Gonzo wrote:there's a danger, too, of focussing on just one religion.
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?
The cause?Gonzo wrote:I read that question and thought it pretty clearly was implying that religion was the cause of social conservatism.
ÂGonzo wrote:ÂSo 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 strawmen and insults - poor form.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.
ÂGonzo wrote:ÂSo 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.
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:I'm making an argument here, not claiming absolute knowledge.
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.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.
I do.Gonzo wrote: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?So what? What bearing does that have on whether or not religion is currently one of several/many causes of homophobia?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.
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:Why attack religion first and then bring up homophobia as the reason why?
Of course - anglican church ordaining female vicars etc.Gonzo wrote:Religions can and have adapted.
Guess again.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.
ÂGonzo wrote:But it's up to them whether to believe it or not, and whether to act on it or not.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.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?
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:It only matters if religious authority has some legal, public status. Maybe you'll explain yourself when I discuss that?
What does it matter if Religion makes people homophobic? Why are you even asking this?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?
[/quote]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.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.
ÂGonzo 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.
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.Gonzo wrote:But religions, abstractly, are neutral, I think.
ÂGonzo 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)
I accept that there's lots of good things about religion - and you acknowledge that it has and currently does do some harm.Gonzo wrote:...I think religion is neutral, it's a tool...
ÂGonzo 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 ...
Facewon wrote: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:Yup, a god for which there is no evidence is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist. Hence, rational atheism and deluded faith.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?
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?
Mod74 wrote: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?
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?
Some_Guy wrote:I'm sticking to god claims when talking about theism and atheism, but apart from just god claims it is also delusional to believe in any things which are unsupported by available evidence or opposed by available evidence. Believing in something which finds no support in reality is indistinguishable from believing in a fantasy. Following a prophet who had no evidence of his prophecy would be delusional. If the prophet claims to be a conduit for the divine, then they would need to demonstrate some divine manifestation. If the prophet claims to know of future events then they would need to demonstrate consistent fortune telling. Failing this, their claims warrant no belief. With pantheism; a universe that is just a universe is indistinguishable from a universe that people decide to call god. Calling a universe (or everything that exists, or some things that exist) god does not make it so and amounts to relabeling something that exists to give it a quality that cannot be perceived. Calling a rock a god does not make that rock a god. In order for a rock to be a god, it would have to demonstrate godliness, same for anything else that exists.Mod74 wrote: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?
I still dispute that - if purely from specific examples of religious dogma.JonB wrote:... This is because it's not so much that religions are value-neutral as value-ambiguous
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.ÂJonB 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.]
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.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.
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's also in this sort of argument about religion that opposing it to science is counterproductive.
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?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.
Not necessarily. On one hand, people have very deeply entrenched political views that are not based on religion. On the other, some religious people are very open to different ideas. I see stuff in the news everyday that's presented from a very questionable perspective ("austerity"), but it isn't questioned much and people assimilate it and repeat it as if it were the only way of looking at things. That's actually probably more subtle than most religious doctrines today and arguably more dangerous.djchump wrote: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.
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?
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.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 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.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.
Not understanding something does not mean that god did it. Do I really need to explain this to you?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.
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.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'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?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.
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.
Well now there was me about to agree with you on this post, but then you go ahead with another strawman:Gonzo wrote:When I was a good muslim, I felt like I had structure. The formalities of prayer, the stricture of fasting, the lack of drink, though I was hardly the most observant (I was fucking a nice anglican girl with pink nipples and a nice ginger muff- but she was my only girl, for four years), did have a certain beneficial impact. I worked pretty hard and tested myself in a pretty rigorous academic environment, and did well, in the top 5% in my year in a subject that certainly attracted a decent bunch of smartasses all over. I suppose I can track the loss of religion with a volatile sense of not going anywhere, of just floating, of lacking direction. But at the same time I feel infinitely wiser, more knowledgeable, humbler than the arrogant oxford boy I was then. I have a degree of empathy that I never had. I'm not sure I'd trade that for a structure that is provided by a fantastical and artificial social framework, which for me is what religion is. I have taken the best out of it, I hope, and strive now to achieve my own structure, my own framework. It's more difficult to do as an individual. Religions provide ready-made social interactions and support networks, that's why they still exist- and in areas of the world ravaged by need and poverty, thrive, because they help counteract the strictures of a power structure that would otherwise decimate the economic and social well being of these people. Power structures that the likes of Hitchens supported, even as he sneered at the superstitious simpletons who worship a fantastical God.
Again, another strawman. I never said that, and I even explicitly stated that I didn't believe that:Gonzo wrote:That I will never leave behind: religious people find support in one another. They do not blindly follow stricture, by and large. They are human beings with moral faculties who still choose their own way. I simply don't recognise the description by chump of moral positivists who blindly follow the words of god. I feel sorry for people who have such a simplistic, uninformed point of view, who seem to lack empathy, and sneer at others for not being rational as they are.
So, you know, you can continue to either misread, misunderstand, or deliberately mischaracterise the points I make, but it only serves to further weaken the interesting points that you do make - tarring yourself with your own brush.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)
Some_Guy wrote: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.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.
Ali wrote:through the blind following of ancient doctrine first written by 2000 year old Palestinian goat herders who knew absolutely nothing about the science we now take for granted.
revelthedog wrote:Once you understand who the first people were to write down the bible story, the rest of it becomes very simple to explain.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!