I have a theory
Posted on: August 4, 2007 - 5:27pm
Offline
I have a theory
I find the majority of people that would like to get rid of religion completely are the ones that live in the more fundie parts of the world. (Bible belt U.S) etc... They may not know what it's like to co-exist peacfully with religious folks. However, people who have no objection to religion are the ones that grew up in more moderate parts of the world (Canada, Sweden) etc.... and see no reason why religion cannot co-exist with society.
Main point. It all depends on your experiences.
- Login to post comments
I don't disagree with anything you've said.
However, I'd also point out that this has no particular relevance to whether religion is inherently dangerous or not.
It's a flawed analogy, but people who carry a disease but don't show symptoms aren't negatively affected. Does that mean the disease is not dangerous?
Obviously not.
In the same way, religion, while it doesn't harm everybody, does great harm, and is still dangerous despite not being 100% "fatal."
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Religion obviously does have the potiental to do harm. So does any idea. My point is get rid of the fundies not the moderates.
I was having this discussion in another topic and wanted to bring it out here because this is part of the core of my argument.
So, by analogy, you'd like to let the people who carry diseases stay to infect those who are susceptable to the deadly forms of the disease?
I'd suggest just vaccinating everybody.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
When I have more time, I'll try to find a link to a post I made about what religion actually contributes.
Essentially, I've yet to see anyone suggest anything that religion does that couldn't be accomplished without religion.
1) Religion contributes nothing unique.
2) Religion enables those who would do harm.
3) Therefore, we should allow religion to stay.
Huh?
Something doesn't follow.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Doesn't mean we should get rid of it. Music inspires people. Sure, they could find other inspirations, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of music.
I have an objection to 2). It isn't soley religion, it is also other factors. Another part of my core argument.
Gah! i'd love to discuss this with you, but I've really got to go.
I'll check back tomorrow, though.
Are you saying that you think religion contributes something unique that could not be accomplished without religion, that is so good that it offsets the bad that religion often creates? Please, tell me what it is! I have been thinking on this for years, and haven't come up with anything.
What does music have to do with anything? I don't see the analogy.
What could you possibly object to in (2)? Are you saying that religion cannot enable people to do harm?
If there's more, there's more, but (2) is not untrue or invalid.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
naturally it's not JUST religion, but how could it be a bad thing to have one less divisive concept in our world?
I'll see you then. The internet isn't going to blow up.
No, I am saying just because it doesn't doesn't mean we should get rid of it. I address the bad below.
The music analogy was to show that because people can get the things from religion from other sources doesn't mean we should get rid of religion.
as for 2), religion can enable some to do harm, but it is not the sole cause. Most terrorist groups have goals that don't require religion. Bin Laden wants the U.S military pull out from Saudia Arabia for example. Hezbollah wants the Israeli pull out from Lebenon. Religion is a factor, but not the key one. Taking it out will not solve the problem. I have been arguing this for quite a while.
What exactly do you think the goal is here, Pineapple? How exactly do you think we want to go about putting an end to religion?
I highly doubt anyone here wants to outlaw religion or bomb all the churches.
I think the main method you are advocating is education and spreading what you believe is rational.
Guess what? That's how the moderates want to spread their religion too.
I got into this argument before.. perhaps one of the firsts threads I started. The problem is one of conflation.
If we mean "unique," as in, a general contribution which nothing else could have accomplished:
Then.. we should have the same response of "Huh?" to positing whether automobiles should stay around.
1.) Automobiles contribute nothing unique. (Bikes and Horses transport).
2.) Automobiles enable great harm. (by enable do we mean justify? or allow? eitherway.. it would still apply. Whether one justifies X amount of deaths because of the "importance of automobiles" or one states that autombiles allow for X amount of deaths-- all the same to me)
3.) Therefore, we should allow automobiles to stay.
Huh?
The other way of using unique in this sentence is to imply(that I found out after about 70 posts with this individual) a comparatively better contribution.
For instance, the fact that a car can get me to point A to point B faster than a horse can, is "unique."
If this is what we mean.. then I feel that the statement "Religion offers nothing unique" to be a lot harder position to support.
In essence what you are saying is "Religion offers nothing which is comparatively better in what it does then anything else."
To prove how difficult it would be to support, I would suggest that religion gives some "hope," "peace," or perhaps a sense of "communal responsibility."
How would you go about arguing this? I am not saying that people without religion do not have these things, or even that all people that have religion are better served by religion to get these things then they would have been without it-- but that just shows the difficulty of it. To undercut the statement one would have to give evidence that:
1.) People can get these things without religion.
2.) All these people, irregardless of the person's attributes, would get to it faster and to the same degree without religion.
Difficult.. in my opinion.
p.s. Conflation..
I don't like the word. Who knows even if I used it correctly.
Nope, I live in Australia, multicultural to a fault. Here everyone can have their own ridiculous faiths and it's considered rude to point out that they are ridiculous. We have catholics, chirstians who think catholics are evil, christians so nutty even the rest of the christians think they're crazy (eg Mormons), jews, muslims, budhists, neo-pagans and baha'i all living in the same neighbourhoods. It's even pretty easy to find an atheist. Most people atleast pretend to be moderate because there isn't a high enough concentration of one faith to get away with visible fundamentalism.
We have it pretty good here, I know that it is possible for everyone to just get along regardless of their faith. My problem is the effect of faith on the individual. Children have no say in the family they are born in to. I was lucky enough to have an atheist father and a non-churchgoing catholic mother. Those born into religious families get indoctrinated before they have a chance to develop the skills to recognise bullshit. Most of them never get a chance to really live life. Their reality is so much smaller than mine. Everything they see is filtered through their religion. They deny themselves experiences based on totally arbitary rules and the supernatural threats of disproportionate punnisment. Some are even afraid to think 'bad' ideas. To me, raising children to live like this is abuse.
This life is all we get, and religion robs people of the freedom to live it fully. That's why I want to see religion gone.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Hence why I said the majority, not all, of people.....
I don't see how you can know that someone is 'pretending' to be moderate.
The same can be said with politics. Children are more likely to be the political party of their parents and there are 'fundie' Democrats and Republicians. Polical beliefs can intefer with lifestyle as well, perhaps even more so than religious.
It's easier to change a political belief than a religious one. Politics aren't backed up by hellfire.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Not really important. My point was that almost everyone here behaves as a moderate. I just didn't want to assume they were all moderates because I don't know. I also know a few fundies who have the good sense to keep their damn mouths shut about it most of the time.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
True to a point. While 'hellfire' may not be anti-motivation for political change, fear is.
If the Democrats get in, the U.S will be overrun with terrorist, because Democrats hate America. If the Republicians get in, they will nuke every country starting WWIII because all the Republicans think of is war.
My religion is singing in the bathtub.
How fatal am I?
- Jo Smith from the Marmen Booble
Why, the Tao, of course, Hamby. The mystical is never defunct.
Well, I'd consider it invalid. The point of the argument against religion is that it defaults to the alternative as the positive comparison, which is false in this case. Secular values suffer exactly the same flaw every which way, there's no validity here to begin with, enables harm compared to what that doesn't?
As much as religious fervour gives me the creeps, that religion in the hands of humans, like anything in the hands of humans, turns easily to debased purpose, doesn't make a speck of difference IMHO.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I don't think theistic vs. secular values are the problem, per se.
The mindset that there exists an entity whose every command must be complied with and who holds one's eternal fate in its hands is inherently dangerous. Nothing else could possibly compare, motivation wise, to eternal bliss or eternal damnation. If one believes in a god and I can convince them that their god is either displeased with the population that disagrees with their particular brand of theism, or loves everyone so much he wants to meet them, post-haste, then they would have to be insane not to throw off their natural moral inclinations and do whatever horrific deed is instructed.
Belief in an eternal afterlife experience dependant on the approval of some free-willed entity lends itself to unparalleled potential for abuse and an unequaled ability to justify doing great harm in the name of the greater good. I don't see how anyone could honestly disagree.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Theoretically, you'd expect that to be true, I agree. But if it were true there'd be much greater compliance and literal adherence to religious text than we see in the world, surely. The intangible is not more motivating than the felt, I can honestly disagree with you on it Vessel. How is post death promise more motivating than dominion, luxury, opulence? It's not. It's abstract and it's deferred by the continuation of experience, and it's the continued experience which is the more instantaneously compelling motivator 9/10 times a day. So purely addressing the motive argument religious belief by far doesn't have the monopoly on it, creature comfort in life is easily as powerful a motivator in many respects.
Personal validation to the point of pride is also a powerful motivator that doesn't need religion to do harm. When projected into religious group consciousness, I would happily agree, arrogance is extra dangerous and ugly. But I would qualify that religiosity in group consciouness is anything but, utterly, confined to mystical or supernatural concepts, realist concepts can and do have similar sway at least, bigotry has worst cases in many ideologies.
It's only unequalled, IMHO, in the prescence of fervour, without the surrounding hype it's readily dismissed, the evidence for that is irrefutable, the behind closed doors reality doesn't justify the stance that eternal promise is unrivalled motivation.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I agree that creature comfort can be a great motivator. Not worth blowing yourself up over though, as that would be nothing if not counterproductive. I'm not saying that religious belief has a monopoly on motivation to do harm, simply that its motivator can beat up the secular motivators, and that it has no boundaries.
Now, let's do this, put on your secular colored glasses and take a look at the world. It is a world where all are operating from the same base motivations. Secular good and bad have actual concrete meaning in the way they affect people, which are the relevant entities when addressing human ethical questions.
Now put on your god glasses (they're the invisible ones next to the unicorn) and what do you see? Moral questions are removed from those that they affect and placed into the hands of some higher existence. We have no reason to think that our natural idea of good and bad coincides with what is actually good or bad. It is all up to the interpretation of the will of the creator. This leaves us out in the great wide open moraly, where anything can be rightly justified, in a way that secular morals really doesn't allow for.
It can actually be good to kill everyone in existence from a theistic standpoint. I would like to hear any way in which that could be justified as actual good secularly.
So, what the hell was I talking about?
Anyway, I agree that creature comforts, or greed basically, can be a motivator but we can see why greed is a bad thing. We can explain in secular language, through role reversal or what have you, why it is an undesriable thing for a society for one to commit such acts. Why is killing to please a god bad? Because the god doesn't want one to? But what if he does?
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Religion is useless
Look at morality in respect to belief and non belief.
Here are two challenges, as formulated by Christopher Hitchens:
1. Can you name or cite a moral statement made or a moral action taken by a believer that could not have been made or done by a non believer?
2. Can you name an immoral thing said or done that could only have been done by a believer?
The first challenge cannot be met. The second challenge is extremely easy to fulfil.
What does this tell is? It tells us that religion is entirely optional. When it comes to doing good… yes religious people can be and are moral (by stealing from secular morality), but you find that the good they do is not unique to religion nor does it require religions. Conversely, when it comes to immoral things you find that there some things which can only be said or done by someone who believes they have a divine warrant or command to do so, such as genital mutilation, scarring a child’s mind with threats of hell, etc.
So while we can say that religion does a lot of bad… that it allows people to commit immoral actions if they believe they have divine sanction, the argument that religion is okay because it does a lot of good doesn’t work, since when it comes to doing good, religions is optional.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
Politics is always involved, along with things like criticism – these motivate a response.
But the response itself it dictated by the ideology. And I hold this is there the problem lies. The ideology could be a political (e.g. communism, Red Army Faction), religious (e.g. Islamic extremism), ethical (e.g. animal liberation), ethnic (e.g. hate crimes) or social (e.g. single-issue such as anti-abortion).
For example: someone may criticise or even kill a doctor who carries out abortions. Now is the problem abortion itself, or is the problem the individual’s perception of abortion and/or the origin of the individuals perception of abortions? If abortion was itself a problem, we should expect negative responses from all people, yet clearly this doesn’t happen. Clearly you need a specific outlook in order for there to be a problem. This is especially significant with Islam, e.g. the Danish cartoons. Should we compel Muslims to get a grip or should we seek to never criticise or do anything which could trigger a negative response. Clearly the latter is absurd, and impossible, since we are liable to trigger negative responses simply by not being Muslims.
Another problem is that people are always going to offend someone since people hold to mutually exclusive beliefs and opinions. For example take steam cell research, if we go ahead with it the theists will get pissed off, if we ban it the scientists and rational people will get pissed off.
The Terrorism Research Centre has this to say on this matter:
”Terrorism may be motivated by political, religious, or ideological objectives. In a sense, terrorist goals are always political, as extremists driven by religious or ideological beliefs usually seek political power to compel society to conform to their views. The objectives of terrorism distinguish it from other violent acts aimed at personal gain, such as criminal violence. … The essence of terrorism is the intent to induce fear in someone other than its victims to make a government or other audience change its political behavior.”
http://www.terrorism.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5671&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
So while the people or countries in your post have the appearance of political motives and goals, many of them actually have a significant religious bent to their actions, and the political front it merely to try and gain power.
Hope, peace and comfort often stop our endeavour for knowledge. To quote Carl Sagan: “better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy.”
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. The history of our study of our solar system shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources." --- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
As for "communal responsibility," I’ll think you’ll find this is innate, and intrinsic. Normal people will function just fine in society; our human nature explains the fundamental and universal ‘rules’ of society. It’s the people who are mentally ill and the psychopaths who cannot operate properly. Normal people do not need religions to be good.
As Christopher Hitchens has said, do you think that the Jewish people travelled all the way to Mount Sinai under the impression that murder, theft and perjury were all okay? Clearly not. Clearly they already knew these things were wrong and should be avoided. We could not have evolved if these were not innate.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
Not exactly.
If that were true, why don't we see all Muslims commit terrorist attacks? If Isalm was the main problem, we would see all Muslims following this cause.
Of course, complete un-offensiveness is impossible. As for your stem cell example, their are several atheists against stem cell too.
My point is a see similar actions taken from religous extremist as secular terrorists. I don't really see anything exclusive (including suicide bombs. Secular terrorists use those too).
Elaborate.
Because religion is a projection of the individual theist. You can get a radical and a moderate theology from Islamic scripture, by accepting and emphasising some commands and rejecting others and also by interpretation. The individual formulates their theology (i.e. by searching scripture for support and divine warrant) based on their preconceived views and desires, which may themselves derive from religion (i.e. indoctrination). If the person is of a liberal frame of mind, then their theology is generally going to be moderate, in fact they’re likely to be secular with regards to most things. But if they’re of an ultra-conservative, inflexible frame of mind, it will be reflected in their theology. Now take into account the fact that religion cannot be criticised… this may not be a big issue with the liberal-minded people, but it is an issues with the more extreme theists.
Take the Dutch cartoon controversy… do you hold that the Muslim response was the problem, or that the cartoons themselves were the problem? Clearly the cartoons themselves were not the problem since the only people who took a negative response from them were Muslims.
As I said, you need a specific viewpoint in order for a problem to even exist… with the Dutch cartoons it is Islam, with Stem Cell research it is some theological based ‘ethical’ opinion and so on. Remove Islam and the cartoons wouldn’t have posed a problem. Remove the theology from the stem cell issue and the problem goes away.
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Source(s) please. What is there reasoning? Even if it is true, I doubt there reasoning is akin to that which the theist give.
Such as?
In any case, it is based on dogma and faith driven ideology, not scepticsm and rationality.
We are not just talking about terrorism. We are talking about religion as a whole.
Perhaps you’d like to take Christopher Hitchens challenge:
1. Can you name or cite a moral statement made or a moral action taken by a believer that could not have been made or done by a non believer?
2. Can you name an immoral thing said or done that could only have been done by a believer?
As for secular suicide bombing, you’re probably thinking of the Tamil Tigers, now aside from the fact that they are nominally Hindu, the Tamil Tigers can be categorised with the likes of Stalin as a group who pursue a ideological goal with the same dogmatic blind faith as theists follow religions.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
I can concur much better with this argument, though to be fair it's rare that there's no reason whatsoever to argue for morality which is equal in secular ideology from the authority of religion. There is a good degree of authoritative balance existent in religious doctrine which tends the high moral ground, mores the pity is that it is ignored by those with God glasses on, but nevertheless it is there, extremism doesn't exist in a concept devoid of decency. That said, however, I think your statement is fair enough and I hold the same view, adding Gods will or eternal promise to the rhetoric of an extreme view has the capacity to blind many in one easy sweep. There are few ultimates in life that can have the sway of holding a gun to someone's head and I agree that this is one of them. What must beleaguer the atheist about this more than anything, I guess, is not that it has so much sway; there are few means to compel a person so deeply, but we can think of them and they probably all disgust us in equal measure; but rather that it is not a concrete or palpable concept, that it is fantastical, not evidenced, and even non-cognitive. So not that it does compel more greatly overall, but rather that it compels at all, right?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Hmmm, well not one that is so much exactly that, non-believers could and probably would take this action, and believers, admittedly often don't have any concept of it at all, however it's easy to see that secular ideology doesn't encompass anything motivating this action, it is quite unique to faith.
The answer is willing, dauntless self-sacrifice without grounds for material reward or self interest. Material reward and self interest would include sacrifice for a loved one, that is a given, but only in the tradition of religious ideal do you find figures like Christ, or the otherwise known Masters of Compassion that forsake willingly and unresistingly everything realistically desirable to the ends of a higher cause for humanity forthwith.
This type of sacrificial ideal is very unique to faith, it is unlike dying in war which requires fighting back, although that is a sacrifice, and it is unlike throwing yourself in the path of a bullet compelled by a singular sense of value like chivalry. These are, of course, good and intrinsically moral gestures, but not necessarily the same as laying down life itself with willing desire.
Really it's only that which is unique to religious tradition, and yeah, people don't do this simply because they are religious, so you can make of it what you will.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Well, I was thinking it only depends if you take the ideology to the extreme.
For example, you may agree with certain social issues (i.e protect the enviroment, don't kick kittens etc..). However, those who bomb oil refineres to stop global warming or fire-bomb animal research labs to 'protect the animals' do take them to the extreme. I'm guessing you wouldn't join in. You may hand out flyers explaining you position rather than firebombs through windows.
My other point is take out the religious ideology, the leaders will merely replace it with political ones.
If there was a cosmic beam that suddenly vanquished religion, then the wars would continute. Hezbollah stills wants the withdrawl of Israeli forces. It would be relativly easy to recruit members.
I touch on this above.
Obviously the response. I agree that people should think more rationally.
This stem cell is strawman anyway.
http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/media_myths.html
Myth 2. Christians are against stem cell research. There are four categories of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, embryonic germ cells, umbilical cord stem cells, and adult stem cells. Given that germ cells can come from miscarriages that involve no deliberate interruption of pregnancy, Christians in general oppose the use of only one of these four categories, i.e., embryonic stem cells. In other words, most Christians approve of three of the four possible types of stem cell research.
One of my friends. He thinks embroynic stem cell research is wrong. His reasoning is that it is a form of killing since the embroyo can become a human.
The Chenyan seperatists who took over the school. Their objective to drive out Soviet forces. Hezbollah's objective, to drive out Israeli forces. The objectives are the same, to drive out military forces. Bin Laden didn't attack the U.S until they put military troops in Saudia Arabia. Bin Laden attacked the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan. FARC (Armed revolutionary Forces of Colombia) use guerilla tactics (Their goal is to install a communist state in Colombia, they're secular) much like the tactics of terrorists in Iraq. (ambushes etc...).
1) no
2) no
Next.
Good guess. They're Hindu because they were born in a primarly Hindu state. They are secular, because Hinduism has nothing to do with their actions. It would be like classifying communism with atheism, because the majority of communists were atheist.
Which is part of my point. Getting rid of religion will not get rid of dogmatic blind faith.
Not smoking doesn't get rid of cancer, lets keep smoking.
As I said previously, religious ideology can easily be replaced.
I am beleaugered by the fact that one would look to something so nebulous, to put it as mildly as I can, for answers to moral questions that have such concrete effects on actual living breathing human beings. That such an unevidenced and, yes, non-cognitive wisp of an idea of an ill defined existence, and what is interpreted by some as its will, can also be used to justify unimaginable atrocities while being immune from rational objection, however, is the fact that causes to me shiver at the possibilities. Especially when so many people walk around with the seed from which this type of justification can sprout planted securely and quietly in their heads.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
I don’t see how this negates what I said – that the problem is not the motivator/stimulus (i.e. politics, criticism, polluting the world, animals in research labs, etc), rather the problem is your perspective on the issue, how you view the issue, your ideology.
For example, the same situation can cause multiple responses, responses which are dictated by your viewpoint/ideology. And there is a gradual spectrum, between more liberal/moderation (someone who merely disagrees with an issue, maybe speaks out) and extreme (someone who commits and encourages violence, vandalism, etc).
I don’t doubt this, but the point is that religion allows people to do things which they otherwise would not do; it gives them divine warrant, a justification to say and do things which would otherwise not be allowed.
”Jerry Falwell's foul rantings prove you can get away with anything if you have "Reverend" in front of your name.” – Christopher Hitchens
I rest my case.
How remember that when people try to say that politics is the cause of many problems, often, politics is merely a trigger, a stimulus, just like the Danish cartoons.
I was referring to embryonic stem cells (sorry I should have typed ‘embryonic’ by its easier not too!). I know full well that Christians only have a problem with embryonic stem cell research. In fact, many, if not most Christians try to argue that adult stem cell should be used “instead” as they are more successful/promising. I’ve discussed this with Christians quite a lot.
I’ve heard this argument before. It doesn’t really work for many reasons; although this ethical-based argument (i.e. that it becomes a human) is a lot better than the soul-based argument or the choice-based argument. (The choice-based argument argues that the stem cell issue is a matter of choice, not suffering. In other words, what’s important is not alleviating suffering, but rather getting the consent of the embryos!)
Most of these are not really secular. A lot of them contain religious undertones… as I said previously, they might appear to be secular/political-based and politically goal orientated, but there is often a religious driving force underneath them. So while two situations can seem the same, in terms of behaviour, the source of motivation is often not.
That said, religious motivations or not, I categorise them all as dogmatic and ‘faith’ driven behaviour seek to install an ideology (i.e. “we’re right and this is the way is must be and the way it is going to be…”)
So you cannot think of something which can only be done by a believer, such as genital mutilation, or scarring a child’s mind with threats of hell. This is not moral at all, and yet it happens due to religion, because people think that have a divine command/sanction.
I know they are secular, they are not driven by Hinduism, but they are nominally Hindu in that are raised Hindu and are culturally Hindu, this may mean some aspects of Hinduism (such as the possible belief in souls and rebirth) make their behaviour easier, although I am not using this as my argument against them. (Kinda like the fact that most people in the UK are secular but nominally Christian (CoE) even though they do not believe in or follow the beliefs, at best they might believe in a mystical god/force and/or afterlife.)
Well this is two different issues – the two problems I have with religion.
The main problem I have is “dogma” and “faith,” of any sort. Religion is the greatest advocate of this (hence it is the main target of criticism).
The second problem is that religion provides justification (divine warrant/sanction) to do things which would otherwise not be justified.
I think they can be reduced or stopped together. In other words, the implication of reducing or stopping dogma and faith [e.g. faith not longer being a virtue] (by teaching critical thinking at a young age, etc) is that religion becomes less and less important, and less subscribed to.
So in short, I don’t think we can get rid of religion and still have the same type of dogma and faith since I think religion will become less important and less subscribed to only if dogma and faith go first.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
I think I see what you're saying now. My argument still stands, the moderates aren't the problem, the extremeists are.
I don't disagree, however political ones can replace that one too. The first amendment has been used for the 'gettting away' part.
I see the part with the cartoon, since it doesn't directly affect anyone.
However, foriegn military occupation (Israeli occupation of Lebanon, U.S of Iraq etc..) does directly affect the people involved commiting the terrorist attacks, and hence could be the cause.
Sorry, I get the strawman that they want to end ALL stem cell research all too often.
I've heard that arugment among Christians too.
Not sure I agree on this. For example, FARC's goal, if achieved, involves them in complete power (guess who gets to lead this communist state?). That is more than enough motive.
I don't see how getting rid of religion will end this.
All right, you're correct, the part about indoctirine hell may not be moral. However, it can be overcome. I think many atheists on this board were former Theists.
1) Have you've been following the presidental election? Dogma is all around it.
2) It doesn't have to be justifiable to us, it just has to be for to the terrorists. I
n other words justications that you would think they wouldn't use, could be used.
I agree with the critical thinking part, however, intellegent people will still follow extremely irrational precepts. For example, an accountant fell for a Nigeria money scam, he was motivated by greed. So secular motivations can still drive people to irrationality and even dogma.