Imagine no religion/atheism.

[Will]

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.

It may be true of everything, but you have to take into account the rate at which it occurs. Someone could be incited to violence over chocolate, but I have to imagine that's exceedingly rare. Violence linked to religion is common, though, particularly in certain areas of the world.

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.

I'd have to go with 3. Removing a major contributing factor to war and violence would likely lead to a decrease in said war and violence. Where would the crusades have been without religion being used as the vehicle for expansionism? I don't see this as an unjustifiable stance. One could make a similar argument about political ideology and cite the cold war. Imagine no countries is equally justifiable.

I'll admit it's an oversimplification, but what slogan isn't?

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.

It's not just extremist Christian fundamentalists like Westboro or radical Islamofascists like Osama bin Laden that are the worst of religion, though. Some of it can be found in seemingly moderate or peaceful religion. One need not look further than California Proposition 8 to see that even progressive Christians are still hanging on a Biblical law that's given the same leturgical significance as wearing polyester with cotton. Admittedly, this isn't violence, but it's an attack on a specific group based in Biblical teachings, the same justification for Islamic fundamentalists attacking the West. My point is that it's not as simple as the "worst", and it's certainly not confined to a very select few.

[SteveS]

I think Hitsumei's original point about generalizing across religions being problematic is very valid.  In fact, I would extend Hitsumei's point, and say that generalizing across members within a particular religion also doesn't really work.  Surely, even though people might attend the same church, there are differences among their level of adherence and interpretation of their religion?  I guess people just stubbornly refuse to be treated as anything other than individuals.    )  Presuming this actually works (I obviously fear that it probably doesn't), this isn't even really self-sacrifice, is it?  It's simply a great trade - swapping a "crappy ordinary" life for a "hells yeah!" life.

P.S.
Hey, livefastdieyoung (great name BTW), your comments:

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?

classically remind me of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[Hitsumei]

It's not just extremist Christian fundamentalists like Westboro or radical Islamofascists like Osama bin Laden that are the worst of religion, though. Some of it can be found in seemingly moderate or peaceful religion. One need not look further than California Proposition 8 to see that even progressive Christians are still hanging on a Biblical law that's given the same leturgical significance as wearing polyester with cotton. Admittedly, this isn't violence, but it's an attack on a specific group based in Biblical teachings, the same justification for Islamic fundamentalists attacking the West. My point is that it's not as simple as the "worst", and it's certainly not confined to a very select few.

The example of homophobia is a valid one. It very often does turn to violence, and the fear is generally always laced with hatred. The problem with this view however is that it implicitly assumes that religion is the origin of homophobia, but if you believe religion to be a human construction, then this is not possible. Religion, and all of its principles, ideas, social, and political dictates are human, and from humans. From this, the assumption that they would disappear if religion did puts the cart before the horse.  

Especially since it takes a very special, and rather dishonest reading of the bible to conclude that homosexuality is as big a deal as the fundamentalists make out. You yourself allude to this fact. No reasonable reading of Leviticus would lead one to conclude that the most important message is that homosexuality is wrong. Leviticus is chalk full of social, political, economical, agricultural, and even fashion dictates that are completely ignored, but are stated no less authoritatively.

I think that it is strange to not see the bible as merely a very poor, and ad hoc'd justification for an already present fear and hatred of homosexuals. Lesbianism is only offered a passing mention by Paul at one point, where he refers to them as "empty headed" or some such -- which is not even remotely the level of condemnation eating shellfish gets, yet lesbianism is still treated as a terrible sin.

I think that it is simply unreasonable to conclude that if it wasn't for Paul calling lesbians "empty headed" that no Christians would hate them. Hating people because they differ from ourselves in someway is just something that humans do, and do often. It doesn't matter what the difference is. I think people are simply scapegoating religion, because they want something to blame, without having to blame it on people -- which is also something humans often do.

[Hitsumei]

If this is true, then what is a "reprehensible act" is also surely subjective.  One man's reprehensible act is another man's good act.  If we can't draw an objective distinction between a good act and a reprehensible act, then surely "religion is responsible for good acts" is also false (because we cannot objectively determine whether an action is good or not - a different person will view the reprehensible act that religion is not responsible for as a good act that religion is not responsible for, and vice versa).  So the question becomes simply "Is religion responsible for acts?".

No, because this demands an objective standard for a subjective matter, which is a category mistake. Because what is and isn't good cannot be determined objectively, does not mean that it can't be determined at all. Demanding that a subjective matter meet an objective standard is demanding the impossible, and is thus simply unreasonable.  

I didn't suggest that from livefastdieyoung's perspective, s/he isn't just as good as any religious person -- if s/he is like most people, s/he almost certainly thinks s/he is at least a little better.

What I objected to was the assertion that religious people need to accept that non-religious people can be just as good. In order for them to accept this, they would have to share the same opinion about what is good. That is why it is invalid, not because it cannot be determined objectively, but because it presupposes that everyone should share the same views.

My OP did not make this same mistake. I was unspecific for a reason, and was addressing specifically those that hold the view that religion is responsible for reprehensible acts, and then I meant to elucidate, that whatever that act was, or motivation was, it was not ubiquitous throughout religion, and thus the generalization would not stand as valid. I don't need to agree or disagree that they were reprehensible acts at all in order to do this.

Maybe, religion cannot be held responsible for human actions (be they good or evil; what's the diff if these are subjective).  

I'm willing to bet that there are countless examples where you would acknowledge a difference. Language is also subjective, it is completely the invention of people, varies from region to region, and evolves over time. That doesn't imply in the slightest that it doesn't matter which word I use, because there is no "objectively correct word choice".  

Maybe it doesn't make sense to attribute responsibility for action to an idea (maybe this is a category mistake - ideas cannot have responsibility).  Perhaps it makes more sense to attribute responsibility for an action to the person who commits the act.  This seems to be the point basically agreed upon between Mitsumei and Squid - that it is the people, and not religion, that are responsible for people's acts.  I'll go ahead and throw my hat in this ring as well - makes sense to me.

Surely the person bares the responsibility, but the motivation, and justification is not irrelevant. If you convince me that the only way to save my family, is to kill my neighbors, then in a court of law you would be held accountable for that. Most do consider justification, and motives to be relevant, although perhaps not "responsible", that was probably a poor word choice on my part.  

The thing Squid and Mitsumei both address is that there is a connection between beliefs and actions.  I don't know how to describe it either, but it does seem very real.  For example, Mitsumei's original objection was to the picture of the trade towers with "Imagine no religion" superimposed on top (I'm familiar with the image, didn't this come from Richard Dawkin's "movement", or whatever he calls it?).  Thinking of the 9/11 terrorists, I can't help but think that their belief that they wouldn't cease to exist when they die, but would rather continue on existing in heaven (paradise, infinite lifespan, no pain, no suffering, etc), would clearly influence their decision making process.

I don't think that a belief in an afterlife was what influenced them, I think that a exaltation of martyrdom -- and the belief that the west was evil, and a threat to the world is what influenced them. One hardly needs to believe in an afterlife to give up their own life for some reason -- especially when they think that it is necessary or good. I find it hard to believe that atheists would be less likely to trade their life for their loved ones than theists would be. Any atheist soldier is quite consciously risking their life for what they think is right. I find it very commendable to have something one cares enough about to be willing to die for.  

In fact, think about it.  If you believed you could trade life on earth for life in heaven, why wouldn't you?  Punch my ticket out of this painful, suffering infected, limited life and give me an "existential seat upgrade" to an unlimited life in a pain-free suffering-free paradise! (er, as long as they have beer up there, anyway    )  Presuming this actually works (I obviously fear that it probably doesn't), this isn't even really self-sacrifice, is it?  It's simply a great trade - swapping a "crappy ordinary" life for a "hells yeah!" life.

The vast majority of would be suicide bombers have given the idea of their own exaltation, parades, and the celebration that often follows in this life as the major reason for why they were willing to go through with it. I believe that the next in line was the lesser known promise that seventy people, friends and family get a free pass to paradise, and skip the judgment.

So, the major justification is a carnal one, that they know for a fact will take place, and the second is one of self-sacrifice, because of the belief that they will be saving their friends and family from any possibility of hell.

[SteveS]

Hey Hitsumei,

No, because this demands an objective standard for a subjective matter, which is a category mistake. Because what is and isn't good cannot be determined objectively, does not mean that it can't be determined at all. Demanding that a subjective matter meet an objective standard is demanding the impossible, and is thus simply unreasonable.

I didn't suggest that from livefastdieyoung's perspective, s/he isn't just as good as any religious person -- if s/he is like most people, s/he almost certainly thinks s/he is at least a little better.

What I objected to was the assertion that religious people need to accept that non-religious people can be just as good. In order for them to accept this, they would have to share the same opinion about what is good. That is why it is invalid, not because it cannot be determined objectively, but because it presupposes that everyone should share the same views.

My OP did not make this same mistake. I was unspecific for a reason, and was addressing specifically those that hold the view that religion is responsible for reprehensible acts, and then I meant to elucidate, that whatever that act was, or motivation was, it was not ubiquitous throughout religion, and thus the generalization would not stand as valid. I don't need to agree or disagree that they were reprehensible acts at all in order to do this.

I don't think we disagree, nor did I mean to imply that your OP made this "same mistake".  I'm just reasoning out what I meant to be my basic agreement.  For example,

What I objected to was the assertion that religious people need to accept that non-religious people can be just as good.

All I mean to do is point out that this works both ways.  For example, atheists would certainly not need to accept that religious people can be just as good as non-religious people.

Likewise, when somebody argues that religion, as a generic idea, is essential to mankind because it is religion that is responsible for "good" acts, we wouldn't have to agree on whether or not these acts are "good" in order to say that this generalization will also fail.

From my own (subjective )

Surely the person bares the responsibility, but the motivation, and justification is not irrelevant. If you convince me that the only way to save my family, is to kill my neighbors, then in a court of law you would be held accountable for that. Most do consider justification, and motives to be relevant, although perhaps not "responsible", that was probably a poor word choice on my part.

I think we're on the same page here.  I understand the idea and I agree with it.

I find it hard to believe that atheists would be less likely to trade their life for their loved ones than theists would be. Any atheist soldier is quite consciously risking their life for what they think is right. I find it very commendable to have something one cares enough about to be willing to die for.

I guess we disagree about this.  I find it astonishing that if one person considers death to be the end of their existence and another does not, that this difference will result in zero difference in any evaluation that involves their death.  You honestly think it makes no difference to a person, when contemplating taking an action that will result in their own death, whether or not that person thinks they will live on in another capacity, or will simply cease to exist?  If it turns out that there is no difference, then I would seriously call into question whether or not anybody truly believes in an afterlife (maybe they just say they do).

So, the major justification is a carnal one, that they know for a fact will take place, and the second is one of self-sacrifice, because of the belief that they will be saving their friends and family from any possibility of hell.

Okay, but I'm having some trouble with this.  If the person in question gets a fast-pass to heaven with the added benefit of saving their friends and family from hell, then what exactly are they giving up?  If they aren't giving up anything, or if what they are giving up is of less value than what they are gaining, how can this properly be called a sacrifice?

[Hitsumei]

All I mean to do is point out that this works both ways.  For example, atheists would certainly not need to accept that religious people can be just as good as non-religious people.

Perhaps I've being a bit anal here, but I think they do. There can be religious atheists, and there is also nothing impossible about a non-religious person thinking that religious people are better. Taking both of these into account, I do think that it is something that they have to accept is true, it isn't necessitated by their position, though perhaps implied, in a practical sense.

I find it astonishing that if one person considers death to be the end of their existence and another does not, that this difference will result in zero difference in any evaluation that involves their death.  

I never said that.

You honestly think it makes no difference to a person, when contemplating taking an action that will result in their own death, whether or not that person thinks they will live on in another capacity, or will simply cease to exist?  If it turns out that there is no difference, then I would seriously call into question whether or not anybody truly believes in an afterlife (maybe they just say they do).

Whether there is a difference in their emotional level or not may sway them, but history is hardly barren of secularists willing to give up their life for something. Fear of death, and pain is visceral, and not something one can just turn off because they have accepted some string of metaphysical and ontological positions.

If people didn't fear death, then their would be no need to believe in an afterlife. Fear of death and pain is a very important, and prominent artifact of our evolutionary heritage.

Okay, but I'm having some trouble with this.  If the person in question gets a fast-pass to heaven with the added benefit of saving their friends and family from hell, then what exactly are they giving up?  If they aren't giving up anything, or if what they are giving up is of less value than what they are gaining, how can this properly be called a sacrifice?

They're giving up their life. You surely don't believe that people that believe in an afterlife don't fear death. Arguably people that believe in an afterlife fear it more than people that don't.

[Ihateyoumike]

For example, Mitsumei's original objection was to the picture of the trade towers with "Imagine no religion" superimposed on top

[Squid]

I'm not certain if there is research upon the hypothesis but I would wager that those who are of the zealot variety no matter the religion have their ideology as a "drug" of choice - I would be curious to see if the similar neural correlates are involved in the two...I think it's in interesting idea as the concept of addiction isn't confined to substances we take into our bodies but just some type of stimuli from our environment...falling in love is one of the biggest addictions almost everyone experiences.

[SteveS]

All I mean to do is point out that this works both ways. For example, atheists would certainly not need to accept that religious people can be just as good as non-religious people.

Perhaps I've being a bit anal here, but I think they do. There can be religious atheists, and there is also nothing impossible about a non-religious person thinking that religious people are better. Taking both of these into account, I do think that it is something that they have to accept is true, it isn't necessitated by their position, though perhaps implied, in a practical sense.

Hang on, let's rewind this for a moment.  Specifically, you said:

What I objected to was the assertion that religious people need to accept that non-religious people can be just as good. In order for them to accept this, they would have to share the same opinion about what is good.

However, when I said:

atheists would certainly not need to accept that religious people can be just as good as non-religious people.

then the answer somehow changes?  Isn't the same objection valid, that they would have to share the same opinion about what is good?

Hopefully you see the problem.  Specifically, using the exact same reasoning, I can say:

I object to the assertion that non-religious people need to accept that religious people can be just as good.  In order for them to accept this, they would have to share the same opinion about what is good.

Also,

You surely don't believe that people that believe in an afterlife don't fear death. Arguably people that believe in an afterlife fear it more than people that don't.

It seems to me that you've weakened my original statement somewhat.  I originally stated that if you had an opportunity to exchange life on earth for life in heaven then I don't understand why you wouldn't do it.  I acknowledge that you raise a good point in that the type of afterlife you believe in will also surely be important.

If a person believes they will be rewarded in the afterlife and be free from pain and suffering and "live" (or, "after live", or whatever "living" after "death" is) forever, then I don't understand why they should fear death.

If a person believes they will be punished in the afterlife, then yes, it makes sense that such a person may fear death more than a non-afterlife-believer.  In fact, even if a person believes they may be punished, I can see how this might make them more afraid as well.  Just please understand that my original comment was made regarding getting a "fast pass to heaven", i.e.,  a person believing they will be rewarded in paradise after death.

[Hitsumei]

then the answer somehow changes?  Isn't the same objection valid, that they would have to share the same opinion about what is good?

I think I may have misunderstand your original point. I thought that you were saying that an atheist would not need to accept that non-religious people can be just as good as a religious person because they themselves would be non-religious people, and would thus be obliged to believe that they are capable of being just as good as a religious person. I then meant to point out that an atheist can be religious, or hold the position that religious people are better than non-religious people regardless of the fact that they themselves were non-religious.

I now see that you were saying that atheists can in fact hold the position that non-religious people are capable of being better than religious people by virtue of being non-religious. You're right, they are quite capable of holding that position.

Perhaps my bias was preventing me from understanding what you meant.  

It seems to me that you've weakened my original statement somewhat.  I originally stated that if you had an opportunity to exchange life on earth for life in heaven then I don't understand why you wouldn't do it.  I acknowledge that you raise a good point in that the type of afterlife you believe in will also surely be important.

I don't think that all of the reason in the world can squelch instinct. We may be able to do things in spite of our instincts, but we can't stop ourselves from having instincts.  

If a person believes they will be rewarded in the afterlife and be free from pain and suffering and "live" (or, "after live", or whatever "living" after "death" is) forever, then I don't understand why they should fear death.

Because fear isn't rational, it is visceral. We have no rational control over our emotions. You can no more stop yourself from being afraid of something that you have been programmed over the last two hundred million years to fear (any evolutionary-biologists can correct me on this, I am just making a rather loose estimation on when the fear centers of the reptilian brain evolved), then you can stop yourself from feeling sexual desire. Perhaps with chemicals, or some other inhibitor, but not by pure will.

If a person believes they will be punished in the afterlife, then yes, it makes sense that such a person may fear death more than a non-afterlife-believer.  In fact, even if a person believes they may be punished, I can see how this might make them more afraid as well.  Just please understand that my original comment was made regarding getting a "fast pass to heaven", i.e.,  a person believing they will be rewarded in paradise after death.

This isn't what I mean. I am saying that people that believe in an afterlife seem to me to need it more, because they fear death far more than people that don't. How many theists ask you how you could possibly live knowing that it will all end someday? Where as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and other atheists and secularists say how they don't require an afterlife, or, in Hitchen's case, wouldn't even want one.

From my experience atheists tend to be far less worried about their mortality than theists are -- this implies to me that theists are afraid of death more than atheists in general. I could of course be wrong, but I do think that it is debatable.

[SteveS]

I now see that you were saying that atheists can in fact hold the position that non-religious people are capable of being better than religious people by virtue of being non-religious. You're right, they are quite capable of holding that position.

Excellent - then we're back on the same page.

I don't think that all of the reason in the world can squelch instinct. We may be able to do things in spite of our instincts, but we can't stop ourselves from having instincts.

Okay.  We can overcome, but not squelch.  I'm fine with this.

Because fear isn't rational, it is visceral. We have no rational control over our emotions. You can no more stop yourself from being afraid of something that you have been programmed over the last two hundred million years to fear (any evolutionary-biologists can correct me on this, I am just making a rather loose estimation on when the fear centers of the reptilian brain evolved), then you can stop yourself from feeling sexual desire. Perhaps with chemicals, or some other inhibitor, but not by pure will.

I think there can be a rational fear as well.  For example, here's one of my current rational fears:

The Chicago Blackhawks have lost 3 of 4 games against the Minnesota Wild this season.  If they face them in the playoffs, I'm afraid they are going to lose to them.  (You can properly infer that I'm a Blackhawks fan

Now that I understand ---- I don't know, this is a really interesting idea.  I was looking at it more from "how does your belief affect your fear", but maybe it is the fear that affects the belief.  (shrugs).  I acknowledge that this is an interesting way of considering the issue, but unfortunately, I don't know how to further this idea.  

[Hitsumei]

To be determined: will using a hockey example please you on account of the fact that you're Canadian, or will it annoy you because you've had enough of hockey already?  (Inquiring minds want to know.....)

I don't know anything about sports. That's Canadian guys. I have never watched an entire game of hockey, not in person, or on TV. I don't mind golf, for some reason. I find it kind of tranquil. The only sports seem kind of violent, and too competitive for my liking. So I don't understand the sports references. Sorry.  [/quote]

We really can't, as long as you agree that it is plausible, then the next step is observation, and research. This is the kind of stuff we are still working on in the humanities, but we will hopefully find the answers to such questions within our lifetimes, with the great work being done in neuroscience, evolutionary-psychology, and such.    

I'm happy with a stalemate with regard to this, and I think that this was the only point left that we weren't in agreement on, so I am happy to leave that off, if you are.

[SteveS]

I don't know anything about sports. That's Canadian guys.

Meh - that's cool.  I'm not sexist.
(sweet)

[Hitsumei]

I don't like alcohol, I prefer to hang on to my inhibitions -- had some bad experiences while drunk. I'm just not fun anymore.

I do do illegal drugs however. Nothing like a spiritual experience in capsule form.   :secret:  :crazy:  :cool:

[Will]

The example of homophobia is a valid one. It very often does turn to violence, and the fear is generally always laced with hatred. The problem with this view however is that it implicitly assumes that religion is the origin of homophobia, but if you believe religion to be a human construction, then this is not possible. Religion, and all of its principles, ideas, social, and political dictates are human, and from humans. From this, the assumption that they would disappear if religion did puts the cart before the horse.

I apologize if I gave the impression that I believe religion causes homophobia. It doesn't. It enables and promotes existing homophobia the way that very little else can, though. If it weren't for religion protecting homophobia, it would be a lot harder to get away with outright acts of such bigotry in society.

Especially since it takes a very special, and rather dishonest reading of the bible to conclude that homosexuality is as big a deal as the fundamentalists make out. You yourself allude to this fact. No reasonable reading of Leviticus would lead one to conclude that the most important message is that homosexuality is wrong. Leviticus is chalk full of social, political, economical, agricultural, and even fashion dictates that are completely ignored, but are stated no less authoritatively.

With due respect, the OT is 100% clear on homosexuality; it's a sin, an abomination. It is an act which god condemns. Actually, an honest reading of the Bible by a true believer should end with the conclusion that one honestly should not wear garments of different materials and all of the other rules and regulations spelled out. The dishonest religious people are the so-called cafeteria Christians (not a term I particularly like), who are ready to totally accept that a demigod could literally walk on water and come back from the dead, but that somehow the rules about the Sabbath aren't relevant anymore. And that's a commandment.