The Problem with Religious Moderates

[knapplc]

The bold would be a more relevant question to debate than the current one. I think I understand your position better now, but I still disagree. Yes religion is man-made, but that doesn't mean that mankind would be causing the same amount of harm without it, as mankind does with it. Some people use religion as a reason to harm somebody that they wouldn't have otherwise harmed. By taking religion out of the equation, the person who would have been harmed is now fine. Look at different parts of the world and you'll see that the amount of harm is not the same everywhere. The reason that this is is education. With sufficient education, people will not consider strapping bombs to themselves in order to massacre 'infidels' and ensure their spot in heaven when there is no evidence that this heaven even exists.

Where have we educated ourselves out of harming each other? Can you provide examples, because I can provide examples of some pretty egregious harms caused by pretty well-educated people. Ted Kaczynski comes to mind immediately.

You also cannot safely assert that by removing religion that the person harmed by religion would not now be harmed. They may not have been harmed by religion, but they would still, possibly, be harmed. Equate the world to a minefield, and remove the mine of religion, you're still walking in a minefield. Whether it has 99 or 100 mines is statistically irrelevant, and you still haven't (and cannot) address the reason(s) the mines were put there in the first place.

As yet not one of your arguments has removed harm from mankind - you've just removed one of innumerable harms.

 

[HuskersNow]

Where have we educated ourselves out of harming each other? Can you provide examples, because I can provide examples of some pretty egregious harms caused by pretty well-educated people. Ted Kaczynski comes to mind immediately.

I never claimed that all harm would go away with more education, but that it could be lessened considerably. By education, I am not talking about those so-called institutions of learning known as public high schools or the like, I am talking about taking away ignorance and belief in unfalsifiable ideas and substituting them with reasoned out ideas based on the evidence available.

You also cannot safely assert that by removing religion that the person harmed by religion would not now be harmed. They may not have been harmed by religion, but they would still, possibly, be harmed. Equate the world to a minefield, and remove the mine of religion, you're still walking in a minefield. Whether it has 99 or 100 mines is statistically irrelevant, and you still haven't (and cannot) address the reason(s) the mines were put there in the first place.

As yet not one of your arguments has removed harm from mankind - you've just removed one of innumerable harms.

I was saying that by removing religion the person who would have been harmed will no longer be harmed because of religion.

Your analogy doesn't have any place in reality. Religion is not equatable to a mine in a minefield. You assume that all of the mines are equally destructive, but religion is especially so. Really, religion is an effect of ignorance. It is one of the many substitutes of reason. By lessening the amount of ignorance in the world, the amount of harm is subsequently reduced because of the harm that ignorance in general causes.

In the last sentence of the paragraph, are you asking me to describe to you the history of religion and how it came about?

 

[HuskerNMO]

Where have we educated ourselves out of harming each other? Can you provide examples, because I can provide examples of some pretty egregious harms caused by pretty well-educated people. Ted Kaczynski comes to mind immediately.

I never claimed that all harm would go away with more education, but that it could be lessened considerably. By education, I am not talking about those so-called institutions of learning known as public high schools or the like, I am talking about taking away ignorance and belief in unfalsifiable ideas and substituting them with reasoned out ideas based on the evidence available.

You also cannot safely assert that by removing religion that the person harmed by religion would not now be harmed. They may not have been harmed by religion, but they would still, possibly, be harmed. Equate the world to a minefield, and remove the mine of religion, you're still walking in a minefield. Whether it has 99 or 100 mines is statistically irrelevant, and you still haven't (and cannot) address the reason(s) the mines were put there in the first place.

As yet not one of your arguments has removed harm from mankind - you've just removed one of innumerable harms.

I was saying that by removing religion the person who would have been harmed will no longer be harmed because of religion.

Your analogy doesn't have any place in reality. Religion is not equatable to a mine in a minefield. You assume that all of the mines are equally destructive, but religion is especially so. Really, religion is an effect of ignorance. It is one of the many substitutes of reason. By lessening the amount of ignorance in the world, the amount of harm is subsequently reduced because of the harm that ignorance in general causes.

In the last sentence of the paragraph, are you asking me to describe to you the history of religion and how it came about?

The irony is that your arguments hold no more basis than his; you assume that because God cannot be empirically proven that God doesn't exist. Yet because God is a theory (or concept or whatever label you prefer) he is not governed by empirical evidence. Try as you will, the existence of God simply cannot be proven or disproven. You take the word of handed down books from dead scientists or philosophers that you never saw or can prove existed, yet deny Christianity that comes from books and personal accounts. Because Christianity doesn't fit your world view you automatically label it, and other religion as ignorance.

If you presume that religion was created by man, and that it is inherently bad in some way, you must also admit that man is inherently bad. Yet in your magic world you assume if the same people that created the monstrosity known as religion would not have the world would be a better place. Yet you completely sidestep the issues that caused man to "create" religion in the first place, an idea or belief always must start with one individual in response to something else. Without a creator, concepts or ideas cannot exist right? Something or someone had to create everything, right? Or do you just believe that everything has always existed, but just is discovered at certain times? How can something exist if it didn't have a beginning? Can you prove it existed, or that it didn't exist before? Of course not! Even the "big bang" (or whatever led to the big bang which started it all in the scientific world had to have been a result of creation (possibly not the Christian God)? Scientific theory tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but if it was never created, how can it exist?

Atheism is no less of a religion than other religions, you can hide behind scientific theory or whatever you want, but in the end, it is just your belief system and world view into the existence or non-existence of God, which is exactly what every other religion that has ever existed is. It provides no fewer, and no greater answers than that of any other religion or world view. If it gets you to sleep at night, and gets you through life, that's all that matters. Unless of course the Christian's have it right, then you're screwed. If Christians are wrong, then it hurts them not, they will cease to exist and will have wasted a life which is just a blip in the evolving world, yet if atheists are wrong, they have a life of eternal purgatory that awaits them. Of course all sides could be wrong and then we're all screwed!

 

[huskerjack23]

Where have we educated ourselves out of harming each other? Can you provide examples, because I can provide examples of some pretty egregious harms caused by pretty well-educated people. Ted Kaczynski comes to mind immediately.

I never claimed that all harm would go away with more education, but that it could be lessened considerably. By education, I am not talking about those so-called institutions of learning known as public high schools or the like, I am talking about taking away ignorance and belief in unfalsifiable ideas and substituting them with reasoned out ideas based on the evidence available.

You also cannot safely assert that by removing religion that the person harmed by religion would not now be harmed. They may not have been harmed by religion, but they would still, possibly, be harmed. Equate the world to a minefield, and remove the mine of religion, you're still walking in a minefield. Whether it has 99 or 100 mines is statistically irrelevant, and you still haven't (and cannot) address the reason(s) the mines were put there in the first place.

As yet not one of your arguments has removed harm from mankind - you've just removed one of innumerable harms.

I was saying that by removing religion the person who would have been harmed will no longer be harmed because of religion.

Your analogy doesn't have any place in reality. Religion is not equatable to a mine in a minefield. You assume that all of the mines are equally destructive, but religion is especially so. Really, religion is an effect of ignorance. It is one of the many substitutes of reason. By lessening the amount of ignorance in the world, the amount of harm is subsequently reduced because of the harm that ignorance in general causes.

In the last sentence of the paragraph, are you asking me to describe to you the history of religion and how it came about?

The irony is that your arguments hold no more basis than his; you assume that because God cannot be empirically proven that God doesn't exist. Yet because God is a theory (or concept or whatever label you prefer) he is not governed by empirical evidence. Try as you will, the existence of God simply cannot be proven or disproven. You take the word of handed down books from dead scientists or philosophers that you never saw or can prove existed, yet deny Christianity that comes from books and personal accounts. Because Christianity doesn't fit your world view you automatically label it, and other religion as ignorance.

If you presume that religion was created by man, and that it is inherently bad in some way, you must also admit that man is inherently bad. Yet in your magic world you assume if the same people that created the monstrosity known as religion would not have the world would be a better place. Yet you completely sidestep the issues that caused man to "create" religion in the first place, an idea or belief always must start with one individual in response to something else. Without a creator, concepts or ideas cannot exist right? Something or someone had to create everything, right? Or do you just believe that everything has always existed, but just is discovered at certain times? How can something exist if it didn't have a beginning? Can you prove it existed, or that it didn't exist before? Of course not! Even the "big bang" (or whatever led to the big bang which started it all in the scientific world had to have been a result of creation (possibly not the Christian God)? Scientific theory tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but if it was never created, how can it exist?

Atheism is no less of a religion than other religions, you can hide behind scientific theory or whatever you want, but in the end, it is just your belief system and world view into the existence or non-existence of God, which is exactly what every other religion that has ever existed is. It provides no fewer, and no greater answers than that of any other religion or world view. If it gets you to sleep at night, and gets you through life, that's all that matters. Unless of course the Christian's have it right, then you're screwed. If Christians are wrong, then it hurts them not, they will cease to exist and will have wasted a life which is just a blip in the evolving world, yet if atheists are wrong, they have a life of eternal purgatory that awaits them. Of course all sides could be wrong and then we're all screwed!

Calling atheism a religion is like saying baldness is a hair color.

 

[WCHusker]

Silly religious beliefs have killed many men in the Middle East. I guess that has to rank as being at least a little worse than being molested by some pervert priest hiding under a tax shelter which is basically what organized religion is in the US.

(is this going to get deleted too?)

 

[knapplc]

(is this going to get deleted too?)

No, because this time you didn't swear in your post. You know why your other post got deleted. Why gripe about it publicly?

 

[knapplc]

Calling atheism a religion is like saying baldness is a hair color.

Hmm.....

 

[HuskersNow]

Calling atheism a religion is like saying baldness is a hair color.

Hmm.....

Just because some atheists think that atheism is a religion does not make it so. Some people define common terms far differently than others. Atheism is a lack of belief in something, not a belief in something. Theists are making the positive claim, not atheists, by definition.

 

[knapplc]

Calling atheism a religion is like saying baldness is a hair color.

Hmm.....

Just because some atheists think that atheism is a religion does not make it so. Some people define common terms far differently than others. Atheism is a lack of belief in something, not a belief in something. Theists are making the positive claim, not atheists, by definition.

It's a religion for some, then. It can be defined several ways, including as a religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

 

[HuskersNow]

The irony is that your arguments hold no more basis than his; you assume that because God cannot be empirically proven that God doesn't exist. Yet because God is a theory (or concept or whatever label you prefer) he is not governed by empirical evidence. Try as you will, the existence of God simply cannot be proven or disproven. You take the word of handed down books from dead scientists or philosophers that you never saw or can prove existed, yet deny Christianity that comes from books and personal accounts. Because Christianity doesn't fit your world view you automatically label it, and other religion as ignorance.

I assume that since there is absolutely no evidence for God that he doesn't exist. The idea of God is an unfalsifiable one, and I'm not going to waste my life believing in all sorts of insane ideas just because people threaten me with hell if I don't. The idea of God is a theory, but not a scientific one. A scientific idea requires the possibility that its claims can be tested. The theory of God fails miserably on that count. You're right when you say God can't be proven or disproven, that is an unfalsifiable idea.

The "word of handed down books from dead scientists or philosophers" taught me how to think critically and remove the blinders that Christianity had placed over me. They taught me to examine my beliefs and reason out why I actually believe them. In my case, they didn't tell me to accept their beliefs based on faith. I would have been insulted and stopped reading if they had done so. They gave reasons for their positions and I either accepted or rejected them. I never once accepted their ideas blindly on faith.

Christianity requires that leap of faith that no reasonable person would ever take. The books and personal accounts of Christianity require you to take that leap of faith. "Believe my claims that I have provided absolutely no evidence for and you will be saved!" is not something that I would fall for. Christianity is an ignorant religion because it replaces reason with blind faith. Go into the lunatic asylum and when you return tell me if faith proves anything.

If you presume that religion was created by man, and that it is inherently bad in some way, you must also admit that man is inherently bad. Yet in your magic world you assume if the same people that created the monstrosity known as religion would not have the world would be a better place. Yet you completely sidestep the issues that caused man to "create" religion in the first place, an idea or belief always must start with one individual in response to something else. Without a creator, concepts or ideas cannot exist right? Something or someone had to create everything, right? Or do you just believe that everything has always existed, but just is discovered at certain times?

The first sentence is a logical fallacy. I'll provide another one for entertainment value: the polio vaccine was created by man, the polio vaccine is inherently good, thus man is inherently good. See how that works? Or using an idea instead: man created the concept of quality control, quality control is good, thus man is good.

My world is not magic, you're the one who believes in fantastical things about God. My claim in this thread has always been if people are educated so as to take off the yolk of religion, then the amount of harm in the world would be lessened. I am no historian, but man probably invented religion to explain natural phenomena that they didn't understand like earthquakes.

How can something exist if it didn't have a beginning? Can you prove it existed, or that it didn't exist before? Of course not! Even the "big bang" (or whatever led to the big bang which started it all in the scientific world had to have been a result of creation (possibly not the Christian God)? Scientific theory tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but if it was never created, how can it exist?

Regarding the bold, do you believe that God had a beginning? If not, how could he exist by your own logic?

Regarding the big bang theory, modern physics breaks down when you get to the planck density. I personally think that the universe arose because of vacuum fluctuations. There is no reason to think that a god created the universe.

Since I'm sure you want to know more about how some physicists tackle this problem, I'm going to give you this link.

Atheism is no less of a religion than other religions, you can hide behind scientific theory or whatever you want, but in the end, it is just your belief system and world view into the existence or non-existence of God, which is exactly what every other religion that has ever existed is.

Atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of belief in something. Theism makes the positive claim, atheism the negative one. My belief system is based on evidence, yours is based on blind faith without evidence, a big difference. All theistic religions make a positive claim regarding God's existence.

It provides no fewer, and no greater answers than that of any other religion or world view. If it gets you to sleep at night, and gets you through life, that's all that matters. Unless of course the Christian's have it right, then you're screwed. If Christians are wrong, then it hurts them not, they will cease to exist and will have wasted a life which is just a blip in the evolving world, yet if atheists are wrong, they have a life of eternal purgatory that awaits them. Of course all sides could be wrong and then we're all screwed!

But religion doesn't just let people sleep at night, does it? It effects everything you do from how you greet people to how you decide to vote.

So I see that you have read Pascal's wager. If you're wrong about not believing in the ancient Egyptian gods, and your heart is weighted down with evil deeds, then you will be condemned to oblivion for all eternity, but if you're right and your heart is not weighted down then you will join Osiris in the afterlife.

If you don't believe in some religion that I just made up, then you will suffer in another place that I just made up for all of eternity and it will really suck. But if you do believe in this made up religion then you will go to a heaven that is pretty neat.

The problem with his wager is that the probability of Christianity being right is the same as the above examples, so should I believe in them too? I assign the same probability to all of them because there is no evidence to support the ideas at all. Just because many people believe in Christianity does not make the ideas true.

 

[HuskersNow]

It's a religion for some, then. It can be defined several ways, including as a religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

Any word can be defined however we want it to be defined. But I define it as not being a religion.

 

[knapplc]

It's a religion for some, then. It can be defined several ways, including as a religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

Any word can be defined however we want it to be defined. But I define it as not being a religion.

So you admit that you selectively believe certain things to be true, despite evidence to the contrary? That's a good first step.

 

[HuskersNow]

So you admit that you selectively believe certain things to be true, despite evidence to the contrary? That's a good first step.

No. A word does not have any objective meaning. People give words meaning. I define atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist. There I didn't selectively believe things. Your example defined atheism differently than me which means their definition and mine are two different things. That is not selective belief. There is no evidence that atheism SHOULD be defined in a certain way.

Consider this: I doubt that we have the same definition for every single word in the English language. That does not mean that we selectively believe certain things to be true. Many people define the word, "libertarian" in different ways but that does not mean that people selectively believe certain things to be true.

 

[knapplc]

I assume that since there is absolutely no evidence for God that he doesn't exist. The idea of God is an unfalsifiable one, and I'm not going to waste my life believing in all sorts of insane ideas just because people threaten me with hell if I don't. The idea of God is a theory, but not a scientific one. A scientific idea requires the possibility that its claims can be tested. The theory of God fails miserably on that count. You're right when you say God can't be proven or disproven, that is an unfalsifiable idea.

Don't get so hung up on what you can prove or disprove. In your eyeblink of a life there will be myriad things you can neither prove nor disprove. You can base your life on the evidence provided to you at the time, but expecting to have proof of anything is illogical. You are welcome not to believe in god(s). There is ample evidence to show that god(s) do not exist. But there is also evidence to show god(s) do exist, and you do yourself and those you denigrate a disservice when you dismiss ideas you can neither prove nor disprove as "insane." In all things, moderation.

If you presume that religion was created by man, and that it is inherently bad in some way, you must also admit that man is inherently bad. Yet in your magic world you assume if the same people that created the monstrosity known as religion would not have the world would be a better place. Yet you completely sidestep the issues that caused man to "create" religion in the first place, an idea or belief always must start with one individual in response to something else. Without a creator, concepts or ideas cannot exist right? Something or someone had to create everything, right? Or do you just believe that everything has always existed, but just is discovered at certain times?

The first sentence is a logical fallacy. I'll provide another one for entertainment value: the polio vaccine was created by man, the polio vaccine is inherently good, thus man is inherently good. See how that works? Or using an idea instead: man created the concept of quality control, quality control is good, thus man is good.

You're misunderstanding the point jliehr is making. He's not saying that because man created religion that man = bad, he's saying that because man created religion, the harm that is in religion came from man. You can remove religion from the equation, but the harm that man put into religion originated from man, therefore the harm still exists.

My claim in this thread has always been if people are educated so as to take off the yolk of religion, then the amount of harm in the world would be lessened.

The very definition of an unfalsifiable statement. It's interesting that you dismiss the unfalsifiable claims of others as "insane ideas" yet hold on to your own. If unfalsifiable ideas are harmful, why do you indulge in them?

Regarding the big bang theory, modern physics breaks down when you get to the planck density. I personally think that the universe arose because of vacuum fluctuations. There is no reason to think that a god created the universe. Since I'm sure you want to know more about how some physicists tackle this problem, I'm going to give you this link.

I suppose by the crazy/loose definition of "religion" I used (Dictionary.com's #3 definition, had to scroll down a little to find it) we could define universe origins as a "religion." That would make it appropriate to discuss in this forum, and I would love to have that discussion. I'll make another thread because it's a tangent to the present conversation.

But religion doesn't just let people sleep at night, does it? It effects everything you do from how you greet people to how you decide to vote.

So does defining yourself by political party, or by culture, or region, or any one of the myriad other ways you can define yourself. All have their benefits and drawbacks, all have the ability to be used for good and misused for evil.

 

[knapplc]

So you admit that you selectively believe certain things to be true, despite evidence to the contrary? That's a good first step.

No. A word does not have any objective meaning. People give words meaning. I define atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist. There I didn't selectively believe things. Your example defined atheism differently than me which means their definition and mine are two different things. That is not selective belief. There is no evidence that atheism SHOULD be defined in a certain way.

Consider this: I doubt that we have the same definition for every single word in the English language. That does not mean that we selectively believe certain things to be true. Many people define the word, "libertarian" in different ways but that does not mean that people selectively believe certain things to be true.

Yes. Words have finite meanings, not infinite. You choose to not accept a commonly held definition, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that the meaning is untrue.

I can call a truck a duck, and refuse to believe that your definition holds meaning, but that doesn't make me right.