John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
The older I get the more I appreciate you, poster I think is Kharn.
Religion is the root of all evil
- Thread starter Zaij
- Start date
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
The older I get the more I appreciate you, poster I think is Kharn.
Sorrow
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
[parody]It's absolutely beyond doubt that religion can desensitize unstable characters to violence and can have a stimulating effect.[/parody]
Aw, this was such a fun read, too bad Alec finally did actually retreat.
Good thing he never did formal debating, he'd fail miserably.
Love how he completely ignored polytheistic religions though, where the gods don't have absolute power, and are basically humans with supernatural powers.
Of all the religions, I find those the most likely to be true. If you've seen Stargate you even see scientific logic behind it! (Go go planes of existence and high levels of technology!)
BTW: Agnostics don't say "I don't believe, but there could be.", Agnostics say "I have no idea and I won't speculate, because we are incapable of understanding the universe in full."
Fun quotes that can have religious meanings.
"The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing." -Unknown (Supports Agnosticism)
"I choose to believe that the white light people sometimes see... they're all just chemical reactions that take place when the brain shuts down.... There's no conclusive science. My choice has no practical relevance to my life, I choose the outcome I find more comforting.... I find it more comforting to believe that this isn't simply a test." -Doctor House (TV Show)
"I'd rather spend eternity in hell, than eternity with a being that would damn you to it for not doing what he says." -Me (Probably something similar said by someone else, no clue, but I said it to a friend in a religous debate once.)
As much of an idiot Alec may be, he did bring up one point that I love to bring up to fanatical christians.
Attributing traits to the Christain god. Omnisicient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, Omnipresent, and gives man freedom of choice.
Omniscient and Freedom of Choice contradict each other. You can not know with 100% certainty what someone will do, and they still have a choice. If you can not see the future, you can not be omniscient.
Omnipotent and Omnibenvolent does not show itself in our world today. Omnibenevolent being All Good. An All Good being would not allow evil. A theory used to explain this, is that the devil has as much power as god. This would negate omnipotent. So only one of these can be true.
Omnipresent is what allow the god to hear your prayers in the absence of omniscience. However with the above paragraph, he is either not Omnipotent, meaning he can't do anything about your prayers, or he is not omnibenevolent, in which case he probably doesn't care. Prayers therefore are useless.
Arguements for a God, being that the Universe had to have been created, nothing just pops into existence, can also be used against a god, in that in order for the God to exist, he had to have been created because nothing just pops into existence. So you either believe things can pop into existence, and both a godless universe, and a god have equal merit, or you don't, in which case neither has any merit....and it's quite obvious the Universe exists.
Alec, you may think you're intellectual because you can "prove" what you believe. But to be perfectly honest, we have -no- way to prove either way, the existence or non-existence of a deity.
We, the human race, are so inferior to the Universe that we are unable to grasp it in it's entirety.
I'm a realist. A realist would realize there is no possible way to know. Thats why I choose agnosticism.
Optimists choose a religion, because a religion promises an afterlife or reincarnation. Your existence doesn't just end.
A pessimist chooses to not believe in any sort of afterlife/reincarnation. (Atheism is not correct for this. Lack of a deity does not imply a lack of an afterlife or reincarnation. An atheist could believe in either of those, and still claim to be an atheist.)
Welcome to the real world Alec. Everything is not black and white. There is no right and wrong. Scientific proofs are based on theories. Theories are not facts, but guesses based on repeated observations, testing, and measurements.
Just because we haven't seen a case where Gravity doesn't exist, doesn't mean there isn't one. What do you call that? Unrestricted Negative?
Good thing he never did formal debating, he'd fail miserably.
Love how he completely ignored polytheistic religions though, where the gods don't have absolute power, and are basically humans with supernatural powers.
Of all the religions, I find those the most likely to be true. If you've seen Stargate you even see scientific logic behind it! (Go go planes of existence and high levels of technology!)
BTW: Agnostics don't say "I don't believe, but there could be.", Agnostics say "I have no idea and I won't speculate, because we are incapable of understanding the universe in full."
Fun quotes that can have religious meanings.
"The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing." -Unknown (Supports Agnosticism)
"I choose to believe that the white light people sometimes see... they're all just chemical reactions that take place when the brain shuts down.... There's no conclusive science. My choice has no practical relevance to my life, I choose the outcome I find more comforting.... I find it more comforting to believe that this isn't simply a test." -Doctor House (TV Show)
"I'd rather spend eternity in hell, than eternity with a being that would damn you to it for not doing what he says." -Me (Probably something similar said by someone else, no clue, but I said it to a friend in a religous debate once.)
As much of an idiot Alec may be, he did bring up one point that I love to bring up to fanatical christians.
Attributing traits to the Christain god. Omnisicient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, Omnipresent, and gives man freedom of choice.
Omniscient and Freedom of Choice contradict each other. You can not know with 100% certainty what someone will do, and they still have a choice. If you can not see the future, you can not be omniscient.
Omnipotent and Omnibenvolent does not show itself in our world today. Omnibenevolent being All Good. An All Good being would not allow evil. A theory used to explain this, is that the devil has as much power as god. This would negate omnipotent. So only one of these can be true.
Omnipresent is what allow the god to hear your prayers in the absence of omniscience. However with the above paragraph, he is either not Omnipotent, meaning he can't do anything about your prayers, or he is not omnibenevolent, in which case he probably doesn't care. Prayers therefore are useless.
Arguements for a God, being that the Universe had to have been created, nothing just pops into existence, can also be used against a god, in that in order for the God to exist, he had to have been created because nothing just pops into existence. So you either believe things can pop into existence, and both a godless universe, and a god have equal merit, or you don't, in which case neither has any merit....and it's quite obvious the Universe exists.
Alec, you may think you're intellectual because you can "prove" what you believe. But to be perfectly honest, we have -no- way to prove either way, the existence or non-existence of a deity.
We, the human race, are so inferior to the Universe that we are unable to grasp it in it's entirety.
I'm a realist. A realist would realize there is no possible way to know. Thats why I choose agnosticism.
Optimists choose a religion, because a religion promises an afterlife or reincarnation. Your existence doesn't just end.
A pessimist chooses to not believe in any sort of afterlife/reincarnation. (Atheism is not correct for this. Lack of a deity does not imply a lack of an afterlife or reincarnation. An atheist could believe in either of those, and still claim to be an atheist.)
Welcome to the real world Alec. Everything is not black and white. There is no right and wrong. Scientific proofs are based on theories. Theories are not facts, but guesses based on repeated observations, testing, and measurements.
Just because we haven't seen a case where Gravity doesn't exist, doesn't mean there isn't one. What do you call that? Unrestricted Negative?
We'd prefer if you don't unnecessarily flame people, especially not in a month-old thread if you don't have anything *new* to add.
Also, Stargate as a scientific marker? Hah!
Also, Stargate as a scientific marker? Hah!
Since this thread has already been re-surfaced...
In reply to the original post: What Richard Dawkins tried to explain in The Root of All Evil and The God Delusion is mostly that the way religion works is what's harmful, not religiousness itself.
Institutionalised religion works by issuing dogma. Dogma is truth that can not be questioned because it comes directly from the gods. Interpretation may vary, but the truthiness of the dogma itself is never questioned.
This runs contrary to the scientific method: as Penn & Teller once pointed out rather nicely, science is based on creating a thesis and then trying to disprove it; religion is based on creating dogma and then blindly following it.
Of course this is not true for all religious people. There are many who don't believe in "all" dogma of their particular religion or have very liberal interpretations for established dogma. Nevertheless they still don't question the concept behind faith: faith isn't knowing, faith is believing, even if the counter-evidence is overwhelming -- thus faith is irrational and anti-scientific, yet usually portrayed as a virtue.
The religions are not the problem, faith is the problem. That is why Dawkins refers to religious education of children as child abuse: children are taught to believe in obvious falsehoods or at the very least take irrational concepts as self-evident truths rather than to question established truths and be free thinkers.
In science there are no truths, only approximations that work. If a scientific theory doesn't work, it is abandoned or revisited. Science doesn't make any claim about truthfulness. The established theories are only accepted as "truth" because they have been proven to work and no evidence to the contrary has been found so far.
As per Dawkins, the way religion works is what is dangerous. Abuse of religion to justify murder, repression or violence is merely a possible consequence.
What's dangerous about religion is that they promote blind faith over critical thinking.
The Root of All Evil (the title was chosen by BBC, not Dawkins, by the way -- BBC thought the show would sell better if it had an exaggerating title; Dawkins does not consider religion the root of all "evil" by far) starts with a scene from a Catholic procession at a "miracle" healing fountain. Although the procession is pretty moving, with tons of candles and Latin chants, it's still based on the same blind faith in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence: the tourists are more likely to catch something by drinking from the "healing spring" other people bathed in than to get cured, in all the time the spring was known as a "miracle" no more people were healed than normally and those that were healed were only healed in ways that would have been likely to occur naturally; nobody grew back any lost limbs and nobody recovered from blindness or re-gained their ability to walk. All in all the number of reported healings was statistically irrelevant. Yet people still travel there because they "believe" and they come back every year, hoping for a miracle to happen eventually.
Personally, the only concepts of a "god" I have found to withstand critical reasoning are 1) an initiator/creator (e.g. the cause behind the Big Bang), who is practically irrelevant (the Big Bang happened, so there is no longer any direct influence by him/her/it/sheep); and 2) a metaphor for the universe as a whole (following this concept, Buddhism is an actual religion), which goes well with the concept of enlightenment/illumination, but isn't practically relevant either (apart from the idea of following a moral code to achieve "oneness" or "illumination").
At the end of the second part of the programme, Dawkins explains why he considers the stock argument that "science destroys the magic of life" bogus and that he considers science far more beautiful and awe-inspiring than the blunt concept of an intervening god(ess) that makes it all happen (i.e. that humans should be oblivious to the "how" as they could never fully comprehend "god's ways").
I found it rather inspiring, to be honest.
EDIT:
The question regarding the existence of a god/goddess is incredibly vague, by the way. In order to disprove her/his/its/sheep's existence you first need to define what kind of god we're talking about.
A directly intervening god can not be fully disproved (which is not much of a victory for religion either), but to nearly all "evidence" for such a god's existence a more reasonable explanation can be found, which means, per Occam's Razor, that there is no evidence in support of such a god, making it no more likely than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Underpants Gnomes.
A creator at the beginning of the universe can't be disproved either, but as I said before, as long as a god can't/doesn't interact with the world, the god is irrelevant for all practical purposes.
Afterlife can easily be defeated by Occam's Razor: you'd need to assume that something non-physical exists and that this non-physical entity is part of your conscience and that this non-physical entity controls what you ("the robot", your physical entity) does and that this non-physical entity lives in a realm (or can go to a realm) where there is such a thing as a heaven/hell (both of which are rather loosely defined as a particularly cheerful/nasty place and can't be imagined because a non-physical realm can't be imagined in the first place). None of that has any basis in factual evidence.
Near-death experiences have been triggered in laboratory conditions without any actual chance of death, so they can be disregarded as a form of "dreaming" that occurs when the brain shuts down. Likewise, "dead" people have been brought back to life (though they can only be brought back with working brain functions if the decay of the brain cells hasn't progressed too far yet). Dogma aside, there is no account of any such existence outside/after the physical one, so it's entirely baseless. The reason someone would make up the idea and why it would be successful, on the other hand, is quite imaginable (namely, humans become aware of their mortality and need something to take away their fear of death in times when death occurs rather prematurely).
There's nothing stopping you from believing that an afterlife may exist, but there isn't anything you can base that belief on either, so it's a bit risky to base your decisions in everyday life on the idea that you will have an afterlife.
In reply to the original post: What Richard Dawkins tried to explain in The Root of All Evil and The God Delusion is mostly that the way religion works is what's harmful, not religiousness itself.
Institutionalised religion works by issuing dogma. Dogma is truth that can not be questioned because it comes directly from the gods. Interpretation may vary, but the truthiness of the dogma itself is never questioned.
This runs contrary to the scientific method: as Penn & Teller once pointed out rather nicely, science is based on creating a thesis and then trying to disprove it; religion is based on creating dogma and then blindly following it.
Of course this is not true for all religious people. There are many who don't believe in "all" dogma of their particular religion or have very liberal interpretations for established dogma. Nevertheless they still don't question the concept behind faith: faith isn't knowing, faith is believing, even if the counter-evidence is overwhelming -- thus faith is irrational and anti-scientific, yet usually portrayed as a virtue.
The religions are not the problem, faith is the problem. That is why Dawkins refers to religious education of children as child abuse: children are taught to believe in obvious falsehoods or at the very least take irrational concepts as self-evident truths rather than to question established truths and be free thinkers.
In science there are no truths, only approximations that work. If a scientific theory doesn't work, it is abandoned or revisited. Science doesn't make any claim about truthfulness. The established theories are only accepted as "truth" because they have been proven to work and no evidence to the contrary has been found so far.
As per Dawkins, the way religion works is what is dangerous. Abuse of religion to justify murder, repression or violence is merely a possible consequence.
What's dangerous about religion is that they promote blind faith over critical thinking.
The Root of All Evil (the title was chosen by BBC, not Dawkins, by the way -- BBC thought the show would sell better if it had an exaggerating title; Dawkins does not consider religion the root of all "evil" by far) starts with a scene from a Catholic procession at a "miracle" healing fountain. Although the procession is pretty moving, with tons of candles and Latin chants, it's still based on the same blind faith in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence: the tourists are more likely to catch something by drinking from the "healing spring" other people bathed in than to get cured, in all the time the spring was known as a "miracle" no more people were healed than normally and those that were healed were only healed in ways that would have been likely to occur naturally; nobody grew back any lost limbs and nobody recovered from blindness or re-gained their ability to walk. All in all the number of reported healings was statistically irrelevant. Yet people still travel there because they "believe" and they come back every year, hoping for a miracle to happen eventually.
Personally, the only concepts of a "god" I have found to withstand critical reasoning are 1) an initiator/creator (e.g. the cause behind the Big Bang), who is practically irrelevant (the Big Bang happened, so there is no longer any direct influence by him/her/it/sheep); and 2) a metaphor for the universe as a whole (following this concept, Buddhism is an actual religion), which goes well with the concept of enlightenment/illumination, but isn't practically relevant either (apart from the idea of following a moral code to achieve "oneness" or "illumination").
At the end of the second part of the programme, Dawkins explains why he considers the stock argument that "science destroys the magic of life" bogus and that he considers science far more beautiful and awe-inspiring than the blunt concept of an intervening god(ess) that makes it all happen (i.e. that humans should be oblivious to the "how" as they could never fully comprehend "god's ways").
I found it rather inspiring, to be honest.
EDIT:
The question regarding the existence of a god/goddess is incredibly vague, by the way. In order to disprove her/his/its/sheep's existence you first need to define what kind of god we're talking about.
A directly intervening god can not be fully disproved (which is not much of a victory for religion either), but to nearly all "evidence" for such a god's existence a more reasonable explanation can be found, which means, per Occam's Razor, that there is no evidence in support of such a god, making it no more likely than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Underpants Gnomes.
A creator at the beginning of the universe can't be disproved either, but as I said before, as long as a god can't/doesn't interact with the world, the god is irrelevant for all practical purposes.
Afterlife can easily be defeated by Occam's Razor: you'd need to assume that something non-physical exists and that this non-physical entity is part of your conscience and that this non-physical entity controls what you ("the robot", your physical entity) does and that this non-physical entity lives in a realm (or can go to a realm) where there is such a thing as a heaven/hell (both of which are rather loosely defined as a particularly cheerful/nasty place and can't be imagined because a non-physical realm can't be imagined in the first place). None of that has any basis in factual evidence.
Near-death experiences have been triggered in laboratory conditions without any actual chance of death, so they can be disregarded as a form of "dreaming" that occurs when the brain shuts down. Likewise, "dead" people have been brought back to life (though they can only be brought back with working brain functions if the decay of the brain cells hasn't progressed too far yet). Dogma aside, there is no account of any such existence outside/after the physical one, so it's entirely baseless. The reason someone would make up the idea and why it would be successful, on the other hand, is quite imaginable (namely, humans become aware of their mortality and need something to take away their fear of death in times when death occurs rather prematurely).
There's nothing stopping you from believing that an afterlife may exist, but there isn't anything you can base that belief on either, so it's a bit risky to base your decisions in everyday life on the idea that you will have an afterlife.
Let me just start by clearing up a popular misconception or misunderstanding:
Islam is NOT behid the female circumcision, the local culture in Africa is. Even people who are good devout Christians, and people who believe in the traditional religions of Africa gets this done.
The reason for doing this is CULTURAL, not religious. (yet, somehow this has sneaked its way into islam in say Somalia...).
I agree that female circumcision is a very very bad thing indeed and that this should be
spoken out against at all levels.
However, in order to do this, you need to understand why ppl in Africa do this. They don't this, at least not in their minds, to hurt the children, but rather to help them.
Why, you ask ?, does this help the female children ?? Well, you see, it is like this: A woman needs to be a woman and man needs to be man. And the woman needs to have that removed which resembles the man the most, and thus the clit(s) of the girl(s) are ---
sadly
:whine: --- removed.....
In order to change that you need to work with the culture to get them understand that it really is bad for the children to undergo circumcision, and that it gravely endangers the children's child bearing abilities. (which it does).
As for Islam hindering children and women in studying, there isn't any prohibition in Islam
that don't let women study or work. Only some old men in Saudi-Arabia (and other places) who sort of read what they want into the texts so they can ensure that they still stay in power. Or use Islam as a means of legitimizing why they have the power.
I can see the point being made about Buddhism. However, one of the points of buddhism is that if you're rich in this life, it means that you have been 'good' in a previous life, and if you're poor, this means you have been 'bad' in a previous life.
This actually means that buddhists believe that you shouldn't do anything about this...
i.e. fixing poverty and such....
Islam is NOT behid the female circumcision, the local culture in Africa is. Even people who are good devout Christians, and people who believe in the traditional religions of Africa gets this done.
The reason for doing this is CULTURAL, not religious. (yet, somehow this has sneaked its way into islam in say Somalia...).
I agree that female circumcision is a very very bad thing indeed and that this should be
spoken out against at all levels.
However, in order to do this, you need to understand why ppl in Africa do this. They don't this, at least not in their minds, to hurt the children, but rather to help them.
Why, you ask ?, does this help the female children ?? Well, you see, it is like this: A woman needs to be a woman and man needs to be man. And the woman needs to have that removed which resembles the man the most, and thus the clit(s) of the girl(s) are ---
sadly
:whine: --- removed..... In order to change that you need to work with the culture to get them understand that it really is bad for the children to undergo circumcision, and that it gravely endangers the children's child bearing abilities. (which it does).
As for Islam hindering children and women in studying, there isn't any prohibition in Islam
that don't let women study or work. Only some old men in Saudi-Arabia (and other places) who sort of read what they want into the texts so they can ensure that they still stay in power. Or use Islam as a means of legitimizing why they have the power.
I can see the point being made about Buddhism. However, one of the points of buddhism is that if you're rich in this life, it means that you have been 'good' in a previous life, and if you're poor, this means you have been 'bad' in a previous life.
This actually means that buddhists believe that you shouldn't do anything about this...
i.e. fixing poverty and such....
welsh
Junkmaster
The funny thing about Occam's Razor is that Occam believed in God.
More- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
But Ashmo, be careful here. Occam's Razor is a tool for the elimination of alternative theories based on
It is in essence a scientific tool you wish to apply to a set of beliefs based on faith? Seems silly to me.
Occam's Razor is not so much about "defeating" ideas but rather making a preference between competing theories. Good science likes to keep it simple. But don't confuse Occam's Razor as a means to wholly eliminate alternative explanations.
But simple explanations are not necessary true ones- not even in science. I do social science but I will be damned (Damned I say!!!) if I will be a slave to the alter of parsimony or simplicity.
There are other theories that can be, and often are equally valuable. One of the fundamental differences within the social sciences, for instance, is between those who prefer the simplicity of the quantitative (statistical) approaches to the more qualitative (case study) approaches. An accurate telling of a causal path of a complex sociological event might be explained with greater simplity and parsimony with a more quantitative approach, but one might miss many of the fundamental causal relationships that often go unaccounted for should, as per occam's razor, one goes for simplicity.
Even in the sciences there is variation in what one values in terms of explanation. Occam's Razor might be helpful in parsing out competing theories, but it does not necessary lead to a valid explanation. It is merely a means to judge when theories conflict based on the value of simple explanations are better than complicated ones.
That said, I will not dispute that generally speaking, religion is a bad thing.
But my theory is simple-
God may be God, but fundamentally religion is a creation of man. Man run, organize and advocate based on religion- which is merely a system of institutionalized beliefs and rules.
All institutions are mechanisms for the mobilization of bias. Bias is means of division within society. It creates notions of "Us" vs "Other". While sometimes that is necessary, basing those distinctions on little more than an imagination drawn from a belief in the supernatural seems inherently dangerous.
Furthermore, religions desire adherance to their rituals, values and beliefs. One is a good Christian or Muslim or Hindu based on the strength of faith, not on their ability to critically think. Criticism is bad as it leads to division among the faithful and uncertainty about scripture. Such critical thinking is especially worrisome to the elite- who don't really want to be questioned anyway.
Thus there is an inherent appeal to dumb down the audience into being a faith based, non-critical body.
And in the process it contradicts mankinds great strength as a species- to be thought and critical of one's environment.
All that said, this could be worse. One can still appreciate the beauty and virtues of Christianity or Islam as matters of faith while remaining a critical thinker.
But it gets worse yet-
Human beings are by nature, self-serving actors based on limited perceptions of the world around them.
Based on this limitations, humans in general have a natural inclination to cheat.
Examples of this are so numerous that it isn't worth mentioning.
(Alas, the members of the church, being chosen or select by God in some ways - talk about ego boost that!- often see themselves as virtuous if not God-like. After all didn't God make man in his image? The Narcissus story in Greek mythology should be a warning sign )
Humans, even those who are willing members of institutions (and thus benefit from the mobilization of bias), will often/usually cheat others or will bring their selfishness to the institution of the church.
Religions- by creating this notion of shared identity, create an artifical basis of trust and community on a moral code of righteousness as provided by a divine supernatural force.
Yet, human beings, being members of that community, are quite capable of using those religions for their personal gain. They will cheat the members of the community and will even use that community to achieve what they wish.
Furthermore, humans have a natural inclination to judge themselves favorably and others harshly. The reason is simple- we understand our motivations better than we understand others. So excuse ourselves and chastise others.
Add the element of divine goodness = potential problems.
Thus with religious you create institutions in which some folks are pushed to abandon critical thinking, to adopt faith, to believe in their virtue, and to be blind to the evil selfish desires of members of their own community.
And this is a good thing?
Incidently, this is one of the reasons I am happily Catholic. Not to say that the Catholics haven't been corrupt historically and recently, nor is it that the heirarchy is fundamentally flawed and tyrannical. It is. The Catholic church is a dictatorship. However, the Catholic community is pretty aware of this and are often quite critical of the church. Nor is the church so dogmatic that it is intolerant of science. For example, the church does embrace evolution (or last I checked). If not the church than the community generally does. And while we might go to the priest for communion, only a fool would leave a child to the guardianship of a priest.
More- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
But Ashmo, be careful here. Occam's Razor is a tool for the elimination of alternative theories based on
It is in essence a scientific tool you wish to apply to a set of beliefs based on faith? Seems silly to me.
Occam's Razor is not so much about "defeating" ideas but rather making a preference between competing theories. Good science likes to keep it simple. But don't confuse Occam's Razor as a means to wholly eliminate alternative explanations.
But simple explanations are not necessary true ones- not even in science. I do social science but I will be damned (Damned I say!!!) if I will be a slave to the alter of parsimony or simplicity.
There are other theories that can be, and often are equally valuable. One of the fundamental differences within the social sciences, for instance, is between those who prefer the simplicity of the quantitative (statistical) approaches to the more qualitative (case study) approaches. An accurate telling of a causal path of a complex sociological event might be explained with greater simplity and parsimony with a more quantitative approach, but one might miss many of the fundamental causal relationships that often go unaccounted for should, as per occam's razor, one goes for simplicity.
Even in the sciences there is variation in what one values in terms of explanation. Occam's Razor might be helpful in parsing out competing theories, but it does not necessary lead to a valid explanation. It is merely a means to judge when theories conflict based on the value of simple explanations are better than complicated ones.
That said, I will not dispute that generally speaking, religion is a bad thing.
But my theory is simple-
God may be God, but fundamentally religion is a creation of man. Man run, organize and advocate based on religion- which is merely a system of institutionalized beliefs and rules.
All institutions are mechanisms for the mobilization of bias. Bias is means of division within society. It creates notions of "Us" vs "Other". While sometimes that is necessary, basing those distinctions on little more than an imagination drawn from a belief in the supernatural seems inherently dangerous.
Furthermore, religions desire adherance to their rituals, values and beliefs. One is a good Christian or Muslim or Hindu based on the strength of faith, not on their ability to critically think. Criticism is bad as it leads to division among the faithful and uncertainty about scripture. Such critical thinking is especially worrisome to the elite- who don't really want to be questioned anyway.
Thus there is an inherent appeal to dumb down the audience into being a faith based, non-critical body.
And in the process it contradicts mankinds great strength as a species- to be thought and critical of one's environment.
All that said, this could be worse. One can still appreciate the beauty and virtues of Christianity or Islam as matters of faith while remaining a critical thinker.
But it gets worse yet-
Human beings are by nature, self-serving actors based on limited perceptions of the world around them.
Based on this limitations, humans in general have a natural inclination to cheat.
Examples of this are so numerous that it isn't worth mentioning.
(Alas, the members of the church, being chosen or select by God in some ways - talk about ego boost that!- often see themselves as virtuous if not God-like. After all didn't God make man in his image? The Narcissus story in Greek mythology should be a warning sign )
Humans, even those who are willing members of institutions (and thus benefit from the mobilization of bias), will often/usually cheat others or will bring their selfishness to the institution of the church.
Religions- by creating this notion of shared identity, create an artifical basis of trust and community on a moral code of righteousness as provided by a divine supernatural force.
Yet, human beings, being members of that community, are quite capable of using those religions for their personal gain. They will cheat the members of the community and will even use that community to achieve what they wish.
Furthermore, humans have a natural inclination to judge themselves favorably and others harshly. The reason is simple- we understand our motivations better than we understand others. So excuse ourselves and chastise others.
Add the element of divine goodness = potential problems.
Thus with religious you create institutions in which some folks are pushed to abandon critical thinking, to adopt faith, to believe in their virtue, and to be blind to the evil selfish desires of members of their own community.
And this is a good thing?
Incidently, this is one of the reasons I am happily Catholic. Not to say that the Catholics haven't been corrupt historically and recently, nor is it that the heirarchy is fundamentally flawed and tyrannical. It is. The Catholic church is a dictatorship. However, the Catholic community is pretty aware of this and are often quite critical of the church. Nor is the church so dogmatic that it is intolerant of science. For example, the church does embrace evolution (or last I checked). If not the church than the community generally does. And while we might go to the priest for communion, only a fool would leave a child to the guardianship of a priest.
Ehm, and what, exactly, does all this have to do with this thread?aries369 said:Let me just start by clearing up a popular misconception or misunderstanding:
Islam is NOT behid the female circumcision, the local culture in Africa is. Even people who are good devout Christians, and people who believe in the traditional religions of Africa gets this done.
The reason for doing this is CULTURAL, not religious. (yet, somehow this has sneaked its way into islam in say Somalia...).
I agree that female circumcision is a very very bad thing indeed and that this should be
spoken out against at all levels.
However, in order to do this, you need to understand why {It's "people". You can write legibly. Don't bother crying about it.} in Africa do this. They don't this, at least not in their minds, to hurt the children, but rather to help them.
Why, you ask ?, does this help the female children ?? Well, you see, it is like this: A woman needs to be a woman and man needs to be man. And the woman needs to have that removed which resembles the man the most, and thus the clit(s) of the girl(s) are ---
sadly
In order to change that you need to work with the culture to get them understand that it really is bad for the children to undergo circumcision, and that it gravely endangers the children's child bearing abilities. (which it does).
As for Islam hindering children and women in studying, there isn't any prohibition in Islam
that don't let women study or work. Only some old men in Saudi-Arabia (and other places) who sort of read what they want into the texts so they can ensure that they still stay in power. Or use Islam as a means of legitimizing why they have the power.
I can see the point being made about Buddhism. However, one of the points of buddhism is that if you're rich in this life, it means that you have been 'good' in a previous life, and if you're poor, this means you have been 'bad' in a previous life.
This actually means that buddhists believe that you shouldn't do anything about this...
i.e. fixing poverty and such....
welsh: good post.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
All of them are religious. And yes, I do defend Religion is the rool of all evil, because religion is equal to ignorance, so no wonder.Specialist said:
Just my opinion though, i'm not open for discussion. I have discussed it over and over, with other people.:EDIT:
Not that they necessarily agree with me though xD
The point I was trying to make (when I was very tired last night) was that you can't take Islam, or Judaism or Christianity and say that it isn't ISlam etc. which is behind the mutilation of the little girls in Africa.
Men interpret the bible, the toran, and the koran as they please, quoting the passages they want to --- to justify their actions.
Their actions ranging form leigitimizing wars, mutilation, hate, and many more actions.
And that's why it has relevance here --- ti point out that female circumcision is CULTURAL tradition, not a religious one i.e. this can't be blamed on religion, but more on local traditions.
Men interpret the bible, the toran, and the koran as they please, quoting the passages they want to --- to justify their actions.
Their actions ranging form leigitimizing wars, mutilation, hate, and many more actions.
And that's why it has relevance here --- ti point out that female circumcision is CULTURAL tradition, not a religious one i.e. this can't be blamed on religion, but more on local traditions.
*Again* how is this relevant here? Female circumsision or *any* of the examples you named hadn't even come up in this thread, yet you came in trying to debunk that...while it hadn't even been said.aries369 said:
"the medieval muslim world where they cut off young girl's clits and force them to be illiterate until they visit the grave that bears their name." (page 1, qoute Alec qoute om Nov 28th 2006).
This clearly means that the issue of female circumcision has been brought up as well as
the Alec also mentions the whole Buddhist thing.
The point I'm trying to make is this:
Religion isn't the rool of all evil:
religion (organized and otherwise) can be used to, and has been used to legitimize horrendous acts - done in the name of the God, Allah, or Jahve.
Mostly these acts have been about gaining status, land, or such mundane things from people. Then, it is easier to get people
to battle againts people if say the Moslems believed that Christians are 'thde devil' or
all Jews believed the same about Christians and Moslems.
Organized religion then acts,imo, as kind of fuel, which fuels the tension between groups, thus helping leaders, religius or otherwise, to
suppress the masses with their religious ideology.
If you were to take religion out of the equation, mankind would find other ways
of legitimizing wars, such as racism
Maybe it's because I from Europe or something, but I don't get the whole
notion of how religious people have to be faithbased or follow the (strict) teachings
of their Church, being a good Christian or
Hindu or Moslem (or Jew).
Many people, in Europe, are both spiritual and religius, as well as they are able to apply their own critical minds to the to teachings of the Church. Also, note that when Christians talk about the Church, this really means the Catholic Church, which, to me, also was the one, Dawkins referrred to, both in the book and in his tv-series.
This clearly means that the issue of female circumcision has been brought up as well as
the Alec also mentions the whole Buddhist thing.
The point I'm trying to make is this:
Religion isn't the rool of all evil:
religion (organized and otherwise) can be used to, and has been used to legitimize horrendous acts - done in the name of the God, Allah, or Jahve.
Mostly these acts have been about gaining status, land, or such mundane things from people. Then, it is easier to get people
to battle againts people if say the Moslems believed that Christians are 'thde devil' or
all Jews believed the same about Christians and Moslems.
Organized religion then acts,imo, as kind of fuel, which fuels the tension between groups, thus helping leaders, religius or otherwise, to
suppress the masses with their religious ideology.
If you were to take religion out of the equation, mankind would find other ways
of legitimizing wars, such as racism
Maybe it's because I from Europe or something, but I don't get the whole
notion of how religious people have to be faithbased or follow the (strict) teachings
of their Church, being a good Christian or
Hindu or Moslem (or Jew).
Many people, in Europe, are both spiritual and religius, as well as they are able to apply their own critical minds to the to teachings of the Church. Also, note that when Christians talk about the Church, this really means the Catholic Church, which, to me, also was the one, Dawkins referrred to, both in the book and in his tv-series.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I fully agree with you, but I, myself, when referring to religion, I'm talking about general dogma, like cultural stereotypes and habits. Once again, i agree.aries369 said:
Many people, in Europe, know how to type and spell properly, use the 'quote' and 'spellcheck' function, and -woe and behold!- read the whole thread before posting.
Also, just to remind you, the last war we had on the continent had a lot to do with religion.
Also, just to remind you, the last war we had on the continent had a lot to do with religion.
Eh, yeah, it was brought in passing and somewhat in jest. You bring it up again *4 pages full of posts later*. Neat.aries369 said:
...aries said:The point I'm trying to make is this:
Religion isn't the rool of all evil:
religion (organized and otherwise) can be used to, and has been used to legitimize horrendous acts - done in the name of the God, Allah, or Jahve.
Mostly these acts have been about gaining status, land, or such mundane things from people. Then, it is easier to get people
to battle againts people if say the Moslems believed that Christians are 'thde devil' or
all Jews believed the same about Christians and Moslems.
Organized religion then acts,imo, as kind of fuel, which fuels the tension between groups, thus helping leaders, religius or otherwise, to
suppress the masses with their religious ideology.
If you were to take religion out of the equation, mankind would find other ways
of legitimizing wars, such as racism
Maybe it's because I from Europe or something, but I don't get the whole
notion of how religious people have to be faithbased or follow the (strict) teachings
of their Church, being a good Christian or
Hindu or Moslem (or Jew).
No, that has nothing to do with your being European. Europe has been the center of many, many religious conflicts.
'Cause, you know, non-Europeans can't do that. Or something.aries said:
What the fuck? Religion is as much alive in Europe as elsewhere in the world, just look at Spain or Italy, for instance.
Eh, no it doesn't. If a protestant talks about the church, he means the protestant church. If a Mormon talks about the church, he means the mormon church. If an atheist talks about the church, he'll mean organised religion in general.aries said:
No, he was talking about organised religion in general.aries said:
Vicious_Squid
First time out of the vault
Religion is the root of all evil. I agree wholeheartedly.
Wow, great addition to the debate. Your arguments are just astounding. You should really go into politics.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Bush! Be aware!DirtyDreamDesigner said:
GatewaysToAnnihilation
First time out of the vault
Bet he doesn't have a high speech skill... 
I have a problem with Catholic's believing in things like evolution but at the same time accepting that there must be a God. You're cherry picking your beliefs. What you're essentially saying is "OK, we accept this part of the bible is complete rubbish, we know that God didn't simply magic mankind out of his ass, but God must still exist!” Why? Why accept that even though the bible contains a lot of rubbish God must still exist somewhere? If you're going to reject parts of it that have been disproved by science you may as well start thinking about throwing out the whole thing. As Science tells us more and more about the universe the places where god can hide are getting fewer and fewer. If you start ignoring Christian teaching, because frankly, some of it is ridiculous you're opening up the idea that if some parts of the bible are wrong then in all probability other parts are, parts that science will show to be very improbable in the future. Why then must God still be truth? Isn't it possible the Bible is also wrong about him/her/it too?
By accepting evolution you're admitting the Bible is fallible and wrong on occasions. You must be deluded to continue to then believe in only certain parts of the Bible, which also, because no evidence backs them up, could be equally wrong.
By accepting evolution you're admitting the Bible is fallible and wrong on occasions. You must be deluded to continue to then believe in only certain parts of the Bible, which also, because no evidence backs them up, could be equally wrong.