[Izzy]

Heh... The Spiritual World thread got locked, oops. Anyway, I thought the discussion was interesting, and would love to continue, maybe in the appropriate thread this time. If possible, can the mods split the old thread starting here?

My original topic title was "Atheism vs. All: Debate Style", but I figured it could be hilarious interesting to having people claim why ____ is better than _____, possibly educational as well.

Common courtesy applies in this thread. Remember to attack the arguments people post, rather than the people themselves. If you're going to tease someone, do so cleverly.

I'd like to pick up from where we left off, but anyone can feel free to start us off. NO PREACHING. No threatening with Hell because of disbelief. If I see any of that, I will ask to have your post removed.

[Guest]

And another point, God has never called us to do something immoral, unlest you mean jihaadist Muslims. Get the facts right.

O.o

Uh... I'm not sure how to respond to such ignorance. I am, however, fairly certain that most Muslims will tell you that "Jihad" (lit. "struggle") refers to the struggle to find the path of God, not a command from Allah to kill infidels. Extremism is not unique to Islam...

[Guest]

Instead of doing a quote-post here, I think I'll just admit defeat. You are obviously better informed on history than me so I am fighting a losing battle to justify a fallacious statement. I do find a certain irony in this situation however, I see now how one little statement can cause a very large discussion and even possibly a total divergence of a previously allied group... sort of like when any two religions branch apart.

I apologize for repeating a commonly used argument and not phrasing it in the way I interpret it to mean. Furthermore, I see now that there are many other reasons people kill each other. That being said, I still wish to assert that religion is still a large contributing force in the ignorant intolerance and subjugation of out-group peoples. I believe that if there was no religion people would come up with other excuses to kill each other because it truly does come down to competing for resources, the most darwinian reason to kill. I also believe that no matter how many excuses people come up with to kill each other, any society that prides itself on willful ignorance and that is ardently against science and reason that show their ancestral superstitions to be false is a society that is more dangerous than one that bases its decisions on rational humanistic ideals and lives by the bes thing to ever come out of the bible: the golden rule.

[Guest]

You cite the crusades, yet it was only a selfish cause to gain wealth and establish dominance.

...Specifically done under the guise of retaking the "holy land" from the "heathens"

Religions are only an excuse, and cannot be blamed.

Removing the excuse that justifies it to the masses makes thing trickier to pull off.

And the most animosity in my school is racial and Atheism vs. Christianity. The atheists are especially touchy, and react with suspicion to any mention of their belief.

You do realize the irony in that statement right? Racism stems from religious doctrine and a fear/hatred of those different engendered in the bible. Beyond that, the biggest animosity is between the atheists and the Christians!?! That is a purely religious argument! If Everybody chose to believe in the same invisible man in the sky, that conflict would disappear. Likewise, if everybody chose to be rational and consider quantifiable and testable facts along with theories strongly supported by all available research instead of blindly choosing to believe in something for which acceptance without any evidence is considered a virtue, that conflict would disappear as well. I for one think that a world based on facts rather than feelings and dogma is the one I would rather live in, and it would scare the hell out of me (or perhaps into me?) if I had to go to trial with a jury of twelve people willing to believe something happened with absolutely no proof.

The Mormons always insist they're Christians (they're just a cult, and not a denomination), and most Muslims won't speak of Christianity

Are you aware that Mormonism is one of the fastest growing Christian denominations in the world? I on't see how you can possibly say that they are anything but Christian since their doctrine is based on the teachings of Christ, just different ones than your denomination choses to believe exist. Isn't that the difference between every denomination? To assert that Mormonism, or any religion for that matter, is "just a cult" is really to prove the elitist attitude found in all religions. It is also oddly dismissive of somebody's true religious beliefs that they live and die by coming from somebody who shares the sam situation, if not entirely the same doctrine. To assert that Mormansim is "just a cult" forgets that every religion started out as "just a cult" and in reality is just a really big cult today.

Something to think about: There is no way that more than one denomination of any religion or more than one religion of all existant in the past, present and future could be entirely correct. Furthermore, there are astronomic odds against any single religion being entirely correct based on translations, cannon choice and personal interpretations even if it would be possible for one to be right. This being the case, almost every person who ever lived is wrong in their choice of religion, relatively speaking. If their being wrong amounts to eternal punishment or any negative outcome for that matter then the God you worship is truly a sadistic God. If, on the other hand, the differences are not big enough to warrant such treatment, What was the point of even caring that you were different in the first place? Why not call yourselves one denomination and be done with it? Beyond that, if the differences do mater there must be a point at which two religions are just different enough to be discriminated, but there is no way of knowing where you stand. Just as you believe with every cell in your being that Jesus Christ died to save your soul and redeem your sins, somebody else once believed with the same conviction that all dead souls were collected by

Hades and brought to the land of the dead. If either of you were presented with the first person to believe such a thing, you would both dismiss the other as "just a cult" and go on living your lives each believing that you are entirely correct.

The question this all leads up to is: What's the point? I would much rather suffer eternal damnation for living a life in which I chose to use the greatest gift Gd ever gave me, my mind (working under the assumption that I am wrong about His non-existence). Why waste your life worshiping a God that by all reason and all odds is more likely either the wrong one or non-existent entirely?

And another point, God has never called us to do something immoral, unlest you mean jihaadist Muslims. Get the facts right. You have no right to judge a religion based on a few bad individuals.

Do I need to go back to where I posted the verses that say to stone adulterers and homosexuals to death? How about the parts that tell you how to beat your slaves. Really? We are both intelligent enough to see that you are looking at your God with some seriously rosy colored glasses and all I am going is trying to help you take them off.

[Guest]

Sorry to butt in out of context...

You make the (fallacious) assumption that without religion, there would be a reduction in violence, because there would be one fewer excuse (out of hundreds, perhaps thousands) for it. Even if, as you say (based on nothing more than anecdote and postulation) it is the prevailing excuse, it is naive to think that people would not find other reasons to hate each other and other ways to rationalize killing each other. Unfortunately, I believe there would still be violence against women. It is common for animals to bully those who are smaller and weaker than they are. In most species of mammals, the males are generally bigger and stronger than the females, and have dominated them by force since long before religion existed. I also, unfortunately, believe there would still be other forms of hatred. There is a tendency for people to fear those who are different, and single them out for abuse.

What you appear to be saying here is that because there are several reasons why people hate/kill/oppress one another, removing one of those reasons would not cause a reduction in this behaviour. But when a conflict exists for religious reasons, that conflict would not exist without religion. To say that people would find other excuses to start the same war is ridiculous. Conflict is not the default state of human behaviour, people aren't just looking for reasons to justify killing each other. Most people don't want to behave like that and only do so when they feel the reasons for doing so are overwhelming. So taking away one such reason (a very common and powerful one at that) would certainly reduce this behaviour.

I accept that this is a simplification and in some cases an apparently religious conflict masks another reason such as competition for resources. But even in these cases the religion is enabling the conflict. It is given as a reason because the competition for resources doesn't sound morally compelling enough to get public support, and is used as a means to create distinct competing groups where otherwise it may be impossible to identify groups with sufficient clarity to develop the clear distinction and hatred necessary for conflict. All of this can happen in the absence of religion, but that doesn't mean it will. What you're asserting sounds to me like saying there's no point identifying cancer as a cause of death because without cancer people would only die from some other disease instead.

The same goes for oppression (of women, for example). Maybe oppression is in our nature, but as time goes on and we have the luxury of more comfortable lives, we think about morality and overthrow the obsolete moral values of harsher and more primitive times. Religion provides the means to freeze this process, to retain the moral values of people living thousands of years ago and hold them as being unquestionable. Once again you are suggesting that without religion we would find another way to do this. Humankind as a whole has changed and is willing to change, in spite of religion. Why assume that something else would hold us back if religion did not?

[Guest]

Sorry to butt in out of context...

What you appear to be saying here is that because there are several reasons why people hate/kill/oppress one another, removing one of those reasons would not cause a reduction in this behaviour. But when a conflict exists for religious reasons, that conflict would not exist without religion. To say that people would find other excuses to start the same war is ridiculous. Conflict is not the default state of human behaviour, people aren't just looking for reasons to justify killing each other. Most people don't want to behave like that and only do so when they feel the reasons for doing so are overwhelming. So taking away one such reason (a very common and powerful one at that) would certainly reduce this behaviour.

I accept that this is a simplification and in some cases an apparently religious conflict masks another reason such as competition for resources. But even in these cases the religion is enabling the conflict. It is given as a reason because the competition for resources doesn't sound morally compelling enough to get public support, and is used as a means to create distinct competing groups where otherwise it may be impossible to identify groups with sufficient clarity to develop the clear distinction and hatred necessary for conflict. All of this can happen in the absence of religion, but that doesn't mean it will. What you're asserting sounds to me like saying there's no point identifying cancer as a cause of death because without cancer people would only die from some other disease instead.

The same goes for oppression (of women, for example). Maybe oppression is in our nature, but as time goes on and we have the luxury of more comfortable lives, we think about morality and overthrow the obsolete moral values of harsher and more primitive times. Religion provides the means to freeze this process, to retain the moral values of people living thousands of years ago and hold them as being unquestionable. Once again you are suggesting that without religion we would find another way to do this. Humankind as a whole has changed and is willing to change, in spite of religion. Why assume that something else would hold us back if religion did not?

specific examples I think demonstrate the "take away religion - take away the problem" solution in modern day are:

No Muslims, no jihad.

No denominations within Islam, no conflicts within Afghanistan and Iraq (perhaps still conflicts with the rest of the world)

No Judaism, no zionism - Isreal never would have been stolen from he Palestinians.

No Christianity, no gay marriage debate (persecution)

These are all obvious examples of explicitly religious conflicts that could easily be resolved by removing the motivating source. There may still be conflicts, but to a much reduced degree and in each of these situations I chose groups that ethnically are exactly the same as each other and are differentiated only by religious views (except Isreal/Palestine, that was theft of land justified by religion and used to compensate for prior persecution of said religious group.)

Another note on Isreal, if there is a country likely to use nuclear weapons offensively against an enemy, it is Isreal. They have shown to be very pro-actively defensive (which means pre-emptively aggressive) or at least use a very real threat of which on many occasions. Again, remove their religious drive for a homeland promised to them by God, remove their need to fanatically defend said homeland.

[Guest]

Sorry to butt in out of context...

Not at all.

What you appear to be saying here is that because there are several reasons why people hate/kill/oppress one another, removing one of those reasons would not cause a reduction in this behaviour. But when a conflict exists for religious reasons, that conflict would not exist without religion. To say that people would find other excuses to start the same war is ridiculous.

This was in direct response to kawenstrait's assertion that the rationalization for violence is most frequently based on religious belief, even when the conflict already existed for other reasons. This is not only unproven, but it wrongfully places the blame for the conflict on the shoulders of the faith. Very few conflicts have begun solely to resolve a difference in religious beliefs. Most people, of whatever faith, just aren't that stupid, and those who are will find any excuse.

Conflict is not the default state of human behaviour, people aren't just looking for reasons to justify killing each other. Most people don't want to behave like that and only do so when they feel the reasons for doing so are overwhelming. So taking away one such reason (a very common and powerful one at that) would certainly reduce this behaviour.

I accept that this is a simplification and in some cases an apparently religious conflict masks another reason such as competition for resources. But even in these cases the religion is enabling the conflict. It is given as a reason because the competition for resources doesn't sound morally compelling enough to get public support, and is used as a means to create distinct competing groups where otherwise it may be impossible to identify groups with sufficient clarity to develop the clear distinction and hatred necessary for conflict. All of this can happen in the absence of religion, but that doesn't mean it will.

It has happened, though. As I have already demonstrated with one example, nationalism can be just as powerful at inciting fervor and hatred. So can a tribal feud.

Is it wrong to promote violence, preach hatred, and spread lies? Undoubtedly. However, such behaviors are neither the exclusive domain of religious organizations, nor are they necessary characteristics of a religion. You can, of course, argue that specific doctrines of particular religions are wrong. You could even argue that an entire religion is wrong. However, it is wrong to condemn religion as a whole because some, or even many, of its participants choose to make it the placeholder for their bigotry. It's like saying that politics is evil because it led to Fascism. (OK, maybe not the best example, but you get the idea... )

What you're asserting sounds to me like saying there's no point identifying cancer as a cause of death because without cancer people would only die from some other disease instead.

Not quite, but there is, for example, no point in quitting smoking if you're going to start eating rat poison instead.

The same goes for oppression (of women, for example). Maybe oppression is in our nature, but as time goes on and we have the luxury of more comfortable lives, we think about morality and overthrow the obsolete moral values of harsher and more primitive times. Religion provides the means to freeze this process, to retain the moral values of people living thousands of years ago and hold them as being unquestionable. Once again you are suggesting that without religion we would find another way to do this.

The "oppressors" have to want to maintain that "frozen" social state. Those with power generally do not give it up willingly. If you remove one means by which they do so, they will likely seek another. You may call me a cynic, but I really do believe that if religion did not exist, there would be just as much conflict in the world. Sadly, the recurring lesson of history has been that the human imagination knows no bounds where cruelty and hatred are concerned.

[Guest]

specific examples I think demonstrate the "take away religion - take away the problem" solution in modern day are:

No Muslims, no jihad.

No denominations within Islam, no conflicts within Afghanistan and Iraq (perhaps still conflicts with the rest of the world)

No Judaism, no zionism - Isreal never would have been stolen from he Palestinians.

No Christianity, no gay marriage debate (persecution)

These are all obvious examples of explicitly religious conflicts that could easily be resolved by removing the motivating source. There may still be conflicts, but to a much reduced degree and in each of these situations I chose groups that ethnically are exactly the same as each other and are differentiated only by religious views (except Isreal/Palestine, that was theft of land justified by religion and used to compensate for prior persecution of said religious group.)

You assume that there would be no animosity toward the "west", were it not for Islam. You assume there would be no tribal conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. You assume that our ancestors would have accepted homosexuality had they not been Christian.

You're partly right about Zionism, but maybe you're forgetting that there hasn't been an independent Palestinian state since before the Romans arrived in the region.

Another note on Isreal, if there is a country likely to use nuclear weapons offensively against an enemy, it is Isreal. They have shown to be very pro-actively defensive (which means pre-emptively aggressive) or at least use a very real threat of which on many occasions. Again, remove their religious drive for a homeland promised to them by God, remove their need to fanatically defend said homeland.

It's interesting that you condemn Israel for something that they haven't even done, especially considering that they have twice shown themselves to be perfectly capable of warding off all their enemies simultaneously with conventional weapons.

[Guest]

I do find a certain irony in this situation however, I see now how one little statement can cause a very large discussion and even possibly a total divergence of a previously allied group... sort of like when any two religions branch apart.

O.o

I didn't realize it was "us" against "them". If you're going to believe in something, it might as well be for the right reasons, and if you're going to criticize a group for their ignorance, you'd better have a well-informed argument.

Edited May 7, 2009 by d3k3

[Joe's Student]

Sorry to intrude, but I came across this post and I felt the urge to respond to it.

specific examples I think demonstrate the "take away religion - take away the problem" solution in modern day are:

No Muslims, no jihad. I think that this could be more aptly rephrased as: No unjust, unwarranted Western intervention in the Middle East for economic gains, no disillusioned, angered young Muslims, hating the West for tearing their region apart. As an example, a few days ago a US airstrike targeted Taleban members in northern Pakistan. The result of this was 100 or so dead civilians in a refugee camp.

No denominations within Islam, no conflicts within Afghanistan and Iraq (perhaps still conflicts with the rest of the world) - ???

No Judaism, no zionism - Isreal never would have been stolen from the Palestinians. - I'm afraid it would have. The West wanted a foothold in that region and the opportunity arose. The circumstances provided the 'justification', but no doubt, another would have been found.

Another note on Isreal, if there is a country likely to use nuclear weapons offensively against an enemy, it is Isreal. They have shown to be very pro-actively defensive (which means pre-emptively aggressive) or at least use a very real threat of which on many occasions. Again, remove their religious drive for a homeland promised to them by God, remove their need to fanatically defend said homeland. - Couldn't agree more with the first part. But remove the religion now, and Israel would still want to defend its 'homeland'.

Although I'm not a fan of organised religion, all of human conflict cannot be attributed to it. Humans will always wage war, it's in our nature, and maybe religion has been used to verify support, but without the religion in those cases, another justification would have been used.

[Guest]

You assume that there would be no animosity toward the "west", were it not for Islam. You assume there would be no tribal conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. You assume that our ancestors would have accepted homosexuality had they not been Christian.

You are partially correct that I assume there would be no animosity toward the west if it were not for Islam. I assume that if we were to somehow wipe religion from their minds now they would still not like us because the US has been kind of a piece of sh*t in that region. If they never were Islamic, however, they never would have had the verse of the sword enticing them to kill all non-repenting unbelievers. There may be tribal conflicts as well, but I guess you and I are looking at this from different perspectives. I see religion in general as a very bad thing that teaches people to act irrationally and to have intolerant attitudes. I think that if there was no religion - ever - the world would be a much better place. This may be idealistic, but I believe that most of the reason tribal differences are maintained on a large cultural level in industrialized nations is because they have a religious system of beliefs associated with their culture. I think that a world without dogma to separate it would see no reason to kill each other over resources, they would have more incentive to assimilate each other instead.

On the subject of homosexuality, I can't bring myself to think that any rational person would think that the sexual and emotional practices of other people would in any way effect them.

You're partly right about Zionism, but maybe you're forgetting that there hasn't been an independent Palestinian state since before the Romans arrived in the region

.I don't care about it Palestine has ever been independent, I care that the land was given to a religious group because they felt their God had willed it to them. If there was no religion, the groups wouldn't care about living together in the land, there would be no reason to kick anybody else out. again, this may be an idealistic world-view but I really blame religion for the majority of the discrimination between cultures.

It's interesting that you condemn Israel for something that they haven't even done, especially considering that they have twice shown themselves to be perfectly capable of warding off all their enemies simultaneously with conventional weapons.

I do not condemn Israel for something they have not done yet, I condemn them for the very blatant threats they they make to do something they have not done yet. I personally believe that they are the most likely country to use nuclear power for the simple reason that that is what they wish for the world to believe. They may have proven themselves capable to defend the country they unjustly occupy with total intolerance to those not part of their religion.

[Guest]

This was in direct response to kawenstrait's assertion that the rationalization for violence is most frequently based on religious belief, even when the conflict already existed for other reasons.

For this reason I had to point out that my response was out of context, since I think that, although possibly true, kawnsentrait's assertion was a stronger one than I would care to defend. What I would assert is that the world would probably be a more peaceful place without religion. That's a complicated statement and certainly open to debate. I felt the need to insert the word "probably" because the world would be a fundamentally different place without religion, and it's hard to compare what the world is like today with what it would be like if religion did not exist (an unrealistic hypothetical scenario anyway). More to the point is whether the future would be more peaceful with less religion. There is no way we can know for certain. What I can say with reasonable certainty is that religion helps to enable conflict on several levels (as I went into in this post, and looking at it now there are many other aspects I have missed such as irrationality and unwarranted conviction in high level decision making and the maintenance of group divisions that might otherwise be overcome).

As I have already demonstrated with one example, nationalism can be just as powerful at inciting fervor and hatred. So can a tribal feud.

Nobody is saying that all conflict is started for religious reasons, only that some conflicts are, and therefore without the religion there would be less conflict.

However, it is wrong to condemn religion as a whole because some, or even many, of its participants choose to make it the placeholder for their bigotry. It's like saying that politics is evil because it led to Fascism. (OK, maybe not the best example, but you get the idea... )

I didn't say that. To be clear, the assertion I'm making here is the one underlined above. I wouldn't even preclude the possibility that religion might theoretically be a force for good (though not in its current form, hence my interest in the "useful religion" topic, which although tending to be a little frivolous at times is addressing a serious question).

Our main difference of opinion seems to lie in the fact that you consider religion to work as a placeholder for bigotry that would exist anyway, or an excuse for conflict that would otherwise be replaced with another excuse (and more or less the same applies to issues of oppression).

It's hard to quantify the effects of religion on warfare because it is often more a catalyst than a cause. But let's consider Israel, since that's already under discussion. Would things be any different there if religion had not come into play? As Joe's Student pointed out, the formation of Israel was motivated by western interests that had little to do with religion. But religion provided the excuse, and even if another excuse could have been found, it would have been harder to defend and would probably have involved a settlement which considered the needs of all parties. The religious justification meant that the right of the Israelis to own that land was considered absolute and god-given by Israelis, and completely invalid by their Arab neighbours. The result is complete intolerance on both sides, and this has caused the escalation of conflict.

The west's involvement since then has been generally one-sided and this has created deep rifts between the Arab world and the west. This may have happened without religion, but religion has helped to define the groups involved, to rally them and provide justification for violence. At this point we cross over into the personal effects of religion which I mentioned earlier, but it is easy to see why Muslims all over the world perceive attacks on Palestinians as attacks on Islam, and hence an affront to Allah. This is an inherently escalatory line of thought which defines massive groups of people as evil, and precludes any consideration of peaceful settlement. Religion creates that kind of thinking, and thus acts as the catalyst for further conflict elsewhere. Religion in war is like petrol on a bonfire. You could maybe light it without, but it'll catch fire a lot easier with.

[Joe's Student]

I thought it seemed appropriate for this thread: http://xkcd.com/154/

Edited May 8, 2009 by Joe's Student

[Guest]

On the subject of homosexuality, I can't bring myself to think that any rational person would think that the sexual and emotional practices of other people would in any way effect them.

You assume that people who do not believe in God are always perfectly rational, and thus incapable of prejudice. I'll just stop there and let the irony sink in...

They may have proven themselves capable to defend the country they unjustly occupy with total intolerance to those not part of their religion.

Oy vey. I was really hoping you wouldn't go there. (sigh). Please explain why the state of Israel is "unjust".

[Guest]

You assume that people who do not believe in God are always perfectly rational, and thus incapable of prejudice. I'll just stop there and let the irony sink in...

I don't assume that those without religion are perfectly rational, I observe that those with religion are less rational

Oy vey. I was really hoping you wouldn't go there. (sigh). Please explain why the state of Israel is "unjust".

Because they were given the country in a treaty that those who occupied the land at the time were not given the choice, then they persecuted those who objected to the new occupation... I don't see how that is in any way a "just" occupation.

Edited May 8, 2009 by kawnsentrait

[Guest]

This topic is getting more into politics than religion, which is neither my area of expertise nor interest as well as being off topic. As I said before I cannot compete with your social studies knowledge and it is quite likely that my claims are in ill-informed opinions, but I think I will be done discussing said opinions after this post. Feel free to offer your rebuttle but I hereby concede that I do not really know what I m talking about when it comes to history and politics and I am most likely wrong in some of my superficial assertions.

For the record, in your post to octopuppy you said I think that the rationalization for violence is most frequently based on religious belief, even when the conflict already existed for other reasons. I never made any assertion of the sort that would qualify for the second clause, you just pointed out to me that there were prior conflicts I was not aware of. Religion is obviously not the cause of pre-existing conflicts, that would be absurd.