Religion?

[Judging__Eagle]

Well, Jehova, does have the nukes...

I don't recall any other Deities leveling towns with fire.

Although, some other Deities did drown the "world".

[bitnine]

1178819496[/unixtime]]But when you start adding things, intengible things, to the list of assumptions, you've entered a dangerous territory.

You really think that that's what happening most of the time? I mean, at the core what you're describing is the aspect of faith and internal truth that struck Kirkegaard as alternatively compelling and terrifying. But I really doubt that most real actions that we see in history and elsewhere are a result of anything so deep.

I tend to think that they are actions that have societal and psychological inspirations and merely find expression within the context of religion. It is pretty much readily apparent that religion can and has served as a vehicle for justification, organization, and enablement of such acts, but I'd posit that even in its absence an alternate vehicle would have been preempted or developed.

That goes from trivial taboos to douchebag Joe who screams about how God wants him to "curbstomp ____". In the latter case, I doubt very much that it is an honest-to-God (ha) driving internal truth behind Joe's actions. That he really has a knowledge of a fact just as strong as anything his senses could covey to him. Douchebag Joe is a douchebag for reasons that do not likely stem from any particular religious faith. He merely has found something that enables self-deception and legitimization of feelings that he happens to possess. And it's probably acting as a pretty shallow vehicle that could easily be substituted with a gang or another element.

I'm ultimately quite skeptical about ascribing large scale causal features to religion. I find it much more likely that human nature and larger psychological/social dynamics are the essential driving forces that inspire actions, along with an essential element of individual responsibility. For almost every ill attributed to religion, I think that real human beings are fully capable of and responsible for these acts.

[Maj]

I'm ultimately quite skeptical about ascribing large scale causal features to religion. I find it much more likely that human nature and larger psychological/social dynamics are the essential driving forces that inspire actions, along with an essential element of individual responsibility. For almost every ill attributed to religion, I think that real human beings are fully capable of and responsible for these acts.

I second, third, and fourth this. Religion is an easy justification for why humanity does lousy things. But having green eyes works as an excuse if religion isn't available and you just gotta have a reason.

[User3]

Up to ten-ed now. To put it more bluntly, Frank, faith tends to lead to bad things because everything tends to lead to bad things (Nuclear physics, anyone?); why? "Because most people are dumb and egoist" is my guess.

[tzor]

It is a sad fact that people will use any excuse to do nasty things. I can show you an evil religious empire. I can show you an evil atheist empire. What does it mean? Not a damn thing!

Heck you don't even need "gods" to have a bizarre hate filled religion. Consider the secular French revolutionists, forming the cult that worshiped "Lady Reason" and chopping off the heads of all that they didn't like through the modern humane Madame Guillotine.

[Draco_Argentum]

1178816244[/unixtime]]Saying that I don't believe in gods is just like me saying that I don't believe that there are fish on Mars. I haven't seen the entirety of Mars (including subaarenean waters) simultaneously, so there could be some - I just have no reason to believe that they are there and choose to believe in their absence.

Which is more of a weak atheist or agnostic arguement. I was going after the strong atheists since that is the belief that gods have been disproved.

As for why, going after religion is too easy and has been done very well already in this thread. I just wish I could come up with something on agnosticism.

[PhoneLobster]

And yet there are any number of people prepared to say "God told me to do it".

No one ever seems to say "The lack of God told me to do it".

Theistic community leaders (you know, priests and such) are constantly revealed to be corrupt, theiving, lieing, mean, sexual predators and worse. From all faiths.

How often do you see that among leaders of the Atheistic community?

It might seem ridiculous to argue moral supperiority of atheism or secularism etc... but frankly the religious community has been arguing our moral inferiority since forever.

And yet not only are they led by a bunch of embezzling con artists but if anything any study of crime and violence figures tends to lean against the religious side rather than the atheistic...

[Cielingcat]

The thing is, there is no atheist community. There are people who are atheists and are respected, and some of them even argue rather vocally against religion, but they don't lead any "community."

[PhoneLobster]

Not really, I mean case in point, what about, say, Madalyn Murray Ohair

[Draco_Argentum]

1178847613[/unixtime]]It might seem ridiculous to argue moral supperiority of atheism or secularism etc... but frankly the religious community has been arguing our moral inferiority since forever.

Never said anything either way about morality. Strong atheism has a logical consistency issue. It is therefore just as fun to point this out as it is to point out that Christianity is logically flawed.

[Neeek]

1178847613[/unixtime]]
It might seem ridiculous to argue moral supperiority of atheism or secularism etc...

Not really. There is a very strong argument that epistemic values are moral values. Essentially, it boils down to the idea that accepting the existence of things with evidence, and NOT accepting the existence of things without evidence, is a moral question.

And yes, atheists tend to be better educated, wealthier, and commit less crimes than non-atheists.

[bitnine]

1178850334[/unixtime]]And yes, atheists tend to be better educated, wealthier, and commit less crimes than non-atheists.

Wow. And the overwhelming majority of self-identified atheists are white. Would you likewise insinuate a casual nature to a correlation in this context? Because that would be awesome.

[PhoneLobster]

And the overwhelming majority of self-identified atheists are white. Would you likewise insinuate a casual nature to a correlation in this context?

And I'm prepared to bet the overwhelming majority of racists are self identified religious faithful.

[Maj]

And yet there are any number of people prepared to say "God told me to do it".

Substitute one of the following:

Greed
Pride
Poverty
Twinkies
Drugs
Race
Gender
Fear
Envy
My Significant Figure
Imbecility
My Parents
Alcohol

No one ever seems to say "The lack of God told me to do it".

Why bother? That's way too long to say. And it's not like there aren't other reasons to do horrible things. See above list.

Blaming religion for the imperfections and idiocy of mankind is as much of a cop out as those who blame their sins on the Devil. Or God. Just as those people who really want to hurt someone will find a weapon with which to do it, someone who wants to be able to justify treating others like garbage, will find a way to do it - religion or no.

Theistic community leaders (you know, priests and such) are constantly revealed to be corrupt, theiving, lieing, mean, sexual predators and worse. From all faiths.

Theistic community leaders are always in the news when they are found to be corrupt whatevers because people continue to be shocked and surprised by hypocritical behavior. Yet when it comes to other professions - such as politicians, lawyers, CEOs, celebrities, or tax collectors - hearing about yet another one who does something illegal isn't noteworthy.

[bitnine]

1178851690[/unixtime]]
And I'm prepared to bet the overwhelming majority of racists are self identified religious faithful.

And I'm prepared to show that the overwhelming majority of X are Y in a shallowly ridiculous yet more deeply ironic example of noncausal correlations. This methodology is truly awesome because it "proves" that heterosexuals are poor and whites are the morally superior race. Or, more trivially, it proves that not all correlations are causal.

[NineInchNall]

1178843858[/unixtime]]I second, third, and fourth this. Religion is an easy justification for why humanity does lousy things. But having green eyes works as an excuse if religion isn't available and you just gotta have a reason.

The problem is that religion is one of those things that support and perpetuate irrational epistemologies in a way that protects that mode of thought from major social criticism. It's a selfserving system.

Religion can lead people to be naughty. Other things can lead people to be naughty. The one has little relevance to the other. Unless you're saying that religion has no impact upon people's decision processes?

[Ramnza]

[The Associate Fence Builder Speaks]

Let's get back on track please. If you want to discuss religion please start another thread.

[/The Associate Fence Builder Has Spoken]

[bitnine]

1178853861[/unixtime]]
B) Religion can lead people to be naughty. Other things can lead people to be naughty. The one has little relevance to the other.

I'm a little confused. I'm pretty sure I said (or at least tried to say), "That douchebag is naughty because factor A (his daddy bad touched him or something like that), and X is the most convenient excuse. He'd use Y in its absence." X and Y aren't really related, but that don't show that therefore X is related to A, does it? I think that Maj was saying that a given individual was looking for an excuse and referencing the nonrelational properties inherent to a cause and an excuse, which are not really modified by the lack of a relationship between two potential excuses, causal assumptions notwithstanding.

Edit: Gah, I joined this on like the 3rd page and thought this thread was either about religion or a flawed systemic attribution model. My bad.

[NineInchNall]

Ah, I see what you were saying, then. In that light, yes, just about anything can be used as an excuse.

Edit: Yeah, I've been saying this thread's off-topic for a while now.

[Neeek]

Wait. What was the topic again?

[PhoneLobster]

It was never really clear to me, people were telling stories or something.

[CalibronXXX]

Well this discussion took an interesting turn. And Frank, I'm not sure why you got I'm going to kick some animal-headed ass out of executing judgment upon the Egyptian gods, so let's just say that I disagree with your interpretation while acknowledging that it could be correct.

I'll stop being off-topic now.

[tzor]

1178847613[/unixtime]]And yet there are any number of people prepared to say "God told me to do it".

No one ever seems to say "The lack of God told me to do it".

If you believe that something does not exist. And that lack of existance, which is by definition nothing, "tells" you something, you, my friend have serious problems.

I highly reccomend a mod split this thread. Basically the original thread is long dead. We don't believe in the original thread. I don't think it exists. It might exist but I believe it doesn't. Does that make me a weak Ag-topicist?

[NineInchNall]

More an Ur-topicist.

[Neeek]

1178851115[/unixtime]]

1178850334[/unixtime]]And yes, atheists tend to be better educated, wealthier, and commit less crimes than non-atheists.

Wow. And the overwhelming majority of self-identified atheists are white. Would you likewise insinuate a casual nature to a correlation in this context? Because that would be awesome.

Sure. There probably is a causation, but I'd assume it as being well-educated and wealthy makes you more likely to be an atheist, rather than being an atheist makes you more likely to be well-educated and wealthy. The "less likely to commit crimes" thing is just a reaction to the numerous people who have some insane idea that you need religion to have morality.