Fitna

[Beckwin]

It's a mistake to try and defend or champion religion by using logic/reason.

But if nobody tried to defend religion, who would we argue with?

The only way they can defend is to keep talking about matters of faith. It's absolutely ridiculous from a logical standpoint, yet at the same time it's the best and really only way religion can be "argued" for.

Neosutra is definitely being heavy-handed in this discussion, but he's undeniably the "winner" here. Kuya isn't dumb and he's arguing intelligently as he can, but the pitfall is trying to use logic to defend faith, and Neo has exploited that very well with the "you don't need faith for <blank>" when Kuya says "look how faith gives people <blank>". Only way to win as a theist is to stick to the dogma and more importantly believe it wholeheartedly, that way from your (deluded) perspective, you win and your view of life is protected once again etc.

Problem is that Kuya doesn't come across as a true-believer and instead is trying to take the "accept everyone's lifestyle" approach when it comes to a conscious decision to be irrational.

[Woozie]

It's a mistake to try and defend or champion religion by using logic/reason.

But if nobody tried to defend religion, who would we argue with?

The only way they can defend is to keep talking about matters of faith. It's absolutely ridiculous from a logical standpoint, yet at the same time it's the best and really only way religion can be "argued" for.

Neosutra is definitely being heavy-handed in this discussion, but he's undeniably the "winner" here. Kuya isn't dumb and he's arguing intelligently as he can, but the pitfall is trying to use logic to defend faith, and Neo has exploited that very well with the "you don't need faith for <blank>" when Kuya says "look how faith gives people <blank>". Only way to win as a theist is to stick to the dogma and more importantly believe it wholeheartedly, that way from your (deluded) perspective, you win and your view of life is protected once again etc.

Problem is that Kuya doesn't come across as a true-believer and instead is trying to take the "accept everyone's lifestyle" approach when it comes to a conscious decision to be irrational.

Sounds like you're saying Neosutra's argument wins over Kuya's because Kuya's was logical? No matter what you're defending, you never lose solely because your argument was logical.

Anyways, when it comes to faith, a person needs faith to believe in their religion. By that, I mean they need it to believe whether their religion is true or false. In this case, it's not necessarily based on logic.

But this argument isn't about whether any religion is true or false. It's about whether religion is a benefit to mankind or if it's counterproductive. That's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of opinions, which are based on facts, reasoning (be it historical, or from sociology/psychology/news/etc), and logic.

There are people who aren't religious (so their faith in religion isn't there) but still view religion as a beneficial thing to mankind, so obviously the argument of whether or not it's beneficial isn't based on faith.

[Beckwin]

It's a mistake to try and defend or champion religion by using logic/reason.

But if nobody tried to defend religion, who would we argue with?

The only way they can defend is to keep talking about matters of faith. It's absolutely ridiculous from a logical standpoint, yet at the same time it's the best and really only way religion can be "argued" for.

Neosutra is definitely being heavy-handed in this discussion, but he's undeniably the "winner" here. Kuya isn't dumb and he's arguing intelligently as he can, but the pitfall is trying to use logic to defend faith, and Neo has exploited that very well with the "you don't need faith for <blank>" when Kuya says "look how faith gives people <blank>". Only way to win as a theist is to stick to the dogma and more importantly believe it wholeheartedly, that way from your (deluded) perspective, you win and your view of life is protected once again etc.

Problem is that Kuya doesn't come across as a true-believer and instead is trying to take the "accept everyone's lifestyle" approach when it comes to a conscious decision to be irrational.

Sounds like you're saying Neosutra's argument wins over Kuya's because Kuya's was logical? No matter what you're defending, you never lose solely because your argument was logical.

Anyways, when it comes to faith, a person needs faith to believe in their religion. By that, I mean they need it to believe whether their religion is true or false. In this case, it's not necessarily based on logic.

But this argument isn't about whether any religion is true or false. It's about whether religion is a benefit to mankind or if it's counterproductive. That's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of opinions, which are based on facts, reasoning (be it historical, or from sociology/psychology/news/etc), and logic.

There are people who aren't religious (so their faith in religion isn't there) but still view religion as a beneficial thing to mankind, so obviously the argument of whether or not it's beneficial isn't based on faith.

I'm not saying Kuya loses despite his argument being logical or moreso than Neo's, I'm saying a logical defense for religion is what fails Kuya, basically defaulting Neo. Neo's argument is pretty well constructed when you shave off the personal dislike/contempt for religion; he's convincing in saying that religion isn't necessary and that faith can be counterproductive in how it motivates for good or bad. So I'm saying that the only way to defend the necessity or productiveness of religion is to stick to the dogmatic reasoning for it's existence and fully believe in that, because without it you simply have unnecessary systems of irrational belief causing a variety of behaviors in people.

[Neosutra]

Sounds like you're saying Neosutra's argument wins over Kuya's because Kuya's was logical? No matter what you're defending, you never lose solely because your argument was logical.

Anyways, when it comes to faith, a person needs faith to believe in their religion. By that, I mean they need it to believe whether their religion is true or false. In this case, it's not necessarily based on logic.

But this argument isn't about whether any religion is true or false. It's about whether religion is a benefit to mankind or if it's counterproductive. That's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of opinions, which are based on facts, reasoning (be it historical, or from sociology/psychology/news/etc), and logic.

There are people who aren't religious (so their faith in religion isn't there) but still view religion as a beneficial thing to mankind, so obviously the argument of whether or not it's beneficial isn't based on faith.

On the surface this may seem true woozie, but when you go a bit deeper you find that even attempting to justify religion solely for its benefits/downfalls, you start working toward the realm of faith and things that cannot be logically proven.

If you are arguing the benefits of religion, then you pretty much get one solid premis:

Religion offers answers to social/psychological questions that provide support to people searching for a reason for their life, an understanding of the universe, and/or personal comfort for not being alone.

That being said, my argument has been that the support religion offers is one built on foundations of deities and personal gods that offer no physical support when needed. A person attempting to get off drugs has a better shot finding support through groups of people that have gone through the same events, or family members who will physically be there to help them. A woman attempting to raise a child on her own will find more support in family/friends, than an invisible man in the sky. Regardless of how any given dogma may allow someone to "feel" at a certain time, the plain truth is that -no- physical support will ever come from these spiritual investments. So the psychological comfort one may get is only a set of hollow foundations that have the potential to cause more harm than good.

The wise man built his house upon the rock so to speak

My other premis was that even accepting the basic tenants of religion violates the basic tenants of science (i.e. the scientific method), whereby theories -must- be validated with evidence. As a scientist you know very well there is a standard to what the academic community must adhere too when bringing results to the public. "Dont question, just believe" is a slap in the face of everything I (and you good sir) stand for.

You see Woozie, religion fails as a rational support system when just analyzing the facts in a logical argument. You have to make further assertations of "well what if that support really is there, that the person really does get some physical reaction out of prayer", in which case you attempt to justify supernatural phenomina and faith again using reason/logic/science and fail again.

edit: beaten in response.

[Kaelan]

It's a mistake to try and defend or champion religion by using logic/reason.

But if nobody tried to defend religion, who would we argue with?

The only way they can defend is to keep talking about matters of faith. It's absolutely ridiculous from a logical standpoint, yet at the same time it's the best and really only way religion can be "argued" for.

Oh of course, I'm entirely aware of that. The default response whenever I see someone get backed into a corner in a religious argument is always some variation of "well, you just have to believe!". What I was in half-seriousness poking fun at was the fact that I guess if I ever had to mention any real good religion has done it would be that it gave me an interesting (/big/complex) subject to argue about.

Were it not for that, I probably would have never cared as much as I do now about seriously reading and learning Kant, Spinoza, Aquinas, Ockham, Voltaire, Jefferson, Paine, Ingersoll and several others, nor would I likely have ever heard the names Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Michael Shermer. And, of course, actually finding out what religions are behind the surface and the baggage they carry with them (it's amazing what beliefs you can find even in the apparently mild and moderate religions like Buddhism and Hinduism).

[Beckwin]

Yeah Buddhism I know has had some interesting history in spite of it's very... passive nature. They developed military forces in some parts, and in Japan in particular the Buddhist church got pretty embroiled in politics to the point where they were expelled from the capitol city. Dogmatically, some sects pursue asceticism to some fairly odd extremes; Daruma's dedication that resulted in cutting his eyelids off was extolled as a virtue.

[evilbau]

I disagree that defending religion with logic and reason is inherently flawed. Kuya is defending the social impact of religions, not the content/canon/dogma of any one religion.

It is my opinion that societal change, support, and values driven by religion has, on the whole, been net positive for the world. You only need to look to the Reformation, a civil rights movement of sorts. Pursuing religious freedom in the New World may have been a stepping stone to the political freedoms we now enjoy. On an individual level, it gives people purpose and a reason to be good. Personally I think I'm a good person and non-religious, so I can see how people like me can call it a 'crutch' but I think thats incredibly disrespectful. Don't be influenced only by the violence and injustices committed in the name religion. Just because we have reached a time where people no longer need religion to explain the mysteries that surround us, doesn't mean we should discount it, or ignore the positive effects it has had.

[Neosutra]

I disagree that defending religion with logic and reason is inherently flawed. Kuya is defending the social impact of religions, not the content/canon/dogma of any one religion.

It is my opinion that societal change, support, and values driven by religion has, on the whole, been net positive for the world. You only need to look to the Reformation, a civil rights movement of sorts. Pursuing religious freedom in the New World may have been a stepping stone to the political freedoms we now enjoy. On an individual level, it gives people purpose and a reason to be good. Personally I think I'm a good person and non-religious, so I can see how people like me can call it a 'crutch' but I think thats incredibly disrespectful. Don't be influenced only by the violence and injustices committed in the name religion. Just because we have reached a time where people no longer need religion to explain the mysteries that surround us, doesn't mean we should discount it, or ignore the positive effects it has had.

Your biggest flaw here is the "values driven by religion". Your mistaken to believe morals developed/originate from religious dogma. Morals and social boundaries developed from years of social interation, in which humanity slowly defined methodologies for living together peacefully. The were incorporated into religion because rewards/punishments for not doing good/bad were incorporated into religion. Note that no religion actually "creates" bad, there are just things that are socially not acceptable and are chastised by a given religion. "Evil" is to have existed before explaination, where as disobedience was the first incarnation of it in man. Morals have very little to do with religion, other than being corrupted by them.

As for the repetitive "well religion has done some good too", I wont get into that, because you can just read the rest of the thread.

[evilbau]

I disagree that defending religion with logic and reason is inherently flawed. Kuya is defending the social impact of religions, not the content/canon/dogma of any one religion.

It is my opinion that societal change, support, and values driven by religion has, on the whole, been net positive for the world. You only need to look to the Reformation, a civil rights movement of sorts. Pursuing religious freedom in the New World may have been a stepping stone to the political freedoms we now enjoy. On an individual level, it gives people purpose and a reason to be good. Personally I think I'm a good person and non-religious, so I can see how people like me can call it a 'crutch' but I think thats incredibly disrespectful. Don't be influenced only by the violence and injustices committed in the name religion. Just because we have reached a time where people no longer need religion to explain the mysteries that surround us, doesn't mean we should discount it, or ignore the positive effects it has had.

Your biggest flaw here is the "values driven by religion". Your mistaken to believe morals developed/originate from religious dogma. Morals and social boundaries developed from years of social interation, in which humanity slowly defined methodologies for living together peacefully. The were incorporated into religion because rewards/punishments for not doing good/bad were incorporated into religion. Note that no religion actually "creates" bad, there are just things that are socially not acceptable and are chastised by a given religion. "Evil" is to have existed before explaination, where as disobedience was the first incarnation of it in man. Morals have very little to do with religion, other than being corrupted by them.

As for the repetitive "well religion has done some good too", I wont get into that, because you can just read the rest of the thread.

News to me that an opinion can be flawed I have not mis-stated. I never said morals developed or originated from religious dogma. Societal change, support and values driven by religion (my full quote) is a subset of all societal change. I did not think that I would have to explain that but then again I shouldn't take it for granted that people understand I say what I mean. Please don't pin conclusions on me that I never made.

[Beckwin]

You're kind of missing the point though- Neos has been arguing that all of the good from "society change, support, and values" would've come from other sources in absence of religion anyway, basically.

It's funny you mention the Reformation, actually. That was religion reforming religion... hard to paint that as a net positive, lol. Especially when the resulting Protestant religions go on participate in things like Ireland and wonderful works in the New World- witch trials and Native American issues, etc.

[evilbau]

My point is that religion allowed a framework with which people can understand a reason to be moral and good. For the enlightened ones, then and now, religion has no bearing on morality. There were the masses that understood through religion, and that still is the case today with many people. Much like the Old Testament represented the moral wisdom of its time, it was already outdated and barbaric by Christ's time. The New Testament similarly reflects moral changes of its time. This trend of tossing it aside and belittling it is really just an indication of further moral progress and a transition to the Church of the Scientific Method. To ignore the history, to marginalize its importance, is, in my opinion, a mistake.

Crusades, witch trials, televangelists, radical fundamentalism... no doubt they are perversions of religions. But there are similar non-secular examples of atrocities throughout history, so I will make the same point to you: these atrocities would occur with or without religion. Persecution for differences like the witch trials don't need religious backing, they would think of another way to blame problems on the strange lady living at the end of the village.

[Beckwin]

My point is that religion allowed a framework with which people can understand a reason to be moral and good. For the enlightened ones, then and now, religion has no bearing on morality. There were the masses that understood through religion, and that still is the case today with many people. Much like the Old Testament represented the moral wisdom of its time, it was already outdated and barbaric by Christ's time. The New Testament similarly reflects moral changes of its time. This trend of tossing it aside and belittling it is really just an indication of further moral progress and a transition to the Church of the Scientific Method. To ignore the history, to marginalize its importance, is, in my opinion, a mistake.

Crusades, witch trials, televangelists, radical fundamentalism... no doubt they are perversions of religions. But there are similar non-secular examples of atrocities throughout history, so I will make the same point to you: these atrocities would occur with or without religion. Persecution for differences like the witch trials don't need religious backing, they would think of another way to blame problems on the strange lady living at the end of the village.

Sure they allowed for a framework upon which to act 'good', but the case is that nothing specific about religion has been necessary for that framework to exist. It's not like people were complete animals before religion, or in societies that were based on something other than it. I don't know if this is the best example, but look at Chinese history- my timeline may be off, but their society proscribed to law and order based mostly on reason well before European Renaissance and subsequent Enlightenment (I'm talking mainly Confucian and Taoist philosophies taking strong hold on Chinese society from the 600s or so on). On that same vein of thought, traditional ancestor worship is kind of a socially based impetus for acting well that is rather distinct from major religious beliefs.

A-ha, but see the thing about the secular examples is that they're "allowed" to be openly criticized without remorse. Faith and how it's ingrained into our society still kind of creates a shield oftentimes in debate. I mean you can take something like white supremacy and talk about how it gives those people confidence and purpose and pride and how they band together to help eachother out (in oh so twisted ways, for sure), but no one gives a shit because the marks it leaves on society as a whole are fucking disgusting.

No doubt that people will continue to do bad things. But I think it's a fair stance that the fewer reasons they have to do it will result in fewer bad things (however so slightly or drastically), and more importantly, they would have one huge less reason to be convinced that the bad thing is good. And that's probably the biggest part of it all- it's easier to do something if you're convinced (or delusional) that it's good.

[Kuya]

It's not a definitive solution on it. I never said it was, I did mention neuroscientists are in the middle of finding the way these things work at the level of the brain (as in, we have evidence suggesting it, even though it's not conclusive).

You're right, i was too brash in making that statement, and there is reasonable possibility that one could consider it natural. I don't think i need to continue poking holes in it.

Completely irrelevant, most humans do. There is no such thing as an absolute in science. There is such a thing as a vast majority.

But exceptions are important when it comes to the study of human beings. You can't just say that people who have no desire to raise offspring or care for them are genetically malfunctioning. The article may use the world "almost", but even then one could conclude nothing else besides them assuming it, without any real explination (even though it is not the main point of the article, making a statement like that requires an explination), that the desire to care for offspring is genetic. Nor you or I know how that even translates into reality. It was a lazy way to put it, but then again, the only reason i even pounted that out is to try and devalue the article, which in hindsight is pretty pointless since it also partially agreed with me.

I don't see anything subjective in the difference of worth between helping someone due to caring about them versus helping someone because you were ordered to do so, completely excluding empathy from the equation. This sounds like obscurantism to me.

Don't see how that's obscurantism, seeing as how the phrase means to willingly make others ignorant. However is is subjective to say that, it is worth more to see someone help another out of humanitarianism and then to say that the other who helps out of the belief that all humans are brothers in the presense of God is worth less, in essence the only reason you reject the latter, is because it has the word God in it, rather than judging it by its actual worth as an action. Your judgement is based on some idea that beleving in God makes someone's actions worthless, if this is not subjective, i surely don't know what is.

Third, I don't know where you keep getting this "arbitrary idea of good" from, I had just mentioned that it was a combination of things that help you as a species and things that help you as an individual.

That's not an argument meant for you, for now.

When there is competition over mating, one male will chase away another and then after he has mated he will reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing with the chased male (de Waal 2001).

That's all that really caught my eye, though the articles do mention the posiblity of these animals possessing empathy like qualities, which no doubt primates would likely have, they aren't really theories but observations. And i know science isn't about absolutes, but in this case, it's not even close. I know you've already said that the point is to say that there is a possibility for it, and i agree, it does seem that there is one.

The reason I'm concerned with motivations is because they, just like beliefs, don't exist in isolation and sometimes trying to do a good thing for a bad reason can have some bad consequences. Mother Teresa is a great example of this.

What did she do? Assuming we're not just using a handfull of people to pass judgement on the rest.

My point is to show how useless it is to argue, "oh forget the bad it causes, look at the good they do", as if that somehow "cancels out" the bad parts which are very much still a problem.

No, that was a counter-quip at Neosutra because he was the one ignoring the positive aspects, and focusing solely on the negative ones. Of course, he later said that even if there were positive sides, he still doesn't care. So i wasn't ignoring the obvious limits of religion, i was merely responding to what i saw.

I don't know in what way explaining how things we don't understand work has anything to do with ethics.

Sadly, the concept of a deity doesn't really fall into that, and to most scientists or social scientists, the very idea of actually putting in effort to somehow disprove someone's notions of a god is rather pointless. It's simple to disprove dogmas, it's a completely different ball game to try and say something as exotic as the idea of a god can be disproven. I don't really see why natural science would try and interfere into a clearly social situation.

I mean you can take something like white supremacy and talk about how it gives those people confidence and purpose and pride and how they band together to help eachother out (in oh so twisted ways, for sure), but no one gives a shit because the marks it leaves on society as a whole are fucking disgusting.

...

[Beckwin]

Kuya, would you deny that white supremacy movements give empowerment and meaning to those involved, not to mention a supportive community? And positives are in the eye of the beholder as well- just as important to some as the idea of going to Heaven is the idea that other people will be going to Hell. Sure it's a hell of an example, but hey. That shit is irrational as hell, and because it's not classified as faith or religion, it's free game to deservedly blast the shit out of it for all the bad it does.

[Kuya]

Sure it's a hell of an example,

No kidding.

[Faris]

I think this topic holds the longest replies in BG history, damn.

[evilbau]

My point is that religion allowed a framework with which people can understand a reason to be moral and good. For the enlightened ones, then and now, religion has no bearing on morality. There were the masses that understood through religion, and that still is the case today with many people. Much like the Old Testament represented the moral wisdom of its time, it was already outdated and barbaric by Christ's time. The New Testament similarly reflects moral changes of its time. This trend of tossing it aside and belittling it is really just an indication of further moral progress and a transition to the Church of the Scientific Method. To ignore the history, to marginalize its importance, is, in my opinion, a mistake.

Crusades, witch trials, televangelists, radical fundamentalism... no doubt they are perversions of religions. But there are similar non-secular examples of atrocities throughout history, so I will make the same point to you: these atrocities would occur with or without religion. Persecution for differences like the witch trials don't need religious backing, they would think of another way to blame problems on the strange lady living at the end of the village.

Sure they allowed for a framework upon which to act 'good', but the case is that nothing specific about religion has been necessary for that framework to exist. It's not like people were complete animals before religion, or in societies that were based on something other than it. I don't know if this is the best example, but look at Chinese history- my timeline may be off, but their society proscribed to law and order based mostly on reason well before European Renaissance and subsequent Enlightenment (I'm talking mainly Confucian and Taoist philosophies taking strong hold on Chinese society from the 600s or so on). On that same vein of thought, traditional ancestor worship is kind of a socially based impetus for acting well that is rather distinct from major religious beliefs.

A-ha, but see the thing about the secular examples is that they're "allowed" to be openly criticized without remorse. Faith and how it's ingrained into our society still kind of creates a shield oftentimes in debate. I mean you can take something like white supremacy and talk about how it gives those people confidence and purpose and pride and how they band together to help eachother out (in oh so twisted ways, for sure), but no one gives a shit because the marks it leaves on society as a whole are fucking disgusting.

No doubt that people will continue to do bad things. But I think it's a fair stance that the fewer reasons they have to do it will result in fewer bad things (however so slightly or drastically), and more importantly, they would have one huge less reason to be convinced that the bad thing is good. And that's probably the biggest part of it all- it's easier to do something if you're convinced (or delusional) that it's good.

You got some good points there, Beckwin. I will say that I can't think of an example of a society where there wasn't a spiritual aspect to it, that one would answer for the decisions made in their life, be it in another body through reincarnation, mother nature, heaven, hell, or to their ancestors. Some of us don't need or want it but that does not give us license to judge. It was a way to explain the unknown in the absence of truth. Morality does not inherently play into it, but it such a bad thing that they attached morality into a belief system? Who are we to say religion on a whole has been negative?

I don't agree that one or the other are 'allowed' to be openly criticized more than the other. Stalin's purgings, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Hitler's Holocaust (ohnoes Godwin) were not open to criticism within their cultures. And radical fundamentalism IS condemned within the cultures today in which it inhabits, as it has in the past. I agree with your last point, and in my opinion, religion does not have a place in our future, but we certain have to deal with it in the present and understand the past.

[Neosutra]

So lets be straight:

evilbau believes that religion is required to allow the masses to follow moral standards and thus adds to the social peace.

Kuya believes (or rather argues the point of) that the psychological benefits of religion outweigh the negative traits that may follow.


I would have to say a belief that "lesser enlightened" members of our species require religious dogma to follow moral social standards shows a vast naivity towards history and human interactions. The massive historical evidence against your assumption asside, one could go back to the repeating argument that a person is more likely to follow order/social codes when they fear real world concequences, rather than supernatural reprecussions. When you were a child, if you stole a peice of candy... were you afraid god might find out? Or were you afraid you father might find out and tan your hide? The strongest support system for moral social codes will always be strong educational systems and just arbiters, not fictional reprecussions in the suppossed afterlife. A man running from the cops after he just killed his wife is running from the fear of prison, death, and the end of his current way of life, not from god/gods.

And to evilbau again: "Who are we to say religion has been negative as a whole?" We are men, rational free men, with the ability and right to look at our past and make a decision. A decision to continue on with the addictions to social delussions and self defeating philosophies that cause war and spread ignorance. Or we can rise up as a species and say no more. "who are we to questions it", Im a god damned human being, and I shake my fist in the air and demand an answer for all the crap that keeps getting spread across this planet by people that dare not ask why. People like you. Who the fuck are we to question it? My friends and I served in god damned Iraq so you could question it. My father served in Vietnam so you could question it. My grandfather served in korea so you could fucking question it. My great grandfather served in a world fucking war so you could question it. And all over the planet people have fought for the right to ask why, so god damnit, im going to fucking ask it.

As for Kuya, we have said our peice to each side. We have pointed out that even the minimal psychological benefits have their down side, as real life supports will always provide better mental stability for people suffering over fictional delussions. You dont even have to examine the multitude of damage the bad side of religion causes. Its like arguing a case for cocaine "Oh but it makes people feel better!!". That feel better feeling is short lived and always comes with a price.

[Beckwin]

Oh I definitely agree that it was a means to explain the unknown (hell, I'd say that's the chief reason man came up with it) and that it definitely pervaded almost all early civilizations. What I'm contending is that logically/rationally it's not necessary by any means, and I believe that collectively mankind would be better off without it (which of course is hard to back up entirely). For the record I kinda consider myself to have "gotten past" the stage of being really angry about religion in a general sense; I guess frankly I've come to realize that the extreme aspects of it generally don't affect me on a day to day basis so I'm not real apt to tear into it/religious people at any given opportunity, plus I see it's decline in motion so meh -> If it makes you happy and doesn't fuck with me, then be happy. I do concern myself when it comes to large-scale social initiatives and political policy issues, though.

The thing about Stalin, Mao, and Hitler is now the whole world (...for the most part) can deride their ideology/practice without restraint. But similarly I guess, Italian and Spanish fascists had their beef with some of Hitler's policies but you couldn't get away with generally bashing fascism in those countries at that time; same goes for Mao on Stalinism and communist dictatorships in general.

[evilbau]

So lets be straight:

evilbau believes that religion is required to allow the masses to follow moral standards and thus adds to the social peace.

Kuya believes (or rather argues the point of) that the psychological benefits of religion outweigh the negative traits that may follow.


I would have to say a belief that "lesser enlightened" members of our species require religious dogma to follow moral social standards shows a vast naivity towards history and human interactions. The massive historical evidence against your assumption asside, one could go back to the repeating argument that a person is more likely to follow order/social codes when they fear real world concequences, rather than supernatural reprecussions. When you were a child, if you stole a peice of candy... were you afraid god might find out? Or were you afraid you father might find out and tan your hide? The strongest support system for moral social codes will always be strong educational systems and just arbiters, not fictional reprecussions in the suppossed afterlife. A man running from the cops after he just killed his wife is running from the fear of prison, death, and the end of his current way of life, not from god/gods.

And to evilbau again: "Who are we to say religion has been negative as a whole?" We are men, rational free men, with the ability and right to look at our past and make a decision. A decision to continue on with the addictions to social delussions and self defeating philosophies that cause war and spread ignorance. Or we can rise up as a species and say no more. "who are we to questions it", Im a god damned human being, and I shake my fist in the air and demand an answer for all the crap that keeps getting spread across this planet by people that dare not ask why. People like you. Who the fuck are we to question it? My friends and I served in god damned Iraq so you could question it. My father served in Vietnam so you could question it. My grandfather served in korea so you could fucking question it. My great grandfather served in a world fucking war so you could question it. And all over the planet people have fought for the right to ask why, so god damnit, im going to fucking ask it.

As for Kuya, we have said our peice to each side. We have pointed out that even the minimal psychological benefits have their down side, as real life supports will always provide better mental stability for people suffering over fictional delussions. You dont even have to examine the multitude of damage the bad side of religion causes. Its like arguing a case for cocaine "Oh but it makes people feel better!!". That feel better feeling is short lived and always comes with a price.

lol you need to calm down some. Do you have a need to argue? Because I didn't say we shouldn't debate it or have an opinion. I said who are we to say, as a people, religion is bad or destructive? You have a knack for misinterpretation, I didn't say we shouldn't question it, I meant we should not judge it. You wish to use the freedom you and others have earned to promote intolerance towards religions? to cram your sense of right down my throat? Do you not see the hypocrisy in what you are saying? You obviously misunderstood what I said so I won't throw U.S. soldiers of faith in your face, but you need to learn how to read.

Don't accuse me of 'not asking why.' 'People like you?' I'm talking about the role of religion in the past and present. I try to look past the words and ideas of the past and examine everything. I have already said I am not religious, and I may have mentioned it before, but I'm actually an atheist. I already said that I don't think religion has a future. I hate any form of religion in our government, I believe it taints its objectivity. I can't stand the Christian Right and all their backward ass beliefs and hypocrisies. Their political power makes me sick.

And then you have put words in my mouth twice now. I do not believe religion is required to keep the masses in line. My point was that it provided answers where there were none and it also established consequences for people. Society and government was not always as efficient as it is now. People bribed their way out of trouble, slipped through the cracks, or simply were never caught (not a lot of forensics going on even in our near past). The idea that at least a god saw them and would eventually judge them was at the very least a backup plan to keep them in line, in the absence of the technology we now enjoy. It also allowed people to move on with their lives, even if society has produced an injustice (which isn't unheard of), as judgment comes for those when they die, to the believers. Is forgiveness and remorse that some experience only through religion is worth dismissing out of hand for your sense of what the world needs? YOU are the one who needs to become more enlightened.

Ultimately I was trying to say those who were religious who did good should not be discounted. If Michaelangelo didn't paint the Sistine Chapel, would he still be revered? I'm sure he would. And the time he spent painting something other than that ceiling might have been a great work of art as well. But it does not diminish the reality: a beautiful work of art, made in the name of religion.