Happy Atheist Forum

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.

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".

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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

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.  

QuoteAtheists 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.

QuoteSo 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".

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

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "karadan"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.

QuoteThey 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.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "Squid"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.  

"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?

Quote from: "SSY"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.

Quote from: "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.

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*".

Quote from: "SSY""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.

Quote from: "Will"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!

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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?

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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.

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:

Quote from: "livefastdieyoung"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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman) fallacy.

Quote from: "Will"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.

Quote from: "SteveS"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.

QuoteMaybe, 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".  

QuoteMaybe 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.  

QuoteThe 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.  

QuoteIn 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.

Hey Hitsumei,

Quote from: "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,

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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 ;) )

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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).

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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?

Quote from: "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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteOkay, 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.

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

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg262.imageshack.us%2Fimg262%2F8614%2Fimaginenoreligion.jpg&hash=70072b6234e7bdee1e982ed0965b5be3e11a5877)

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.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "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:

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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:

Quote from: "SteveS"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,

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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.

Quote from: "SteveS"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.  

QuoteIt 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.  

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteIf 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.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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.  

Quote from: "SteveS"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.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I don't know anything about sports. That's Canadian guys.

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

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:

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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.

Quote from: "Will"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.

Can you offer an argument for this, and not just assert it? I at least do not find it obvious. If you attempt to point to secular nations today that are accepting of homosexuality, then I can just as easily point to ancient religious societies that also were. There is also far more stigma, and less progression towards gay rights in highly secular nations today, such as Japan, China, and North Korea. The social stigma towards being gay there is far greater than in the highly religious USA.

I'm not denying that in modernity, the worst places to be if gay are the most religious Muslim countries, but it is just counter-factual to say that there is an obvious link between religion and homophobia, or that it cannot thrive just as productively in secular nations as it does religious nations.  

QuoteWith 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.

I think you misunderstood me. I said that it took a dishonest reading of Leviticus because homosexuality is no more condemned than many other things which go completely ignored by those that latch on to the condemnation of homosexuality. Why is homosexuality singled out when it is not the main focus? I did not say that it wasn't condemned, I said that all of the other things that are condemned just as furiously are ignored.

To elucidate my point I will use the flip side of Richard Dawkins' moral zeitgeist argument. He argues that people cherry pick through the bible, and find good passages that support their already held moral leanings, and that their moral opinions emphatically are not taken from the bible. Do you agree with this? I am simply suggesting that the flip side is also true -- that people cherry pick it to support their already held not so moral leanings. I think that if you accept Richard Dawkins' argument, then you are rationally obligated to accept mine -- it follows precisely the same line of reasoning.

How is his suggestion anymore plausible than mine? How does his suggestion account for the cherry picking of moral precepts, better than mine accounts for the cherry picking of prejudicial ones?  

As for your rebuke towards all non-fundamentalist Christians, that is simply a red herring, it holds no relevance to the point I am making -- though I will just say that I am more than pleased that not all Christians are fundamentalists, quite frankly.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Can you offer an argument for this, and not just assert it?

I assumed it was just general knowledge. I was going to point out that there is a direct relationship between the level of Christianity/Islam in a country and homophobia, but you seem to think that there was some time in history that wasn't true:

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I at least do not find it obvious. If you attempt to point to secular nations today that are accepting of homosexuality, then I can just as easily point to ancient religious societies that also were. There is also far more stigma, and less progression towards gay rights in highly secular nations today, such as Japan, China, and North Korea. The social stigma towards being gay there is far greater than in the highly religious USA.

Greece and early Rome were not Abrahamic in the least, they were polytheistic. Most of the earlier polytheistic religions had no issue with homosexuality, so of course they were more accepting (which kinda demonstrates my point). Severe homophobia didn't really start popping up until late Rome to the fall. The Dark Ages in Europe were very homophobic, as was a great deal of the Middle East and Northern Africa as Islam spread. Both religions preach against homosexuality, and where they both had influence homosexuality was persecuted.

The last time I was in Japan, it was clear that they didn't have a problem with homosexuality the way Americans do (though I was only in Toyko, which I would imagine could be more progressive than suburban or rural areas). Japan has no laws against homosexuality, many places in America have "sodomy" laws which include homosexuality. I think that sets us apart. North Korea represents the other major enabler of homophobia: the tyrannical state. North Korea is extremely conservative by any measure, and a part of the state's stranglehold on the populace is asserting their dominance over culture. The government, as far as I understand, links homosexuality to immoral, capitalist ideals. It's the same crap that we saw during the Cold War.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I'm not denying that in modernity, the worst places to be if gay are the most religious Muslim countries, but it is just counter-factual to say that there is an obvious link between religion and homophobia, or that it cannot thrive just as productively in secular nations as it does religious nations.

The areas in the US with the highest gay populations are generally more secular. Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, Portland; all higher than average gay populations, all have a lower percentage of religious people. It thrives in areas where the likelihood of discrimination are the lowest, and in the US, that's the more secular areas. It's the same in Europe.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I think you misunderstood me. I said that it took a dishonest reading of Leviticus because homosexuality is no more condemned than many other things which go completely ignored by those that latch on to the condemnation of homosexuality. Why is homosexuality singled out when it is not the main focus? I did not say that it wasn't condemned, I said that all of the other things that are condemned just as furiously are ignored.

I was agreeing with you, albeit from a slightly different direction. My point was that because people find some of the laws (shellfish, menstruation etc.) ludicrous, they should regard all of Biblical law in that way. Those very few that do avoid eating shellfish or don't wear clothing of different fabrics or that grow their beard and that literally do nothing on Saturday (the original Sabbath), are the only ones that should be religious. Everyone else is being hypocritical, whether they're homophobic or not.

Quote from: "Will"Greece and early Rome were not Abrahamic in the least, they were polytheistic. Most of the earlier polytheistic religions had no issue with homosexuality, so of course they were more accepting (which kinda demonstrates my point). Severe homophobia didn't really start popping up until late Rome to the fall. The Dark Ages in Europe were very homophobic, as was a great deal of the Middle East and Northern Africa as Islam spread. Both religions preach against homosexuality, and where they both had influence homosexuality was persecuted.

No, this demonstrates my point, actually.    

Look at what I was responding to in my previous post, you said: "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."

You say "religion", and now when challenged fall back on specific religious, dogmas, and tenets that do not exist in all religions. So this does not support your original assertion, and I have never denied that there are some specific dogmas and tenets that can motivate violence or hatred. In fact on the first page in respond to Squid I said: "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"."

Which is precisely what you are attempting to do here.

QuoteThe areas in the US with the highest gay populations are generally more secular. Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, Portland; all higher than average gay populations, all have a lower percentage of religious people. It thrives in areas where the likelihood of discrimination are the lowest, and in the US, that's the more secular areas. It's the same in Europe.

Since there exists secular homophobic nations, and there have existed religious nations accepting of homosexuality -- as I attempted to preempt -- this demonstrates nothing more than that the largest religious sects in those specific regions included homophobic leanings, and that the general move towards secularism, together with the evolution of the moral zeitgeist, has correlated to cause the impression that the two are necessarily linked, when they are not. If the acceptance of homophobia were a product of secularization, then it should have been present in all nations that moved towards secularization, but it is not -- and if it were true that homophobia is necessarily bolstered, propagated, or perpetuated by religion, then this should be the case in all nations that leaned towards religiosity, but this is also not the case.

My explanation accounts for why this is, whereas yours does not.      

QuoteI was agreeing with you, albeit from a slightly different direction. My point was that because people find some of the laws (shellfish, menstruation etc.) ludicrous, they should regard all of Biblical law in that way. Those very few that do avoid eating shellfish or don't wear clothing of different fabrics or that grow their beard and that literally do nothing on Saturday (the original Sabbath), are the only ones that should be religious. Everyone else is being hypocritical, whether they're homophobic or not.

I must admit to finding it a small bit comical how I have been repeatedly asked if other Christians consider each other "true Christians" with a air of delight. Yet, many of you seem to have no trouble dictating what is and isn't a "true Christian" without batting an eyelash.

Not ever remotely all Christian sects take a literalist approach to the bible, and the largest ones, like the Catholics have never taken the position that the bible is the only inspired word of god, or that it is literal. They have a large body of theological writing by members that they take equally seriously. Even in the most early years of the church a literalist interpretation of many of the writings was considered unreasonable.

I'm not hear to defend theology, Christianity, or any specific religious dogmas or tenets, but all because sects don't read the bible, or develop their sects dogmas and tenets like you think they ought to does not make them hypocrites. You could ask them how they can tell which to interpret as literal, and which as allegory, or metaphor, or which applied then, and what applies now -- and be completely unsatisfied with their answer. Think that it is completely insufficient, and wrong, but that doesn't make them hypocrites unless they think that the bible is completely literal, and that all of its dictates still apply, but then don't take it all literally, and do not adhere to all of its dictates. This however is a very rare Christian position indeed. Most religious people get their religious advice from their priests, pastors, rabbis, and other religious leaders, and merely trust that they know what they are talking about. Calling them hypocrites (for that particular reason) is just false, counter-productive, and totally mean!  

In any case, I would rather stick to the point of my thread, and not be dragged onto these tangents by these red herrings.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"No, this demonstrates my point, actually.    

Look at what I was responding to in my previous post, you said: "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."

You say "religion", and now when challenged fall back on specific religious, dogmas, and tenets that do not exist in all religions. So this does not support your original assertion, and I have never denied that there are some specific dogmas and tenets that can motivate violence or hatred. In fact on the first page in respond to Squid I said: "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"."

Which is precisely what you are attempting to do here.

I wouldn't call the Bible and Qu'ran specific religions, dogmas, and tenants, though. They represent the religious texts of a large majority of the planet, roughly 3.6 billion people. That's the effect of religion.

Still, my point is wider than that. Religion as a philosophy has a much wider range of influence. If Buddhism taught homosexuality was wrong, don't you think that would enable many Buddhists to indulge their bigotry towards homosexuals? Religion, all religion, enables behavior and beliefs that wouldn't otherwise be tolerated. I just used homosexuality as an example and then cited how some religion has influenced people's behaviors and attitudes. It enables behavior and beliefs in a way very little else can because people take it so seriously. Imagine no religion is to imagine a world in which there would be one less philosophy to enable hatred and bigotry. Imagine no Leviticus for bigots to try and defend their bigotry. Imagine no hadith which does the same.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Since there exists secular homophobic nations, and there have existed religious nations accepting of homosexuality -- as I attempted to preempt -- this demonstrates nothing more than that the largest religious sects in those specific regions included homophobic leanings, and that the general move towards secularism, together with the evolution of the moral zeitgeist, has correlated to cause the impression that the two are necessarily linked, when they are not. If the acceptance of homophobia were a product of secularization, then it should have been present in all nations that moved towards secularization, but it is not -- and if it were true that homophobia is necessarily bolstered, propagated, or perpetuated by religion, then this should be the case in all nations that leaned towards religiosity, but this is also not the case.

My explanation accounts for why this is, whereas yours does not.

I was using homophobia as a simple example of Christianity and Islam being used to enable bigotry. And you can see mountains of evidence for that. Other religions that don't necessarily have influence when it comes to homosexuality still have the same kind of influence. It's the level of influence, the ability to enable that I think the "Imagine no religion" is referencing. It's not as simple as "religion causes bad things".

Quote from: "Will"I wouldn't call the Bible and Qu'ran specific religions, dogmas, and tenants, though. They represent the religious texts of a large majority of the planet, roughly 3.6 billion people. That's the effect of religion.

Another generalization. There are multiple sects within "Christianity" and "Islam", and arguably each individuals has their own specific dogmas and tenets that they accept that reflects their own dispositions. Are you implying that all Christians and Muslims are homophobic?

QuoteStill, my point is wider than that. Religion as a philosophy has a much wider range of influence. If Buddhism taught homosexuality was wrong, don't you think that would enable many Buddhists to indulge their bigotry towards homosexuals?

Interestingly enough, the Dalai Lama has said anti-homosexual things in the past, but has restated his position to a more accepting position to conform with the times. Though, this is irrelevant. Does religion hold influence over people? Yes. Can that be conceivably used to promote hatred and violence? Yes. Is religion the only thing with influence? No. Are other things with influence any less capable of being utilized to promote violence or hatred? No.

QuoteReligion, all religion, enables behavior and beliefs that wouldn't otherwise be tolerated.

Justify this assertion.

QuoteI just used homosexuality as an example and then cited how some religion has influenced people's behaviors and attitudes.

You did precisely what I said people do. You made a assertion about all religions, and then attempted to justify it by pointing at specific dogmas and tenets that do not exist in all religions, then attempted to generalize from those. This is invalid logic. In order to justify such an assertion you need to demonstrate a negative trait that all religions necessarily share. You have -- thus far -- failed to accomplish this.  

QuoteIt enables behavior and beliefs in a way very little else can because people take it so seriously.

People take politics less seriously than religion?

QuoteImagine no religion is to imagine a world in which there would be one less philosophy to enable hatred and bigotry. Imagine no Leviticus for bigots to try and defend their bigotry. Imagine no hadith which does the same.

Do you think that allusion to Leviticus to justify their bigotry is such an excellent justification that is simply couldn't be replaced with something just as valid and convincing?

QuoteI was using homophobia as a simple example of Christianity and Islam being used to enable bigotry. And you can see mountains of evidence for that. Other religions that don't necessarily have influence when it comes to homosexuality still have the same kind of influence. It's the level of influence, the ability to enable that I think the "Imagine no religion" is referencing. It's not as simple as "religion causes bad things".

I'm taking it too literally, am I? Not seeing the allegorical, metaphorical significance?  :)

Although I'm replying to the OP, I have read the whole thread.

Quote"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.

I agree with you. Here's an example. Sometimes boxers are injured in boxing matches. I believe this is undesirable. "Imagine no competition". "Imagine no chess".

I will add something. Not disagree, add . Responsibility is subjective. To me it is a relation I perceive between a person or group of people on one side and a consequence on the other. The person or group of people need not have caused the consequence for me to perceive a relation of responsibility, though often they will have caused it. I would not perceive "religion" as being responsible for something because "religion" is not a person on group of people. I could but I wouldn't. I suppose it is possible I might perceive the group of all religious people as being responsible for something but I can't imagine what they would all have to do for that arise!

To demonstrate how differently people can perceive responsibility, consider this example.

QuoteCan we stop the fires? Yes we can! But it will take God’s children to rally together and repent and cry unto Him as in 2 Chronicles 7:14 (The Holy Bible). We at CTFM have seen this happen several times in the past in Australia, which was also covered by many mainstream media outlets.

In our prayer and fasting campaign, we are particularly repenting for the passing of the ‘Decriminalization of Abortion Laws of Victoria’ in addition to other unrighteous, ungodly, and unjust laws and practices which have seen a holocaust of some of the most helpless members of the human race, the unborn.

That was Pastor Danny Nalliah in a press release following the recent bush fires in Victoria, Australia. I find this quote hard to understand but I suspect he thought that those who passed the decriminalization of abortion law were responsible for the fires. If I am right, then he saw responsibility in a very different way to me. If I am wrong, I hope this example demonstrates that wildly different ideas about responsibility are at least possible.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Does religion hold influence over people? Yes. Can that be conceivably used to promote hatred and violence? Yes. Is religion the only thing with influence? No. Are other things with influence any less capable of being utilized to promote violence or hatred? No.

This was my point all along. Imagine one less mechanism for enabling hatred and violence in the world. Imagine no religion. Except it's not "conceivably" used to promote hatred and violence, it commonly is. I justified that assertion by citing homophobia.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"You did precisely what I said people do. You made a assertion about all religions, and then attempted to justify it by pointing at specific dogmas and tenets that do not exist in all religions, then attempted to generalize from those. This is invalid logic. In order to justify such an assertion you need to demonstrate a negative trait that all religions necessarily share. You have -- thus far -- failed to accomplish this.

That's not relevant. It's the continuing potential to cause hatred and violence that matters most, and it's that which is referenced via suggestion in the ad.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"People take politics less seriously than religion?

You're presenting a false choice. I never said that religion was worse than politics in it's potential to incite the worst in people, I simply said religion could. It's both and not either or. The advertisement wasn't placed by anarchists, though, it was placed by atheists, so their beef is with religion.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Do you think that allusion to Leviticus to justify their bigotry is such an excellent justification that is simply couldn't be replaced with something just as valid and convincing?

Don't act as if religion can simply be replaced. Let me put it this way: how difficult would it have been to burn young women at the stake for witchcraft if there was no religion or superstition? What political or social dogmas could be imposed to recreate that so effectively? I can't think of any.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Again, "Christianity" does not enable bigotry, a specific, rather dishonest, and literalist reading of the bible does. Something that not all Christians, or Christians sects endorse. I'm not hugely knowledgeable on Islam, but I do know that it contains multiple sects, though I am more than confident than not all Muslims are homophobic.

It's the loose interpretation of the Bible that's dishonest. Either you believe the book was written by the creator and ruler of the universe or not. Either the book is correct or the book is not. If you think the ignorant, bigoted stuff in Deuteronomy or Leviticus is wrong, the entire text is fallible and thus the only option is agnosticism. Since most Christians aren't agnostic and aren't literalists, they're lying to themselves. But that's not really relevant to the discussion.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I don't agree that religion uniquely is the only thing with enough influenced to be used to promote violence or hatred -- or even that if it were to disappear off of the face of the earth, other mediums with influence could not be utilized in its stead.

I never said religion was unique in this, in fact I cited politics before as another type of belief system that can enable hatred and violence. The advertisement happens to mention one, but that doesn't mean there aren't more.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"On a side note, I am enjoying our exchange, and I hope that you are as well.  :beer:

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Hitsumei"On a side note, I am enjoying our exchange, and I hope that you are as well. :beer:

And I'm enjoying reading your little exchange.  

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"And I'm enjoying reading your little exchange.  :blush:

Quote from: "Will"This was my point all along. Imagine one less mechanism for enabling hatred and violence in the world. Imagine no religion.

When a niche becomes available, the position isn't long becoming filled. I see no reason to suppose that religion is uniquely capable of filling such a niche.

QuoteThat's not relevant. It's the continuing potential to cause hatred and violence that matters most, and it's that which is referenced via suggestion in the ad.

Then again, unless it can be demonstrated that religion offers a unique potential that cannot be requisitioned anywhere else -- then it doesn't necessarily follow that the extirpation of religion would result in less over all hatred and violence. In order for this to follow, religion's potential to justify hatred and violence must be unique to religion, otherwise it could conceivably be delegated to other sources.    

QuoteYou're presenting a false choice. I never said that religion was worse than politics in it's potential to incite the worst in people, I simply said religion could. It's both and not either or. The advertisement wasn't placed by anarchists, though, it was placed by atheists, so their beef is with religion.

My point was that it is not either our, I was responding to your statement that seemed to imply that religion is something taken more seriously in a way that other things are not. I must have misunderstood.

Well, I don't think that anarchism, atheism, or a mistrust of religion are mutually exclusive positions.  

QuoteDon't act as if religion can simply be replaced. Let me put it this way: how difficult would it have been to burn young women at the stake for witchcraft if there was no religion or superstition? What political or social dogmas could be imposed to recreate that so effectively? I can't think of any.

Ignorance and superstition I think is sufficient. Neither of which are sufficient to constitute religion, though I know many of you may argue that they are necessary. Those are impossible to remove from the face of the earth. I an ignorant and afraid peasant, or farmer doesn't require religious permission to act on his fear of the witch living down the road.

The inquisition may have mandated, and organized witch hunts, and burnings -- but it is by no means impossible to think of a justification besides religious mandates to take such actions. Nor is religion responsible for ignorance, fear, or superstition.

QuoteIt's the loose interpretation of the Bible that's dishonest. Either you believe the book was written by the creator and ruler of the universe or not. Either the book is correct or the book is not. If you think the ignorant, bigoted stuff in Deuteronomy or Leviticus is wrong, the entire text is fallible and thus the only option is agnosticism. Since most Christians aren't agnostic and aren't literalists, they're lying to themselves. But that's not really relevant to the discussion.

Taking the bible to be inspired is not taking the bible to be literal, and incapable of error -- and even if one thinks that the original scriptures were, we don't have the originals, we have copies, of copies, of copies, of copies of copies that we just so happened to find in various places all over the world, or managed to survive until the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. Even if one did take the view that when god dictated it it was originally perfect, it would still be reasonable to conclude that now it is not. You would need to believe that anyone who had absolutely anything to do with the bible at any point in history was also entirely directed by god.

This doesn't demand agnosticism, or all of history would. I presume that you think that plenty of historical events took place, yet they were recorded by fallible people, and are all subject to mistake, distortions, and plain forgery.

What really demands the agnosticism is the position that supernatural claims require more evidence than natural ones. Carl Sagan's position that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is an epistemological position, however, and not everyone shares it. You cannot reasonably criticize people for doing things that would be unreasonable from your philosophical positions, if they don't hold those same positions.

You would consider a literal and absolute interpretation of any historical document that has gone through what the bible has unreasonable, even if you did think that the original was absolutely flawless.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "SSY"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.

Such events could still take place, but removing something that incites and preaches so much hatred and derrision would, I am willing to bet, reduce occurance of such terrible acts.

Quote from: "SSY"

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "SSY"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.

Such events could still take place, but removing something that incites and preaches so much hatred and derrision would, I am willing to bet, reduce occurance of such terrible acts.

You may think that it intuitive that that be the case, but I do not. So a demonstration is in order. Of course the best way to do that, would be to remove religion from the world, and then discount all relevant variables that may skew results, and see what happens. Too bad that is not possible. The next best thing is through deduction, and I have suggested in my above post how it can be deduced: by demonstrating that religion has unique qualities that result in violence and hatred that nothing else shares.

If neither of these can be accomplished, then your guess is no better than mine -- and I was under the impression that you'all rationalists require evidential and rational basis to believe things. Without an inductive or deductive demonstration, you have neither.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"When a niche becomes available, the position isn't long becoming filled. I see no reason to suppose that religion is uniquely capable of filling such a niche.

I never said it was unique, only that it's one of the big players. And honestly, the ad singling out religion doesn't even mean their position doesn't also allow for other, equally serious mechanisms for enabling hatred and violence. But you can't deny that it is among those most serious mechanisms for enabling violence and hatred. That's the ultimate point.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Then again, unless it can be demonstrated that religion offers a unique potential that cannot be requisitioned anywhere else -- then it doesn't necessarily follow that the extirpation of religion would result in less over all hatred and violence. In order for this to follow, religion's potential to justify hatred and violence must be unique to religion, otherwise it could conceivably be delegated to other sources.

It's a step in the right direction. Remove one of these mechanisms, and there will be one less mechanism. Remove two, and there will be two less. Assuming there are a finite amount of mechanisms, which I don't think is an unreasonable assumption, eventually there will be no more bastion for the level of hatred or violence. Moreover, there are certainly going to be people in the world for which religion is unique in it's enabling of prejudices. Should religion be removed from these people's lives, it's entirely possible that nothing would take it's place. I've even seen this change in people.

A friend of mine from elementary school, also the son of a pastor, was extremely bigoted towards members of other religions. He'd pick fights with them and ostracize them. Not long after I left religion, he did the same. He no longer has that bigotry, at all. It wasn't replaced.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Ignorance and superstition I think is sufficient. Neither of which are sufficient to constitute religion, though I know many of you may argue that they are necessary. Those are impossible to remove from the face of the earth. I an ignorant and afraid peasant, or farmer doesn't require religious permission to act on his fear of the witch living down the road.

The inquisition may have mandated, and organized witch hunts, and burnings -- but it is by no means impossible to think of a justification besides religious mandates to take such actions. Nor is religion responsible for ignorance, fear, or superstition.

That's just it, though. From the perspective of most atheists like myself, religion is the largest and most widespread incarnation of ignorance and superstition. No political belief or ignorance is as universal. It makes sense to start with religion when confronting ignorance and superstition. No offense.

Quote from: "Will"I never said it was unique, only that it's one of the big players. And honestly, the ad singling out religion doesn't even mean their position doesn't also allow for other, equally serious mechanisms for enabling hatred and violence. But you can't deny that it is among those most serious mechanisms for enabling violence and hatred. That's the ultimate point.

I don't think so. I think that religion is often used as a justification, because god is considered the ultimate authority to appeal to, but if that wasn't available, then I don't see why they wouldn't just appeal to other authorities.

QuoteIt's a step in the right direction. Remove one of these mechanisms, and there will be one less mechanism. Remove two, and there will be two less. Assuming there are a finite amount of mechanisms, which I don't think is an unreasonable assumption, eventually there will be no more bastion for the level of hatred or violence. Moreover, there are certainly going to be people in the world for which religion is unique in it's enabling of prejudices. Should religion be removed from these people's lives, it's entirely possible that nothing would take it's place. I've even seen this change in people.

The only thing that is going to remove inclinations towards hatred and violence in to start drugging the water supply, or start giving everyone lobotomies. Justifications do not make people do things, they merely offer the excuse for doing it.

People change for lots of reasons. Was it you that recently was attempting to explain the loss of an allergy? And explaining how something like that has multiple possible causes, and it would be unwise to just go with what superficial seems like the causation without more evidence? I would agree with that line of reasoning.  :crazy:  

Not only is this an anecdote, and thus doesn't meet the standards of the evidence demanded by science, and I see rejected by rationalists all the time -- but are you willing to say, not even that you are sure that this was the cause, but that there could be no other plausible causes? Don't you think that something that carries the implications that concluding that religion is bad in this way entails requires a little larger body of evidence than so far has been presented -- at the very least?  

You may not care about religion, but many many people do. You have to appreciate what the implications of campaigning for its destruction with so little justification are. I wouldn't stop drinking coffee if the same level of evidence were offered for its dangerousness -- let alone do something that would drastically change my worldview, and how I live my life. I think it is just civilly irresponsible to cause such unrest based on anecdote and innuendo.  

QuoteThat's just it, though. From the perspective of most atheists like myself, religion is the largest and most widespread incarnation of ignorance and superstition. No political belief or ignorance is as universal. It makes sense to start with religion when confronting ignorance and superstition. No offense.

No it does not. You're conflating correlation with causation. Most people are ignorant and carry superstitious opinions, and most people are religious. There are many many highly educated, and intelligent people who are religious. Most of the greatest minds who have ever lived. Lots of religious beliefs implies ignorance, but lots of beliefs in general do. A theistic belief does not. It isn't demonstrable that there are no gods. This isn't something anyone knows. It is perfectly possible to be completely up to date with modern knowledge, and still be a theist without rejecting any of it.

You can think they are wrong all you like, whether there is or isn't a god is not knowledge, or we would not be having this discussion.

Besides, "Secular" by no means implies less superstitious beliefs, have you read "A Demon Haunted World"? In it Carl Sagan goes over all of the superstitious beliefs in various countries, and the most secular by no means are lacking in them. Secular in no way implies less superstitious. The falling out of favor of religion in secular nations doesn't stop the thriving of regional superstitions.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I don't think so. I think that religion is often used as a justification, because god is considered the ultimate authority to appeal to, but if that wasn't available, then I don't see why they wouldn't just appeal to other authorities.

You think something else can come along and replace the creator of the universe in people's minds? Nothing did for me. For 14 years, I believed in an ultimate power and intellect in the universe, and then I didn't. For those first 14 years, had god appeared before me and asked me to kill someone, I would have seriously considered it. Nothing has even close to that power over me now.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"The only thing that is going to remove inclinations towards hatred and violence in to start drugging the water supply, or start giving everyone lobotomies. Justifications do not make people do things, they merely offer the excuse for doing it.

People change for lots of reasons. Was it you that recently was attempting to explain the loss of an allergy? And explaining how something like that has multiple possible causes, and it would be unwise to just go with what superficial seems like the causation without more evidence? I would agree with that line of reasoning.  

Nope, my allergies are still going strong. It may have been my little brother, though, he cured his asthma. Still, remove one cause and the allergies decrease. They may not disappear, but they decrease.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Not only is this an anecdote, and thus doesn't meet the standards of the evidence demanded by science, and I see rejected by rationalists all the time -- but are you willing to say, not even that you are sure that this was the cause, but that there could be no other plausible causes?

In his case? It was the cause. Unless he lied to me, which I kinda doubt.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"You may not care about religion, but many many people do. You have to appreciate what the implications of campaigning for its destruction with so little justification are. I wouldn't stop drinking coffee if the same level of evidence were offered for its dangerousness -- let alone do something that would drastically change my worldview, and how I live my life. I think it is just civilly irresponsible to cause such unrest based on anecdote and innuendo.

There's a ton of justifications that have nothing to do with violence. We were just concentrating on the hatred/violence aspect. I'm glad to expand this to the whole kitten kaboodle.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"No it does not. You're conflating correlation with causation. Most people are ignorant and carry superstitious opinions, and most people are religious. There are many many highly educated, and intelligent people who are religious. Most of the greatest minds who have ever lived. Lots of religious beliefs implies ignorance, but lots of beliefs in general do. A theistic belief does not. It isn't demonstrable that there are no gods. This isn't something anyone knows. It is perfectly possible to be completely up to date with modern knowledge, and still be a theist without rejecting any of it.

Correlation with causation? It's neither; it's enabling, or passive causation. While it's true I can't disprove god, one can absolutely demonstrate that a belief in god or gods is unfounded and unreasonable. It's been done on this very forum hundreds of times in myriad ways.

Quote from: "Will"You think something else can come along and replace the creator of the universe in people's minds? Nothing did for me. For 14 years, I believed in an ultimate power and intellect in the universe, and then I didn't. For those first 14 years, had god appeared before me and asked me to kill someone, I would have seriously considered it. Nothing has even close to that power over me now.

Well, that is you. Don't project from your mindset to everyone else's. If god appeared before me, and told me to kill someone, I would look into seeing how medical science could remedy that for me. Though, even if it really did turn out to be god, I would not be willing to do anything immoral that it told me to do. I'd gladly go to the fundamentalist's hell before I'd adhere to their moral outlooks.

I'd have to deny who I am, and live a subservient lie for all of eternity -- which would be more torture than I could bare. I'd rather be a hero in hell, than a coward in heaven.  

QuoteNope, my allergies are still going strong. It may have been my little brother, though, he cured his asthma. Still, remove one cause and the allergies decrease. They may not disappear, but they decrease.

No, I meant there was a thread, and someone was saying that their allergies magically disappeared for some reason, it is in this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2689) thread.

QuoteIn his case? It was the cause. Unless he lied to me, which I kinda doubt.

Because it is impossible that they would be wrong? Or other things influenced them? This is why the humanities, psychology, psychiatry, neurology, and other such fields exist. Because we are not fully aware of the things we do, or why we do them.

QuoteThere's a ton of justifications that have nothing to do with violence. We were just concentrating on the hatred/violence aspect. I'm glad to expand this to the whole kitten kaboodle.

Whether it is false or not does not imply that it needs to be eradicated, or that people should even stop being religious. There is nothing illogical about continuing to adhere to the rituals, precepts, and guidelines of a religion that you don't accept the metaphysical, or ontological claims of. In fact a large amount of religions have adherents like that. Only some 60%-80% of Hindus accept the metaphysical, and ontological claims of Hinduism. Far less Shintoists accept that the traditional Shinto gods, or heaven and hell are real. Most of these people accept their religion in no more sense than I do.

I am a cultural Christian, and Christianity is deeply rooted in my culture, and in yours. In other areas of the world their culture is deeply rooted in other religious traditions, and adhering to those traditions implies nothing more than an acceptance of this.

So, it does not follow that if the metaphysical, and ontological claims of any religion are false, then it ought to be removed from the world -- so I am not rationally obligated to defend the truth of any given religion to make my case. Beyond, "it's bad" and "it's false" I don't know what else you could throw at me.
 

QuoteCorrelation with causation? It's neither; it's enabling, or passive causation.

You completely ignored my argument against this. If this were true, then superstition would disappear with religious adherence, but it does not. How can you account for that given this position?

QuoteWhile it's true I can't disprove god, one can absolutely demonstrate that a belief in god or gods is unfounded and unreasonable. It's been done on this very forum hundreds of times in myriad ways.

Reason is merely a system by which we validly infer conclusions from premises. A belief in a god maybe unreasonable from several philosophical positions, but not all. You can't claim something to be categorically unreasonable, that is meaningless.

What is "founded" and "unfounded" is largely a matter of opinion after a subjective evaluation of information. If someone feels that intuition is foundation, then you can merely disagree, you can't say that they are wrong. There are no objective standards to judge when a belief is and isn't founded. That is a philosophical question, and largely up to person discretion.

Lastly you do not account for revelation. A surprisingly large amount of Christian that I have spoken to claim to have experienced one. I personally don't believe that they did, but I can't prove that they didn't, and if they did, then they have more than evidence or reasoning, they have proof. They can't share it, and can't show it to us, but that is irrelevant to whether or not it justifies their believing it.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Well, that is you. Don't project from your mindset to everyone else's.

That wasn't my point. I was simply stating that if it's that way for me it's not that way for noone.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"No, I meant there was a thread, and someone was saying that their allergies magically disappeared for some reason, it is in this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2689) thread.

Well that was clearly magic. Still, in real life, allergies can dissipate. With my little brother and his asthma, it was exercise and staying properly hydrated. Still, if he had only exercised or only stayed properly hydrated, it would have at least helped to alleviate his asthma. I think it illustrates my point about religion being one mechanism for enabling bad behaviors or beliefs. If, in a person, it's a combination of his religion and his politics that support his irrational hatred of a group of people, then removing religion would at least lessen that hatred.
Imagine no religion.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Because it is impossible that they would be wrong? Or other things influenced them? This is why the humanities, psychology, psychiatry, neurology, and other such fields exist. Because we are not fully aware of the things we do, or why we do them.

No, it's just likely that he has a better handle on what happened than you or I.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Whether it is false or not does not imply that it needs to be eradicated, or that people should even stop being religious.

It's not a call for eradication. It's a call to imagine; to think outside the box, to challenge previously unquestioned beliefs.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I am a cultural Christian, and Christianity is deeply rooted in my culture, and in yours. In other areas of the world their culture is deeply rooted in other religious traditions, and adhering to those traditions implies nothing more than an acceptance of this.

I don't have a culture to speak of as I'm a white person born and raised in the US. The closest thing I have to a culture is rooted in consumerism, so it's not really important to me.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"So, it does not follow that if the metaphysical, and ontological claims of any religion are false, then it ought to be removed from the world -- so I am not rationally obligated to defend the truth of any given religion to make my case. Beyond, "it's bad" and "it's false" I don't know what else you could throw at me.

The false/true thing is sort of important, but I don't think it's central to the argument for religion to have a decreased influence on our species. A more central argument might be how important it is for our species to mature intellectually, how religion has historically hindered scientific discovery and social evolution. Another might be a discussion about the effects of groupthink on large numbers of the populace. Another might be an argument about futility and how better to spend one's time. There are a dozen arguments I can think of.

Still, I'm not calling for religion to be eradicated or even reduced. All I ask is people think for themselves and try not to hurt others and themselves. If someone wants to believe in God or Shiva or Mork, that's their business. Live and let live.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"You completely ignored my argument against this. If this were true, then superstition would disappear with religious adherence, but it does not. How can you account for that given this position?

I think it's fallacious to suggest that because some intelligent people have been religious that somehow religion or superstition isn't counter-scientific or is acceptable in any way (necessarily). Plenty of very, very smart people are also incapable or even dysfunctional in other areas. Einstein was quite the wiz with math and science, but I wouldn't take relationship advice from him. Or style advice.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Reason is merely a system by which we validly infer conclusions from premises. A belief in a god maybe unreasonable from several philosophical positions, but not all. You can't claim something to be categorically unreasonable, that is meaningless.

It's unreasonable based on a system in which verifiable evidence is used to demonstrate the positive existence of a thing. Considering this is the system by which a vast majority of humans use on everything in their life besides god, it would make sense to use it as a method to determine whether belief in god is or isn't reasonable. If I told the average person there was an invisible dinosaur in his or her garage, he or she would naturally be very suspicious. Aren't dinosaurs extinct? How could it be invisible? Why is it in my garage? Who is this guy in my living room making illustrations about reason?  

For those rare people that wouldn't doubt my claim that there was an invisible dinosaur in their garage, that's fine, but they don't represent the vast majority of people.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"What is "founded" and "unfounded" is largely a matter of opinion after a subjective evaluation of information. If someone feels that intuition is foundation, then you can merely disagree, you can't say that they are wrong. There are no objective standards to judge when a belief is and isn't founded. That is a philosophical question, and largely up to person discretion.

Why believe anything, then? If you throw verifiable evidence out the window, you're throwing out everything you've ever experienced in your life. We're not talking about philosophy, though. We're talking about the real world, real people, and real consequences.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Lastly you do not account for revelation. A surprisingly large amount of Christian that I have spoken to claim to have experienced one. I personally don't believe that they did, but I can't prove that they didn't, and if they did, then they have more than evidence or reasoning, they have proof. They can't share it, and can't show it to us, but that is irrelevant to whether or not it justifies their believing it.

That's not proof considering that schizophrenia can sometimes be treated successfully with drugs and therapy. There's evidence for schizophrenia, there's none for divine revelation. It's more telling and to the point that the church will embrace someone that spoke to god whereas a psychologist might recommend that the person see a psychiatrist.

Quote from: "Will"If, in a person, it's a combination of his religion and his politics that support his irrational hatred of a group of people, then removing religion would at least lessen that hatred.
Imagine no religion.

That's a non sequitur. It would lessen their support for their hatred, not their hatred, and if their hatred is irrational -- as you say -- then it doesn't have any valid support to begin with.

QuoteNo, it's just likely that he has a better handle on what happened than you or I.

I'm not telling you that I know better. I am merely saying that since other plausible explanations exist, I see no sufficient reason to base anything on an anecdote.  

QuoteI don't have a culture to speak of as I'm a white person born and raised in the US. The closest thing I have to a culture is rooted in consumerism, so it's not really important to me.

I find that an incredibly strange thing to say...

QuoteA more central argument might be how important it is for our species to mature intellectually, how religion has historically hindered scientific discovery and social evolution.

That is highly debatable.

QuoteAnother might be a discussion about the effects of groupthink on large numbers of the populace.

That is unavoidable. Developing group mentalities is an artifact of our evolutionary heritage. We all do it.

QuoteAnother might be an argument about futility and how better to spend one's time. There are a dozen arguments I can think of.

This is just a matter of personal preference and tastes. I wouldn't presume to tell you how best to spend your time.

QuoteStill, I'm not calling for religion to be eradicated or even reduced. All I ask is people think for themselves and try not to hurt others and themselves. If someone wants to believe in God or Shiva or Mork, that's their business. Live and let live.

Well, I personally think that religion has little do to with the actual metaphysical and ontological claims. I think that superstition has merely become institutionalized within them over the centuries that they have existed. Religion also evolves, and changes with the times, and I see no reason to think that the expulsion of the institutionalized superstition would necessarily destroy them. I would like to see a gradual move towards this, but I wouldn't want to force it, and destroy the religion in the process.

I think that superstition, violence, fear and hatred are the love-children of ignorance and unreason, not religion. I think that education will help our species' intellectual woes, and communication, interaction, and the development of a global community will work towards helping our social woes. I don't think that either are solvable, and I'm not even convinced that "progression" is a real thing, from a philosophical standpoint, but I'm willing to work towards what I think is an improvement regardless.

I am admittedly deeply worried with conservative, right wing political, societal, economical, religious, and moral positions -- they frankly terrify me -- but I lack the strength of conviction to hold to the opinion that my views are necessarily "better", and where society should lead. Though, Susan B Anthony once said: Cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standards never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences.

Which I admittedly find powerful.    

QuoteI think it's fallacious to suggest that because some intelligent people have been religious that somehow religion or superstition isn't counter-scientific or is acceptable in any way (necessarily). Plenty of very, very smart people are also incapable or even dysfunctional in other areas. Einstein was quite the wiz with math and science, but I wouldn't take relationship advice from him. Or style advice.

I wouldn't suggest that the fact that many very excellent philosophers, and scientists over the centuries being religious implies a link between religiosity and philosophical or scientific insight, nor would I suggest that the relative fear and distrust of the general public of science, philosophy, art, and most of academia, is necessarily linked with their religiosity. Again, I think that it is unreason and ignorance.

QuoteIt's unreasonable based on a system in which verifiable evidence is used to demonstrate the positive existence of a thing.

This opens a huge can of worms, that I don't think you want to get into here. What is "verifiable", "evidence", what constitutes a "demonstration", and what it means for something to "exist" are not themselves uncontroversial, or universally agreed upon things, by no means. All of this presupposes a plethora of philosophical positions.  

QuoteConsidering this is the system by which a vast majority of humans use on everything in their life besides god, it would make sense to use it as a method to determine whether belief in god is or isn't reasonable.

The standard theological position on this is that the ontology of immaterial, supernatural beings and things requires a different epistemology, and methodology to establish than material, natural things. So saying that they can't establish the existence of a god using the same methodology that they would use to establish the existence of a material thing in the universe is not something they would disagree with, or find a problem with. They would argue that you are misapplying a tool, and then arguing that the job can't be done because your tool doesn't fit.

QuoteIf I told the average person there was an invisible dinosaur in his or her garage, he or she would naturally be very suspicious. Aren't dinosaurs extinct? How could it be invisible? Why is it in my garage? Who is this guy in my living room making illustrations about reason?  

A homage to Sagan's garage residing dragon? Perhaps not, but then this dinosaur is not a metaphysical explanation, or part of a long standing tradition of culture and writing which depicts, and gives countless anecdotal accounts of it, and it's qualities and attributes. So they are hardly equivalent. Take away the math, and the explanatory power, and assert the existence of dark matter, or of the other theoretical constructs in physics. There is no direct evidence of those, they are inferred from other observations, and then mathematical formulas are devised to see if it can explain the observations.

Now I am of course not saying that supernatural assertions are in the same league as theoretical physical entities, but am merely pointing out that when you caricature something that cannot be physically verified, without appreciating the whole picture, it of course is not at all the same thing. It is a false analogy for this reason.  

QuoteWhy believe anything, then? If you throw verifiable evidence out the window, you're throwing out everything you've ever experienced in your life. We're not talking about philosophy, though. We're talking about the real world, real people, and real consequences.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Discussing whether something is founded or not is philosophy. I believe things when I think it is reasonable to do so, like most people. I'm not infallible, I make mistakes, but I do my best. What constitutes evidence, and verification is not obvious or clear. These subjects are not easy. One can't just intuitively decide on these matters, we need real philosophical frameworks to explain and justify them to the best our reason allows.

I most say here, that I find anti-philosophical sentiments no less off-putting than anti-scientific ones.

QuoteThat's not proof considering that schizophrenia can sometimes be treated successfully with drugs and therapy. There's evidence for schizophrenia, there's none for divine revelation. It's more telling and to the point that the church will embrace someone that spoke to god whereas a psychologist might recommend that the person see a psychiatrist.

Not necessarily, it is not logically impossible that the revelation comes with the direct knowledge that the information received is genuine. The standard theological position on revelation is that it varies from hallucination, or other types of anomalies in that it is accompanied by revealed knowledge, not just visions, and the sound of voices.  

Although, I think we are getting off track here, I am delving far more into theological defenses than I would like too. Mostly because I don't personally buy them -- but they are not so weak that they can be easily refuted in their strongest form.

I made tons and tons of typos in my previous post. It is now 3 AM, and I haven't the energy, or time to correct them. I apologize if anything is impossible to decipher on account of them.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "SSY"

Quote from: "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.

Such events could still take place, but removing something that incites and preaches so much hatred and derrision would, I am willing to bet, reduce occurance of such terrible acts.

You may think that it intuitive that that be the case, but I do not. So a demonstration is in order. Of course the best way to do that, would be to remove religion from the world, and then discount all relevant variables that may skew results, and see what happens. Too bad that is not possible. The next best thing is through deduction, and I have suggested in my above post how it can be deduced: by demonstrating that religion has unique qualities that result in violence and hatred that nothing else shares.

If neither of these can be accomplished, then your guess is no better than mine -- and I was under the impression that you'all rationalists require evidential and rational basis to believe things. Without an inductive or deductive demonstration, you have neither.

Let me present some evidence.

The 9/11 Hiajckers were all devout muslims. They beleived in the Koran, they beleived what their preachers said. The preacher's interpretation of the koran instructed holy war against heathens and unbeleivers ( in this case, the USA ).

The acts they carried out, in preperation for the attacks, and the the attacks themselves were religiously motivated. If these mens had not been religious, had not had such faith in their clerics, then they would not have carried out these attacks. This is my deduction that shows how religion can cause violence, and how removing would lessen the occurance of violence. It contains the assumption that the attackers beleif in the koran was nessacary for their decision to attack, something I think is entirley reasonable, given the stated aims and motivations of their organisation.

Demonstrating that religion has the unique ability to cause violence is not required. For example, we know that smoking causes lung cancer, but that other things also cause lung cancer. Yet, you would accept that removing smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer ( significantly ).

Quote from: "SSY"Let me present some evidence.

The 9/11 Hiajckers were all devout muslims. They beleived in the Koran, they beleived what their preachers said. The preacher's interpretation of the koran instructed holy war against heathens and unbeleivers ( in this case, the USA ).

The acts they carried out, in preperation for the attacks, and the the attacks themselves were religiously motivated. If these mens had not been religious, had not had such faith in their clerics, then they would not have carried out these attacks. This is my deduction that shows how religion can cause violence, and how removing would lessen the occurance of violence. It contains the assumption that the attackers beleif in the koran was nessacary for their decision to attack, something I think is entirley reasonable, given the stated aims and motivations of their organisation.

Demonstrating that religion has the unique ability to cause violence is not required. For example, we know that smoking causes lung cancer, but that other things also cause lung cancer. Yet, you would accept that removing smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer ( significantly ).

None of this follows. The fact that violence has occurred that was justified, or motivated by religion in no way implies similar events are impossible without religion -- and since similar events do happen to take place without religious motivation or justification, the assertion that they would not take place without religion is wholly unjustified.

Implying that if religion were to have disappeared off of the face of the earth the sole outcome would be that any negative events related to religion would not have occurred is an incredibly simplistic view to take. If religion never existed the world would be an wholly different place in all facets of life and history, and none of us possess the necessary deductive powers to say what such a world would be like.

This is tantamount to saving that the removal of politics from the world would result in nothing more than the disappearance of all of the negative things associated with politics, and the world would otherwise be the same.

What a world where religion never existed would be like is not currently knowable -- but I think that it is trivially false to say that the only way in which it would vary is by subtracting all the negative events that are associated with religion.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"That's a non sequitur. It would lessen their support for their hatred, not their hatred, and if their hatred is irrational -- as you say -- then it doesn't have any valid support to begin with.

You're discounting the significant pressure from social norms. I think it was Nelson Mandela that famously said, "No one is born hating." It's true, hatred and ignorance are learned and developed. If they can be integrated from the environment, they can be removed the same way.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I'm not telling you that I know better. I am merely saying that since other plausible explanations exist, I see no sufficient reason to base anything on an anecdote.

Because there aren't verifiable statistics readily available, you have to fall on the best information available. For me it's personal experience.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"/snip, for the sake of space

Religion provides organization to superstition, which amplifies it's ramifications (I still can't use affect and effect correctly...gah) and it provides a great deal of protection.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"The standard theological position on this is that the ontology of immaterial, supernatural beings and things requires a different epistemology, and methodology to establish than material, natural things. So saying that they can't establish the existence of a god using the same methodology that they would use to establish the existence of a material thing in the universe is not something they would disagree with, or find a problem with. They would argue that you are misapplying a tool, and then arguing that the job can't be done because your tool doesn't fit.

There's a standard theological position on this? Is it written down somewhere? Because every single time I discuss this with a Christian, I either get "it's the mystery of god" or "i can prove god" and then they give me a bunch of crap about how pretty trees are or how one time they were almost hit by a Kia in a parking lot. Or I get the scary one, "God spoke to me." The only Christians that seem to have their act together on the subject are agnostic. "Look, I honestly don't know, but it makes me happy to believe there's something and I'm not hurting someone." If they were to honestly stick to the whole "it has nothing at all to do with science or logic or evidence" thing, I'd be fine. Most don't.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"A homage to Sagan's garage residing dragon?

Of course! I love Sagan. I forgot that it was a dragon.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Perhaps not, but then this dinosaur is not a metaphysical explanation, or part of a long standing tradition of culture and writing which depicts, and gives countless anecdotal accounts of it, and it's qualities and attributes. So they are hardly equivalent. Take away the math, and the explanatory power, and assert the existence of dark matter, or of the other theoretical constructs in physics. There is no direct evidence of those, they are inferred from other observations, and then mathematical formulas are devised to see if it can explain the observations.

Now I am of course not saying that supernatural assertions are in the same league as theoretical physical entities, but am merely pointing out that when you caricature something that cannot be physically verified, without appreciating the whole picture, it of course is not at all the same thing. It is a false analogy for this reason.

Dragons are a part of long standing culture. And dinosaurs were (are, in some cases) actually real. So dinosaurs have a leg up.

Quote from: "Will"You're discounting the significant pressure from social norms. I think it was Nelson Mandela that famously said, "No one is born hating." It's true, hatred and ignorance are learned and developed. If they can be integrated from the environment, they can be removed the same way.

Whether some people are naturally predisposed towards hatred and violence is a scientific question, and Nelson Mandela's opinion on the matter holds little weight. "Ignorance is learned" is an oxymoron.

QuoteBecause there aren't verifiable statistics readily available, you have to fall on the best information available. For me it's personal experience.

Sounds like a religious argument if I have ever heard one.  

QuoteReligion provides organization to superstition, which amplifies it's ramifications (I still can't use affect and effect correctly...gah) and it provides a great deal of protection.

I don't think that it is obvious that organized formalized superstition is worse than whimsical unleashed superstition.

QuoteThere's a standard theological position on this? Is it written down somewhere? Because every single time I discuss this with a Christian, I either get "it's the mystery of god" or "i can prove god" and then they give me a bunch of crap about how pretty trees are or how one time they were almost hit by a Kia in a parking lot. Or I get the scary one, "God spoke to me." The only Christians that seem to have their act together on the subject are agnostic. "Look, I honestly don't know, but it makes me happy to believe there's something and I'm not hurting someone." If they were to honestly stick to the whole "it has nothing at all to do with science or logic or evidence" thing, I'd be fine. Most don't.

Most Christians aren't theologians. The majority of any group that holds a position are by no meres experts on it, or even able to offer a modicum of defense for it. It is trivial to defeat any position presented weakly.

It is fallacious to assume that because an argument is invalid, that its conclusion is false. If an argument is invalid, then that merely means that it is unable to demonstrate its conclusion -- which in no way implies that its conclusion is false.
 

QuoteDragons are a part of long standing culture. And dinosaurs were (are, in some cases) actually real. So dinosaurs have a leg up.

Invisible dinosaurs weren't. People exist too, I thought that it was the supernatural aspect of the person purported to be god that got your goat.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Whether some people are naturally predisposed towards hatred and violence is a scientific question, and Nelson Mandela's opinion on the matter holds little weight. "Ignorance is learned" is an oxymoron.

The resistance to learning and have an open mind is a trait and one can acquire that trait. You're not born hating Muslims. Or women.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I don't think that it is obvious that organized formalized superstition is worse than whimsical unleashed superstition.

Compare unorganized superstition with organized superstition. Throwing salt over your shoulder doesn't have any effect on the FDA, but Christian superstition prevented many years of stem cell research.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Most Christians aren't theologians.

You said the standard theological position. I doubt that the "standard theological position" you referenced is the position of the rare theologian or experienced apologetic.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"It is fallacious to assume that because an argument is invalid, that its conclusion is false. If an argument is invalid, then that merely means that it is unable to demonstrate its conclusion -- which in no way implies that its conclusion is false.

It's perfectly fine to assume that because an argument is invalid or illogical there's no reason to believe the conclusion. Like I said before "While it's true I can't disprove god, one can absolutely demonstrate that a belief in god or gods is unfounded and unreasonable." Because they're unable to demonstrate a conclusion, the only logical conclusion is agnosticism.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Invisible dinosaurs weren't. People exist too, I thought that it was the supernatural aspect of the person purported to be god that got your goat.

My goat and I are got by the inconsistent burden of proof. A person readily accepts the Judeo-Christian God or Muslim Allah, but when presented with the same evidence for Mithros or Thor, they dismiss it outright. The invisible dragon/dinosaur is simply a more extreme illustration of that. They're fine using a reasonable and common burden of proof for Athena, but when it comes to the god they were raised and conditioned to believe in, no such burden exists.

Quote from: "Will"The resistance to learning and have an open mind is a trait and one can acquire that trait. You're not born hating Muslims. Or women.

Perhaps not, but the predisposition to hate and fear things very well could be. If the justifications for doing so are irrational, than anything can serve as one.

QuoteCompare unorganized superstition with organized superstition. Throwing salt over your shoulder doesn't have any effect on the FDA, but Christian superstition prevented many years of stem cell research.

It's an unfair comparison. Compare racist notions to immaculate conception.

QuoteYou said the standard theological position. I doubt that the "standard theological position" you referenced is the position of the rare theologian or experienced apologetic.

You're right, that was a misleading way to word that. I meant it in the sense that it was the position of a number of history's most prominent theologians, and is the position taken today by the majority of philosophically literate theologians. Not exactly as I worded it of course, I simplified it.

QuoteIt's perfectly fine to assume that because an argument is invalid or illogical there's no reason to believe the conclusion. Like I said before "While it's true I can't disprove god, one can absolutely demonstrate that a belief in god or gods is unfounded and unreasonable." Because they're unable to demonstrate a conclusion, the only logical conclusion is agnosticism.

There are of course valid theological arguments for the existence of god, but they require making an assumption at some point. All arguments do. I have to first assume that an external world exists before I can trust my senses, and then make arguments that follow from my assumption that my senses are at least somewhat accurate.

So denying the assumption doesn't make the argument invalid, it makes you unconvinced. Not everyone is. Because you are unconvinced it does not follow that no one should be. Again, this largely relies on the epistemological and methodological positions that you hold, when you consider it justified to consider something knowledge, what you consider evidence, and what kinds of assumptions are justified and when. Things like that. Not on the validity or invalidity of the arguments. All positions at some point require a certain amount of assumption. Given, some far more than others.

QuoteMy goat and I are got by the inconsistent burden of proof. A person readily accepts the Judeo-Christian God or Muslim Allah, but when presented with the same evidence for Mithros or Thor, they dismiss it outright. The invisible dragon/dinosaur is simply a more extreme illustration of that. They're fine using a reasonable and common burden of proof for Athena, but when it comes to the god they were raised and conditioned to believe in, no such burden exists.

It isn't the same evidence. Just as you accept personal experience, and anecdote on occasion, so do they. They have neither for the propositions that you suggest. You mean the same physical evidence, but a large amount of theists already agree that there isn't any, and do not rely on there being any.

Anyway, I think we are gravitating away from the thread topic. As I said, I would rather not defend theological or religion positions, largely because I don't hold them.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Perhaps not, but the predisposition to hate and fear things very well could be. If the justifications for doing so are irrational, than anything can serve as one.

A predisposition to hate things? Like we're born to hate other races? Or something more general, like a predisposition to simply hate what's different?

Quote from: "Hitsumei"It's an unfair comparison.

It's completely fair. Organization gives strength and influence to superstition. To illustrate that I compared the effects of unorganized superstition to the effects of organized religion.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"You're right, that was a misleading way to word that. I meant it in the sense that it was the position of a number of history's most prominent theologians, and is the position taken today by the majority of philosophically literate theologians. Not exactly as I worded it of course, I simplified it.

Very few of history's most prominent theologians agree on anything. Meister Echkart, one of my favorite theologians, was essentially atheist, but is still regarded (among more honest circiles) to be a great Catholic teacher. You should read The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart by Bernard McGinn, btw, it's out of this world. Actually, the same could be said of Tillich, Spinoza, and Hegel, come to think of it. I could argue that they represent something a lot closer to my beliefs than the beliefs of what you might consider an average position of theologians.

I'm left wondering if you intentionally baited me into making that argument, because it takes some of the steam out of my previous argument that the average Christian can't mount the kind of defense you attribute to the theologians. I digress.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"There are of course valid theological arguments for the existence of god, but they require making an assumption at some point. All arguments do. I have to first assume that an external world exists before I can trust my senses, and then make arguments that follow from my assumption that my senses are at least somewhat accurate.

So denying the assumption doesn't make the argument invalid, it makes you unconvinced. Not everyone is. Because you are unconvinced it does not follow that no one should be. Again, this largely relies on the epistemological and methodological positions that you hold, when you consider it justified to consider something knowledge, what you consider evidence, and what kinds of assumptions are justified and when. Things like that. Not on the validity or invalidity of the arguments. All positions at some point require a certain amount of assumption. Given, some far more than others.

You're assuming they aren't being inconsistent, though, which leads into my next point about God vs. Mithros:

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "Will, the merciful"My goat and I are got by the inconsistent burden of proof. A person readily accepts the Judeo-Christian God or Muslim Allah, but when presented with the same evidence for Mithros or Thor, they dismiss it outright. The invisible dragon/dinosaur is simply a more extreme illustration of that. They're fine using a reasonable and common burden of proof for Athena, but when it comes to the god they were raised and conditioned to believe in, no such burden exists.

It isn't the same evidence. Just as you accept personal experience, and anecdote on occasion, so do they. They have neither for the propositions that you suggest. You mean the same physical evidence, but a large amount of theists already agree that there isn't any, and do not rely on there being any.

Wait a second, in the instance I accepted personal experience, I was still able to share that experience with the person that shared it with me and even to an outside observer, that evidence would likely be compelling. You can't compare that to a vision of an angel. Someone retelling a story of a religious experience cannot be observed objectively and have the evidence weighed in the same way my experience can. Apples and oranges.

Quote from: "Will"A predisposition to hate things? Like we're born to hate other races? Or something more general, like a predisposition to simply hate what's different?

As in some are more predisposed towards certain emotionally states of mind than others. Hatred is an emotional state of mind.

QuoteIt's completely fair. Organization gives strength and influence to superstition. To illustrate that I compared the effects of unorganized superstition to the effects of organized religion.

No, you didn't. You compared a benign unorganized superstition with a malign organized one. That is an unfair comparison. Compare apples with apples, and oranges with oranges.    

QuoteYou're assuming they aren't being inconsistent, though, which leads into my next point about God vs. Mithros:

Not necessarily, any argument that they put forward for a god, can conceivably work for several different ones. I assume that many theologians must agree to this given the number of Greek arguments for god that many of them have adopted.

One single argument doesn't have to demonstrate every aspect of what they believe. Arguments for why they think that it is their specific god can thus just presuppose the existence of some kind of god as is supported by other arguments that they have. No single argument can demonstrate every single assumption that it makes. That requires independent arguments.

QuoteWait a second, in the instance I accepted personal experience, I was still able to share that experience with the person that shared it with me and even to an outside observer, that evidence would likely be compelling.

The first assertion is false, you can't share another person's experience, you can be around them when they experience it perhaps. Also, I was not there, so this is no different than a religious argument made by someone claiming to have experienced, or been with someone who had the experience (e.g. the Penn and Teller video that was recently linked about near death experience, where a woman claimed to rise out of her body, and a man claimed to have witnessed it). The second is just an assertion, based on opinion, and personal discretion.

QuoteYou can't compare that to a vision of an angel. Someone retelling a story of a religious experience cannot be observed objectively and have the evidence weighed in the same way my experience can. Apples and oranges.

If I already accept that some type of god exists, then anecdote should be fine to compel me to accept their accounts. I don't need their anecdote to prove the existence of anything to me, I must merely decide if I think what they are telling me is plausible based on what I think I know about the world.

That is in no way different than accepting any anecdote. You assume that it must all come together in one massive narrative from a single source. Of course if someone tells you an anecdote involving things that you don't think exists in any sense, then you are far less likely to believe them, than if they tell you one involving things that you accept that at least something like that exists.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"As in some are more predisposed towards certain emotionally states of mind than others. Hatred is an emotional state of mind.

But you're essentially saying that some people are prone to hatred, innately. Are you sure that's a case you want to make?

Quote from: "Hitsumei"No, you didn't. You compared a benign unorganized superstition with a malign organized one. That is an unfair comparison. Compare apples with apples, and oranges with oranges.

I was comparing an unorganized superstition with an organized superstition. And of course throwing salt is benign, it isn't backed by a large and devoted organization. If it were, it would be religion.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Not necessarily, any argument that they put forward for a god, can conceivably work for several different ones. I assume that many theologians must agree to this given the number of Greek arguments for god that many of them have adopted.

And yet none of these theologians worships Apollo. That's my point.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"One single argument doesn't have to demonstrate every aspect of what they believe. Arguments for why they think that it is their specific god can thus just presuppose the existence of some kind of god as is supported by other arguments that they have. No single argument can demonstrate every single assumption that it makes. That requires independent arguments.

And I'm fine taking on more than one, but they all lead to the same place and that place can just as easily lead to a god or deity that the individual doesn't believe in. There aren't arguments for Jesus that don't exist for Apollo.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"The first assertion is false, you can't share another person's experience, you can be around them when they experience it perhaps.

I witnessed a resounding change in behavior and thought processes. He also shared thoughts with my along the way, and I gave him input. So yes, I shared it.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Also, I was not there, so this is no different than a religious argument made by someone claiming to have experienced, or been with someone who had the experience (e.g. the Penn and Teller video that was recently linked about near death experience, where a woman claimed to rise out of her body, and a man claimed to have witnessed it). The second is just an assertion, based on opinion, and personal discretion.

You weren't there for my friend, but can you honestly say that you've never known anyone that went from being ignorant to being enlightened?

Quote from: "Hitsumei"If I already accept that some type of god exists, then anecdote should be fine to compel me to accept their accounts. I don't need their anecdote to prove the existence of anything to me, I must merely decide if I think what they are telling me is plausible based on what I think I know about the world.

That is in no way different than accepting any anecdote. You assume that it must all come together in one massive narrative from a single source. Of course if someone tells you an anecdote involving things that you don't think exists in any sense, then you are far less likely to believe them, than if they tell you one involving things that you accept that at least something like that exists.

I don't think that's true. Not everyone has the same level of cognitive bias. Some people are very biased and other people are very objective.

Quote from: "Will"But you're essentially saying that some people are prone to hatred, innately. Are you sure that's a case you want to make?

I'm not making such a case. I am saying that it is a plausible possibility. I don't think that it is reasonable to just make an assumption about which is the case, that is why I said that it is a "scientific question". One which I leave up to science, and do not pretend to know the answer to.

QuoteAnd yet none of these theologians worships Apollo. That's my point.

Then you missed mine. They don't only have a single argument.

QuoteAnd I'm fine taking on more than one, but they all lead to the same place and that place can just as easily lead to a god or deity that the individual doesn't believe in. There aren't arguments for Jesus that don't exist for Apollo.

Yes there are. There are millions of anecdotal accounts of Jesus from Christians throughout history, and by people that are still alive. The accounts of Apollo just kind of trail off at one point. Perhaps he went on holiday.

QuoteI witnessed a resounding change in behavior and thought processes. He also shared thoughts with my along the way, and I gave him input. So yes, I shared it.

Again, sounds a awful lot like a religious argument. I hear this argument for why Paul was telling the truth all the time. He was a historical figure, and did completely change his position and behavior. So people infer that he must be telling the truth about his revelation.

I see no difference.

QuoteYou weren't there for my friend, but can you honestly say that you've never known anyone that went from being ignorant to being enlightened?

No, I can't say that. I am not apt to judge what qualifies one as being "enlightened".

QuoteI don't think that's true. Not everyone has the same level of cognitive bias. Some people are very biased and other people are very objective.

Which is why we establish people's credibility in court, and is why people are far more likely to accept the anecdotes people that they trust, like friends and families whom are far more likely to belong to the same religious traditions, than they are to accept anecdotes of people that they don't know, and can't judge the credibility of, or are not members of a community that they have grown to trust.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"None of this follows. The fact that violence has occurred that was justified, or motivated by religion in no way implies similar events are impossible without religion -- and since similar events do happen to take place without religious motivation or justification, the assertion that they would not take place without religion is wholly unjustified.

i never said getting rid of religion would remove all violence, but that it would reduce violence.

QuoteImplying that if religion were to have disappeared off of the face of the earth the sole outcome would be that any negative events related to religion would not have occurred is an incredibly simplistic view to take. If religion never existed the world would be an wholly different place in all facets of life and history, and none of us possess the necessary deductive powers to say what such a world would be like.

You're right, it would be vastly different. One thing we could be sure about though would be that the crusades would never have happened, the spanish inquisition would not have happened, the 9/11 attacks would never have happened, i could continue. Other things, like the invention of the light bulb may not have hapened also, but they also, may well have happened, the same cannot be said for the religious atrocities as they are specefically ruled out in this hypothesis. In summary, many bad things would be removed, while positive things may or may not be ( though really, the lightbulb would have been invented sooner rather than later, probably sooner without the dark ages brought on by religion ). Note, the positive things religion has done ( I am straining to think of many though ) would also be removed, though I think religion does more harm than good, so still a worthy trade off.

QuoteThis is tantamount to saving that the removal of politics from the world would result in nothing more than the disappearance of all of the negative things associated with politics, and the world would otherwise be the same.

What a world where religion never existed would be like is not currently knowable -- but I think that it is trivially false to say that the only way in which it would vary is by subtracting all the negative events that are associated with religion.

See above.

Quote from: "SSY"i never said getting rid of religion would remove all violence, but that it would reduce violence.

I have never failed to realize that this was your assertion.

QuoteYou're right, it would be vastly different. One thing we could be sure about though would be that the crusades would never have happened, the spanish inquisition would not have happened, the 9/11 attacks would never have happened, i could continue. Other things, like the invention of the light bulb may not have hapened also, but they also, may well have happened, the same cannot be said for the religious atrocities as they are specefically ruled out in this hypothesis. In summary, many bad things would be removed, while positive things may or may not be ( though really, the lightbulb would have been invented sooner rather than later, probably sooner without the dark ages brought on by religion ). Note, the positive things religion has done ( I am straining to think of many though ) would also be removed, though I think religion does more harm than good, so still a worthy trade off.

I feel that I'm going in circles. I have addressed this already. There is nothing that makes it impossible, or even unlikely that similar events could have happened in their stead. Your opinion that they just would not have, and history would have turned out the exact same minus the good and the bad of religion -- instead of the far more reasonable assumption that all of history would be vastly different -- is just that, your opinion, and by no means proof, or even an argument.

It isn't as if events like the Rwandan genocide never take place, which itself was responsible for far more death than all of the events that you mention combined.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I'm not making such a case. I am saying that it is a plausible possibility. I don't think that it is reasonable to just make an assumption about which is the case, that is why I said that it is a "scientific question". One which I leave up to science, and do not pretend to know the answer to.

I don't think it's a good idea to leave such an important question to guesswork. Is hatred learned or can it be innate? I'm pretty sure that it's learned, and I remember this from school, but I'm having trouble tracking down a verifiable citation. We may have to agree to disagree on this point unless we can get some data.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Yes there are. There are millions of anecdotal accounts of Jesus from Christians throughout history, and by people that are still alive. The accounts of Apollo just kind of trail off at one point. Perhaps he went on holiday.

There are many accounts of seeing mythic gods from followers of Greek and Roman polytheism. Those accounts seem to have drooped off, but I don't know for sure. Still, we have plenty of current and contradictory religions that feature revelation. Someone seeing Mohammad isn't any more or less believable than someone seeing Jesus.

Wait, what were we talking about?

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Which is why we establish people's credibility in court, and is why people are far more likely to accept the anecdotes people that they trust, like friends and families whom are far more likely to belong to the same religious traditions, than they are to accept anecdotes of people that they don't know, and can't judge the credibility of, or are not members of a community that they have grown to trust.

I think we've wondered a bit too far off point.

"Imagine no religion" is an atheist's way of saying "it's okay to ask yourself what your life, or even the world, might be like without religion." It's not necessarily a condemnation of all of religion, it's not necessarily referencing violence or hatred or whatever. It's just an "imagine things from our perspective" campaign.

Quote from: "Will"I don't think it's a good idea to leave such an important question to guesswork. Is hatred learned or can it be innate? I'm pretty sure that it's learned, and I remember this from school, but I'm having trouble tracking down a verifiable citation. We may have to agree to disagree on this point unless we can get some data.

I'm not saying whether "hatred" is learned, I am saying that it very well could be that some people are just more predisposed towards that emotional state of mind then others. I also am not leaving it up to guesswork, I have repeatedly said that it is a question that needs to be answered with evidence and reason. Saying that you already know the answer because it seems intuitive is engaging in guesswork.

It is perhaps an awful thought to think that some people may just be naturally predisposed towards hateful states of mind, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the case.

QuoteWait, what were we talking about?

Dunno! I seemed to have been dragged into apologetics (by no means kicking and dreaming). Can't say that I completely dislike arguing for the sake of arguing, but it isn't my favorite pass time either.

Quote"Imagine no religion" is an atheist's way of saying "it's okay to ask yourself what your life, or even the world, might be like without religion." It's not necessarily a condemnation of all of religion, it's not necessarily referencing violence or hatred or whatever. It's just an "imagine things from our perspective" campaign.

Then I have no problem with that, nor see anything wrong with it, but I have said from the beginning that I find those that rail against religion as this source of a huge amount of societal woes are wrong headed, and if you are correct in your assessment, then also missing the point.

So are you saying we're only permitted to imagine deism, pantheism, apatheism and agnosticism?    By the way Hitsumei, what's a sort of Christian? Are you a Deist who happens to be a western cultural Christian - or just trying to distance yourself from the fundies?

Imagine no people. There's a world I would like to live in.

Quote from: "Sophus"By the way Hitsumei, what's a sort of Christian? Are you a Deist who happens to be a western cultural Christian - or just trying to distance yourself from the fundies?

I am a western culture Christian, but I don't accept the metaphysical and ontological claims that are associated with it. I take no metaphysical positions. I don't think that any of them are properly justified enough to be able to intelligibly defend, nor do I see sufficient practical reason to take any.

Nor am I an agnostic. Agnosticism generally is used to denote a lack of certainty. People consider them to be on the fence, undecided. In the middle. Richard Dawkins in his position scale places it in the center, with completely certain theist at one end, and completely certain atheist at the other.

I am not uncertain, and have made up my mind. I am not on the fence, nor in the middle. I like most everyone else, have a strong intuitive hunch, but I do not consider that a valid starting point for taking philosophical positions, so I merely refrain.  

QuoteImagine no people. There's a world I would like to live in.

Or just better looking, and smarter people. That's the world for me.