Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

MaxWig · 27-03-2015 10:34AM

jaffusmax wrote: »

Personal responsibility, common sense and secular laws would generally agree that cutting the foreskin off a baby with a piece of metal held in an old man mouth was wrong and illegal! Only religion seem to make such act accpetable!

OK.

And they are the only 'evil' customs?

Humanity has no evil customs that are not religious in origin?

jaffusmax · 27-03-2015 10:38AM

MaxWig wrote: »

OK.

And they are the only 'evil' customs?

Humanity has no evil customs that are not religious in origin?

Of course not, but that does that exonerate Religion? Very immature outlook to say well if some tribe commits cannibalism then we can perform FGM and that’s ok.
Generally as society evolces we get rid of superstitious beliefs and practices, but religion and belief on god lingers on and hinders us evolving!

MaxWig · 27-03-2015 10:39AM

jaffusmax wrote: »

Personal responsibility, common sense and secular laws would generally agree that cutting the foreskin off a baby with a piece of metal held in an old man mouth was wrong and illegal! Only religion seems to make such act accpetable!

I could agree with you if you broadened your scope, and said that as a community it is in humanity's best interests to challenge the very processes that allow a charismatic leader to influence the actions of another.

Then we begin to get to the heart of the matter.

The subjects that leaders use to enlist the loyalty of followers is really irrelevant when you approach things thus. The problem is the tendency to give up our agency in favour of being shepherded.

Religion cannot be held accountable for the evil that (wo)man acts out upon (wo)man.

Only we can be held to account for that.

Hanging your fears on religion is part of the very same problem.

MaxWig · 27-03-2015 10:43AM

jaffusmax wrote: »

Of course not, but that does that exonerate Religion? Very immature outlook to say well if some tribe commits cannibalism then we can perform FGM and that’s ok.
Generally as society evolces we get rid of superstitious beliefs and practices, but religion and belief on god lingers on and hinders us evolving!

For someone who believes so securely in science you have a pretty optimistic view of evolution.

What you are talking about is utopia.

We have bigger problems than who thanks who for what, or who prays to who for this or that.

The problem is the individual's fear to stand alone. It really makes no difference who they line up with after they have decided they need to.

jaffusmax · 27-03-2015 10:56AM

MaxWig wrote: »

For someone who believes so securely in science you have a pretty optimistic view of evolution.

What you are talking about is utopia.

We have bigger problems than who thanks who for what, or who prays to who for this or that.

The problem is the individual's fear to stand alone. It really makes no difference who they line up with after they have decided they need to.

I am optimistic about our species! We survived for thousands of years in very harsh conditions and came out on top, much of without the belief in Christ and Monotheism (why god sat idle during the darkest days of our species is beyond me).

I also said before I would never commit the crime of telling anyone not to belief in something, al;though I will not allow my life to be affected by others beliefs in kind In much of the world religious belief erodes many peoples right to live life without the interference of a supernatural god!

The bigger problems you speak of includes some young arab praying for martyrdom them blowing himself up taking a number of innocent with him in the name of God! It also included children being though that evolution is a plot to undermine the fact God put Adam and Eve on earth to populate the world!

TheLurker · 27-03-2015 11:07AM

MaxWig wrote: »

How do you decide who is good and who is bad?

And what has religion got to do with it?

Very few religions are devoid of moral teachings and a social pressure to conform with these moral teachings.

This is where the good people doing evil quote comes from. The idea that good people can be guilted or manipulated into evil acts through the social pressure of religion. Though it could be argued that they weren't that good if they let this social pressure sway them without resisting.

In fact this is one of the primary roles of religion, to use a higher authority to justify the moral choices of the believers.

You can see that even today. The anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage campaigners cannot go 5 seconds without saying "This is not what God wants".

They don't say "I personally believe this is wrong" because they would be stuck having to justify that position. Far easier to claim that the divine omnipotent creator of the universe thinks it is wrong :P

The same believers tend to get a bit flummoxed if you say "So what? Why do I care what God thinks". The response is "But you have to do what God says"

This just is a little window into what is really going on here. Humans have a natural tendency to want to surrender authority to people pressumed to be in a higher position.

Be it doing what your parents say, or what your king says, or what your God says, this seems part of human nature, at least in some people.

MaxWig · 27-03-2015 11:15AM

Very few religions are devoid of moral teachings and a social pressure to conform with these moral teachings.

Very few cultures (none) are devoid of moral teachings and a social pressure to conform with these moral teachings

This is where the good people doing evil quote comes from. The idea that good people can be guilted or manipulated into evil acts through the social pressure of religion. Though it could be argued that they weren't that good if they let this social pressure sway them without resisting.

But the vast, vast majority of us will act evilly towards others with the slightest nod from someone in authority. No religion required.
Resisting social pressure is nigh on impossible - I don't think that makes anyone bad.

This just is a little window into what is really going on here. Humans have a natural tendency to want to surrender authority to people pressumed to be in a higher position.

Be it doing what your parents say, or what your king says, or what your God says, this seems part of human nature, at least in some people.

Yes, so the religious element is irrelevant. We are all good/bad potentially evil sheep-people.

jaffusmax · 27-03-2015 11:17AM

TheLurker wrote: »

Very few religions are devoid of moral teachings and a social pressure to conform with these moral teachings.

This is where the good people doing evil quote comes from. The idea that good people can be guilted or manipulated into evil acts through the social pressure of religion. Though it could be argued that they weren't that good if they let this social pressure sway them without resisting.

In fact this is one of the primary roles of religion, to use a higher authority to justify the moral choices of the believers.

You can see that even today. The anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage campaigners cannot go 5 seconds without saying "This is not what God wants".

They don't say "I personally believe this is wrong" because they would be stuck having to justify that position. Far easier to claim that the divine omnipotent creator of the universe thinks it is wrong :P

The same believers tend to get a bit flummoxed if you say "So what? Why do I care what God thinks". The response is "But you have to do what God says"

This just is a little window into what is really going on here. Humans have a natural tendency to want to surrender authority to people pressumed to be in a higher position.

Be it doing what your parents say, or what your king says, or what your God says, this seems part of human nature, at least in some people.

You can actually see in some people of the religious persuasion get physically angered and contort their faces when an deeply offensive idea comes into their head relating to abortion. Then the only way they can express their disgust at the the idea is by saying God does not want you to kill babies!
The thought of abortion raises deep concerns and some revulsion within me but I undertsand a woman’s body is her own and that in certain circumstances abortion is required. Never do I need to be told by a supernatural god what to think!

MaxWig · 27-03-2015 11:18AM

jaffusmax wrote: »

You can actually see in some people of the religious persuasion get physically angered and contort their faces when an deeply offensive idea comes into their head relating to abortion. Then the only way they can express their disgust at the the idea is by saying God does not want you to kill babies!
The thought of abortion raises deep concerns and some revulsion within me but I undertsand a woman’s body is her own and that in certain circumstances abortion is required. Never do I need to be told by a supernatural god what to think!

No, you rely on more mortal sources, like the rest of us

What's the difference really?

jaffusmax · 27-03-2015 11:22AM

[QUOTE=MaxWig;94852412Yes, so the religious element is irrelevant. We are all good/bad potentially evil sheep-people.[/QUOTE]

Very strange analogy considering Christians are the sheep of his flock and are expected to follow obediently and unquestionably!

We are all highly evolved apes trying to suppress undesirable feeling and emotions that at one stage may have been beneficial to the survival of out species! At one stage belief in the supernatural may have been beneficial to our evolution but it is as beneficial to us now as our appendix!

silverharp · 27-03-2015 11:45AM

MaxWig wrote: »

Very few cultures (none) are devoid of moral teachings and a social pressure to conform with these moral teachings

But the vast, vast majority of us will act evilly towards others with the slightest nod from someone in authority. No religion required.
Resisting social pressure is nigh on impossible - ..

Do you accept that religious ideas generate additional hatred and suspicion that would lack a valid basis otherwise. Say anti gay rights positions in Ireland? And I do accept that non religious people can be homophobic but they wouldn't get a platform I'd wager.

jaffusmax · 27-03-2015 11:47AM

silverharp wrote: »

Do you accept that religious ideas generate additional hatred and suspicion that would lack a valid basis otherwise. Say anti gay rights positions in Ireland? And I do accept that non religious people can be homophobic but they wouldn't get a platform I'd wager.

Religion seem to legitimise holding homophobic views!

MaxWig · 27-03-2015 11:50AM

silverharp wrote: »

Do you accept that religious ideas generate additional hatred and suspicion that would lack a valid basis otherwise. Say anti gay rights positions in Ireland? And I do accept that non religious people can be homophobic but they wouldn't get a platform I'd wager.

I'm not sure I do agree with that.

BTW I abhor any prejudice, but the fact of the matter s that people are prejudiced.

People will then act on those prejudices when they are scared.

If you are asking me if differences would be jumped upon and exploited in the absence of religion, then my answer is Yes I do.

Scapegoating is an ancient phenomenon. Watch children in the schoolyard - they find a difference and attack it.

We will hang our fears on literally anything, so long as it gets the job done i.e. it provides us the opportunity to attack it and thereby attack that which causes us anxiety

PopePalpatine · 27-03-2015 11:58AM

hinault wrote: »

Soviet Russia did not do what it did in the name of religion.

I recommend that you read up upon the oppression of religion in Soviet Russia before making statements.
I suggest reading about how the Russian Orthodox and what it had to endure under communism in Russia.

The USSR relaxed its stance on the Russian Orthodox Church following the beginning of the Nazi invasion, and the relationship between the Soviet Union and the ROC was not as simple as you'd like to portray it. I am in no way saying there wasn't anti-religious repression in the USSR, but the Orthodox Church was all too willing to take part in persecution as part of the Tsarist state that preceded the USSR.

Also, Nazi Germany was certainly not the atheistic state you'd like to portray it as.

silverharp · 27-03-2015 12:07PM

MaxWig wrote: »

I'm not sure I do agree with that.

BTW I abhor any prejudice, but the fact of the matter s that people are prejudiced.

People will then act on those prejudices when they are scared.

If you are asking me if differences would be jumped upon and exploited in the absence of religion, then my answer is Yes I do.

Scapegoating is an ancient phenomenon. Watch children in the schoolyard - they find a difference and attack it.

We will hang our fears on literally anything, so long as it gets the job done i.e. it provides us the opportunity to attack it and thereby attack that which causes us anxiety

But various hatreds in many cases can be put down to low education. Educated people on the other hand " don't beat people up" on average. however combine educated people with religion and they will go out of their way to restrict the rights of gay people in this case.
In the case of homosexuality take religion off the table and you are left with the scientific view that it is not a disorder so they ought to have equal rights as citizens.

MaxWig · 27-03-2015 12:19PM

silverharp wrote: »

But various hatreds in many cases can be put down to low education. Educated people on the other hand " don't beat people up" on average. however combine educated people with religion and they will go out of their way to restrict the rights of gay people in this case.
In the case of homosexuality take religion off the table and you are left with the scientific view that it is not a disorder so they ought to have equal rights as citizens.

I take your point.

I should have added that religious leaders certainly doesn't help in situations where people preach hatred against any group.

But I don't think we can hang the hatred on religion. It was there already.

And on the education thing, of course I fully agree. In these debates I often wonder if when people talk about 'religion', what they are actually talking about is the uneducated and/or fundamentalist viewpoints.

There is always some gain involved. And I don't go along with the idea that people are acting upon their prejudices for 'religious' reasons, but rather for much more basic hum-drum and human desires. Things like the regard of others, to be part of some movement, or just not to stick out from the crowd.

I think 'truth' is rarely a consideration. Not really

silverharp · 27-03-2015 12:28PM

MaxWig wrote: »

I take your point.

I should have added that religious leaders certainly doesn't help in situations where people preach hatred against any group.

But I don't think we can hang the hatred on religion. It was there already.

And on the education thing, of course I fully agree. In these debates I often wonder if when people talk about 'religion', what they are actually talking about is the uneducated and/or fundamentalist viewpoints.

There is always some gain involved. And I don't go along with the idea that people are acting upon their prejudices for 'religious' reasons, but rather for much more basic hum-drum and human desires. Things like the regard of others, to be part of some movement, or just not to stick out from the crowd.

I think 'truth' is rarely a consideration. Not really

The leadership is one thing but take Catholic schools and their attitude to gay teachers. Here we are dealing with educated people falling back on their belief system to create barriers where otherwise they would be unlikely to care or have a passionate prejudice.

MaxWig · 27-03-2015 12:51PM

silverharp wrote: »

The leadership is one thing but take Catholic schools and their attitude to gay teachers. Here we are dealing with educated people falling back on their belief system to create barriers where otherwise they would be unlikely to care or have a passionate prejudice.

It's despicable - and while I can't claim to know an awful lot about that particular situation, no institution should be engaged in prejudiced behaviour towards any staff member.

I don't think that the State should contain any religious schools, private or otherwise.

For me, it's an example of institutional prejudice, plain and simple. I'd find it hard not to say that in that instance it is religion to blame, plain and simple.

But for me, it's too easy. It let's people off the hook.

I find prejudice towards homosexuality particularly interesting, if that doesn't sound too crass.

But again, I'm not sure I go along with the religious angle entirely. That's not to say I would even engage with someone who was expressing such views. But I am much more swayed by the argument that people are hateful of sexuality in general, and that homophobia is a product of people's deep seated fears regarding their own sexuality.

hinault · 27-03-2015 12:55PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

Why did the church not teach them to read their most sacred text?

Is it the churches job to teach people how to read and how to write?

This website is filled with whingers carping about how the church should not be involved in education.

hinault · 27-03-2015 01:00PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The USSR relaxed its stance on the Russian Orthodox Church following the beginning of the Nazi invasion, and the relationship between the Soviet Union and the ROC was not as simple as you'd like to portray it. I am in no way saying there wasn't anti-religious repression in the USSR, but the Orthodox Church was all too willing to take part in persecution as part of the Tsarist state that preceded the USSR.

The Orthodox church as outlawed under communism in Soviet Russia.
It's property was nationalised, seminaries were closed, it was driven underground throughout Russia.

To suggest otherwise is revisionism.

hinault · 27-03-2015 01:03PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Also, Nazi Germany was certainly not the atheistic state you'd like to portray it as.

From 1937 onwards, Nazi Germany closed down seminaries throughout Germany.

Religious symbols were removed from all class rooms.

Christian churches were denied the right to collect donations.

Christian youth groups were subsumed in to the Hitler Youth by decree from August 1937 to 1945.

The concordat which had been signed in 1933 was effective ignored from 1937 onwards.

jaffusmax · 27-03-2015 01:05PM

hinault wrote: »

Is it the churches job to teach people how to read and how to write?

This website is filled with whingers carping about how the church should not be involved in education.

The catholic church seem very interested in education these days as they have clergy sitting on most school boards in the country, the Christian brothers also set up schools all over our country.

I do not know what whingers you are referring to? I merely asked how come the church felt it appropriate to preach in Latin to people that could not read nor write let alone understand a foreign language! Surely such an important message from Jesus would have prompted the church to educated the people so as to read it for themselves?

Religious folk seem to have the answers for everything except the simple questions as to why the church was run in such an inept way!

katydid · 27-03-2015 01:11PM

hinault wrote: »

Is it the churches job to teach people how to read and how to write?

This website is filled with whingers carping about how the church should not be involved in education.

Hardly the same thing. For centuries, the church kept knowledge of the bible to itself by keeping education to itself, so that the ordinary people couldn't question what it was being told. They told simple Bible stories to satisfy the masses, but discouraged - no, prevented - any deeper analysis.

jaffusmax · 27-03-2015 01:11PM

hinault wrote: »

From 1937 onwards, Nazi Germany closed down seminaries throughout Germany.

Religious symbols were removed from all class rooms.

Christian churches were denied the right to collect donations.

Christian youth groups were subsumed in to the Hitler Youth by decree from August 1937 to 1945.

The concordat which had been signed in 1933 was effective ignored from 1937 onwards.

Much of these things occurred after the reformation when Protestation came into being! Christianity canabilzed itself!

Are you trying to prove in some way that Nazi Germany under Hitler was some sort of Atheist state that sought to destroy Christianity! Hitler and Himmel went to great lengths to obtain the mythical spear of destiny that legend says pierced Jesus side at the hands of a Roman Solider! Obviously they had a real belief in the powers of the Christ!

It is very typical of religious apologists to seek martyrdom for their beliefs whenever possible, this does not validate belief in a supernatural god one iota!

PopePalpatine · 27-03-2015 01:24PM

hinault wrote: »

The Orthodox church as outlawed under communism in Soviet Russia.
It's property was nationalised, seminaries were closed, it was driven underground throughout Russia.

To suggest otherwise is revisionism.

I am NOT suggesting that the ROC wasn't repressed under the USSR. However, it was revived by Stalin following the invasion of the Soviet Union - that sounds a bit like "de-outlawing" the ROC to me. Although openly Orthodox believers were banned from joining the Communist Party, large swathes of the population still remained religious. Under Gorbachev, restrictions on "Church propaganda" in the state-owned media were done away with.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#Under_Communist_rule (and yes, it has citations)

hinault wrote: »

From 1937 onwards, Nazi Germany closed down seminaries throughout Germany.

Religious symbols were removed from all class rooms.

Christian churches were denied the right to collect donations.

Christian youth groups were subsumed in to the Hitler Youth by decree from August 1937 to 1945.

The concordat which had been signed in 1933 was effective ignored from 1937 onwards.

And on the other hand, you have Hitler saying, "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity...in fact our movement is Christian." The Nazis were more interested in twisting Christianity (case in point being the National Reich Church) than destroying it.

silverharp · 27-03-2015 01:44PM

MaxWig wrote: »

It's despicable - and while I can't claim to know an awful lot about that particular situation, no institution should be engaged in prejudiced behaviour towards any staff member.

I don't think that the State should contain any religious schools, private or otherwise.

For me, it's an example of institutional prejudice, plain and simple. I'd find it hard not to say that in that instance it is religion to blame, plain and simple.

But for me, it's too easy. It let's people off the hook.

I find prejudice towards homosexuality particularly interesting, if that doesn't sound too crass.

But again, I'm not sure I go along with the religious angle entirely. That's not to say I would even engage with someone who was expressing such views. But I am much more swayed by the argument that people are hateful of sexuality in general, and that homophobia is a product of people's deep seated fears regarding their own sexuality.

I find it interesting too because it tests how well a legal system or belief systems stands up to a "no harm" situation. Here Chirstianity itself falls down as it internally "criminalises" a no harm disposition so it gives another reason why christianity is itself absurd. But it also does indicate that a religious belief system can get "good" people to do bad things. And yep it doesnt rule out people being homophobic for non religious reasons but again there would be no platform for it

marienbad · 27-03-2015 01:53PM

hinault wrote: »

Given that the vast majority of people could not read or write up to and including 16th century, it mattered little whether the Bible was written/preached in Latin/Klingon/whatever you're having yourself.

The fact that the Bible was translated and communicated to the people in their own language since then shows that there was no attempt to try to conceal what the Bible contained and what the Bible teaches.

It would be meaningless to hand a text to a person who is illiterate and to expect them to read, much less understand, what is written.

The ordinary citizen today has far more access to knowledge of the Bible than knowledge of how their own government works and what their own government does. Maybe that's where you need to refocus your attention.

This is simply untrue and what's more I suspect you know it and it is this kind of disingenuousness that makes these conversations so disappointing .

The RCC in particular strongly discouraged people reading the bible and insisted that only priests were qualified to pass on the correct interpretation . This was still the case in my own time in school and bible reading was something that only those Protestants did .

Most Catholic homes didn't even have a Bible and weren't encouraged to have one, whereas every Protestant home did. You know all this .

MaxWig · 27-03-2015 01:58PM

silverharp wrote: »

I find it interesting too because it tests how well a legal system or belief systems stands up to a "no harm" situation. Here Chirstianity itself falls down as it internally "criminalises" a no harm disposition so it gives another reason why christianity is itself absurd. But it also does indicate that a religious belief system can get "good" people to do bad things. And yep it doesnt rule out people being homophobic for non religious reasons but again there would be no platform for it

I'm not sure 'no harm' has anything to do with it tbh.

There are very many taboos that are represent 'no harm' that I'm pretty sure a lot of people would have a problem with - from both sides of the divide we're speaking of.

Like I said scapegoating and prejudice are inbuilt processes for us.

If you feel you are liberal and non-prejudiced it is only because you are a product of your society.

silverharp · 27-03-2015 02:25PM

MaxWig wrote: »

I'm not sure 'no harm' has anything to do with it tbh.

There are very many taboos that are represent 'no harm' that I'm pretty sure a lot of people would have a problem with - from both sides of the divide we're speaking of.

Like I said scapegoating and prejudice are inbuilt processes for us.

If you feel you are liberal and non-prejudiced it is only because you are a product of your society.

Can you give examples of these other taboos to see if secular taboos are either rational or not?
I would tend to defend negative rights even if I disagreed with the underlying behaviour and even if there was an element of harm so long it was not to others.

MaxWig · 27-03-2015 02:37PM

silverharp wrote: »

Can you give examples of these other taboos to see if secular taboos are either rational or not?
I would tend to defend negative rights even if I disagreed with the underlying behaviour and even if there was an element of harm so long it was not to others.

What do you mean by you 'disagreed with the underlying behaviour'?

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments