Religion is stupid

[BenTheMan]

I matters because religion makes it near impossible to have a universal set of right and wrong, and that the debate itself causes wars and strife for billions of people.

Surely not. I think I have given several examples above where the ideals that Jesus teaches are ideals that are consistent with, for example, the Secular Humanist manifesto I linked to. I know you reject both the divinity (possibly the existence) of Jesus, and you reject Secular Humanism. But it is clear that the two philosophies, at their hearts, are not inconsistent with each other, even though they come from completely different starting points.

So how can it be that religion (in this case, Christianity, with which I am most familiar) can be claimed to be at odds with a 21st century definition of morality?

At the end of the day, most religious people can not agree to a set of rights and wrongs because of their God. They simply cannot distinguish between a universal right and wrong, and the rights and wrongs set forth in their holy texts. And they will always fight to change the rights and wrongs to fit their God or Gods will, because in their mind, it's better for all people to believe and adhere to their religion.

You keep using this phrase ``most religious people'', and I don't know why. There is surely a vocal minority of conservative evangelicals in America. There is also a vocal minority of people who advocate all kinds of crazy things---if you believe in animal rights, would you like to be associated with domestic terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front? If you believe in environmental activism, would you like to be lumped together with people who firebomb SUVs? I would not like to be associated with people like Pat Robertson---simply because I happen to believe in the same God that he does---any more than SAM would like to be associated with Osama bin Laden.

Aside from this, you're still wrong about ``universal right and wrongs''. When it comes to Christianity, broadly defined the ``rights'' and ``wrongs'' are very clear. The point that I have been trying (very unsuccessfully) to make is that these rights and wrong are in no way inconsistent with what you would define as rights and wrongs. One of the two core commandments of Christianity is this: love your neighbor as yourself.*

Their intent isn't malice, but if they can convert the non-believers they are "saving" them from their own destruction, and it's their job as a believer to save as many people as they can. It comforts and elevates them, so everyone should be involved.

I will point out, again, that you are talking about a very specific flavor of Christianity.

We will perish for our non-belief no matter how right or wrong we were. Right?

If you say so This is certainly not what I believe.

 

[charles brough]

All that is very good in theory. But in practice, there has never been a society that has come into being without religion and once religion breaks down, so does the society.

This is evidence for the importance of religion as a basis for all societies.

ABSOLUTELY! In fact, in my work, I define "society" as a large body of people bonded together by a common world-view and way of thinking ("religion"). IN other words, it serves a social evolutionary function and therefore has no direct relationship to "god" or even to "spirits" of any kind. They are just primitive concepts used in the earlier religions. There can be such a thing as an "atheistic religion." In fact, there are. But not being based on "spirits" does not necessarily make a religion successful. For example, Marxism, as in China, is considered to be a "secular (non-"spirit" based) religion." We could use a much better non-"spirit"-based world-view system or "religion."

As some posts here have indicated, the intellectual elite of any society generally believe the doctrines of their old faith with more skepticism than the average citizen. Right now, the neocons running the Republican Party, for example, generally believe that religion is good for "the masses" even though many of them are deists or Free Thinkers themselves. That is why they push "Creation" and anti-abortion. They find that religious reaction is a powerful tool they can weld to keep some control over society.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

 

[Jan Ardena]

Liebling,

I am saying that there can be a moral code regardless. With or without, not in spite of.

Imagine a world where there is absolutely no concept of God, absolutely no concept of religion.
How could there exist a moral code?

It does not influence me, not because I reject it but because I don't accept or reject it.

I think this position, although reasonable sounding at first glance, is an impossible position to obtain, as there can be no middle ground.
You reject it because it suits you.

jan.

 

[EdgeHead]

I couldn't agree more. Religion is for people who have not grown up yet.

 

[spidergoat]

Liebling,



Imagine a world where there is absolutely no concept of God, absolutely no concept of religion.
How could there exist a moral code?



I think this position, although reasonable sounding at first glance, is an impossible position to obtain, as there can be no middle ground.
You reject it because it suits you.

jan.

Does acting morally depend on the threat of punishment by a God? If you are only acting out of fear, is that really more moral than someone who acts out of a feeling that it is right?

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

Does acting morally depend on the threat of punishment by a God?

I'm not quite sure what to make of this as it doesn't fit into any scriptoral religion I have looked into.

If you are only acting out of fear, is that really more moral than someone who acts out of a feeling that it is right?

This is your idea of God and religion, not mine.
However I invite you to actually try and imagine a world with absolutely no concept of God, or, religion, and then explain how a moral code could exist, as opposed to one based purely on instinct, and survial of the fittest.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I couldn't agree more. Religion is for people who have not grown up yet.

In an attempt to ridicule, you've actually made a good point.
And atheism is for babies and toddlers, by your own logic.

jan.

 

[Enmos]

In an attempt to ridicule, you've actually made a good point.
And atheism is for babies and toddlers, by your own logic.

jan.

Not that I care, but how does that follow ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Not that I care, but how does that follow ?

Not that I care, but aren't you people always saying babies are born atheists?

jan.

 

[Enmos]

Not that I care, but aren't you people always saying babies are born atheists?

jan.

"you people" ?

And your argument makes no sense at all.

 

[Jan Ardena]

"you people" ?

And your argument makes no sense at all.

card carrying atheists.
I think it's the best considering what I'm working with.

jan.

 

[Liebling]

Liebling,



Imagine a world where there is absolutely no concept of God, absolutely no concept of religion.
How could there exist a moral code?



I think this position, although reasonable sounding at first glance, is an impossible position to obtain, as there can be no middle ground.
You reject it because it suits you.

jan.

Jan and Ben,

You guys just keep proving my point, even though you don't realize you are doing it. You can't fathom an existence without God because for you, there is no existence without God's influence. The only way you could understand is to not believe, which you can not do.

I have a moral code, and it has nothing to do with a God or Gods, it has nothing to do with getting into heaven or avoiding hell.

I don't reject the existence of God, I have a lack of belief either way. It simply is not a matter that I care about or spend any time thinking about. My rejection is of religion because of it's dogmas, indoctrination, and stunting of the general human mind. I have no problem with people who believe in a God or Gods, I have a problem with religion.

My set of morals is kind, compassionate, clear, loving, giving and well intentioned. It's also born out of a genuine concern for my fellow human beings, and not something I would expect any religious person to widely accept because it will not go along with your holy texts. But it's not divinely inspired, and I know this because I have no interest in it being divine. It is you that applies that subjectivity to it, not me. And at the core, that's what I mean by you not being able to understand my viewpoint... you will always subjectively add God back into it even though you don't mean to. There is no intent to do it, it's just simply what you know. Just as I subjectively apply my lack of belief to your statements. Which is why of course, we could never really agree on it.

Jan,

I don't reject it because it suits me, I simply don't entertain God into my choices in life because he does not exist for me. You and I have gone over this very subject before. There can be a middle ground between all the religious moral codes around me, and that is one that doesn't apply dogma and belief. It's only from non-belief that this objectivity can be formed.

Ben,

I said all religions, universally. That includes the Jews, that live largely under the laws of Leviticus, the Muslims, the Jain, the Christians, the Hindus and Buddhists... all many more of the religions. You speak like Christianity is the only religion to consider, and it's not the only religion. You must know that other religions have varying moral codes that do not agree with your Christian set of morals. Even Secular Humanism doesn't have a broad enough set of morals to cover all religions, or even attempt to unify a widely acceptable set of morals. I'm not just speaking of Christianity or anything. But Christianity gets picked on more than most because of it's insistence that it is the only way to be saved from Armageddon. Most other religions, don't try to actively recruit entire countries either by teaching or force to convert. I know that Islam does as well, but it's less forceful. I've never had a Muslim ask me to convert, nor do I have them beating down my door in the afternoons trying to hand me gospel like at least three different Christian churches do in my area... the Mormons, the Baptists and the Jehovah's Witnesses all come calling in an effort to save me. Once it was the local Protestant church where I lived last.

I asked a pastor of a very liberal Christian church (A unitarian church) the question once, "If I live my life according to the same morals in your bible, and do no harm to others, and live in service to my fellow man... but have no belief in your God, will I still get into your heaven?" His answer was no.

I reject religion because it warps the brain so much that people don't even realize it. They speak about free will, when it's already been undermined by an outside force at a very very young age. When people can free their minds from religious influence, they will be able to come to a more unified understanding of right and wrong... until then, we'll be on the same path that continues to divide us into different segregated groups of people.

 

[spidergoat]

spidergoat,



I'm not quite sure what to make of this as it doesn't fit into any scriptoral religion I have looked into.



This is your idea of God and religion, not mine.
However I invite you to actually try and imagine a world with absolutely no concept of God, or, religion, and then explain how a moral code could exist, as opposed to one based purely on instinct, and survial of the fittest.

jan.

First of all, know that just because I'm responding doesn't mean that I subscribe to the notion that religion is stupid.

Anyway, if there is no compulsion for the religious to act morally, no fear of God, no eternal punishment, then isn't their morality the same as anyone's? I don't wish to argue it, but from what I read, fear of punishment is what gives religious morality it's power.

You seem to be arguing that moral codes are only found in religious texts, which is false. I personally do not agree that moral codes are necessary, but many kinds of philosophy have developed them through simply thinking about what actions are best. I would further argue that the morality found in religious texts is not consistent between religions, leading to confusion. This also supports my contention that religious morality is just human-designed morality reflecting the values of society that have been transformed into stories and myth.

Even if all we have is survival and instinct, we can find moral behavior developing in animal kind. It is in one's personal long term interest to behave morally. The only prerequisite is a good memory and some thinking ability.

 

[Liebling]

Not that I care, but aren't you people always saying babies are born atheists?

jan.

Are you saying they are not?

You are born with a knowledge of God?

Or are you born with the ability to empathize with your fellow human beings, and when those human beings are indoctrinated, you adapt to that ideology rather quickly?

Please present evidence, provable practical objective evidence and not speculative evidence, of divine knowledge at birth.

 

[SkinWalker]

Not that I care, but aren't you people always saying babies are born atheists?

Of course they are. How could a baby be born with any cultural knowledge? They are, by definition, without belief in any god(s). To argue otherwise is completely illogical, unreasoned, and ... well ... stupid.

 

[rjr6]

I asked a pastor of a very liberal Christian church (A unitarian church) the question once, "If I live my life according to the same morals in your bible, and do no harm to others, and live in service to my fellow man... but have no belief in your God, will I still get into your heaven?" His answer was no.

This statement piqued my interest though you were not addressing me. It could be construed as contradictory, and you do not address a value to it (as in what/how you felt about this or what conclusion you came to).

contradictory: I believe most Christian denominations stress that you should give God the glory for what you are and can achieve in this life. So the pastor answered correctly as you presented him a way of life that focuses on YOU, not God. A well trained labrador could be described as very moral, doesn't harm others and lives in the service of man. Not to say there are no labradors in Heaven, I bet there is, but I bet poodles have a hard time of it. What I mean by contradictory is that by not believing in God, you are not living by the morals set in the Bible, so your question is false. Not to pigeon hole your argument for the sake of it, this is just to argue the pastor's side.

You seem like an intelligent, empathetic very decent human being. You have excellent arguments and your posts are enjoyable to read. Now the rub. Were you born that way? Or, if not, how did you become that way? Were religious people at all involved with any of the positive attributes you have today? Did you study, read or take stock in any literature or culture that was created by highly religious people?

This is not to say that they would be responsible for you achieving success like you have, it is just something to think about. Maybe you have.

 

[S.A.M.]

Are you saying they are not?

You are born with a knowledge of God?

Or are you born with the ability to empathize with your fellow human beings, and when those human beings are indoctrinated, you adapt to that ideology rather quickly?

Please present evidence, provable practical objective evidence and not speculative evidence, of divine knowledge at birth.

So atheism is lack of knowledge of God?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Liebling,

You guys just keep proving my point, even though you don't realize you are doing it. You can't fathom an existence without God because for you, there is no existence without God's influence. The only way you could understand is to not believe, which you can not do.

Even if one claims not to believe, it can only be done in connection to belief.

I have a moral code, and it has nothing to do with a God or Gods, it has nothing to do with getting into heaven or avoiding hell.

Your moral code has a lot to do with those that have influenced you from early life. Would you agree?
Their moral codes have been influence by those who influenced them, and so on. How can you be sure that God has nothing to do with your moral codes?

My set of morals is kind, compassionate, clear, loving, giving and well intentioned. It's also born out of a genuine concern for my fellow human beings, and not something I would expect any religious person to widely accept because it will not go along with your holy texts.

You believe compassion, love, giving, and the like does not go along with holy texts?
Strange.
I don't have any holy texts by the way.

But it's not divinely inspired, and I know this because I have no interest in it being divine.

What makes you think you have to be interested in the divine to be divinely inspired?

It is you that applies that subjectivity to it, not me. And at the core, that's what I mean by you not being able to understand my viewpoint... you will always subjectively add God back into it even though you don't mean to.

I apply it for the purposes of discussion, just as you apply you dis-belief.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that you don't spend your days not believing in God.

There is no intent to do it, it's just simply what you know. Just as I subjectively apply my lack of belief to your statements. Which is why of course, we could never really agree on it.

We agree more than you think.
Asserting "i believe in God", is just as potent as asserting "i believe in tomatoes".
What counts is how we live our lives, what we regard as valuable, and the reasons why. That is how we (intelligently) judge ourselves, and others. That, to me, is real judgement. I have no reason to belief God judges us any differently.
I regard those who judge on rhetoric, and bodily designation, as still in development stage regarding, understanding and experience of life.

I don't reject it because it suits me, I simply don't entertain God into my choices in life because he does not exist for me.

Doesn't that add up to the same thing?
I mean, you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Right?

You and I have gone over this very subject before. There can be a middle ground between all the religious moral codes around me, and that is one that doesn't apply dogma and belief. It's only from non-belief that this objectivity can be formed.

How is it that you moral codes do not consist of belief or dogma?
You wouldn't swap your children with others children because........?
And you wouldn't advise poeple who sort your advice to do so because.....?

jan.

 

[Liebling]

Yes. I have no personal knowledge of a God or Gods. Or no divine knowledge.

I know of a character called God in many different books by many different names, but I do not know God. I have no belief that compels me to think he/she/they exist corporeally or metaphysically.

 

[S.A.M.]

So atheism is a position of being ignorant. Sounds just about right.

However, theism is not a position on knowledge, its a position on belief, and requires no evidence. Since atheism is derived from theism, its not possible for it to precede it. I have to know of Jesus before I do not believe he is divine.

Since babies have no concepts or notion of God, for them to have a position on belief is not possible.

Apparently, atheists have some difficulty in comprehending such abstract concepts.