Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would be if that was what I am saying but it is not. I have said to you on a number of occasions that the problem is not with religious people doing good or bad.
My position is to look and see if there is any good which could not in any way be just as doable without religion. There is not a single good action performed or moral statement uttered of any "good" use in the world that actually requires religion. Religion is therefore entirely superfluous to requirements.
Say someone is struggling with addiction, they have tried everything from rehab to medication. They finally meet some religious/spiritual person and it works, they are free from their addiction. Would this not be a good thing that was only doable because of religion/spirituality based on the evidence? Here is the problem, when looking at good caused by religion you focus on grander things, and not personal.
Quote:
However if we ask the opposite, and see if religion is causing harm we find the answer is yes. It warps the love of parents to the point they lovingly watch their own children die from treatable conditions because religion told them it was the right thing to do for example. It destroys discourse by bringing groups together whos worldviews are irreconcilable due to how divorced from reality they are... therefore not having any mutual basis for discourse.... like two children arguing over the color hair their imaginary friend has.... neither child has any way to actually resolve the conflict, they just have their baseless opinions.
Opposition is most often just misunderstanding. Basically people think they understand and don't, or they don't want to understand. This is where people do do not support this behavior need to put aside their differences and focus on other things they both want.
When fighting over a matter of opinion it is better to lay all opinions to rest and move on until a more agreeable topic/cause can be found.
Quote:
So to paint my position as if I just think religion has never inspired good is inaccurate and disingenuous and I am tiring somewhat of having to correct the straw men of me you insist on constantly erecting.
Well, it is a strawman argument. Basically you choose not to see how religion and spirituality can cause good, but choose to see how it can cause bad.
Quote:
This is something you simply can not know. Unless you can take such a person, go back in time, make sure he never gets religion, and then play time forward again to see what he does or where he ends up. Otherwise you simply can not make such a claim. You have no evidence for it.
However what other data DO we have. We have the data that there is not a single "good" thing done by such a person that people entirely without religion have not done. That is MY evidence and I clearly have it.
So you have no evidence, I do. There simply is no "good" deed you can offer me that can not, and probably even has not, been done by those without religion that you think was inspired by religion.
Those who feel compelled to do charity will do so. They do not need religion to do it. If you think the right thing to do is build a school in a poor place and educate children, you will do it.
Even if you are right however, and there are some small handful of people who were compelled to do good things by their religion, the point is still moot because given that such good things are done ANYWAY, they do not pay the cost that religion takes from us and the harms it does.
I said before and will say again.... Hamas provides social services in Gaza that might not otherwise be available to people. Does that in any way pay the price of them being a militarised terrorist organisation with a fanatical antisemitic ideology? No. Simply claiming that religion, any one, inspires some good is not enough to cover the harms.
In short it is not really as simple as being about whether religion does good or inspires people to do good... but about whether all the good is enough to justify all the harm. I do not think it is. By a LONG way.
And all this is before you get into the morality of lying and debates on that subject. Given religion is unsubstantiated in any way, such as the claims there is a "god".... we get into the moral issue of whether it is justifiable to lie to people simply because we like some of the outcomes of that lie.
All I see here is biased view. Your own argument that you can't go back and see if they would have done it differently, proves you wrong. If an individual is charitable because they believe their faith calls them to do it, then they did it because of religion. You cannot prove they would have still done it without religion.
Would this not be a good thing that was only doable because of religion/spirituality based on the evidence?
You are just making up fantasy situations now in order to ask hypothetical questions. Even if you could find such isolated cases they are far from the purview of religion and you would have a hard time establishing religion as the causal link.
And as I keep repeating even if you could find such cases you are just looking at isolated cases and suggesting this makes religion a "good" thing. Not so. You have to look at the big picture and if something is causing massive harm then finding one or two people it did "good" for is not going to balance the books.
I repeat what I said before. Louis Farrakan is said to successfully get young black men off drugs who otherwise would not have gotten off them. Do you for one minute want to suggest that the world is better off with Louis Farrakan in it therefore? If not then my point is made. If yes then you have deeper problems than I ever thought.
With addiction it has long been recognised that the two most important factors in the "cure" are A) Admitting you have a problem in the first place and seeking help and B) The emotional and material support of others. Religion is not required for either of those things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
Well, it is a strawman argument. Basically you choose not to see how religion and spirituality can cause good, but choose to see how it can cause bad.
There is no choice in the matter at all. I can not "choose" to see, or not see, something that I simply have not been shown. That is like suggesting a man with no food is choosing not to eat.
The reason I say religion does not cause and "good" that is not equally attainable without it therefore is not because I "choose" to think so. It is because no one has ever, much less you, shown me a single desirable thing that can only be done using it.
When you can name for me a moral action made, or an ethical statement uttered by a person of faith that is somehow precluded to people or a people without then we can have a conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
You cannot prove they would have still done it without religion.
Nor can you prove they wouldn't so neither of us is in a position to base our opinion on fantasy about what a single given person would, or would not have done in such cases.
The difference however is that your position is based on such fantasy, mine is not, because all my position requires for support is that there are people who DO do such things without religion. And there are.
Because my position is not that "This one person here did good because of religion". My position is that "There has been no person of faith who has done any good that has not, or could not, also be done without it".
Again its a "bigger picture" argument. Your positions are consistently based on isolated single cases which is no good to me. Isolated cases say nothing of use about the big picture here and that has nothing to do with biases you desperately need to imagine for me.
You are just making up fantasy situations now in order to ask hypothetical questions. Even if you could find such isolated cases they are far from the purview of religion and you would have a hard time establishing religion as the causal link.
Hard to find? Seriously? I have met several people who have just such a story to tell about their life. I too am one of these people. And yes their was a very strong link between religion and my recovery/change in life.
Quote:
And as I keep repeating even if you could find such cases you are just looking at isolated cases and suggesting this makes religion a "good" thing. Not so. You have to look at the big picture and if something is causing massive harm then finding one or two people it did "good" for is not going to balance the books.
Religion does more good than bad. The problem is that you are looking at groups and events as evidence. How about you focus on the last 1 year, five years, and 10 years, and only on acts of individuals.
Quote:
I repeat what I said before. Louis Farrakan is said to successfully get young black men off drugs who otherwise would not have gotten off them. Do you for one minute want to suggest that the world is better off with Louis Farrakan in it therefore? If not then my point is made. If yes then you have deeper problems than I ever thought.
With addiction it has long been recognised that the two most important factors in the "cure" are A) Admitting you have a problem in the first place and seeking help and B) The emotional and material support of others. Religion is not required for either of those things.
To be honest I don't know who Farrakan is. I don't think you are getting it. You are arguing that you don't NEED religion to do good things. I am not arguing against this. What I am trying to get into your head is that religion IS responsible for putting the thought of good deeds in peoples heads. That in itself is a casual link. Religion is an ideology, ideology is a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions. My brothers donate to charity all the time because they believe God wants them to. Now, they don't need their belief in order to give, but in this case, they give because of their belief.
Quote:
There is no choice in the matter at all. I can not "choose" to see, or not see, something that I simply have not been shown. That is like suggesting a man with no food is choosing not to eat.
See above. There are thousands of stories online and on TV on how finding religion saved their life. Just go to any church and start asking around. The stories you will hear will amaze you. I doubt you will ever do this or even ever see what I am saying. It appears as if you are deliberately choosing not to understand, and saying that you do. Trust me, you don't understand religion, not even in the slightest.
Quote:
The reason I say religion does not cause and "good" that is not equally attainable without it therefore is not because I "choose" to think so. It is because no one has ever, much less you, shown me a single desirable thing that can only be done using it.
And there is not a single undesirable thing that can only be done with it. You post stories of people killing in the name of religion, but you neglect to point out that religion wasn't ever the only factor.
Quote:
When you can name for me a moral action made, or an ethical statement uttered by a person of faith that is somehow precluded to people or a people without then we can have a conversation.
When you decide to stop pretending to understand and actually choose to understand, we can have a conversation.
Quote:
Nor can you prove they wouldn't so neither of us is in a position to base our opinion on fantasy about what a single given person would, or would not have done in such cases.
But the fact remains a person who gives charitable goods or acts in good deeds because of their religion, that is proof enough that religion causes good. You cannot prove they would have still done the same thing without religion, I don't need to prove they would have, as they have. It is you who bares the burden of proof to prove that people would still do good deeds without their religion.
Quote:
The difference however is that your position is based on such fantasy, mine is not, because all my position requires for support is that there are people who DO do such things without religion. And there are.
And my position shows that people do do such things with religion. You assume that all people think alike. Science has proven that wrong many times.
Quote:
Because my position is not that "This one person here did good because of religion". My position is that "There has been no person of faith who has done any good that has not, or could not, also be done without it".
Again its a "bigger picture" argument. Your positions are consistently based on isolated single cases which is no good to me. Isolated cases say nothing of use about the big picture here and that has nothing to do with biases you desperately need to imagine for me.
It is no good to you because it defeats your argument. And individual cases make up the big picture. There ARE MORE good religious/spiritual people than their are bad religious/spiritual people. The proof, look around you. If it was the other way around, we would not be having this discussion.
Huh? I did not use the words "Hard to find". Are you replying to the right person?
I said it would be hard to establish a causal link. Clearly it is given you never have. Not once. Correlation is not the same as causation remember.
I also do not put any stock in the "I have met people...." argument. Making up unverifiable anecdotes that just happen to match your claims is hardly evidence and is all too convenient. We can all do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
Religion does more good than bad.
So you keep saying but you can not list any, and I can list a lot of bad. What little you can list are things that either have nothing to do with religion at all, or are things that are also just as doable and done without religion. So you can keep saying it, but that will not make it true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
To be honest I don't know who Farrakan is.
Then maybe do your research. My points are not invalidated that religion does more harm than good simply because you just happen not to know about the harms. And if you do not have the facts you have no position to sit there and say I am the one "not getting it". I could mention Hamas too if you do not know LF. Hamas provide social services that otherwise would be absent if they were not there.
But that does not change the fact they are a militarised terrorist organisation with a fanatical antisemitic ideology does it? Any more than getting black people off drugs changes the fact LF is a racist crackpot cult.
The point being that simply listing a couple of good things a religion or the religious have done, does not excuse or pay for the harms they have done, especially when not ONE good thing you list can not be done, or has not been done, by people without any faith or religion at all. Face it, religion causes harm and is entirely superfluous to requirements for causing good.
If you could name a single moral action performed, or ethical statement uttered, by a person of faith that is somehow precluded from those without it... you would be on a better footing. Just one. Yet you can not do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
religion IS responsible for putting the thought of good deeds in peoples heads.
Again, so you keep saying but saying it does not make it so. The fact that many people get the same ideas in their heads without religion seems to suggest otherwise. What I think you will find is that religion has evolved to associate itself with such good deeds and tricks people like you into thinking it was the source or cause of them when it was not.
In fact what most likely is happening is that people who want to do good deeds have it in their head that religion is the go to place to do it and so thats there they go. So what is happening is religion is taking credit by proxy for something people would (and do) do anyway without actually adding anything to those things itself in any way.
Again if I am wrong you should be able to name just ONE like I asked above, but you can not and have not.
And again even if you could, these isolated cases do not pay for the harms that same ideology causes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
There are thousands of stories online and on TV on how finding religion saved their life.
Irrelevant because as I said the two main recognised things in being "saved" from things like addiction and more are a) to admit one has a problem and needs help in the first place and b) a community of people who will support you. The first has already happened if people go to religion looking for help. The second happens by default because there will of course be a community there.
Nothing to do with religion except as I said before religion has evolved to effectively associate itself with such things and gain credit by proxy despite not actually doing anything. The people in the anecdotes might credit the religion itself with having "saved" them, but admitting they had a problem in the first place and finding a group of people to help them solve it are likely the things that helped.
Nor are any of these facts changed by stamping your feet in tantrum and crying "You just do not understand".
A thought or belief is a causation. You are defeating your own argument that a persons beliefs can be the causation for a bad thing but not a good thing. If a thought or belief can lead to bad it can also lead to good.
If someone think their God wants them to be charitable and they are charitable because of this, then it is a causation. You then argue that we don't know if it was their belief or not, umm... well it's right there in front of you. Missions to africa and other countries to do good things in the name of their God. Since this is the only evidence we have to go off of, this is the only evidence that is accepted.
Quote:
I also do not put any stock in the "I have met people...." argument. Making up unverifiable anecdotes that just happen to match your claims is hardly evidence and is all too convenient. We can all do that.
Just look up and read testimonies of other people, go to any religious based charity group or read about any group that goes on a mission to serve and help others in the name of their God. Seriously, at some point you are going to have to step out of your biased opinion and do some research that isn't on some atheist coalition website or religious bashing site.
Quote:
So you keep saying but you can not list any, and I can list a lot of bad. What little you can list are things that either have nothing to do with religion at all, or are things that are also just as doable and done without religion. So you can keep saying it, but that will not make it true.
Then maybe do your research. My points are not invalidated that religion does more harm than good simply because you just happen not to know about the harms. And if you do not have the facts you have no position to sit there and say I am the one "not getting it". I could mention Hamas too if you do not know LF. Hamas provide social services that otherwise would be absent if they were not there.
But that does not change the fact they are a militarised terrorist organisation with a fanatical antisemitic ideology does it? Any more than getting black people off drugs changes the fact LF is a racist crackpot cult.
The point being that simply listing a couple of good things a religion or the religious have done, does not excuse or pay for the harms they have done, especially when not ONE good thing you list can not be done, or has not been done, by people without any faith or religion at all. Face it, religion causes harm and is entirely superfluous to requirements for causing good.
If you could name a single moral action performed, or ethical statement uttered, by a person of faith that is somehow precluded from those without it... you would be on a better footing. Just one. Yet you can not do it.
Again, any and all things can be done with or without religion being involved. The US military provides aid to thousands of people each and every day. Does this excuse the innocent lives lost due to bombing runs and gun fights in public streets?
Oh and all these things were done because of religion:
YMCA
Salvation Army
Christian Children's Fund
St. Jude's Hospital
Habitat For Humanity International
Intercristo
Promise Keepers
World Relief
Remuda (Eating Disorder help)
Christian Aid Canada
Christian Aid USA
International Needs
International Prison Ministry
Again, so you keep saying but saying it does not make it so. The fact that many people get the same ideas in their heads without religion seems to suggest otherwise. What I think you will find is that religion has evolved to associate itself with such good deeds and tricks people like you into thinking it was the source or cause of them when it was not.
In fact what most likely is happening is that people who want to do good deeds have it in their head that religion is the go to place to do it and so thats there they go. So what is happening is religion is taking credit by proxy for something people would (and do) do anyway without actually adding anything to those things itself in any way.
It is not credit by proxy. Thousands of people (religious people) go on missions because they believe they are called to do it. This is their faith in their god at work here.
Quote:
Nor are any of these facts changed by stamping your feet in tantrum and crying "You just do not understand".
Not throwing a tantrum, however I can see that you are arguing in circles as you know your argument is incorrect but jut refusing to admit it. I have now shown you several good things that religion is soley respnisble for and bad things, you say can only be done with religion, that are done without religion. If you refuse to see the evidence at hand...wait.. I thought all atheists went off evidence and logic..
All evidence shows us that people can do both equally bad and good things in the name of religion and not in the name of religion. Logic tells us that if people say they are doing things in the name of religion, they are doing things in the name of religion. It is pointless to argue otherwise after the fact.
If you are going to continue to argue in circles with this misinformed, bias reasoning, it is pointless to continue this discussion.
A thought or belief is a causation. You are defeating your own argument that a persons beliefs can be the causation for a bad thing but not a good thing.
Quoting a dictionary at me is not helping anything. How am I defeating my own argument when that is not the argument I am making? Misrepresenting my argument and then calling that straw man wrong is not the same as defeating my actual argument.
I am not saying that those beliefs can not be the causation. I am saying that those beliefs come with no evidence they WERE the causation and not something else. You simply have no way of knowing and given the same deeds are done by people without such beliefs your claim is in dire straits.
People moved to do such deeds will do such deeds, with or without religion. Just because the people doing some of them ARE religious in no way gives you the basis to declare religion made them do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
Missions to africa and other countries to do good things in the name of their God.
No, missions in Africa do the good things in the name of spreading the religion.
Entirely different. However I am glad you used this example because it shows perfectly the things I have been saying about doing good not paying for the bad.
Many people without religion ALSO do missions to africa. So religion is clearly superfluous to doing that good. However the people without religion are not doing harm such as spreading their religion to the vulnerable or preaching the sinfulness of condom use to an AIDS ravaged country.... an action that has led to unmeasurable levels of misery, pain and death.
So, you make my point for me thanks! The good is done without religion too, and those doing it with religion are causing harm that their good deeds simply are not paying for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
No religion here:
or here:
Still missing the point. I am not denying people without religion ALSO do horrific things to their children. I told you that at least three times before.
No the point I am making is that not having religion was not the REASON they did those bad things. Whereas the examples I gave religion very much WAS the reason.
Again, and I have explained this to you numerous times, I am NOT and never have been claiming that religious people do not do good things or that non religious people do not do bad things. Not once have I made that argument yet you keep attacking that argument as if I have been.
No my point is that there is no causal link between bad actions and a lack of religion. There IS a causal link between bad actions and religion however and I have given many examples.
So maybe.... just once in your posting career here... you will attack the argument I actually AM making instead of the one I am not. Throw away empty comments like "you know your argument is incorrect but jut refusing to admit it" will not change that either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
Oh and all these things were done because of religion:
Again: They were done BY people who were religious yes. That is not the same as saying it was done BECAUSE of religion. You are desperately pretending they are the same thing in all your posts despite numerous corrections. IT is also why I keep pointing out correlation does not imply causation. I already said I know religious people do good things and that is all you are listing... the correlation between good things being done and people being religious. What you are NOT doing is showing an ounce of causation showing that religion MADE them do it or influenced them to. People who want to do good anyway will be attracted to organisations that do that good. Just because those organisations on occasion happen to be religious does not mean religion made the people in those organisations do the actions.
And obviously for every name in your list there are secular religion free equivilants showing religion is not required for any of it.
Quoting a dictionary at me is not helping anything. How am I defeating my own argument when that is not the argument I am making? Misrepresenting my argument and then calling that straw man wrong is not the same as defeating my actual argument.
Your argument is that religion can be the cause of bad but not good. However, your argument is defeated in that you say their belief directly causes the bad act. If the belief is the cause of a bad act, it can be the cause of a good act.
Quote:
I am not saying that those beliefs can not be the causation. I am saying that those beliefs come with no evidence they WERE the causation and not something else. You simply have no way of knowing and given the same deeds are done by people without such beliefs your claim is in dire straits.
Don't all atheists subscribe to the evidence at hand argument? The evidence that we have is that they did it(good) because of their religion. Since the only evidence is that of the individuals testimony, that it the evidence that we MUST go off of.
If subject A says they donated time, money, or goods because of their beliefs in god. Then the only thing we can go off of is this.
The fact is, people do good for many reasons. Some do good expecting something back(tax-breaks), some people do good out of guilt, some because they really just want to do good, some do good because of their religious beliefs.
Your argument reeks of conspiracy theories. You cannot prove that the individuals did good for any reason other than their religious beliefs. Yet you say they did if for some other reason that you CANNOT prove.
If religion can be a causality for bad, it can be the causality for good. Either religion is a causality or it isn't.
Quote:
People moved to do such deeds will do such deeds, with or without religion. Just because the people doing some of them ARE religious in no way gives you the basis to declare religion made them do it.
You cannot prove this as the act is said and over with. The only thing we can do is accept what happened for the reason it did. That reason is religion. If someone says they do something because their god tells them to. Just because you do not like their reason, does not mean you can say otherwise.
When I was Christian, I donated time, money, and goods because I thought it was my duty as a christian and it was commanded by God.
Quote:
No, missions in Africa do the good things in the name of spreading the religion.
Entirely different. However I am glad you used this example because it shows perfectly the things I have been saying about doing good not paying for the bad.
This is merely your opinion. Again, to argue with the only evidence or introduce false evidence is wrong. The evidence at hand is that they are going on missions to spread the religion AND to offer charity.
Quote:
Many people without religion ALSO do missions to africa. So religion is clearly superfluous to doing that good. However the people without religion are not doing harm such as spreading their religion to the vulnerable or preaching the sinfulness of condom use to an AIDS ravaged country.... an action that has led to unmeasurable levels of misery, pain and death.
You really don't get it do you? Everyone has their reasons for doing anything and everything. Some people NEED religion to do good or bad things. Some people need greed to do good or bad things, others need other causalities, some need no reason other than they want to do good or bad.
The problem here is that for the bad you blame the belief, for the good you discredit the individuals reason and insert your own. Tell me, if a person says their religion is the reason they do good, and you state otherwise, what reason do they do good? Remember, you are saying they are lying, now you need to prove this.
Quote:
Still missing the point. I am not denying people without religion ALSO do horrific things to their children. I told you that at least three times before.
No the point I am making is that not having religion was not the REASON they did those bad things. Whereas the examples I gave religion very much WAS the reason.
Again, and I have explained this to you numerous times, I am NOT and never have been claiming that religious people do not do good things or that non religious people do not do bad things. Not once have I made that argument yet you keep attacking that argument as if I have been.
No my point is that there is no causal link between bad actions and a lack of religion. There IS a causal link between bad actions and religion however and I have given many examples.
So maybe.... just once in your posting career here... you will attack the argument I actually AM making instead of the one I am not. Throw away empty comments like "you know your argument is incorrect but jut refusing to admit it" will not change that either.
You have argued several times that only people who are religious allow their children to die or kill them out of love BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION. I have just proved that wrong.
Quote:
Again: They were done BY people who were religious yes. That is not the same as saying it was done BECAUSE of religion. You are desperately pretending they are the same thing in all your posts despite numerous corrections. IT is also why I keep pointing out correlation does not imply causation. I already said I know religious people do good things and that is all you are listing... the correlation between good things being done and people being religious. What you are NOT doing is showing an ounce of causation showing that religion MADE them do it or influenced them to. People who want to do good anyway will be attracted to organisations that do that good. Just because those organisations on occasion happen to be religious does not mean religion made the people in those organisations do the actions.
And obviously for every name in your list there are secular religion free equivilants showing religion is not required for any of it.
You really don't get it do you? Just because you do something for some reason does not mean someone else is doing it for the same reason. We all do things for different reasons. Just because you can do them for several reasons does not make any one of them wrong. It just proves that people have their reasons for doing such things.
This is a classic argument that I have defeated time after time. Just because their is a secular equivalent, to something that is religious does not mean it proves the religious reason is wrong. It just proves that people do things for varying reasons.
Your argument is that religion can be the cause of bad but not good.
Amazing how often I explain my argument to you and how often you insist on misrepresenting it. Above it ALSO not my argument just yet another one of your misrepresentations.
My argument is two fold as follows:
1) Religion does not cause any good that can not be just as attainable without it so it is superfluous to requirements. If something that is superfluous to requirements causes ANY harm then clearly it is in negative equity of usefulness and should be opposed.
2) Any good that you actually do claim for religion if you add it all up does not come to enough to pay for all the harms caused by religion when you add that up. Therefore even with the isolated cases of good you might find, this does NOT justify religion in any way.
Once again therefore I ask you to reply to the argument I am making, not what you keep misrepresenting it as.
So for example finding a couple of anecdotes of people saying they did something good because of religion does nothing for your argument cause firstly you do not know if this really is true.... testimony is not great evidence for anything.... and secondly even if it were true the same actions are done by people without religion AND those actions are not enough to pay for the harms religions cause too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
Don't all atheists....
No. Generally any sentence or idea that starts with assuming anything about "all" atheists is simply wrong from the outset. There is pretty nothing that "all" atheists say, do, think or subscribe to. Atheism is just the lack of one belief. Aside from that they are as diverse as any grouping you make based on a negative criteria.
Think how ridiculous it would be to say "All people without beards think....." or "Those people who do not lend credence to astrology all feel that...:". Grouping people about what they are NOT tells you nothing about what they ARE and you know this. Why therefore you keep attempting to generalize all atheists is beyond me. Probably beyond you too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
You cannot prove that the individuals did good for any reason other than their religious beliefs.
Yet the fact that people without such beliefs do all the same things is highly suspect. Occams Razor and all that. Clearly religious beliefs are superfluous to requirements so there is no reason to actually think that religion did influence such action. Even if it did in some isolated cases this still does not justify religion given all the harm it also causes.
Not to mention the fact which I have not mentioned often so far. Even if your fantasy was true that people are compelled to do good acts by a religion, this does not justify it. Essentially you are lying to people to trick them into moral action and that itself is not moral. There is no reason, evidence, argument, or data on offer to suggest there is a god so telling people "Do good deeds because god commands it" is simply lying to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
You really don't get it do you?
You really need to keep telling yourself that, don't you?
Amazing how often I explain my argument to you and how often you insist on misrepresenting it. Above it ALSO not my argument just yet another one of your misrepresentations.
My argument is two fold as follows:
1) Religion does not cause any good that can not be just as attainable without it so it is superfluous to requirements. If something that is superfluous to requirements causes ANY harm then clearly it is in negative equity of usefulness and should be opposed.
2) Any good that you actually do claim for religion if you add it all up does not come to enough to pay for all the harms caused by religion when you add that up. Therefore even with the isolated cases of good you might find, this does NOT justify religion in any way.
Once again therefore I ask you to reply to the argument I am making, not what you keep misrepresenting it as.
So for example finding a couple of anecdotes of people saying they did something good because of religion does nothing for your argument cause firstly you do not know if this really is true.... testimony is not great evidence for anything.... and secondly even if it were true the same actions are done by people without religion AND those actions are not enough to pay for the harms religions cause too.
No. Generally any sentence or idea that starts with assuming anything about "all" atheists is simply wrong from the outset. There is pretty nothing that "all" atheists say, do, think or subscribe to. Atheism is just the lack of one belief. Aside from that they are as diverse as any grouping you make based on a negative criteria.
Think how ridiculous it would be to say "All people without beards think....." or "Those people who do not lend credence to astrology all feel that...:". Grouping people about what they are NOT tells you nothing about what they ARE and you know this. Why therefore you keep attempting to generalize all atheists is beyond me. Probably beyond you too.
Yet the fact that people without such beliefs do all the same things is highly suspect. Occams Razor and all that. Clearly religious beliefs are superfluous to requirements so there is no reason to actually think that religion did influence such action. Even if it did in some isolated cases this still does not justify religion given all the harm it also causes.
Not to mention the fact which I have not mentioned often so far. Even if your fantasy was true that people are compelled to do good acts by a religion, this does not justify it. Essentially you are lying to people to trick them into moral action and that itself is not moral. There is no reason, evidence, argument, or data on offer to suggest there is a god so telling people "Do good deeds because god commands it" is simply lying to them.
You really need to keep telling yourself that, don't you?
How about this. What you are about to read is a fictitious argument, I do not believe the following. Just using as an example.
Love: You cannot prove that love is a good thing. There are crimes committed each day out of love. These are crimes only love can cause. This is proven by the links I gave earlier. To argue that love is good so it makes up for the bad is wrong. Since anything people do out of love for good is also do by people who do not love.... Sounds pretty dumb, doesn't it?
Let try this:
Homosexuality: No good comes from homosexuality. It only causes disruption in society and does not occur naturally. We are made with sexual organs for one purpose, to breed. Any good that appears from homosexuality is also done by bisexuals and heterosexuals.... Also, pretty dumb, right? Once again, I do not believe love or homosexuality are bad... just an example argument.
No, to say religion can be the reason for bad deed but not the reason for good deeds. It's a pretty empty argument. To say that the good deeds done because of religion do not make up for the bad, is also an empty argument. What we need to focus on is the present. Not what happend hundreds of years ago. You cannot change the past, but you can look to the future and make it better from learning from your past.
In my youth I did some pretty bad things. I hurt people, stole, vandalized, and disrupted peoples lives. Now, I may have never killed anyone, but I did hurt many people. For about 10 years now, I have made it my goal to repay and make up for what I did. I can't undo the past, but I can help make the future better by learning from those mistakes. To still hold me accountable now for the things I did 10 years ago, is petty. I not the same person I was then. I'm polar opposites from who I am 10 years ago to now. To say that I am the same person, is also petty. I have made up for what I did and then some, and I will continue to do good and even encourage others to learn from my mistakes.
Apply the same thing to religion. The religion of today is nowhere near what it was 100, 500, or even 1000 years ago. The amount of good religious people do, BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION, surpasses the amount of bad that people do, BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION.
However, to blame religion in either case is false. The individual is to blame, we have this amazing thing called a mind, we use it to as a tool to process our decisions. We give ourselves reasons for the things we do, some just make sense, others are a matter of opinion, mindset, and upbringing.
I say this to my brothers all the time, don't buy into the crap the groups you belong to spew, think for yourself, seek to understand something before you oppose it. If you refuse to attempt to understand then any opposition is pointless and is simple bigotry.
Religion is sometimes used as an excuse to do stupid things, but so are things like love, passion, and opinions. Does this mean these things are bad? Absolutely not. These things are merely the reasoning behind actions, both good and bad, most of the time for good. The problems is, bad, hate, and evil sells. The bad things in the world are amplified because they get the largest reaction, they push us to our limits. The good things, they are good and expected, "So you donated your life savings to some charity, cool!, Did you hear about the guy who shot up his office?"
Sadly, this is the way society thinks. We could care less if someone does good, the people that do bad are far more entertaining. It's sickening to have to say this, but it's true.
I am done arguing this point. Any additional posts will not be replied to. This thread is dead and off topic.
What you are about to read is a fictitious argument
Given the number of arguments around here suggesting there is a god I think MOST of what I have been reading is fictitious arguments. Certainly most of what you have been writing has been. Maybe you can offer me a REAL one sometime? That would be nice for a change for sure.
Your analogy to love is a poor one though given my actual argument which is that even if you could find isolated cases where Religion causes good effect, the sum total of all that good is far from enough to justify the harm we pay for that good with. The same can NOT be said of Love which I think you will find has caused a hell of a lot more good than harm in the world. So: Analogy fail I am afraid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
No, to say religion can be the reason for bad deed but not the reason for good deeds. It's a pretty empty argument.
Lucky that is not the argument I made then isn't it? Why do you continually need to represent my argument instead of facing up to what I am ACTUALLY saying. I shall copy and past what I JUST wrote not moments before...
My argument is two fold as follows:
1) Religion does not cause any good that can not be just as attainable without it so it is superfluous to requirements. If something that is superfluous to requirements causes ANY harm then clearly it is in negative equity of usefulness and should be opposed.
2) Any good that you actually do claim for religion if you add it all up does not come to enough to pay for all the harms caused by religion when you add that up. Therefore even with the isolated cases of good you might find, this does NOT justify religion in any way.
Nowhere there does my argument match what you keep misrepresenting it as. Try again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
In my youth I did some pretty bad things. I hurt people, stole, vandalized, and disrupted peoples lives. Now, I may have never killed anyone, but I did hurt many people. For about 10 years now, I have made it my goal to repay and make up for what I did.
Did you now? Did you turn yourself into the police, confess your crimes, where they happened, what you did/stole, all in detail, face a criminal court on the charges and pay for your crimes through our justice system and now have a criminal record to show for it??? How did your parole go?
If not, then you can keep your sob stories of how you tried to make yourself feel better about your crimes. In that case you were, and still are, an unconvinced criminal who has not faced justice for your crimes.
A crime is still a crime, it does not go away just because you are a different person than 10 years ago. If for example someone rapes children but when this is discovered 10 years later that same person is engaged in helping children, childrens charities and doing a massive amount of good for children in society... this does not chang the fact he committed a crime he should be prosecuted for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
The religion of today is nowhere near what it was 100, 500, or even 1000 years ago. The amount of good religious people do, BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION, surpasses the amount of bad that people do, BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION.
False. The harms caused by religion in the world today are massive and I do not see the good linked to it paying that price even a little bit, let alone completely. Maybe you are ignorant of those harms despite the fact I have listed many of them on this thread but that does not mean they are not there. I could list many many more.
The bigotry and hate being spread in the name of religion, the preaching of the sinfulness of condom use in AIDS ravaged countries, the denial of medical help to those that need it because the treatment is an offence to god, the break down of human discourse due to the vagaries of irreconcilable fantasy and the conflicts they cause, the systematic and worldwide abuses - sexual and worse - of children by those that use their power to facilitate and institutionalize it, the creation of policy and law such as but far from limited to blasphemy laws which are an attack on our very freedoms, the profiting by those pedaling the lies of religion to the vulnerable and needy, the terror and hatred caused by concepts like hell and limbo and purgatory and the many women in our past and present suffering from grief because they are told their unbaptised dead new born babies have to therefore suffer limbo, the violence caused by those who feel they need to take offence vicariously for their imaginary friends especially from Islam, the teaching of stultifying nonsense in our schools especially from creationists, the hindrances put before progress in the human sciences and knowledge, concepts like the idea that the rights and concerns of a clump of undifferentiated cells in a petri dish somehow trump those of dying children, the unworkable nonsense laws and court cases created to pander to those who are slaves to their fantasies, the people with medical conditions who hear voices and lend credence to those voices because they think there exists gods and angels, the apocalyptic cults who are getting closer and closer to attaining weapons of mass destruction who think that world war 3 would be a great thing because Armageddon will be a prelude to the coming of peace and paradise on earth.....
..... if you think I need to stop typing there and could not go on all day long you would be a fool. But no more foolish than thinking that a couple of people who think they are being charitable because god wants them to be and not simply because they happen to be good people.... all adds up to enough to pay for these monstrosities. Seriously. Wake the hell up. None of your arguments stand up, especially if the ones you offer are admittedly fictitious and the best thing you can do with them is try to make them look pretty by putting them underlined in a red font.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
