
I don’t think that the concepts of evil and honest come from religion. In any (well, most) society murder would be seen as evil all by itself. Or if are you talking about punishment, a secular judicial system would work just as well, if not better, since there would be no doubt about that system actually existing.
But the original teachings are made up by men. I’m with Dawkins when he says that bible has fairly little to do with the actual execution of moral code because all but the most fundamental christians cherry pick the rules they like and the rules they ignore. And that’s a good thing too. IMO most people have a moral compass that works far better than taking the biblical rules literally.
You’re probably right. But I thinks that’s mostly because christianity has had a far greater influence on our culture for far longer than atheism.
It seems to me that you’re argument for religion mainly as an absolute moral police force. I don’t believe that having such an organization is a good thing.
To be fair, even what the Bible is “quite explicit” about is a matter of interpretation. I am sure there are people who would think there are things explicitly stated in there that you’d disagree with; could the reverse not be true?
I do see the difference. My response was to your claim that Christianity always teaches that there may be great harship and persecution, which I would say is rather at odds with the idea of health and prosperity. As far as no harm goes, certainly, the idea that you personally will become well off doesn’t mean everyone else will, for one example. But I do not find it unbelievable that a faith that includes the idea that faith in God will inevitably lead to success in varied areas (with however few adherents), and those who believe that God’s will is purely good, could have believers who think that following God’s will will cause no harm. And i’ve heard people claim this, though i’m afraid I can’t provide cites and it’ll have to be discounted.
I would be interested to hear in return how you can be certain that there are no Christians who believe this. I could quite possibly be wrong, but what is it that leads you to your conclusion?
As a response to your post in general; do you believe atheists are more evil than those who believe? I’m not entirely happy with the idea that my lack of faith inherently makes me much less moral than a believer.
The problems you point out, that religion can be twisted for people’s own ends, doesn’t necessarily have to be by some controller tricking weak minded people. Many religious people honestly believe things which I would call evil. You may be right in saying that that is not the fault of religion, but it is an inherent problem of it - a devotion to a set of certain ideals can become a devotion to a set of not-so-good ideals. When a dealer sells heroin, it is not the drugs that are to blame for the results, it’s the dealer taking advantage of his customers. And we lock up the dealers. But we also make heroin illegal. I’m not saying we should make religion illegal, since as you say it does a lot of good, and besides, freedom to choose and all that. But there comes a time when you need to honestly sit down and accept that quite possibly there are distinct problems with religion that there aren’t without it, not just the other way around.
If anyone cares about a non-Christian perspective on the “harm coming from following your religion”, I’d offer up a particular argument/debate going on right now in neopaganism, specifically in Wicca.
Phyllis Curott, a noted Wiccan author, has come forth and stated exactly that. She’s splintering off from the “An harm it none, do what thou wilt” theory (which states that it’s the practitioner’s responsibility to determine if harm is likely, and to refrain from acting if harm is likely) and claims that it is impossible to do harm. In her viewpoint, one is either in touch with Divine Energy, in which space it’s impossible to act out of anything besides Love and Good, or one is not in touch with Divine Energy, in which case one’s spells and prayers will simply not work.
While this addresses the old question of why magick works sometimes and not others, she does not address the historical acceptance of Black Magic or Evil or the historic and current worship of destructive Deities such a Sekhmet, Kali, the Morrigan or Molech. When I asked her (in person and in letter) if what she was doing was simply hand-waving a new definition of “Good” into place, she told me I should stop thinking so much and work from my heart. :dubious: Not what I wanted to hear, lemme tell you.
But she’s got her adherents, most definitely, and has published her theory in a mainstream book sold at Border’s and Barnes and Nobles. Enough people agree with her that I don’t think she’s easily dismissable as a single crackpot. I’ve heard the same reasoning - sometimes developed independently and sometimes not - from a large number of people with no relation to one another.
So yeah, move away from the thinking that Christianity is the only religion, and there are those who think that, if you do everything according to their tenants, it is impossible to cause harm. (*Experiencing *harm is not covered, although there’s the common koans that one’s suffering is part of The Universe’s Plan or the testing of a deity, or a learning experience chosen by the Higher Self and that we’re simply too short sighted to recognize Good in the long run.)
I don’t care about a non-Christian perspective. Who cares about Wicca? 
Seriously, thanks, WhyNot. For the alternate perspective and also for the knowledge that there are people that worship the Morrigan, which weirds me out no end. I’m not so sure Curott’s idea works; just because your magick won’t happen, doesn’t mean you couldn’t do harm materially. But that’s her problem.
I think the Christian Hitler ( don’t you tellme he was Atheist,
he mention the Lord over 200 times in Mein Kampf) trumps everyone.
What about the good ones? Like Douglas Adams, Thomas Jefferson,
John Adams (no relation, obviously )…
Recently on the faithful side, we have many like Tom Haggard.
“Today’s religion is tomorrow’s literary entertainment.” -
Ralph Waldo Emerson.
I know, I know.
(I do sometimes wish I could start a thread on neopagan theology or other such stuff and get real SDMB level answers, but this isn’t the board for it, I know.)
It is my little axe-grinding stump, that every damn thread that uses the word “religious” means “Christian”. It’s a big stump, I don’t think I’m grinding very effectively, but I try.
Well sure. Which puts Wiccans in the same camp as Christians who kill each other for land but say it’s because the landowners are infidels. By doing physical harm, you’re no longer working within your religious tenets: it becomes one big True Scotsman. A “true Wiccan” does no harm physically or psychologically or magickally; a “true Christian” loves his neighbor as himself and doesn’t make war…
Garbage. Religion teaches no values but obedience to it’s delusions. It teaches an utter disregard for people, and for the real world we live in, in favor of imaginary spirits, an imaginary afterlife and of obeying rules regardless of the consequences. Lying, threats and force all all acceptable as long as they protect and promote the faith. And the death and suffering of others don’t matter if God or whatever approves. Far from providing some sort of moral absolute, religion is the ultimate in moral arbitrariness.
Revenant Threshold, you wanted an example of someone saying that no harm could come from following their religion ? Well, here it is - and it’s quite common too. The assertion that if people do evil in the name of religion, it’s not the fault of religion - because they aren’t * really * following the religion. Communism is evil if people oppress and kill because it’s tenets tell them to; Nazism is evil if people oppress and kill because it’s tenets tell them to; but religion isn’t. Because it’s special, somehow.
Atheism hasn’t done much if anything, and never will. It’s just an absence of belief, after all. Unlike Christianity and it’s fellow mind-plagues, it hasn’t done harm, either.
And if science doesn’t defeat religion, I expect that most of all of us will be dead. As our power grows as a species, we are less and less able to indulge in the madness of religion and survive.
What are you babbling about ? I’m not claiming to hold the absolute truth. I’m claiming that religion is stupid and not worth taking seriously. I could be wrong, in the sense that there’s some infinitesimal chance that some religion somewhere has actually hit on the truth in one of it’s wild guesses; but it’s not a possibility worth considering until if and when they come up with evidence.
Because he’s imaginary and neither approves nor disapproves of anything. And even if he exists, he hasn’t done anything to stop the evil done in his name or correct his evil supposed teachings; so at best he’s amoral.
Well said, Blaster Master. You’ve given me a new approach to consider about religion.
John Adams was a Congregationalist who became a Unitarian. Thomas Jefferson was raised and spent most of his life as an Episcopalian, and then, as he was older, wouldn’t define himself denominationally, but had good things to say about the Unitarians and the Baptists, as well as deism. Neither Adams or Jefferson were atheists. Douglas Adams, on the other hand, was an atheist.
I’d say it has to be made by every person of faith. There are plenty of religious people who never do the above, just follow along man made rules. There really is a spiritual aspect to God’s relationship with man, it’s on a personal level and you don’t need a intermediatery person except for Jesus Himself.
Basically it is the same as Christianity and Judaism, that being ‘You shall have no other gods before Me’ - all other commandments come from that one. It just matters who is the one speaking, God or yourself. The serpent (Satan) said eat this fruit and you will be ‘as god’, scripturally it is pretty clear, atheists follow the advice of a talking snake.
Point taken…
But Thomas Jefferson also expressed his preference in studying faith
before participating. To letters for family ( not sure which,
but I’ll look up. ) he encouraged family members to not only read the bible, but also discarded gospels like Gospels from Mary Magdaline, Thomas
and Peter. It’s clear that if these gospels were/are includedin printings
of the bible, people would easily find contradiction in more places,
thus questioning the faith.
My point really was that choosing to follow God is as much being your own god as choosing not to is. If choosing to live life the way you want to, and not the way another being does, then surely choosing otherwise is also a life-revolving decision?
I think i’d call that an explicit commandment, in that that’s the definition of atheism. I’d ask for a cite for the scriptual stuff, and I would say that possibly Satan isn’t actually involved; possibly atheists are coming to the conclusion by themselves and it just so happens to benefit him. Following the advice of someone requires recognition of and acceptance of that advice, and very few atheists believe in Satan.
So the answer is that you intend to hold contradictory views. Unless you have a special definition for “infinitesimal”.
So forcing people to be good and believe in Him would be okay as far as you’re concerned. You’d prefer being a puppet to being a free moral agent?