To all religious people....

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I somewhat endorse Null's last post. But it won't get through to those of faith.

First and foremost, stonings and violent punishments of that sort are easily dismissed as historical segments of the Bible, or Jesus usurping the Old Testament's laws with new ones. None but fundamentalists hold to such laws anymore, so citing them has little averse affect on Christians. But that doesn't get to the heart of it. The fundamental disagreement is in the perceived source of the good and evil that religion does.

To a believer, the good is an extension of the religious beliefs themselves, and of God, while the evil is humanity's perversion of those ideals. To a non-believer, the good that religion does is entirely man-made. So in my opinion, for example, if you took away religion, you'd still have all the good religion does (and it does a lot in some places), because it is people that are responsible for it. People would simply find different outlets for it other than a religious community.

Whereas the bad that religion is responsible for is largely due to the nature of faith. Faith is blind by its very definition, and encourages belief without evidence, or even in the face of evidence. It is self-fulfilling in that sense. And the deeper the faith, the better. Which is where fundamentalism comes in. So yes, an endorsement of faith by the rational majority does encourage fundamentalism to a large extent in the minority that it exists in (or majority in some parts of the world), because the advocation of faith in and of itself, in any form or degree, breeds such outcomes.

So when someone says "religion does more evil than good" it must be prefaced with this sort of explanation. Because on the surface, that statement is false. Religion is a strong force for good in the world. But if you remove it, the large portion of the good would remain, because it is human-driven, while it would eliminate the beliefs and practices that lead to the negative aspects of religion. It may be trite to say something like "there are no atheist suicide bombers, nor will there ever be," but it is a crude way of showing a valid point.

I agree with every sentence you posted.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
As someone smart once said (as you may have noticed, exact quotes are not my strong point) "It takes religion to make good people to bad things," I whole heatedly support that statement.

and you can think of no other reasons why people might do bad things?

nothing else could motivate a person who was good to do something wrong?

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Now, i never said that the bible has to be interpreted literally. Some things are literal, some metaphorical. But, what can we say is metaphorical? Is stoning people to death for breaking the Sabbath metaphorical? Sounds pretty literal to me. of course i dont agree with that punishment, but i believe that that statement was intended to be interpreted literally. Do you disagree?

outside of America, people aren't as crazy about the Bible. Most people I've met can concede that the Bible was written by men, and many parts contain things that reflect the worldview they wanted to maintain.

obviously your next gotcha question is how do we know what, which i don't really care to answer, since it is totally irrelevant to me. Long story short, people don't have to believe every word in the bible is literally true to be a christian.

By making this argument you are engaging and justifying the specific wing of the religion you are most afraid of, empowering them and alienating moderates who want the same secular freedoms as you.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
And dont see "i will leave it to the experts."

then you totally missed my point when I said that. My opinion is that, as an atheist, I have no opinion on scriptures, aside from my belief that if they do contain truth, it is almost assuredly coincidence.

I would also ask again if you could put that into context, maybe give me the entire passage, interpret it for me in a specific theological tradition.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
what is YOUR opinion on that statement?

I don't think stoning people is a good idea...

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
As for supporting religion as a whole, Sam Harris puts it A LOT better than i ever can, and you should read The End Of Faith if you havent already, but moderate religion is the environment that allows extremism and fundamentalism to thrive. It indirectly causes all the problems that we are experiencing with extremism. Is it directly harmful? Mostly not. Is it indirectly harmful? yes. yes it is.

Its rather obnoxious to ask me to argue with a book...

needless to say I disagree with the premise. feel free to expand

Uhhhh I don't know about this "there will never be any athiest siucide bombers" thing. Im sure athiesm can be used to justify evil as well as religon can. People say athiests don't believe in anything and we have had this discussion before but im pretty sure bad athiests could use a non-belief in divine judgement as a justification for being evil.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
you obviously know that rant, so i'll skip it. As for the thing on Africa, they think "sex is fun" and "condoms are bad" and "Sex without condoms is super fun". you figure it out. people ignore some church teachings and listen to others. everyone does that. And please, enlighten me on the great church history. Becasue honestly, i dont know what it could have possibly done to out weigh the horrors it has and is commiting.

Hospitals, Charities, Social Groups, the Crusades (I personally think that the Western World is better than a Muslim one which is what we would have had without the Crusades), the role of the Catholic Church in Eastern Europe following the Soviet Occupation- it is held by many countries in very high esteem because it is seen to have protected national identity that Communism tried to strip away. Just look at how popular John Paul II is in Poland and Latvia and so on.

In the 1300's the Pope tried his best to defend the small and weaker Scotland against English occupation.

The Paul III banned slavery back before the Protestant Reformation, though this was someone amended by one of his successors who turned a blind eye to slavery...It was protestant Britain that really got the whole thing going though...

Individual Catholics have also had a great deal of influence over time and often, its been good.

I am not saying the Church doesn't have faults, but look at in context. It is not the only institution which has carried out horrific things but its the only one you seem to enjoy attacking. When we talk about America, do you bring up the slave trade/Hiroshima/racism every time its mentioned? If discussing Germany do you say, yeah Beethoven was a great musician and I applaud their attempts to foster world peace...but Hitler did kill 6 million plus... When you talk about Microsoft do you say "I like windows, but if we look at Bill Gates record for business competition, staff treatment and so on..."

No you don't do you?

(I'm not saying that because other people have done bad stuff the Church is less to blame for what its done- lets just remember it isn't the only one though.)

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Uhhhh I don't know about this "there will never be any athiest siucide bombers" thing. Im sure athiesm can be used to justify evil as well as religon can. People say athiests don't believe in anything and we have had this discussion before but im pretty sure bad athiests could use a non-belief in divine judgement as a justification for being evil.

Indeed, let us remember- Kamikaze Pilots...(though some will say that the Imperial Cult and Patriotism is a religion...)

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I somewhat endorse Null's last post. But it won't get through to those of faith.

First and foremost, stonings and violent punishments of that sort are easily dismissed as historical segments of the Bible, or Jesus usurping the Old Testament's laws with new ones. None but fundamentalists hold to such laws anymore, so citing them has little averse affect on Christians. But that doesn't get to the heart of it. The fundamental disagreement is in the perceived source of the good and evil that religion does.

To a believer, the good is an extension of the religious beliefs themselves, and of God, while the evil is humanity's perversion of those ideals. To a non-believer, the good that religion does is entirely man-made. So in my opinion, for example, if you took away religion, you'd still have all the good religion does (and it does a lot in some places), because it is people that are responsible for it. People would simply find different outlets for it other than a religious community.

Whereas the bad that religion is responsible for is largely due to the nature of faith. Faith is blind by its very definition, and encourages belief without evidence, or even in the face of evidence. It is self-fulfilling in that sense. And the deeper the faith, the better. Which is where fundamentalism comes in. So yes, an endorsement of faith by the rational majority does encourage fundamentalism to a large extent in the minority that it exists in (or majority in some parts of the world), because the advocation of faith in and of itself, in any form or degree, breeds such outcomes.

So when someone says "religion does more evil than good" it must be prefaced with this sort of explanation. Because on the surface, that statement is false. Religion is a strong force for good in the world. But if you remove it, the large portion of the good would remain, because it is human-driven, while it would eliminate the beliefs and practices that lead to the negative aspects of religion. It may be trite to say something like "there are no atheist suicide bombers, nor will there ever be," but it is a crude way of showing a valid point.

I'm with you on most of the basic points there. But I'd like to point out that people will find new outlets for evil just as easily as they find new outlets for good. Secondly there have been horrific acts of secular terrorism: Timothy McVeigh certainly didn't rationalize his attack with religious rhetoric and at Columbine it's believed that the two atheist shooters specifically targeted some Christian students.

No one religion or group holds any moral superiority over another be it the belief in a god or not. Each group has done some horrible things in the past and will do so in the future. This may be a double standard but I would hold an Atheist more accountable for his actions then a person of faith. While a person of religion is still responsible for their own actions they must abide by the tenets of their faith as well, Atheist do not have that and it would fall to them with their own personal choice and judgment.

I also see this double standard when someone of faith commits an act of violence based off of their doctrine, many people would say that they are confused about the teachings were if an Atheist does something they say that they are just crazy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm with you on most of the basic points there. But I'd like to point out that people will find new outlets for evil just as easily as they find new outlets for good. Secondly there have been horrific acts of secular terrorism: Timothy McVeigh certainly didn't rationalize his attack with religious rhetoric and at Columbine it's believed that the two atheist shooters specifically targeted some Christian students.

How many acts of secular terrorism have there been?
Also, is it quoted anywhere that they targeted those students?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
No one religion or group holds any moral superiority over another be it the belief in a god or not. Each group has done some horrible things in the past and will do so in the future. This may be a double standard but I would hold an Atheist more accountable for his actions then a person of faith. While a person of religion is still responsible for their own actions they must abide by the tenets of their faith as well, Atheist do not have that and it would fall to them with their own personal choice and judgment.

I also see this double standard when someone of faith commits an act of violence based off of their doctrine, many people would say that they are confused about the teachings were if an Atheist does something they say that they are just crazy.

It's always personal choice and judgement. I don't see why someone should get a moral pass, so to speak, for performing evil acts on behalf of a religious tenet.

The latter part is true, however. Saying they aren't following the true teachings is silly, because no one knows what the true interpretations are (if any exist, that is).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm with you on most of the basic points there. But I'd like to point out that people will find new outlets for evil just as easily as they find new outlets for good. Secondly there have been horrific acts of secular terrorism: Timothy McVeigh certainly didn't rationalize his attack with religious rhetoric and at Columbine it's believed that the two atheist shooters specifically targeted some Christian students.

Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say religion is the sole source of evil. But given the nature of faith, and how it leads to fundamentalism and blind acts, I feel somewhat justified in holding the opinion that there would be less evil in the world if religion were gone from it, but it obviously wouldn't eradicate all evil.

Just as obviously, this is hypothetical. Religion isn't going anywhere any time soon.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Uhhhh I don't know about this "there will never be any athiest siucide bombers" thing. Im sure athiesm can be used to justify evil as well as religon can. People say athiests don't believe in anything and we have had this discussion before but im pretty sure bad athiests could use a non-belief in divine judgement as a justification for being evil.

Which is why I hesitated to use the phrase. Taken alone, it is a crude analogy. Taken in context with my point, it makes some sense.

Most morality is socially and culturally conditioned, and would exist irrelevant of religion. Religion plays a factor in peoples' morality, certainly. But when people ask an atheist the question "where do you get your morals from?" the answer is "the same place as you." Culturally accepted norms for proper practice. Religion causes slight deviations from this, but rarely major ones.

So yeah, anyone can find justification for evil. But take faith out of the equation, which actually promotes irrational belief without evidence, and can and does lead to irrational action as a consequence, and you'll find it far harder to justify acts of atrocity.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
How many acts of secular terrorism have there been?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Attacks by the IRA and INLA
The Columbine Massacre
The bombing of the Federal Building
Operation Satanic by the French
Unabomber
GRAPO is secular
The Shining Path is a known terrorist organization

There are plenty more. I'd like you to answer for all of them and defend why atheism should be allowed to exist in light of them.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Also, is it quoted anywhere that they targeted those students?

In various places, usually ones with agendas. We do know that the kids were not motivated by religion and thus murdered people as proud atheist or agnostics.

I'm with Digi on holding athiests and theists to different standards when it comes to doing terrible things. Arguing that "my faith says so" is not a valid way of explaining criminal actions. No one should get a let off just because motivations were religious, it's still a choice.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Attacks by the IRA and INLA
The Columbine Massacre
The bombing of the Federal Building
Operation Satanic by the French
Unabomber
GRAPO is secular
The Shining Path is a known terrorist organization

There are plenty more. I'd like you to answer for all of them and defend why atheism should be allowed to exist in light of them.

The difference as I see it is that Atheism doesn’t teach one thing over an other, it doesn’t have a set of rules or values that are set other than your own personal morals. To be a good person of faith you must believe and follow the views and morals set forth by the doctrine, while some do not follow everything that their religion says some would say that you are not following the religion. I have issues when people say they are of a particular faith and do not believe everything and follow it; I see them as “posers” and just like to be called whatever to fall into a group.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of war. Though I appreciate your point that there's little difference.
The IRA and INLA were religious, or closely inspired by Religion.
Columbine Massacre was not an act of terrorism...quasi-terrorism at best.
Operation Satanique was not an act of terrorism

I don't really disagree with you, just find your choice of examples dishonest.

Oh, and the difference is, that even those you correctly identified never did it in the name of atheism. Did not state atheism as cause, and were often of mixed belief system. They were secular, but not necessary atheistic. And again... never "atheism told me to kill many people", but "Marx told me to kill many people, though I am ultimately undecided on whether there is a God or not and lean towards not, my atheism is NOT, I repeat NOT, the reason for my terroristic acts".

You do see the difference, right?

Sym's line of thinking is a bit dangerous. If I understand the gist correctly, he's saying that any evil act that has been committed that isn't in the name of a religion is because of a person's atheism or agnosticism. Which is false. Most acts of good or evil have nothing to do with religion, but with the person themselves.

So framing such crimes as "atheist" crimes is only true if it was atheism that directly motivated the act, which is generally either completely false or we can't determine whether or not it was. If a person does something good, it's not because the're, say, a Christian but because they're good. Same with evil acts. Certainly religion does occasionally play a direct role in good/bad acts (like the fundamentalism mentioned earlier) but often it has nothing to do with it.

Besides, even such atrocities amount to anecdotes. Shall I list good things atheists have done, then say that all atheists are that way? Or all the evil religion has caused, and pretend that it's all that way? Neither would be true. Thus, neither is listing secular atrocities and attributing them directly to atheism.

{edit} bardock beat me to it. Similar point.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

But take faith out of the equation, which actually promotes irrational belief without evidence, and can and does lead to irrational action as a consequence, and you'll find it far harder to justify acts of atrocity.

Nah because people will just believe in political or scientific principles irrationally. It wouldn't be harder.

Originally posted by Da Pittman

The difference as I see it is that Atheism doesn’t teach one thing over an other, it doesn’t have a set of rules or values that are set other than your own personal morals. To be a good person of faith you must believe and follow the views and morals set forth by the doctrine, while some do not follow everything that their religion says some would say that you are not following the religion. I have issues when people say they are of a particular faith and do not believe everything and follow it; I see them as “posers” and just like to be called whatever to fall into a group.

Not beliving in God can cause you to have certain beliefs so you can argue that beliefs do stem from athiesm.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Nah because people will just believe in political or scientific principles irrationally.

Which wouldn't lead to the same evil, because political ideologies and scientific principles aren't dealing with eternal life, eternal damnation for not adhering, supposedly infallible doctrines, teachings, and edicts, and blind adherence to things without evidence.

I conceded that people can justify evil in a variety of ways. But you're acting like the delirious faith that religion inspires could be matched by other avenues of life. The nature of religion's subject material, and its subsequent affect on people, ensures that you're wrong.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I’m not sure what you are asking? From the sound of it you think that Atheism should be outlawed and that you must believe on faith or another, I could be (and most likely is) wrong but that is the way it sounds to me.

I'm reversing the argument that because there are a few nutcases in every group one has an argument against the group. Atheism does not save anyone from terrorism because atheists can be and have been terrorists. This is the problem I have with people who say Catholicism is evil because of the Crusades or Inquisition. Hell I was once accused of believing in the doctrine of Total Depravity and various crimes committed by Calvinists simply because I mentioned being brought up in the reform Presbyterian tradition (a reformed reformed reform Calvinist tradition from 400 years after the Calvinists). My point is that you cannot use the actions of individuals as a reason for religion being a bad thing until you answer for equivalent crimes perpetrated by your own side.

Obviously I don't think atheism makes people evil. I just don't think that religion makes people evil either and the double standard I see applied to horrible things done on each side disturbs me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm reversing the argument that because there are a few nutcases in every group one has an argument against the group. Atheism does not save anyone from terrorism because atheists can be and have been terrorists. This is the problem I have with people who say Catholicism is evil because of the Crusades or Inquisition. Hell I was once accused of believing in the doctrine of Total Depravity and various crimes committed by Calvinists simply because I mentioned being brought up in the reform Presbyterian tradition (a reformed reformed reform Calvinist tradition from 400 years after the Calvinists). My point is that you cannot use the actions of individuals as a reason for religion being a bad thing until you answer for equivalent crimes perpetrated by your own side.

Obviously I don't think atheism makes people evil. I just don't think that religion makes people evil either and the double standard I see applied to horrible things done on each side disturbs me.

I think that Religion gives a valid social justification to evil people though...so far even as to rever them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm reversing the argument that because there are a few nutcases in every group one has an argument against the group. Atheism does not save anyone from terrorism because atheists can be and have been terrorists. This is the problem I have with people who say Catholicism is evil because of the Crusades or Inquisition. Hell I was once accused of believing in the doctrine of Total Depravity and various crimes committed by Calvinists simply because I mentioned being brought up in the reform Presbyterian tradition (a reformed reformed reform Calvinist tradition from 400 years after the Calvinists). My point is that you cannot use the actions of individuals as a reason for religion being a bad thing until you answer for equivalent crimes perpetrated by your own side.

Obviously I don't think atheism makes people evil. I just don't think that religion makes people evil either and the double standard I see applied to horrible things done on each side disturbs me.

But that was never our point. Though, granted, it may be the point of others.

For example:

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Besides, even such atrocities amount to anecdotes. Shall I list good things atheists have done, then say that all atheists are that way? Or all the evil religion has caused, and pretend that it's all that way? Neither would be true. Thus, neither is listing secular atrocities and attributing them directly to atheism.

No one's pointing to a few incidents and generalizing about all religion. At least not that I've seen in this thread.

Most good/evil are because the person is good or evil, not because of the religion. Religion is used as a tool to focus those attributes. But the original, and I think current, point is that religion causes more bad than good because of faith's ability to push people irrationally past a point that they would otherwise go. No other human endeavor does that with such regularity. And because the good is human-made and would exist in another form outside of religion.

Evil isn't an attribute of a religion, or of non-religion. It's a human attribute. It will always be around, as will "good." As such, religion is a great force for BOTH good and evil, because the people involved with it are both things. But it inspires evil that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree that Religion doesn't make people even.

I think that Religion gives a valid social justification to evil people though...so far even as to rever them.

Indeed, Stalin managed the same thing though (but to be fair he had to outlaw religion first). It's reasonable to say that religion has and does facilitate evil people, but I don't see why we should think that those people would somehow be thwarted by lack of religious institutions.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Indeed, Stalin managed the same thing though (but to be fair he had to outlaw religion first). It's reasonable to say that religion has and does facilitate evil people, but I don't see why we should think that those people would somehow be thwarted by lack of religious institutions.

Again, I believe they wouldn't have the same magnitude. They'd focus their evil on kicking a dog once in a while, instead of killing 50 people and getting their dick sucked as heroes.

And, I don't think banning is the right thing to do, but using the influence of the Religion to you know...tell people not to be wankers...like for examplen the catholic church nowadays tries, and slightly fails, to do.

terrorism was essentially invented by Russian and Spanish anarchists, who were largely not religious

The Haymarket incident in Chicago could probably stand as "a single instance of secular terrorism"