Why must I keep making topics like this?
Posted on: August 15, 2007 - 11:09pm
Offline
Why must I keep making topics like this?
Oh wait, I remember. To counter the other million topics I get nowhere arguing in.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/1999/09/16/texas990916.html
About 150 people, mostly teenagers, were in the crowded church when Ashbrook started shooting.
Witnesses said he yelled: "What you believe is bullshit" and "stay still." They said he smoked a cigarette as he calmly reloaded his gun and kept shooting.
He then rolled a pipe bomb down one of the aisles that exploded a short time later.
For the last time, Theism isn't bad, atheism isn't bad people are bad.
If you realize this, than good on you. If not, I am struggling to make it more clear.
- Login to post comments
Well said, Cpt.
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
* Senseless opposition to embryonic stem cell research. * Support for ineffective abstinence-only sex education. * Condemnation of condom use, especially in areas ravaged by AIDS. * The Salem Witch Trials. * The Crusades. * 9/11
Negating the influence of religion is not being honest. Finding the good in religion is polishing the turd. We don't need that mess. All we want to do is start our view of the world with the world itself, not some convoluted bullshit story that can be made to defend anything.
O RLY?
see my topic on this
I'm sure many people in the W.H.O who distrubte condoms are Christian. It is mostly the fundies.
Same reason Stalin held executions, to keep power and control the people. If someone went against the ones in power, they were labled a witch.
Once again, many secular incentives such as trade routes, power, greed etc...
I believe U.S Foriegn policy had an influence. Bin Laden's goal is the pull out of U.S military troops from Saudia Arabia.
Negating the influence of secular causes is not being honest.
Many religious people condem the evil things commited by religious people.
[edit:added points]
How does this story indicate anything one way or another? Yes, bad people are likely going to do bad things, regardless of what beliefs they hold. I don't think any sensible atheist believes that religion alone makes an otherwise good person likely to commit murder, or other acts of blatant evil. But whether or not religion is good or bad should be based more on its overall influence on society, not its influence on individuals. It's much, much more complex than pulling up a news story about one guy and gleaning whatever you want from it.
If noone believed in witches, If noone believed they were working for the devil, if noone believed God wanted them to torture witches to death then accusing someone of being a witch would have achieved nothing. The religion made it possible to manipulate people in such a way. Yes without the belief the people in power would still be bastards but they could not have manipulated everyone else as easily.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
I responded to your stem cell post already. You made no point, but that's old news.
Why stop at breaking religious people into fundamentalists and moderates? Why not break them up into groups that agree/disagree on specific points? Why not break everyone up into sects of one, so no religion is ever tarnished by any act save for the sect of the specific person committing the crime? You're giving religion a free ride where it's used by its most passionate adherents. Their beliefs influenced their actions. Period.
Sam Harris stated well the problems of moderates in their legitimizing ambivalence to the twisted morality of their more orthodox counterparts. I'm not going to rehash it -- I'll leave that kinda thing to you.
P.S.: Did you hit your head since I left, Pineapple? I don't remember you being like this.
How easy would it have been to replace it with say, people who question us are Communists, or Nazis, or un-Americian, or in the cause of the times of the witch trials, with the French, or any other random enemy? We have seen this all through out history. 'That group hates freedom', or 'that groups supports Communism' etc....
You may counter with a rational person would question whether the people actually were Nazis/Communists/Terrorists etc, however the leader only needs a few that support him (The ones with the weapons, who are probably also bastards) and then the ones who question are also Nazis/Communists/Terrorists.
No, I was reading through the Christian camp topic, and it caught my last nerve
When people state that religion is bad (or evil), they are talking about the overall effect it has on society. Religion is another way to seperate and discriminate others.
A canadian news source concerning an act in Texas in 1999 with quotes from the scene???
No byline?
WTF?
Here:
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/US/9909/16/church.shooting.03/
Nope. No such quotes there.
Oh well. Here, Cpt. Let me help you. It is very difficult to find acts of violence committed by atheists or for other reasons.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chu_viol1.htm
Oh Wait. I'm sorry. Shucks. It was a nice try Cpt.
Mr. Ashbrook was a member of Phineas Priesthood:
http://www.bee.net/cardigan/attic/092599.htm
Bummer.
I thought maybe you were onto something, but NOPE.
Personally, I am still leaning toward the notion that violent acts committed by atheists are precipitated by religious influence.
I can relate to the 'million topics' statement. If not for the bunches and bunches of people that send us e-mails thanking us for being there to agree with them concerning this pandemic mind virus known as theism then I would think people weren't listening or reading.
Maybe you'll find one. Just like maybe I'll find a good theism one day. I suppose we should continue to look.
[MOD EDIT - fixed link]
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Right, cause Canada lives in an isolation bubble.
Link is busted
I never said atheism caused it. I concede that secular causes are behind it. Now why don't you apply the same skeptism when a Theist commits an act of violence?
WTF is 'bee.net'? At least I quoted a reliable news source.
How? They are atheists.
See, this is why I make topics like this.
uh-oh
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec99/shooting_9-16a.html
He reportedly shouted anti-religious, anti-Baptist curses as he fired
Pineapple I kinda question this article as other articles on this topic don't say anything about him yelling out "What you believe is bullshit." This includes articles from sources closer to the church.
Here one of the few other article I was able to find that talks about that quote and it said, "Last week's massacre at Wedgwood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, may not have happened quite that way. That's a version being offered by someone who was there, but it's unconfirmed. Yet even if it is pious invention, it gives a glimpse of the way some evangelical Christians, children and adults alike, are thinking these days about the string of killings around the U.S. in which they have been victims."
Here is another take on what may have caused this by religioustolerance.org, it also includes other cases similar to this.
Once again, I don't think atheism caused this.
The point of this topic to point out that people don't apply the same level of skeptisim when a Theist commits acts of violence.
Think about this. If this person was a Theist and shot up an atheist meeting, would you blame his Theism? Be honest here.
Yeah, thats way you put the "what you believe is bullshit" bit in bold, right?
Hmmm, I wonder way that part is missing from the article on the site.
I did it because I wanted to demostrate something. I, a Theist, point out this 'evil atheist'. You guys come to 'save the day' by pointing out that atheism didn't cause this (Which I am well aware of).
Now guess what? You use pretty much the exact same arguments I do. See why I did it now?
It is. Hit ctrl+f than type in 'anti-religious' it's in the first paragraph
I doubt anyone beleived that being an atheist makes it impossible for someone to be an arsehole, or mentally ill, or whatever makes them 'evil' in your example. What we keep pointing out is that it's impossible fot atheism to be the cause. Atheism is just the lack of belief in god. It does not dictate any course of action, it does not label anyone as deserving of death. Now if you want to claim that being (for lack of a better term) anti-theist caused this then you might have a case. There's belief there than could lead to action. A belief that we shoulod end religion. I think it's still a stretch though to blame anti-theism, but would be a stronger case.
When we point out damage done by religion we don't point out that it's done by a religious person as our entire case, we show how the beliefs motivated and justified the actions. In all of your examples you just point out a bad thing that was done by an atheist. You miss the important part, the link between the (lack of) belief and the action.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
I don't see how this compares to the crusades, inquisitions, etc. Large groups of people doing/accepting it claiming over and over again their reasons or cases where people are doing things as a part of an expressly religious ritual.
The article not the show transcript.
Well Anti-Theism would imply atheism.
I agree that wasn't the cause either since the articles say he was angered by the death of his father/drug use etc....
As I argued before, secular motives (greed, power etc...). A good counter argument would be, 'but religion motivates them. Without it they couldn't get enough people to follow them.'
My response hasn't changed. Replace religious motives (God told us) with secular motives (Because the enemy is persecuting our people), and you have the same result (terrorism etc...). There are many terrorist groups that are secular, but the members personally hold a religious belief.
I made it in response to the Christian boot camp topic.
'religious ritual'? Then why don't we see all Muslims support Bin Laden? Why don't all Christian support the IRA?
My point is people ignore the secular causes. Hezbollah wants Israel to withdrawl I have no idea why this is so hard to understand. I already dealt with the crusades in an ealier post, and the Inquistition is similar.
Wave a wand making everyone atheist, guess what? You now have atheists fighting for secular causes, but their goals are the same.
The transcript wasn't good enough?
Pineapple, just let them have their cake and eat it too. Theism is explicitly evil, bad, and wrong, and atheism is the light that will rescue humanity from the clutches of darkness and ignorance.
It's almost picturesque enough to make me gag. In any case, I don't see that there is any convincing them. They can't see past "right" and "wrong," I think.
Most probably yes, but anti-theism isn't a part of atheism, atheism is often a part of anti-theism. Just like your other example - communism. Atheism is a part of communism (atleast the form in your previous example) but not the part that causes the problem.
And I oppose those attiudes too. But this is a forum about religion. If there was a medical conference on cancer would you expect one of the attendees to say "Why are we bothering trying to cure cancer? People will just die of something else like AIDS, heart disease or having a billiard table dropped on them."
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Rationality is a better starting point than irrationality. What happens after that is subject to other factors, but I happen to think, "God said so but I can't prove it," is a premise we need to get past. If a perspective on life based on religious interpretation is what stands in the way of finding a cure for something, I'm going to go with what science says about what level of development is capable of sentience. If religious pandering so much as inconveniences a research scientist working with a discarded embryo, it's religion that's got to go.
Most people have enough cognitive dissonance to function in the real world without the religious fantasy getting in the way to a crippling degree. Religion is never logical or useful, though, it's just whether people can keep it from interfering in their lives.
I wasn't talking about groups when I said ritual, but rituals that would cause harm. I could also add ideology that causes harm too which would apply to groups. As for X religion not supporting X group I'd say it would probably be for the same kind of reason people of religions don't follow all the rules or add rules. That or the same reason there are usally more then one group within a religion.
No, pineapple people don't ignore secular causes. People can look at the events, what people who did the acts say were the reasons, what the religious text might say, how people were convinced to commit acts, and how compelling the secular causes might be.
You obviously didn't convince everyone with it.
I keep trying to tell you why this logic is flawed but you don't seem to get it so I won't bother doing it over and over again, especially when paranoid is already doing it...
I'm just wondering why the detail would be missing from so many articles.
I don't believe that there are many people here who will argue with the point of view that Soviet-style communism was one of the great evils of the 20th century. It was an economic and governmental ideology which oppressed the rights of citizens and created great suffering. Further, it was the intent of the Soviet government to spread its ideology, an effort in which it was somewhat successful in a number of client states. That such an ideology deserved to be opposed goes without question.
Yet many great evils were perpetrated in the name of anti-communism. The United States and its allies engaged in many questionable policies and military adventures whcih caused, not only great harm to the cause of countering Soviet communism, but great harm and suffering of many peoples, some of it quite unneccesary.
There always have been, are, and will be those who will seize good and noble causes and through malice or misunderstanding pervert the tenets of such causes. Religion is an excellent case in point.
A prime example of this in the religious realm is the Crusades, the offensive phase in which European Christendom carried the struggle for European survival to the enemy's homeland in an attempt, not to conquer new territory, but to regain that which had been lost to a usurper. The Crusades were but an episode in an epic struggle, the stakes of which were the survival of European civilization.
The fact that great atrocities occurred, that motives were not always altruistic, that great suffering was inflicted in the course of this venture goes without saying. That the goal of the undertaking, that its net effect of buying breathing space for Europe to recoup from centuries of incursions, is evil is not an accurate conclusion.
But, in the end, Islam did not overrun Europe. The advancement of European culture with its benefits, education, science and discovery was preserved..
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
The only good religion does could be done for better reasons.
Then why doesn't somebody else do it?
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
I am going to chime in on this one because I have been watch Cpt struggle with this issue over several threads. Yes, Cpt, you are correct - there are good people and there are bad people. IMO, the difference really lies with societal rationalization of the crime.
For the purposes of this discussion and my point, I am referring primarily to how the majority of US society rationalizes crimes commited by christians. There is an acceptance level to these crimes that just should not be there, and that acceptance is BECAUSE of religion. And it is wrong. A child molestor is a child molester....whether or not he is a preist. But somehow the majority of society rationalizes the crime if it is a priest and the burden gets placed on the shoulders of the children being abused. "Well, you shouldn't have gone with him" "Did you do something to encourage the priest to touch you like that?" It is sick.
I don't think I've ever heard society placing the blame of sexual abuse (in which a priest was involved) on the child instead of the priest. Although I have heard of people placing blame on the rape victim (i.e. the way she was dressing, she was asking for it). So I'm don't think religion really comes into play there.
Says you.
Why do things need cured in the first place? Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge supporter of stem cell research, but I don't pretend that my support comes from anything other than my own personal views. You seem to be under the impression that your conclusion is the only possible outcome of an intelligent mind. So tell me, why do things need to be cured in the first place? I have my own views, but I'd like to hear yours.
I find religion to be very useful. You know what isn't useful, though? Baseball. And football too. In fact, professional sports in general are a burden on the entire world. Not to mention the fact that any universities which offer athletic scholarships (not to mention priority scheduling for athletes) are clearly pandering to these athletes, who contribute nothing that's really useful to the world. Why, I remember one semester in college when I couldn't get into the class I wanted be some jockstrap with priority scheduling got the spot before I did. Well that's horse shit. I deserved that class way more than he did, but I got screwed over because he happens to get special treatment. Horse shit I say.
Actually, it is exactly the same as a rape case. Things have changed over the years regarding rape cases, and rape victims are much more likely to come forward than priest molestation victims.
My point was more to how these cases are regarded by society. Perhaps I am using the wrong word and should use 'public' instead. Overall, the public views the crimes differently and treats them with more tolerance. I suppose a good analogy would be that they view them in the same light as they do crimes committed by celebrities.
True, just like suicide bombings was added onto Islam, not a part of it. Non-Islam groups use them too.
See my response to Voiderest.
The problem with your example is if someone has cancer, I cure them, they won't automatically 'replace it' with heart disease or AIDS. If they do get heart disease or AIDS after, it will be due to other factors, not my curing the cancer.
Terrorists do it for a reason, that reason is secular.
I see similarties between the goals of Hezbollah and other secular nationalist groups. Russian seperatist want the withdrawl of Russian forces etc.....
O RLY? Remember my Albania topic? Hoxha targeted Theists, however this anti-Theism was added on to his Communist ideals, not the cause. Just like religion was added on to the crusades, but not the cause.
From what I've seen, people do.
I created this in the response to the millions of other topics where people pull up a news story of Theist doing evil and try to link it to Theism.
My arguement is basically that. It is more complex than soley linking it to Theism.
If there was no theism then those people wouldn't have died. This is the arguement most people mean.
Who are refering to? The victims of terrorism or the victims of the church shootings?
If you mean the victims of terrorism, many secular groups commit terrorism, and the religious ones have secular goals.
If you mean the victims of the church shootings, then well..... That is the dumbest argument I have seen.
I wasn't talking about Hezbollah, if I was I might have talked about them at least a little. "people ignore the secular causes"
I read it once I found it. Its "teh communist did bad stuff" argument...
Pineapple would it make sense to you if I invoked old threads in new ones when people didn't agree with me? I ask because you keep doing it, that and using the same kinds of arguments.
The title of this thread is "Why must I keep making topics like this?" The answer is because you haven't made an effective argument.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
The problem is, religious doctrines are used as cover for more indirect forms of hatred and violence. Many fundamentalists in the USA use the bible as a shield to promote hatred of gays, science and other religious groups.
You can say that these people would be hateful no matter what religion they followed or even if they were non-believers but the simple fact is that in this country, religion and christianity especially is an 'acceptable' reason to hate many things.
We have a very poor understanding of science in the U.S. primarily (I would venture to say 'solely' ) because of religion. People deny valid scientific findings because it contradicts their doctrine, they vote to hinder scientific funding because their pastor tells them that good christians should oppose these things. They disbelieve in well founded scientific theories like evolution because their minister tells them "we didn't come from no monkey, we were made from dirt by a sky fairy". They argue against geology, cosmology and biology at almost every turn and you cannot claim they would do so if religion weren't involved.
Pineapple you may feel inclined to defend christianity because, "Theism isn't bad, atheism isn't bad people are bad.", but I disagree.
Both.
Without religion there would be far less terrorist acts, especially since the basis of the recent uprising of terrorist acts have spawned from a religion. And sure, terrorism happens from secular groups, I agree. The difference is that it's always for a reason that isn't selfish I.E. Getting 72 virgins. While yes, there are more reason to why they do it, but would they still do it if they didn't think they got the virgins? I highly doubt it.
As far as the shooting, yes, if religion did not exist then this would not have happened. In fact, things like the Jewish Holocaust, the Crusades, the current influx of islamic terrorism, seperation of people due to difference of religion, and so many more negative things.
In other words, the bads of religion FAR outweigh the goods. In fact, the only good thing that religion has spawned were the protestants which countered the "do-nothing" Christianity which gave birth to modern society.
You do realize that people keep making the 'Theists did evil thing X' topics every time a Theist does something evil.
That's why I keep doing it.
I feel I have.
Do you think Hezbollah would be operating against Israel if Israel wasn't in Lebanon? Hezbollah orignally attacked U.S/French military troops when they were in Lebanon I believe their first bombing attack was agains U.S Marines.
You think because they are invoking God, that religion made them do it. If a Christian donates to charity and says 'I am doing God's work', would you assume he wouldn't have donated to charity if he wasn't Christian?
I'm not saying you should convert to Theism. But just because I don't hold the belief (Christianity, Islam etc..) doesn't mean I blame it for the world's problems.
This is why we should keep the government secular. It is caused by religon, but this problem could easily be solved through education and the realization that science and God can co-exist. I think every fundie should get a copy of 'Finding Darwin's God' By Ken Miller.
The solution to the science problem is relativly easy. The solution to terrorism however is not.
I see a stark difference between dening evolution and commiting acts of terrorism.
You do realize that non-Islam groups do suicide bombings/terrorist attacks too right?
This is by far the worst argument.
The argument that the Jewish Holocaust couldn't have happened because there wouldn't be Jews.
One could go further, WWII wouldn't have happened if Poland didn't exist, since the Nazi invasion of Poland started it off. The Virginia Tech shootings wouldn't have happened if VT didn't exist. etc...
I'm sure you guys can understand my frustration. I have seen topics on here about the 'atheist have no morals' crap. I am sure you are sick have hearing arguments such as that.
Frankly, I'm disappointed when atheists rush to find an explanation for an atheist who does something stupid.
My answer is simple. Some people are fucked in the head. They would be fucked in the head with or without religion. That's the "bad people will do bad things" part of the Weinberg quote.
I don't know any atheists who say that a world with no religion would be perfect. Just better.
Yes, people would still be arrested for wearing Anti-Bush T shirts to Republican rallies, and there would still be POW camps, and people would still kill their wives for no good reason.
But, Muslims couldn't demand respect for their "religious practices" of honor killings and female mutilation. We could just call them what they are: Bad people. No excuses.
No matter how much you want to believe otherwise, religion is in the business of giving people excuses to do bad things. Your conception of what religion ought to be is at stark odds with the reality of what it is.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
duh, of course bad people are bad.
my whole point is that an unstable mind generally requires some kind of justification to commit a violent act. i.e. the voices in my head, government/satellite conspiracy, drugs, hostile provocation, imagined imprisonment, etc. the bible provides a great deal of justification for violence, and our society has given a free pass to personal interpretation of scripture, allowing for almost any despicable act to be justified. the best part is that the bible is, for the majority of people, seen as good. so a violent act justified by a passage in the bible becomes socially acceptable, in the mind of a psychopath.
if religion didn't exist would a violent nutjob find some other justification to commit a violent act? duh, of course. but religion provides a wealth of material for the unstable mind to distort, it's easy to access, and for the most part our society approves of heavy handed tough-love morality of the bible. punishment, retribution, revenge, it's all there. and it's a virtual playground for someone who's in need of just the slightest nudge to push them over the edge.
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
A suecide attack may be motivated by other things but the promise of eternal reward for doing it certainly lowers the level of other motivatiopn required. There may be things worth blowing yourself and others up over but if someone didn't believe in an afterlife then they would have higher standards for what is worth doing for.
Religion also homogenises thought, making it easier for these terrorists to find like-minded people to organise groups or provide support. A lot of the cultural motivations, like racism, build themselves into the religion over time and grow stronger through it. Just look at the passion of the anti-gay churches, their own hate combined with God's authority.
So religion may not be the root cause but it lowers the barriers.
Well they will die of something but that's not the point.
Giving up one stupid idea does not mean you automatically get another. How many ex-christians here have replaced religion with communism or nationalism? Most of those who leave religion start thinking for themselves, making them harder to manipulate.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Cpt.,
The link worked for me.
Anyway, the bee.net was a blog entry and combined information known at the time. It's up to you to give the information a fair inspection. By someone who lived near the incident. Ummm. Better than an unsourced Canadian article.
Tell me truthfully, you didn't even look up the Phineas Priesthood did you?
You're bitching that we won't see your side of this alleged issue yet refuse to come up with an idea different than ours.
I say again, Both you and I assert that these acts of violence are attributable to mental illness. I'm going one step further by saying that a cause of their mental illness is their religion while you have stopped right there without looking for the precipitating cause.
Why are you stopping? Is it the same reason that you have stopped on the 'god exists' answer? Are you afraid of going further into the investigation?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I won't speculate on whether a person who would donate specifically as a Christian would do the same as an atheist. Frankly, we Americans don't have a mature secular outlook on society that tells most people they can do things for their own sake, for our own sake, or for the sake of society and for tangible reasons. A lot of Christians are afraid of atheists because they see the alternative to their beliefs as nihilism or something worse. Religion can motivate people to charity, but it leaves room for so much else, because it's ill-defined, vague, manipulative, horse shit. Without it, people would find reasons to do good, and there would hopefully be one less avenue to appeal to good people to support bad things.
Most of the ones I've seen people cite how religion was used. In one article I read a man hunted down a gay man because god told him to do it in a dream. The man who committed these acts had used religious reasons for why it had to be a man and was proud about his actions.
Is he insane? If he hears voices or acts on dreams I don't think everything right.
Would he still do these things? I'm not so sure. Would he be as likely think a voice is god or follow the advice of a dream without religious/spiritual ideas?
That idea isn't theist does bad so theism is bad pineapple. Its theist uses religious ideas to support or get his idea to cause harm.
I don't really care if you feel you made your point. If people are not convinced of any point made by anybody its pretty damn clear something didn't go right. Repeating yourself doesn't help anyone.
I'm not talking about Hezbollah, I never have. I don't know much about it so I don't. The most I have talked about Hezbollah is to tell you I'm not talking about Hezbollah. Just in case you missed it, I haven't talked about Hezbollah and not using it to support my argument.
If a religious person invokes god and I can find quotes inside their holybook(s) that supports there position I'm going to think religion is a factor. If I don't see many other reasons for there actions my conclusion is kind of limited.
I don't know the person. I kind of wonder if religion is there only reason though. I hear the argument about how people need a religion to be good it would follow that in their mind that charity wouldn't be done without their religion. Of course I don't think a theist realizes this says more bad things about him then it does about an atheist. There is also the idea that a religious person might be doing good works for jesus points.
Based on "religious person donates to charity saying god wants me to do" I can't conclude they won't do good things without their religion. I think most of the people who use religious language with doing good things do so because they were raised to view it religiously, raised with the phrasing, or think it will convince others to join in.
No, since I can't find a reliable source that says he was a member it is irrelavent.
Answer this simple question:
If someone gives to charity and says they did it because they are doing God's work, would you think Christianity caused it? Why or why not?
Have you read my other topics? I have studied science and feel that God could exist.
I am using them as an example to get my point across in case you missed it. Terrorism has secular causes. Did I mention terrorism has secular causes?
Why not apply that logic to bad things?
Yes. Because they attributed it to their god's work.
It does work both ways. I assert that it carries with it a form of mental illness because they do not examine their own emotions for the reason behind any act. Thereby degrading their faculties. Telling them that they need only ask an invisible saviour for forgiveness writes them a blank check ethically.
I cannot blame nor reward the individual for something that their religion has programmed them to do. These alleged acts of altruism do not recompense for the acts of violence and terror that adherents of the same faith commit.
[off topic]it begs a question of why their god needs them to do that work, but that is another issue. [back to topic]
That does not deny the fact that religion is a cause for violent acts. Every violent act? No. Enough violent acts to warrant the end of it? Absolutely.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Highly relevant since you are the OP.
The Houston Chronicle isn't a reliable source? Or at least a more reliable resource than an anonymous Canadian article?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Indeed. But those people couldn't exactly be called sensible, could they?
No one, said religion is the only thing that can cause X...
The idea was concluding a person wouldn't do something without religion. This would mean a person could be doing it for religious reasons. I also said earlier how I would come to think that something is caused by a religion. It included looking at other reasons, which is what I did here.
The religious people who are doing those bad things for their religion think they are doing good. If its ethical or not doesn't matter if this good thing is given to them from a divine source, divine source isn't suppose to do bad. If they were doing these bad things for other reasons it would be more likely they could be reasoned with. If they were thinking about doing something outside of religious ideas they can do so considering ethics.
BTW viewing something religiously would kinda mean its viewed in a religious context. So a bad thing could be viewed in a religious context. Also I didn't say anywhere in there that people didn't do things for religion alone.
So religion can cause X, can be done without X, and be positive or negative. Now is the religious reasons for doing X vaild? Can it ever be vaild?