Quote:
Originally posted by chavos
Any ideology can be used...any religion, or lack there of. I don't make any claim about the immorality of atheists...was one for many years, and it's time I don't regret. That said, I don't think that it's unreasonable to claim that religion has a value in society of moderating people away from effective but immoral means. For evidence, I would point to the cessation of the West African slave trade, beginning with Britain. Religion, and specifically the theology of Bartholomew De Las Casas, played a crucial role in this. To me...this is one of the shining examples of how religion did what it was supposed to: to override our profit motive, and reminded people of their moral obligations to each other.
|
Actually, secular humanism also played a big part in such things. Religion isn't the only thing that has good sides, and I never said that religion was *all* bad. You claim that religion is good (in this instance) because it led to the end of slavery. Now, isn't it interesting that the same religions that supported the cessation of slave trade were also used to *support* that slave trade previously? Or is *that* suddenly mankind being evil, as opposed to religion?
Quote:
Please. You cite a time when governments killed, claim WITH OUT PROOF that religions are like that government and then expect that you've shown religion is equal to Hitler. I don't even know where to start with that mess.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GodwinsLaw
That’s for starters….Using rank emotionalism to tie religion to Nazism is just about as irrational as it gets...and this is what I’m talking about when I say atheism can be just as dangerous.... You mix enough fear and hate with an ideology and it's going to get lethal.
|
Sorry, but this is just bullshit. There is ample proof that Hitler, his government and his nazi movement were NOT atheists, but were actually following pre-christian cults. There is ample proof that Hitler (and Stalin) formed a cult of personality, in which they were seen as perfect, and unaware of the bad things being done in their name. I never said that religion is like Hitler. I said that religion, like extreme nationalism (Hitler) are authoritarian in nature. Godwin's law has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
You think they don't have evidence? You think that faith is some random event? No...faith happens when people see something and find inner meaning in those events. For some, they may realize something about life on the top of a mountain in deep mediatation...others think God loves them when they win the lotto. Some experiences are probably more valid than others...but that's not the point. Societies across time and space have all explored the meaning of life with religious imagery and thought...and it's my assertion that there is something to that. Call it God, call it "being" call it whatever you want...but there is a reality that is shown in our religious life. Saying there is no evidence for God is like saying there's no evidence for Freedom. Some people don't understand freedom, some people don't experience it...and some people hate it...but nobody can physically prove that it exists. Believing in that must be horribly irrational, and by your logic, dangerous.
Now, I’m not here to say I’m special because I have experienced faith in my life. I consider myself lucky, but that’s because this vocabulary, this world view works for me. If atheism is how you address the problems of human existence, and it works for you, then that’s peachy. But hating on people because you think their faith is irrational is no different that me telling a Muslim or a Jew that their faith is stupid and that they should believe in Christ.
|
Yes, I think they have no evidence. There CANNOT be evidence for religion, because that would make it fact. Feeling is NOT evidence. "I think this must be God's work" is NOT evidence. Freaky experiences are NOT evindence. Comparing the abstract concept of "Freedom" with the abstract concept of "God" in this instance is wrong, period. Freedom cannot be touched, but it's certainly real. Because it's an abstract concept, we cannot see it. God is simply not the same. Therefore, by *my* logic, freedom can be good, but believing in god is irrational.
Quote:
I love how easy it is for you to skip over my entire post. I prove to you the non-authoritarian nature of several faiths, and you just keep talking like I didn't answer you at all. People follow faith because it works for them...because they have used the vocabulary of faith to talk about things that are important to them. I acknowledge the problem of authoritarian faiths....there is a lot of "or else" that gets said in some circles. But that is hardly a fair summation of the entirety of religious thought...it's a crass proof by anecdote.
|
You did not "prove" anything. You claimed there were some religions that were non-authoritarian. Great. Okay, how's about this: The world's major religions, as in "organized religions", are authoritarian.
Quote:
No. No. A thousand times, NO! There's just no proof for this....and I don't know where you get the idea that you can say this. It would be accurate to say that in some religions that this is prevelant. But all? Please. There is no possible way to prove this, because it isn’t true. Some of the greatest minds the world have known have been religious thinkers, making great contributions both based in and in contradiction to the traditions that they were a part of.
|
Ah yes... some of the greatest minds on earth were send to prison for saying things that their religious leaders didn't like. Others were lucky enough to live in a time where organized religion lost most of it's political power.
Quote:
Again...you are making a huge, and incorrect assumption. You're promoting the dualist view, that states that whatever is God is not human, and whatever is human is not God. this is certainly not the main view of many religions, especially the Eastern faiths, which often stress the human climb to perfection. Nor does worship of God preclude thinking, rationality, or human free will. Being humble before God does not mean taking orders from anyone who claims to be holy.
|
It may not *mean* it, but for the extremists, it's certainly the case. And that is exactly my point: religion *can* be abused; it allows itself to be abused, and it's very design facilitates abuse.
Anyway... I could go on and on about this, but I actually have a life to attend to.
Conclusion: organized religion is bad, extremist religions are bad. (nationalism is bad, any social system that says it's right and everything else is bad, is bad.)
Well, that's it for now anyway.... (gotta go to work, ya know)