Jump to content


The Problem with Religious Moderates


Recommended Posts

I agree with Husker X.

 

Paraphased, from Epicurus:

 

God is omnipotent, all-powerful, and perfectly good, yes?

 

1) If God is willing to prevent evil, but not able to, he is not omnipotent

2) If God is not willing to prevent evil, but he is able to, then he is not perfectly good

3) If God is willing to prevent evil and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil in the world?

Link to comment

Belief in a nonexistent god doesn't harm someone.

 

If we're going to approach catharsis, this is the moment. Belief in a nonexistent god doesn't harm someone? Oh really? What if you thought that God wanted you to die in a holy war against those that didn't believe in him, would that harm you? What if he wanted you to kill every male of a certain tribe, mutilate your flesh, or not take medicine when you're ill because it would be a sign of a lack of faith? Your over-simplification is so baselessly absurd that I can barely believe you've managed to formulate it into a sentence.

 

If you tell people God's watching out for them in their suffering, that he ordained all events, that there'll be a final reckoning, etc., etc., etc., and you can't demonstrate anything of the kind, you are not speaking honestly. You think it's okay to make something up instead of seeing the world for what it is. This is not a respectable way to go about life in my view. Incidentally, why does God allow entire tribes to be murdered? Why does he allow famine, pestilence, genocide, and torture? Doesn't he have the power to stop it? What are you going to do when people start asking you these questions? You're a believer. You're the expert. I don't tell anyone there is a god. I don't tell anyone there isn't. I don't think anyone knows.

 

And that's the truth, the only one that matters. If truth isn't your concern, our conversations are as pointless as your philosophy of meaninglessness.

 

Ignoring your usual victim mentality and whining about ad hominem attacks :rolleyes: , I think you're missing a point here. I'm not telling anyone anything about any god. I'm not proselytizing here, I'm discussing security blankets. It's been a while since I've described myself as Christian, and that description hasn't held true for me for some time.

 

Your whole paragraph containing examples of the harms of belief in a nonexistent god is a contradiction. If the god is nonexistent, the harms you describe originate from the man who dreamt them up. You erroneously put forth that, in the absence of a god, these harms wouldn't occur. They would - they are human creations, and as long as we have humans, we'll have these harms. In the absence of a god excuse another excuse will be used, but the war will still happen, the genocide will still happen, the mutilation will still happen, and the refusal to take medicine will still happen. The god being nonexistent, you can't blame the harm the human does on that god.

 

You have no monopoly on truth. Your head is in the sand every bit as much as those Theists you target. You continue to believe that life will have meaning if you simply speak Truth, if you stop lying to yourself and others - yet you refuse to face the truth that at its very basis existence is an accident, devoid of meaning, destined to end in nothing. You still seek meaning in your existence just like Theists, you just seek a different meaning. Good luck on your quest, but you'll never find your answer until you stop lying to yourself about the very basis of your search.

Link to comment
Belief in a nonexistent god doesn't harm someone.

 

If we're going to approach catharsis, this is the moment. Belief in a nonexistent god doesn't harm someone? Oh really? What if you thought that God wanted you to die in a holy war against those that didn't believe in him, would that harm you? What if he wanted you to kill every male of a certain tribe, mutilate your flesh, or not take medicine when you're ill because it would be a sign of a lack of faith? Your over-simplification is so baselessly absurd that I can barely believe you've managed to formulate it into a sentence.

 

If you tell people God's watching out for them in their suffering, that he ordained all events, that there'll be a final reckoning, etc., etc., etc., and you can't demonstrate anything of the kind, you are not speaking honestly. You think it's okay to make something up instead of seeing the world for what it is. This is not a respectable way to go about life in my view. Incidentally, why does God allow entire tribes to be murdered? Why does he allow famine, pestilence, genocide, and torture? Doesn't he have the power to stop it? What are you going to do when people start asking you these questions? You're a believer. You're the expert. I don't tell anyone there is a god. I don't tell anyone there isn't. I don't think anyone knows.

 

And that's the truth, the only one that matters. If truth isn't your concern, our conversations are as pointless as your philosophy of meaninglessness.

 

Ignoring your usual victim mentality and whining about ad hominem attacks :rolleyes: , I think you're missing a point here. I'm not telling anyone anything about any god. I'm not proselytizing here, I'm discussing security blankets. It's been a while since I've described myself as Christian, and that description hasn't held true for me for some time.

 

Did you or did you not say that I'm an angry, vindictive individual who's taking out his anger on other people because of a sh**ty life? None of which is true, none of which makes your arguments any better, and none of which is relevant to the conversation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended in the least. By all means say whatever you want. It's a little disappointing to me, though, because the more personal you make the debate, the less interesting the conversation becomes. Something to be aware of.

 

By some time I'm supposing you mean about seven months, because my entire impression of you goes straight back to 1:16 PM January 16th, 2010 where you wrote: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that I exist in a fallen world, that I am a sinful creature, and that, although I do not deserve it and could not possibly earn it, I have been given a reprieve from my sins, that I have been justified with God and that when I die I will live with Him in heaven." Add to that your views on cosmology and evolution, and I was guessing Catholic, but wasn't sure. That's a pretty straight Christian answer, no? Now either you were bathing in sarcasm when you wrote that, which I really doubt, or you've pretty recently begun a new path. People change their minds for all kinds of reasons at all kinds of times, but that's why I've been addressing what I think are your points in a Christian context. What brought about the switch, BTW?

 

Your whole paragraph containing examples of the harms of belief in a nonexistent god is a contradiction. If the god is nonexistent, the harms you describe originate from the man who dreamt them up. You erroneously put forth that, in the absence of a god, these harms wouldn't occur. They would - they are human creations, and as long as we have humans, we'll have these harms. In the absence of a god excuse another excuse will be used, but the war will still happen, the genocide will still happen, the mutilation will still happen, and the refusal to take medicine will still happen. The god being nonexistent, you can't blame the harm the human does on that god.

 

We disagree, and here's why. Beliefs matter. What you believe can dictate you you act. Imagine if you were sitting in the office today and you got a call from your wife. "Honey, I bought a lotto ticket the other night and...and we won! Seventy-six million dollars!" It doesn't matter if it's true. If you gave that statement credence, if you believed it, your heart would begin to pound, your palms would sweat, you'd breathe deeper. If we had your brain hooked up to one of those real time MRI machines the thing would be going off like the Fourth of july. The objective truth of falsity of the claim has nothing to do with it. Your belief is what matters. Some people in that situation would storm into their boss's office and quit their job, then go buy a sixty thousand dollar car they can't afford. Your claim that believing in a nonexistent god doesn't matter is the exact same thing as saying beliefs don't matter. Yes they do. They alter the way you think, the way you perceive the world, and the way you behave. Religion leads to a variety of beliefs, a variety os ways to see the world, and a variety of behaviors.

 

Secondly, I've already agreed, bad things would happen. But contrast the person who won't have their children vaccinated because of their faith with someone who won't have them taken because they're afraid they lead to autism (pretending these were the only two reasons, let's say it's 50/50). The people who are worried about autism but are otherwise rational only need to be shown the data. That should pretty much take care of it. Vaccinations don't lead to autism and a ton of studies have concluded that, as well as explained the appearance of an increase in autism in the past thirty years. Now what about the religious mindset? What facts could you show them or arguments could you make that would open their minds to life-saving medication? Not getting vaccinated is not only a danger to yourself, but the species in general. If you can remove the superstitious group from the total of unvaccinated people, you have not eliminated every reason someone might avoid vaccination, but you've dealt a sizable blow to the problem, and made the world a better place.

 

You have no monopoly on truth. Your head is in the sand every bit as much as those Theists you target. You continue to believe that life will have meaning if you simply speak Truth, if you stop lying to yourself and others - yet you refuse to face the truth that at its very basis existence is an accident, devoid of meaning, destined to end in nothing. You still seek meaning in your existence just like Theists, you just seek a different meaning. Good luck on your quest, but you'll never find your answer until you stop lying to yourself about the very basis of your search.

 

I don't pretend to. How do you know life is an accident? The only contradiction I see is that you've somehow gotten it in your head that because something might end that the present doesn't have meaning. The meaning is in the activities themselves, my friend, and what we ascribe to them. Only a consciousness can give meaning to something, so this idea of a grander 'objective meaning' is a concept without any legs to begin with, and a useless comparison. My favorite book has a final page. That doesn't make the story meaningless. My favorite film has a final shot. That doesn't make the film meaningless. As a matter of fact, knowing that our lives are going to end might be the single thing that allows us to value something more than something else in relation to a goal––ergo, meaning. If we were going to live on forever, why would any action have more value that any other action? We could do them at any time, and we'd always have time to do them again. There would be no immediacy, no sense of the now as opposed to the future.

 

Something to chew on.

Link to comment
Did you or did you not say that I'm an angry, vindictive individual who's taking out his anger on other people because of a sh**ty life? None of which is true, none of which makes your arguments any better, and none of which is relevant to the conversation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended in the least. By all means say whatever you want. It's a little disappointing to me, though, because the more personal you make the debate, the less interesting the conversation becomes. Something to be aware of.

 

Actually, you brought up your sh**ty life, not me. You also accuse me of lying, of giving you special treatment, of being a proponent of childishness by advocating security blankets and of stating that you'd respond to my points by telling me to, "Go f*ck yourself." After doing all of this, you have the audacity to throw out red herrings about ad hominem attacks against your person in lieu of responding to a host of points. Cry me a river.

 

We disagree, and here's why. Beliefs matter. What you believe can dictate you you act. Imagine if you were sitting in the office today and you got a call from your wife. "Honey, I bought a lotto ticket the other night and...and we won! Seventy-six million dollars!" It doesn't matter if it's true. If you gave that statement credence, if you believed it, your heart would begin to pound, your palms would sweat, you'd breathe deeper. If we had your brain hooked up to one of those real time MRI machines the thing would be going off like the Fourth of july. The objective truth of falsity of the claim has nothing to do with it. Your belief is what matters. Some people in that situation would storm into their boss's office and quit their job, then go buy a sixty thousand dollar car they can't afford. Your claim that believing in a nonexistent god doesn't matter is the exact same thing as saying beliefs don't matter. Yes they do. They alter the way you think, the way you perceive the world, and the way you behave. Religion leads to a variety of beliefs, a variety os ways to see the world, and a variety of behaviors.

 

If you believe your spouse is faithful and you live your life in the comfort of that belief and die happy knowing your spouse held fast to their wedding vows, what matter if they secretly cheated on you the whole time? You'd die happy, unaware, no harm done. Not all errant beliefs are harmful.

 

Secondly, I've already agreed, bad things would happen. But…

And that's where the problem with discussing religion with you lies. "But…" nothing. Everything after "But…" is a reality of this existence, and nothing you can do or say will take it away. As with other members of this board who so totally focus on one thing and one thing only, that thing is your bogey man, and the only thing against which you rail. Incessantly. But, take that thing away and all the harms and all the joys and all the pains and all the stuff that makes existence what it is will still exist. Focusing on one thing and saying, "Let's remove that, to make life better" is preposterous. It won't make life any better, it will just make life different. And the effort expended to remove that thing isn't worth the reward – one less thing to believe in, with all the harms remain untouched.

 

How do you know life is an accident? The only contradiction I see is that you've somehow gotten it in your head that because something might end that the present doesn't have meaning. The meaning is in the activities themselves, my friend, and what we ascribe to them. Only a consciousness can give meaning to something, so this idea of a grander 'objective meaning' is a concept without any legs to begin with, and a useless comparison. My favorite book has a final page. That doesn't make the story meaningless. My favorite film has a final shot. That doesn't make the film meaningless. As a matter of fact, knowing that our lives are going to end might be the single thing that allows us to value something more than something else in relation to a goal––ergo, meaning. If we were going to live on forever, why would any action have more value that any other action? We could do them at any time, and we'd always have time to do them again. There would be no immediacy, no sense of the now as opposed to the future.

 

Meaning? What is meaning? Is meaning absolute or does it vary from person to person?

Link to comment

Husker X has provided numerous examples of how belief in God can be harmful, but Knapplc keeps insisting that the amount of harm in the world would stay the same. That is preposterous. That's like saying that if you could somehow take away violence from the world, then the amount of harm in the world would stay the same. I don't buy that for a second.

 

People aren't necessarily going to replace the harm that they caused with religion, but that is what Knapplc believes.

Link to comment

Husker X has provided numerous examples of how belief in God can be harmful, but Knapplc keeps insisting that the amount of harm in the world would stay the same. That is preposterous. That's like saying that if you could somehow take away violence from the world, then the amount of harm in the world would stay the same. I don't buy that for a second.

 

People aren't necessarily going to replace the harm that they caused with religion, but that is what Knapplc believes.

 

It's not "preposterous," it's entirely logical. The contention is that there is no god. Therefore, all the harm done in the name of "god" is done by humans without any outside influence, ie, "god."

 

Humanity is a closed system. We exist on this planet without any other sentient influence. Without any other sentient influence, all harms done by humans originate with humans. All "god" is is an excuse. All harms done in the name of "god" are human harms done by humans. Removing "god" from the equation doesn't mean less harms, it means different reasons.

 

"God" is not harm. "God" is a tool, like guns are tools. You're claiming that without guns humans wouldn't kill each other. 10,000 years of swords and arrows beg to differ.

Link to comment

I said the same thing as Knap a few months ago. The violence will always exist in humanity.

 

This might be a logical fallacy, but here goes.

 

A=B, B=C

Therefore, A=C

 

By that same logic

Humans are responsible for creating all religions

Religions are the cause of some human conflicts

Therefore, Humans are the cause of all religious conflicts

 

Once you've said that, there's really nothing left.

 

That's the way I look at it anyhow. If you were to completely remove religion it might make a difference in our lifetimes and the lifetimes of the next few generations, but in the grand scheme of things it won't make a difference. If you could take a look at the issue from earth's lifetime the amount of violence in the world wouldn't change. That's because religion is just one excuse used by humans to commit atrocities, and if it weren't religion it'd be something else.

 

Then how do you reduce harmful actions in the world? What needs to change? If leaving behind errant beliefs that comprise part of your worldview doesn't account for any change in behavior, what's left to do?

 

Nothing. It's a sad reality, but all of the actions you can take to try and change the world are worthless. I could sit here forever and try to convince people to believe what I believe all day, and to some degree I do, but it's pointless. The world seems to do an eternal balancing act. If you eliminated religion, something would replace it. The most prominent candidate to me is naturalism, or something like that. I know I always feel spiritually rejuvenated when I go to the zoo, golfing, walking, etc. Eventually, people would create a doctrine and follow it to the T. It would be a religion of sorts and people would go to war on both sides. It's fun to debate things like this, and it has certainly altered my life in some way, but it's pointless on an even larger scale. It's like thorns crackling in a fire. It doesn't mean a thing.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I'm going to show that Knapplc's position is completely illogical.

 

I'm going to operate under the assumption that Knapplc's position is true and removing something that can cause harm won't decrease the total amount of harm in the world.

 

So under this supposition if REASON TO HARM(1) is eliminated, then the total amount of harm in the world is still constant. But let's take that further. Suppose that REASON TO HARM(1) and another harm, call it REASON TO HARM(2) is also eliminated, what then happens to the amount of harm in the world? According to Knapplc, it still stays the same. Taking this even further, let's take away the number of REASONs TO HARM all the way to the final REASON TO HARM which leaves no REASONs TO HARM in existence. According to Knapplc, what then is the total amount of harm still in existence? Why it is still at the same level as we originally had. But this is preposterous.

 

Before you say that it is impossible to remove all reasons to harm somebody, I know that that is probably true. But the above is simply what you get when you follow Knapplc's reasoning to its logical conclusion.

Link to comment
I'm going to show that Knapplc's position is completely illogical.

I'm all ears. :)

 

I'm going to operate under the assumption that Knapplc's position is true and removing something that can cause harm won't decrease the total amount of harm in the world.

I'm with you so far.

 

So under this supposition if REASON TO HARM(1) is eliminated, then the total amount of harm in the world is still constant.

You're removing humans from the world? OK...

 

But let's take that further. Suppose that REASON TO HARM(1) and another harm, call it REASON TO HARM(2) is also eliminated, what then happens to the amount of harm in the world? According to Knapplc, it still stays the same.

Err.... no, that's not my position. My position is that humans cause harm to humans. Removing humans would eliminate harm, sure, but it would pretty much end the argument.

 

Taking this even further, let's take away the number of REASONs TO HARM all the way to the final REASON TO HARM which leaves no REASONs TO HARM in existence. According to Knapplc, what then is the total amount of harm still in existence? Why it is still at the same level as we originally had. But this is preposterous.

Agreed, it is preposterous, because you're misrepresenting my stance. Nobody is going to argue that if you remove humans than harms caused by humans will go away. But nobody is advocating removing humans. Except maybe Marvin the Martian, and frankly, my money's on Bugs.

 

Before you say that it is impossible to remove all reasons to harm somebody, I know that that is probably true. But the above is simply what you get when you follow Knapplc's reasoning to its logical conclusion.

Nah. The above is what you get when you don't understand knapplc's reasoning. Hopefully this helps. :thumbs

Link to comment

 

This might be a logical fallacy, but here goes.

 

A=B, B=C

Therefore, A=C

 

By that same logic

Humans are responsible for creating all religions

Religions are the cause of some human conflicts

Therefore, Humans are the cause of all religious conflicts

 

Once you've said that, there's really nothing left.

 

That is true, but that has nothing to do with the amount of harm in the world.

Then how do you reduce harmful actions in the world? What needs to change? If leaving behind errant beliefs that comprise part of your worldview doesn't account for any change in behavior, what's left to do?

 

Nothing. It's a sad reality, but all of the actions you can take to try and change the world are worthless. I could sit here forever and try to convince people to believe what I believe all day, and to some degree I do, but it's pointless. The world seems to do an eternal balancing act. If you eliminated religion, something would replace it. The most prominent candidate to me is naturalism, or something like that. I know I always feel spiritually rejuvenated when I go to the zoo, golfing, walking, etc. Eventually, people would create a doctrine and follow it to the T. It would be a religion of sorts and people would go to war on both sides. It's fun to debate things like this, and it has certainly altered my life in some way, but it's pointless on an even larger scale. It's like thorns crackling in a fire. It doesn't mean a thing.

 

 

It is not pointless. How many actions are more important than removing the amount of grief, harm, violence, etc. in the world? If everyone thought like you then I think the amount of harm in the world would be greater than it is now. Apathy is not how to combat these things and never will be.

 

Really though, why do people think that the amount of harm in the world is constant? If you define it by equating it to the amount of people murdered per capita, then that can obviously change. If you define it as the amount of happiness in the world, then that can change although measuring happiness is an imperfect science at this time. I simply don't understand how you think it can't change. How would any of you define the amount of harm in the world?

Link to comment

 

You're removing humans from the world? OK...

Religion is a reason to harm. Are you equating religion with people? Religion is an idea, not a person. People believe in ideas, but the idea is what causes the harm, not the person alone.

 

Err.... no, that's not my position. My position is that humans cause harm to humans. Removing humans would eliminate harm, sure, but it would pretty much end the argument.

WHY do humans harm other humans? It's the ideas! You act as if a human being harms people by definition, but this is not the case. Ideas are what cause people to harm others.

 

Agreed, it is preposterous, because you're misrepresenting my stance. Nobody is going to argue that if you remove humans than harms caused by humans will go away. But nobody is advocating removing humans. Except maybe Marvin the Martian, and frankly, my money's on Bugs.

We seem to disagree on what causes harm. You insist that somehow people are biologically programmed to inflict harm on other human beings and that no matter what happens the amount of harm will always stay the same, no matter how kind humanity eventually becomes.

 

Link to comment
Really though, why do people think that the amount of harm in the world is constant? If you define it by equating it to the amount of people murdered per capita, then that can obviously change. If you define it as the amount of happiness in the world, then that can change although measuring happiness is an imperfect science at this time. I simply don't understand how you think it can't change. How would any of you define the amount of harm in the world?

 

Humans are humans. Humans the world over do the same things, regardless of culture, technology or security. They fight, they succumb to greed, they kill, they hurt each other. This is true in the most advanced and the most stagnant societies.

 

The removal of religion isn't going to stop these things from happening, especially when the whole point of most every major and minor world religion is peace, love, etc. Humans take these religions whose spokespersons (Buddha, Mohammad, Jesus, etc) advocate loving thy fellow man and turn them into tools for violence and hatred, the exact opposite of what they're intended for. Remove religion and people will take Winnie the Pooh and use him in the same way. Why? Because they're human, and they're looking for reasons to act on the human impulses they already have.

 

You're saying that if we remove hammers from the world then people will no longer pound nails. I'm saying in lieu of hammers we'll use the flat sides of wrenches. Regardless, those nails will still get pounded.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...