Imagine no religion/atheism.

[Hitsumei]

Both are equally invalid, and this is why:

"Imagine no religion" commits a fallacy that is readily apparent it would seem to the atheist when it is retorted with "imagine no atheism". They both commit the fallacy of hasty generalization. It is generalized from Islam, Christianity, or any number of other religions that have dogmas or tenets that one can claim responsible for specific reprehensible acts, and then this is generalized to "religion", not those specific religions, regardless of the fact that the specific dogmas or tenets that are claimed to be responsible for the reprehensible acts are part of a specific religion, and do not exist in all religions.

All that something must posses to qualify as a religion is dogmas and tenets. Not any specific dogmas or tenets, just any dogmas and tenets. Thus a religion does not necessarily have any dogmas or tenets that one could possibly blame reprehensible acts on. So no matter how many specific religions you can name that have such dogmas and tenets, the generalization is still not justified, unless they all necessarily contain them.

Similarly, "atheism" is merely the belief that there are no deities, or in a weaker sense, the lack of belief in deities. So no matter how many atheists, or secular organizations have committed reprehensible acts, or held positions that inspired reprehensible acts, the generalization to atheism is still not justified, unless atheism necessarily involved such positions.

I'm not sure how either of these memes got started, but I cringe every time I hear them.

[Will]

I dunno, the song is really, really subjective. Lennon intended it to simply be an exercise in challenging establishment, and religion most certainly is establishment.

Imagine no heaven and hell, according to the song, leaves people more ready to live life for today instead of an afterlife. This certainly isn't an unreasonable claim. The same could be said of people that believe in any kind of existence after death, religious or not.

The "and no religion, too" lyric follows "Imagine there's no countries", which leads to "Imagine all the people Living life in peace". It could be said that Lennon intended to communicate that religion might be responsible for whatever you would imagine (ha!) the opposite of peace isâ€"unrest, violence, hatred, sadnessâ€", but it could also be an amalgam of both the establishment of state AND the establishment of religion being antithetical to peace. Or it could just be the state.

I've always liked the lyric "Imagine no possessions".

[Hitsumei]

I am referring to how it is used as an argument today. A slogan with a picture of the world trade centers behind it, implying that religion is to blame. Where both sides tally up bodies counts of religious and secular organizations, and people.

I don't get the same implication from the song, I think that it is used a little differently when employed this way.

[liveyoungdiefast]

The sad thing about religious people committing reprehensible acts is how easily they're separated from their religious community.

How often have you heard the Westboro Baptist people been called "Not real Christians" by Christians? Or the Islamic terrorists "Not real Muslims" by the Islamic community that doesn't want to blow people up? Or Christians desperately trying to justify to themselves that Adolf Hitler was 100% atheist without any religious connections at all? The hasty generalizations aren't as frequent as the unfair way religious folk exile the name of anyone who distorts their image.

Atheists don't have the same advantage. You can't say Stalin wasn't a real atheist. He was. He didn't believe in God, thus he was an atheist. And no matter how many awful things he did to millions of people the atheist can't say he wasn't an atheist. However the atheist can correctly point out that atheism itself is not what drove Stalin to do what he did, rather the corrupting power he held was much more influential in that regard.

So perhaps the generalizations are a negative force but the cheap way religious folk make their worst into 'unpersons' is just as much in need of being stopped.

[Hitsumei]

The sad thing about religious people committing reprehensible acts is how easily they're separated from their religious community.

How often have you heard the Westboro Baptist people been called "Not real Christians" by Christians? Or the Islamic terrorists "Not real Muslims" by the Islamic community that doesn't want to blow people up? Or Christians desperately trying to justify to themselves that Adolf Hitler was 100% atheist without any religious connections at all? The hasty generalizations aren't as frequent as the unfair way religious folk exile the name of anyone who distorts their image.

This is a string of red herrings, but I'll address them regardless. You assume a uniformity of Christian and Muslim beliefs that doesn't exist. You are committing the exact fallacy that I am arguing is committed. Whether one Christian or Muslim is a different kind of Christian or Muslim from another doesn't make them not religious, in a general sense. The comparison is religion, and atheism, not any specific religion, with atheism. Also, every Christian isn't part of each other's "religious community". The Westboro Baptists are their own community. Not even remotely all Christians accept the same dogmas and tenets that they do.

You're the atheist, you shouldn't expect a uniformity of religious belief if you think of religion as a human construction. You should think that Christianity, or any other religion was not handed down from on high, so what qualifies one as a member of such a religion is a matter of what people say. Since it was created, and is maintained by people.

As for Hitler, there is the reductio ad hitlerum, and Godwin's Law to describe just this inclination to attempt to link positions one disagrees with, with Hitler, or Nazism. If you think that only Christians do this, and no atheist ever attempt to link people, or positions to Hitler, or Nazism, then I really don't think that you have been paying attention.  

Atheists don't have the same advantage. You can't say Stalin wasn't a real atheist. He was. He didn't believe in God, thus he was an atheist. And no matter how many awful things he did to millions of people the atheist can't say he wasn't an atheist. However the atheist can correctly point out that atheism itself is not what drove Stalin to do what he did, rather the corrupting power he held was much more influential in that regard.

Perhaps not, but atheists can say that they are not Stalinists, and do not agree with the dogmas and tenets that Stalin agreed with. So can religious people. This is my point.

So perhaps the generalizations are a negative force but the cheap way religious folk make their worst into 'unpersons' is just as much in need of being stopped.

I am rather bothered by this particularly. I am the one speaking to you, and I am the one formulating this argument. Don't attempt to criticize it by allusion to people that aren't me, or are not making this argument. Because you don't agree with some arguments that some Christians have made, I must come to bare? Every Christian, or every religious person is no more "mine" than everything atheist is "yours".

[karadan]

I've read through this thread twice. I dunno, maybe i am tired, but i still can't figure out your point Hitsumei.

[Hitsumei]

I've read through this thread twice. I dunno, maybe i am tired, but i still can't figure out your point Hitsumei.

I contend that the assertion made that "religion" is responsible for reprehensible acts is false, and based on invalid logic, I then attempt to justify my contention.

[karadan]

I've read through this thread twice. I dunno, maybe i am tired, but i still can't figure out your point Hitsumei.

I contend that the assertion made that "religion" is responsible for reprehensible acts is false, and based on invalid logic, I then attempt to justify my contention.

Religion certainly is the motivation some people need to commit reprehensible acts. It would, of course, be very unfair to label all religious people as having the motivation to do something horrible. Sure, many religious people really do try to do good with what they know. They just don't understand that you can be just as good without god and religion complicating matters.

[Hitsumei]

Religion certainly is the motivation some people need to commit reprehensible acts.

No, "religion" is not. Some specific religious dogmas or tenets might be however.

They just don't understand that you can be just as good without god and religion complicating matters.

This isn't necessarily so. What is "good" is a subjective matter. Many of the things someone thinks makes a "good person" may be inseparable from holding certain positions. This assertion presupposes your own conception of what is "good" and doesn't account for the fact that not everyone agrees with you.

[Squid]

I've read through this thread twice. I dunno, maybe i am tired, but i still can't figure out your point Hitsumei.

I contend that the assertion made that "religion" is responsible for reprehensible acts is false, and based on invalid logic, I then attempt to justify my contention.

I would actually agree, religion is not responsible - the crazy people within it are yet the religion, organization, country, whatever serves as a vehicle to carry out their desires thereby not only providing an excuse/purpose/reason/etc. but also seeking to make the actions validated in some fashion.  Make any sense?

I think this was Lennon's point - taking away those vehicles which people use to validate reprehensible actions and asked us to imagine those barriers taken away, those things that separate us and strive for peace with each other.

[Hitsumei]

I would actually agree, religion is not responsible - the crazy people within it are yet the religion, organization, country, whatever serves as a vehicle to carry out their desires thereby not only providing an excuse/purpose/reason/etc. but also seeking to make the actions validated in some fashion.  Make any sense?

It does make sense, and this does explain a lot. I would also agree however, that beliefs do dictate actions, and it is quite possible to think you're doing the right thing when you are not. I do not accept that every suicide bomber, witch hunter, or Nazi supporter were insane. I think that they were convinced that their actions were good, or necessary to result in a greater good.

Self-sacrifice, or even collateral damage is often considered justified in certain situations. Most of us, if not all of us are capable of it given the right circumstances, and the belief that our actions are both sufficient, and necessary to bring about a greater good.

For this reason, I would not be adverse to the suggestion that some specific dogmas and tenets are dangerous, and can be used to justify reprehensible acts. I am disagreeing with the invalid link from that, to "religion".

Though, I do think that we are largely on the same page, perhaps just different paragraphs.  

[SSY]

"Imagine no possessions"

From a man who had an air conditioned room in his New York apartment to store his fur coats.

As to the point of this thread, if there were no religions, it would be impossible to incite barbaric acts in religions name, ie 9/11, crusades/ spanish inquisition etc, no?

[Hitsumei]

As to the point of this thread, if there were no religions, it would be impossible to incite barbaric acts in religions name, ie 9/11, crusades/ spanish inquisition etc, no?

Tautologically so, but that doesn't mean that such events could not take place, or even that they would take place less often.

[Will]

I am referring to how it is used as an argument today. A slogan with a picture of the world trade centers behind it, implying that religion is to blame. Where both sides tally up bodies counts of religious and secular organizations, and people.

I don't get the same implication from the song, I think that it is used a little differently when employed this way.

OH, I misunderstood. Still, love that song.

As for the campaign, I don't think the suggestion is that all religion incites violence or hate, only that it can. In the same way, one could say "imagine no politics" or "imagine no *insert thing that causes people to put their ideology ahead of the value of life here*".

"Imagine no possessions"

From a man who had an air conditioned room in his New York apartment to store his fur coats.

Hahaha... He was an armchair communist.

[Hitsumei]

As for the campaign, I don't think the suggestion is that all religion incites violence or hate, only that it can. In the same way, one could say "imagine no politics" or "imagine no *insert thing that causes people to put their ideology ahead of the value of life here*".

If that is what people meant when stating it, then it is true of anything. It isn't logically impossible that anything at all could incite violence and hatred. It would be meaningless to state that unless you meant more than that.

They must mean to convey one of a few things:

1)Religion is responsible in a way that other motivations are not.
2)Religion is responsible for a far greater amount of violence and hatred
3)If there were no religions there would be less over all violence and hatred.

The justification for such specific assertions cannot be made by ambiguous allusions to the possibility that some unspecific dogma or tenet could be responsible for violence or hatred, and when dogmas and tenets are examined, and the worst of the worst presented, they will be confined to specific religious sects, and will not be part of all religions.

For the above reasons, my contention stands!