Gonzo wrote:

there's a danger, too, of focussing on just one religion.

Well sure, but lets be real, the qu'ran does ok for nasty quotage, and even if we want to just focus on christianity, there's plenty of meat to chew on.

WorKid wrote:

A god with no discernible effect on the world is, in practical terms anyway, exactly the same as the absence of a god, no?

Yup, a god for which there is no evidence is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist.  Hence, rational atheism and deluded faith.

Gonzo wrote:

I read that question and thought it pretty clearly was implying that religion was the cause of social conservatism.

The cause?
No, one of the causes.

You keep trying to make out that only 1 thing causes homophobia - that's far too reductionist. 

Gonzo wrote:

So you agree that religion is not just a "value-neutral tool" used by "social conservatives", but is actually part of the many influences that goes to form and spread that "social conservatism"?

 
Funny that, it's as if you're putting words into my mouth. If only there was a convenient interenet meme that simpletons deploy to describe just such a situation... I said exactly what I said.

 
Again, I asked you a question - just answer it, agree or disagree, and try not to read too much into it.

Also, insults? Poor form, old bean.

Gonzo wrote:

I understood the word tautology in sixth form, and thereafter used almost every opportunity till I figured out how intellectually weak its use is. I said that social conservatism might be a better label for what causes homophobia, you decided I said "homophobes" cause homophobia....If only there were a convenient internet meme for what you just did.

Again strawmen and insults - poor form.

I didn't say "social conservatism causes homophobia" is tautologous, I said it was "damn near tautologous" because it is almost completely lacking in explanatory power. You hadn't explained where this "social conservatism" arises when you first made that statement, so it's almost as weak as saying "social conservatives that are already homophobes causes the spread of homophobia".

Gonzo wrote:

So why are you saying that you *do* know and that they *don't* shape their views (and then play an integral part of the dissemination and proliferation of those views)? You say religion is only a "value-neutral tool" used for spreading homophobia, but then you say that you don't know if religion shaped those views or not - you are contradicting yourself.

 
As I stated above, I don't know. It's a difficult question. The histories of religions are complex, and their interactions with various structures probably so too.

 
Of course - I'm not arguing for a reductionist single cause of homophobia, just that Religion is one of them.

Gonzo wrote:

I'm making an argument here, not claiming absolute knowledge.

But you were claiming that Religion is NOT the cause of homophobia and that it is only a "value-neutral tool". So you were making factual claims that can be rebutted.

Gonzo wrote:

Funny you should happily pounce on that, when in the very next sentence I give you a concrete example of why I think religions do not predate cultural conservatism. If it were simple we would know the answer. But it's not simple, and you pretend that it is- it's all because of leviticus lol.

Again with the strawman - I never said it was ALL because of leviticus, just that in this current day and age, Religion is one of the things causing homophobia.

And really, I don't care about history lessons and whatnot - I'm talking about the world as it stands today. People aren't born "social conservatives" or homophobes, they become that way, so homophobia pre-dating religion does not in any way prove that religion today is not one of the current causes of homophobia.

Gonzo wrote:

but since your focus is on christianity, we can find plenty of social conservatives well before christianity's advent. Take Augustus, ore the older Romans, well known for prudishness and cultural conservatism. The idea that humanity's heading into depravity and the wrong path is very old, and might well have shaped religions rather than the other way round.

So what? What bearing does that have on whether or not religion is currently one of several/many causes of homophobia?

A lot of attention and effort given to the "I don't know" bit, none on the specific example. The point is, why not speak out about homophobia?

I do.

Gonzo wrote:

Why attack religion first and then bring up homophobia as the reason why?

You made out that religion you don't think religion "does as much harm as the antis say it does" - I gave an example of an area where I believe religion does do harm. It was one of the several areas that I believe religion causes harm, but thought it better to focus on a specific example rather than muddying the waters with too many threads of argument.

Gonzo wrote:

Religions can and have adapted.

Of course - anglican church ordaining female vicars etc.
Some have adapted more than others though - and if we're talking about "social conservatism", Vatican springs to mind as really rather conservative.

Gonzo wrote:

I'll tell you why: you don't give a flying fuck about homophobia but you have a bee in your bonnet about the catholic church.  Only guessing.

Guess again.
And again, strawman, bad form. Only weakens your other arguments in the eyes of the readers.

Gonzo wrote:

Another source of confusion is about rules. The "right to tell others that homosexuality is bad because god said so" is identified as an ill. But I have that right. I can tell anyone that. It's up to them whether they believe it. What is so special about God that makes my claim that he posited a rule so harmful?

Because anyone that comes to religion (for whatever personal reason) and believes in God, places authority in the holy book and the religious hierarchy. You going round telling people your POV about gays has the weight of a single man's opinion - for the religious, someone claiming to know God's will making that claim has much more weight.  And, like, it's in the bible, with a whole bunch of other mad shit, but it's in there.

But it's up to them whether to believe it or not, and whether to act on it or not.

 
No, it's not really up to them whether "to believe it or not", as for whatever reason, they have FAITH in their religion and their church, so they take it on FAITH that what the holy text and the holy preachers say is true. 

You still seem to be arguing that a preacher's sermon and the holy texts, in the eyes of the faithful, only carries the weight of opinion of a single person. That's clearly not true.

Gonzo wrote:

It only matters if religious authority has some legal, public status. Maybe you'll explain yourself when I discuss that?

Sure, it makes it much, much worse if religious authority also has legal status (e.g. pakistan, religious influence in Uganda's anti-gay legislation and persecution) - but that's irrelevant to my point that religion is one of the opinion-forming factors that leads people to believe that being gay is a bad thing.

Gonzo wrote:

I wasn't talking about legal authority, I was talking about the credence believers place in the authority of the scripture as passed down and the authority of the church to tell them what is and what is not God's will.

Why does it affect you? If it has no legal authority, why does it matter that a stranger might blindingly follow text?

What does it matter if Religion makes people homophobic? Why are you even asking this?
Are you so laser-focused on legality that you can't empathise with the plight of gay kids bullied to the point of suicide in American high schools?

Sure, concentrate on root causes. Leviticus 18:22 would be a start. Really, this whole idea that religion is "value-neutral" and only a tool is patently false. The Catholic Church is not "value neutral", it has plenty to say on the nature of good and bad/evil.  You're going to have to give that one up.

There's really no argument anywhere here, just repeated assertion; and in such a long post too. The point is, when concentrating on harm, is religion neutral or is it positively harming society? I think as a matter of fact, religious forces, on balance, cause harm in contemporary times.

[/quote]
Oh right, so Religion does cause harm? Just not "as much harm as the antis say it does"?
Okay, well then I take issue with your characterisation of how much harm "the antis" attribute to religion.

Gonzo wrote:

But I think the reason for that: the gay bashing, the jihad revering, female equality hampering is better explained by other root causes. Religions are a tool for mass organisation and education, and they are being used by the wrong people for the wrong interests.

 
So, given how vague the holy texts often are, how do we distinguish between  the "wrong" interests and the "wrong" people? How is one interpretation of the text "wrong" and another "right"?

Gonzo wrote:

But religions, abstractly, are neutral, I think.

The concept of unquestioning faith in god-given, unchanging, infallible rules is somewhat contradictory to your idea that religious believers are entirely free to cherry-pick beliefs - there's a pressure and influence there that you are not acknowledging.

That "Religion" as a concept seems to so easily to lend itself to "being used by the wrong people for the wrong interests" would also seem inherent to its nature.

Gonzo wrote:

I have conceded- in my question to face a long time ago, that the issue is arguable. My view is that religions could easily - and have at many phases in our history- been forces for good, for emancipation. It's all about harm. That's why I highlighted in bold chump's references to "value neutral" (note the quote tags, is he purporting to quote me? if only there were a convenient internet meme that simpletons could use to describe just such a situation)

 

Gonzo wrote:

...

I think religion is neutral, it's a tool...

I accept that there's lots of good things about religion - and you acknowledge that it has and currently does do some harm.
On balance, I don't believe the world would be a better place if there was no religion whatsoever, but I was only ever arguing against your implication that it doesn't do any significant harm.
I know that may be me reading meaning into your "anti-anti-theist" stance, because you have often implied that the "anti-theists" are raving, irrational, all-or-nothing, ban-all-religions types (which I don't believe is the case, in the same way I don't believe all theists are irrational, unquestioning-blind-faith types - shades of grey all around), but that was what I took as your implication - that religion is mostly harmless.

Gonzo wrote:

I never used the term "value". I simply said that religious authority is not wrong per se. So religion is not intrinsically wrong. It's what you do with it that counts, and people do different things in different religions / movements within religions at different times.  People retain their mental faculties to decide what to do and who to obey ...

 
Well, that mis-characterises FAITH really, doesn't it? That people with FAITH get to rationally decide that they do and don't believe and who they obey?

I mean this sincerely: It would be awesome if you did continue to join in. And I'll try and be pointed without being prickish.

Also, chump am master quoter and follower of points/threads.

Some_Guy wrote:

WorKid wrote:

A god with no discernible effect on the world is, in practical terms anyway, exactly the same as the absence of a god, no?

Yup, a god for which there is no evidence is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist.  Hence, rational atheism and deluded faith.

I'm not sure why you would say deluded. What about all the people that believe and follow prophets teachings but stop short of the idea of a guy on a cloud pulling strings?

What about Pantheism beliefs and the people that follow(ed) them, like, um, Einstein?

Do the people that believe in gods honestly believe that said gods act exclusively for them, or even for humanity, given how much we know of the universe and just how vast it is, is a human-centric version of religion really possible?

Ali wrote:

Do the people that believe in gods honestly believe that said gods act exclusively for them, or even for humanity, given how much we know of the universe and just how vast it is, is a human-centric version of religion really possible?

I would consider religion to be human centric anyway.

I guess it depends on how you would view God? Is it viewed as a singular entity that has one single point of manifestation? Or is it viewed as something that is omnipresent? - This view was popularised by churches to discourage certain actions considered sinful i.e. masturbation. If god was everywhere then it would be impossible to carry out sinful actions without retribution later on. It was also easier to rule the population if they thought that someone was always watching them as well. 

I think that our view of what God is has been 'humanised' to make it easier to understand, given a certain image to make it simpler for children to grasp. There are a lot of kids that think god is either - a man with a big white beard or Morgan Freeman. The Omnipresent is thrown in as they get 'older'


I think that individuals have used god to justify their actions, or have claimed events in their favour to be proof that god only acts favourable for believers. 


maybe.

The god thread makes my head hurt.

JonB wrote:

... This is because it's not so much that religions are value-neutral as value-ambiguous

I still dispute that - if purely from specific examples of religious dogma.
Common to nearly all religions are moral directives from God, more often than not written down and thus, whilst not completely immune to change, certainly hold extra traction and are IMHO less amenable to change.

YMMV with different religions, of course.

JonB wrote:

Effectively, powerful interests establish a hierarchy and then cherry pick the ideas that best preserve their power, and control information and presentation of information that trickles down to those underneath. But there's nothing especially specific to religion about that, as many (but not all) exercises of power illustrate.]

IMHO, there is a significant qualitative difference between a religious moral/behavioural directive from God (and the weight that this holds with the congregation) and a non-religious power structure that puts forward other laws. 
i.e. The extent to which faith shortcuts rational debate on morality, good and bad etc - "Why should we behave like this" goes no further than "because God said so, look, it's written down right here".

Also, ideas are packaged - people come to religion for many different personal reasons, but once inducted into the faith, their core beliefs and feelings that brought them to religion in the first place will be accreted with further ideals. e.g 20 years ago, no-one came to christianity because they believed that Sunday was a holy day and the shops should be shut, but that is one of the beliefs that gets added when subscribing to the package (and many of these were pretty non-negotiable).

JonB wrote:

So I think what should be challenged are power structures, including but not limited to religions - and not because they are religions but because of specific repressive organisational forms.

For sure - I don't think the debate has ever been that "Religion is the only form of repressive power structure", that's clearly nonsense - but I believe it is a particularly difficult form to to change, due to the prevalance of dogma.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying that other forms of power structure are *easy* to change, but that Religion, because it's often very set in it's ways, because the authority is from God and God doesn't change his mind what with the infallibility and all that, is rather more prone to be stuck in its ways.

JonB wrote:

It's also in this sort of argument about religion that opposing it to science is counterproductive.

Well, yeah, maybe - but you can understand how it comes up, what with the problem of inflexibility of religious dogma contrasted with the evidence-based falsifiability of scientific understanding.

JonB wrote:

It should be viewed in relation to politics, and accepted in the sense that any political stance (including liberalism) can become dogmatic, "irrational" and repressively exclusive.

Hmm... but do you not think that there is something qualitatively different between Religious power structures and political power structures? That the reliance on holy scripture and authority from God lends itself much more easily to dogmatism and blind faith, making it much easier to influence the morals and behaviour of its followers?

Facewon wrote:

Anyone think they're in a very different space re god and religion and spirituality etc compared to where they were.

I'm slightly more tolerant of religious types and don't think it's the root of all evil anymore (just some) but personal belief (or lack thereof) is still the same despite going through those experiences which people normally site as the 'you just wait till this happens' experiences.

Sorry to interrupt the discussion by quoting a post from the first page just thought it was an interesting question.

Uh oh.

Mod74 wrote:

So, if I decide to follow the rule "Thou shalt not kill" I'm being delusional because it probably wasn't handed to Moses by God.

If you follow the rule "don't kill other people" you're being rational.

Is there a difference? Does it really matter where the rules comes from as long as we can all agree they're rather sensible ways to live a life?

If we both agree that killing other people is something to avoid but come to the decision through different means then the conclusion is the same but the process is different. If you come to the decision because your faith dictates that you must then your decision is not really informed by any sensibility about the implications of killing people; it is just blindly followed regardless of if you think killing others is sensible or not, so you cannot use sensibility as the justification for your decision as you have in your scenario. Your faith would be the reason for your belief and faith is not a rational justification for any belief, and even though your belief may be true you would be deluded to think that it is given the possibilities of what might be true if one is happy to take evidence out of the equation. You are deluded to conclude that we should avoid killing each other based on faith.


It does matter to me that the rules we agree to live by are as free from delusional decision making as possible. Do you not care if people want you to live by delusional rules, even if they happen to coincide with reality?

Let me give you a hypothetical of my own. Consider that we were give a Math problem like 1+1=X, and you worked out that X=2 by doing the Math, but I solved it by rolling a die which I claimed was magical and would give me the right answer, and I happened to roll a 2. Two is the correct answer and we both agree that the answer is 2, but is my belief that the answer is 2 delusional?

And more importantly, are you happy to have me on your Math team so long as I keep rolling the right answers? What if there were more at stake than wrong numbers, like if we were building your house and I used my magic die for the measurements?

Is it important to you that random strangers don't kill you because they're following rational rules or delusional ones handed down from God on a mountain as long as they're not trying to kill you in the first place?

I admit, I much prefer people not killing me regardless of their reasons, but that is only for the purely selfish reason that I value my life more than their rationality. I might also point out that the danger of someone wanting to kill me because they have come to the conclusion that delusions are not a valid reasoning tool, is exceptionally small. It is more likely that they would want to kill me for some other delusional reason, and so the problem of delusional thinking persists whether it leads to my death or not.

To continue my hypothetical, let me extend my own Math example to include that I believe I should kill people who question the authority of my magic die. You know that this is true, and we are on the same Math team. So far my die has only been right. Do you tell me that my die can potentially give me the wrong answers? Does it matter to you that I think this way? Would you not prefer me to be less delusional? Would it not be more likely that if I were less delusional then I would do better Math and not kill people?

How can following an idea that hasn't been tested or proved make you delusional? If that's the case then politics and science are all guilty of following ideas that haven't been tested.

I don't like the implications of the words 'following' and 'proved', they are not words I have used and change my claim substantially. 'Believing' in an idea that is not supported by 'evidence' is delusional. Investigating logically sound ideas that have not been proven or evidenced is not delusional, 'believing' in those ideas despite the lack of 'evidence' or opposition to 'evidence' is delusional, and implicitly irrational I might add.

I would argue that the universe does display God like characteristics. Lots of stuff happens and we don't really know why. And I don't mean things like why does the sun come up, I mean fundamental questions about how the universe works science still has no answer for.

Not understanding something does not mean that god did it. Do I really need to explain this to you?

God does not necessarily fill the gaps in scientific knowledge. The belief that those gaps have some sort of supernatural explanation is delusional because there is no evidence to support it.

I think you're being a bit narrow focused here, you seem to be concerned with the way organised religions manipulate people and think they're stupid for being manipulated and you're oh so clever for seeing through the lies. Without any real appreciation of the benefits it has for the majority involved.

I do not believe they are stupid at all. I was religious once, for longer than I have been non-religious in fact. When I gave up religious beliefs I did not become magically smarter, I became less ignorant and more informed. There is nothing good that religion provides that cannot be achieved through purely secular means.

How about taking a look at the world around and thinking about all the ways you're manipulated by people in power on a daily basis that you've absolutely no control over. Not subscribing to a religion hasn't helped you avoid being manipulated one jot. You're just as much another persons toy, and just as delusional if you think otherwise.

I'm not immune to manipulation I'm sure, and there are clear limits to what I have control over. However, the fact that I endeavour to base my beliefs on reason and evidence means that I am vigilant against faithful beliefs, and if I somehow discover that one of my beliefs is baseless, I will change my mind about that particular belief so that it is no longer uninformed. The faithful however have a vested interest in keeping their faith, which means they go out of their way to support their delusions and are easier prey for those who would manipulate them through their faith. I would make the case that not subscribing to a religion does in fact make one less easily manipulated, and those who seek to understand reality by investigating it are more likely to discover if they are being manipulated and avoid it. Would it not be delusional to think otherwise?

Mod74 wrote:

Right. Well you still haven't addressed the great benefits it provides to many, if not most, of the people who follow a faith. I'm not sure how you can underline the importance of rationality and completely ignore that aspect. Strikes me that only seeing what you want to see is just another word for delusional.

Shall I take it you agree with everything else then?

This was a discussion about faith being delusional, and that was my focus.  Faith is belief without evidence, and holding a belief without evidence is indistinguishable from believing in a fantasy, which qualifies as delusional, ergo faith is delusional and cannot support it's conclusions.  If you want to broaden the discussion into what benefits religion provides feel free.  I'm curious as to if you think that the benefits religion provides somehow justify the delusion it demands and I'm happy to defend the claim that there is no tangible positive benefit to society that religion provides  which cannot be achieved through purely secular means.

Important part of the phrase you bolded; "the extent to which..."

Are you just skim-reading my posts?

Some_Guy wrote:

Mod74 wrote:

Right. Well you still haven't addressed the great benefits it provides to many, if not most, of the people who follow a faith. I'm not sure how you can underline the importance of rationality and completely ignore that aspect. Strikes me that only seeing what you want to see is just another word for delusional.

Shall I take it you agree with everything else then? This was a discussion about faith being delusional, and that was my focus.  Faith is belief without evidence, and holding a belief without evidence is indistinguishable from believing in a fantasy, which qualifies as delusional, ergo faith is delusional and cannot support it's conclusions.  If you want to broaden the discussion into what benefits religion provides feel free.  I'm curious as to if you think that the benefits religion provides somehow justify the delusion it demands and I'm happy to defend the claim that there is no tangible positive benefit to society that religion provides  which cannot be achieved through purely secular means.

You're either missing or avoiding the point I've made several times that "faith" isn't just a belief in things that can't be proved.

I'm sure you're not stupid enough to think that faith or religion isn't simply accepting wholesale every element of that faith.

You want to ridicule the fantastical or cherry pick certain passages but you're ignoring everything that's a perfectly sensible rational way to live your life.

I don't understand why you're willing to accept societal rules handed down from millenia but religious ones are delusional. If you're religious or not you're still placing faith in a set of life rules/lessons someone else created.

If the only thing you know about faith is it's a belief in a beardy guy on a cloud creating a universe then I could understand why you would think that was delusional. I'm sure you understand faith is a lot more than that so I don't know why you'd ignore everything else other than the fact only talking about unprovable (note, not untrue) elements supports your viewpoint.

I'm sure you must have talked in the past about the benefits, but right now saying faith=delusion makes you come across as just as closed minded as they monsters you're fighting.