"You're supposed to have faith." Biggest cop out

[Singular Intellect]

"Also" is the keyword here. Yeah, maybe we should. But then again, when a murder is committed, do you also blame the weapon, or just the murderer?

When someone goes on a rampage with a gun I consider it a pretty good reason to get rid of guns, even if they're just facilitators of the evil.

Replace 'guns' with 'knives'...do you still apply that logic?

[Lusankya]

And your point is, because some crazy fuckers decide to obey their particular religion to the point of mass-murder (if, indeed, religion was their primary motivation, which I doubt), we should slam all religion, everywhere?

Great to see you ignore my point. If a person acts in a way that is harmful to others while under the influence of X, then that person should not be exposed to X. In the case of alcohol, the result is immediate and temporary. In the case of religion, the result is not known until after many years of brainwashing, after which the person remains under the influence of religion indefinitely. Since you can't just see that Jack acts violently while he's using religion and then just tell him to not use it anymore (as you can with alcohol), the only way to protect innocent people from being harmed by people who are acting under the influence of religion is to make sure that nobody is under the influence of religion in the first place.

And, of course, harm can be measured not only in physical harm, but in the loss of liberties, which is often religiously inspired, such as the persecution of homosexuals, the persecution of women, the persecution of the free press, etc. That should be obvious enough that I don't have to point it out, but then again, you seem to be a moron, so I'm not so sure.

I'll ignore your dismissal of the terrorists motivations, because it's clear that you're just a religious apologist dipshit, and don't want to admit that religion is the main cause of suffering in which the perpetrators have no objective gain to be made from causing said suffering.

As opposed to, you know, punishing the actual culprits for what they actually did? Oh wait, they died too.

The culprits believed that they would spend eternity in paradise with 72 virgins. If only they hadn't been convinced that they would find some kind of reward after death for causing death and pain to thousands. If only their ethical system hadn't allowed for that kind of behaviour... Oh well. Their ethical system also said that you should be kind to your parents, so I guess that makes it ALL OK, then. :rolleyes:

Now you need some scapegoats, right? Great ethics there, pal.

I don't need scapegoats. The 9/11 terrorists were under the influence of an opiate that made them believe that they could enter heaven if they flew fuel-laden jets into heavily staffed office buildings. The only way we could really minimise the chance of such a thing happening again is by restricting the access to such an opiate.

And how about when it steers into me?

That's an issue. But religion doesn't steer into you all by itself. Blame the people.

The people who are inspired by religion. The people whose ethical system actually requires that they force their religion upon me, even though in many cases, objective harm cannot be proven if I do not uphold it. Religion as an ethics system promotes values that are arbitrary and not based on objective harm, and also demands that it be promoted iteslf. Without religion, my Prime Minister would have no "ethical" stance on his decision to deny homosexuals the right to marriage. My Health Minister would have no "ethical" stance to overreach his ministerial authority specifically to prevent women access to a drug which has the ability to make a difficult choice not only safer, but also less emotionally taxing. The bloody Mormons would also have no "ethical" reason to come knocking at my door before noon on a Saturday morning.

I actually believe that the people who are steering religion into me are quite "ethical". Unfortunately, they have been raised since birth to believe that certain actions (denying gay rights, denying women's rights, knocking on my bloody door before noon on Saturday) are ethical, and that, Hugh, is the religion's fault.

[Kojiro]

Sure, why not? I mean, I'm sure you can point to all the knife rampages that have occurred. All those school knifings where a few dozen people were killed.

Oh wait...could be there's a difference between guns and knives in their capacity for rampages.

[Lusankya]

Yeah, yeah. Whatever positive there is about religion, it's all drowning in one bad thing - that being ... "We must pluck out the eyes of reason", to quote Luther. The utter hatred of reason and rationality, defiance of logic.

So now Luther's words define religion in general? Oh wait, he was condemned for his views. By the Pope, no less. And the protestants were persecuted for centuries. Then again, one could argue that it was all a political issue, and religion was just a justification.

God, none of your points have any point. I think I'll split them up, because I feel like it.

So now Luther's words define religion in general?

Luther's words don't define religion in general, but they are typical of religion in general. And there are approximately 70 million Lutherans in the world today, and Lutheranism had a significant impact on other branches of Protestant religions as well, so it's hard to say that his views were insignificant in terms of religion today.

Oh wait, he was condemned for his views. By the Pope, no less.

Ha! I'm certain that the Pope has condemned my mum's boss no less than 40 times this week for performing various gynaecological procedures. And if I got a dollar for every time the Pope condemned me for my views, I'd have ten million PS3s by now.

And the protestants were persecuted for centuries. Then again, one could argue that it was all a political issue, and religion was just a justification.

I love the way like to define every religious issue as a political issue. Next you'll be arguing that the crusades were a political issue as well. Or the Jewish Holocaust in Nazi Germany. Maybe the Imams in Iran preventing women from holding power is a political issue as well. I'd say that next you'd claim that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were secular in origin, but you've already done that.

To say that religion is not harmful because it has worthwhile members is simply a non-sequitur

Then so is saying that religion is harmful because it counts some nitwits among its ranks.

We're saying that religion turns people into intolerant bigots. Those who are under the influence of religion and aren't intolerant bigots are that way in spite of their religion, and not because of it. Either that, or they've never actually read the book.

(personally I always say that a decent person is always a decent person, but only through religion a decent person can commit bad acts with a clear conscience).

If you stop before the "but", I'll concede the point.

I'll point you back to my point on my previous point on the politicians in my country who support measures that restrict liberties based purely on religious grounds. Note also that these politicians have stated explicitly that it is their religion which causes them to support these measures.

[General Zod]

Then so is saying that religion is harmful because it counts some nitwits among its ranks.

Only some? The fact that no other institution or philosophy has had nearly as many deaths and acts of hatred committed in its name says otherwise. Or are you ignoring those cheerful parts of history known as the Holocaust, the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition?

If you stop before the "but", I'll concede the point.

So you don't actually have a rebuttal to that then. Gotcha. Remind me again, how many people want to outlaw same sex marriage because their magic sky pixie considers it an abomination?

[General Zod]

"Also" is the keyword here. Yeah, maybe we should. But then again, when a murder is committed, do you also blame the weapon, or just the murderer?

When someone goes on a rampage with a gun I consider it a pretty good reason to get rid of guns, even if they're just facilitators of the evil.

Replace 'guns' with 'knives'...do you still apply that logic?

What the fuck is your point dipshit? Religion isn't comparable with weapons because it's an idea. It gives people excuses to go out and kill things, and has done so better than any other reason in history.

[Hugh]

Great to see you ignore my point. If a person acts in a way that is harmful to others while under the influence of X, then that person should not be exposed to X. (...) the only way to protect innocent people from being harmed by people who are acting under the influence of religion is to make sure that nobody is under the influence of religion in the first place.

I didn't ignore your point, I disagreed with it. I just don't think it's right to ban religion. And even if it were, good luck trying. It would be much worse than trying to ban alcohol, and you know how that turned out.

And, of course, harm can be measured not only in physical harm, but in the loss of liberties, which is often religiously inspired, such as the persecution of homosexuals, the persecution of women, the persecution of the free press, etc. That should be obvious enough that I don't have to point it out, but then again, you seem to be a moron, so I'm not so sure.

You think homosexuals are persecuted now? In communist Romania, they were jailed, and not for religious reasons. Heck, religion itself was barely tolerated back then.

The culprits believed that they would spend eternity in paradise with 72 virgins. (...) Oh well. Their ethical system also said that you should be kind to your parents, so I guess that makes it ALL OK, then. :rolleyes:

I have repeatedly stated that it's NOT all OK. But of course you cheerfully ignore that.

I don't need scapegoats. The 9/11 terrorists were under the influence of an opiate that made them believe that they could enter heaven if they flew fuel-laden jets into heavily staffed office buildings. The only way we could really minimise the chance of such a thing happening again is by restricting the access to such an opiate.

So you can have a new Al Capone to deal with, except this time with religious fanatics crying "persecution!", supporting him?

And how about when it steers into me?

That's an issue. But religion doesn't steer into you all by itself. Blame the people.

(...)

I actually believe that the people who are steering religion into me are quite "ethical". Unfortunately, they have been raised since birth to believe that certain actions (denying gay rights, denying women's rights, knocking on my bloody door before noon on Saturday) are ethical, and that, Hugh, is the religion's fault.

If that's what you think, then militate against religion. If you can argue well here, on sd.net, why not in other places, too? You'll bother a few people (especially if you knock on their doors before noon on Saturday ), but surely you'll sway a few? And then you can tell us how much better your community is with less religion around.

[Lusankya]

I didn't ignore your point, I disagreed with it. I just don't think it's right to ban religion. And even if it were, good luck trying. It would be much worse than trying to ban alcohol, and you know how that turned out.

I never suggested banning religion. Don't put words in my mouth. I would, however, heavily discourage it, through scientific education, and by removing the tax-free status of religion. I would also ban advertising of religion, in the same way that the advertising of cigarettes is banned. I would also ban evangelising of all kinds, and have any politician who chose a stance on purely religious grounds impeached.

You think homosexuals are persecuted now? In communist Romania, they were jailed, and not for religious reasons. Heck, religion itself was barely tolerated back then.

So it's all ok, because things were worse in communist Romania? You know, I heard that women were sometimes raped in Saddam's Iraq, and not for religious reasons. Perhaps I shouldn't complain about income inequality, and a lack of adequate childcare which prevents women from being able to have both a career and a family if they should so choose, because things were worse in Saddam's Iraq. Or perhaps you're full of shit, and you don't realise that saying that A is ok, because B is worse is a horseshit fallacy.

Communism being a piece of shit doesn't mean that religion isn't a piece of shit as well. Besides, the dogmatic approach taken in regards to Communism in Russia and Mao's China is much closer to religion than any actual ethical system.

The culprits believed that they would spend eternity in paradise with 72 virgins. (...) Oh well. Their ethical system also said that you should be kind to your parents, so I guess that makes it ALL OK, then. :rolleyes:

I have repeatedly stated that it's NOT all OK. But of course you cheerfully ignore that.

Actually, you have repeatedly stated that religion is OK, because it has two or three good things nestled in amongst the intolerance, bigotry and violence that pervade it.

You also have repeatedly insisted that because you know people who are both nice and Christian, that therefore religion is not responsible for any of the evil that is done in its name, and have only conceded points after editing their words.

I don't need scapegoats. The 9/11 terrorists were under the influence of an opiate that made them believe that they could enter heaven if they flew fuel-laden jets into heavily staffed office buildings. The only way we could really minimise the chance of such a thing happening again is by restricting the access to such an opiate.

So you can have a new Al Capone to deal with, except this time with religious fanatics crying "persecution!", supporting him?

Note once agian that I said "restrict" access to the opiate. I never suggested banning religion. I even bolded the word, so you could see it more clearly.

Aside from the fact that you have shown no link between my suggestions and your analogies to prohibition (and the analogy wouldn't work anyway, since I never suggested banning religion), you must realise that since I have already stated that in the case of religion, "the person remains under the influence of religion indefinitely", I wouldn't recommend a prohibition-style banning of religion in any case. There's no sense in banning a drug if the people who use it are going to be addicted to it and under its influence for an indefinite period of time. The only real solution is to institute reforms that would make it socially unacceptable to appear to be under its influence. That would at least make the religious mind realise that if they wish to gain acceptance in society, then they must couch their ethical system in terms of objective harm/benefit.

If that's what you think, then militate against religion. If you can argue well here, on sd.net, why not in other places, too? You'll bother a few people (especially if you knock on their doors before noon on Saturday ), but surely you'll sway a few? And then you can tell us how much better your community is with less religion around.

Did you know that although 7% of Americans claim to be atheist, only .2% of the prison poluation claims to be atheist? And that Japan, which has one of the highest rates of atheism in the world, has the lowest crime rate? Perhaps I should go and live in a community with less religion around.

[Astarial]

And that Japan, which has one of the highest rates of atheism in the world, has the lowest crime rate? Perhaps I should go and live in a community with less religion around.

To be fair, that might have less to do with the prevalence of atheism and more to do with other aspects of the country, such as gun control laws, or I've heard the argument that it's because they don't repress sexuality in the way we do.

[General Zod]

And that Japan, which has one of the highest rates of atheism in the world, has the lowest crime rate? Perhaps I should go and live in a community with less religion around.

To be fair, that might have less to do with the prevalence of atheism and more to do with other aspects of the country, such as gun control laws, or I've heard the argument that it's because they don't repress sexuality in the way we do.

The gun laws are more restrictive, but that doesn't necessarily correlate to a low crime rate either. England's crime statistics have been on the rise despite relatively tight gun regs iirc

[CaptJodan]

And even if it were, good luck trying. It would be much worse than trying to ban alcohol, and you know how that turned out.

However, alcohol became regulated. There are also programs to educate people of the effects and dangers of alcohol. There are programs to help people who have abused the substance try and recover from their abuse. What Lusankya has proposed is no different.

Just because we might never end violence or intolerance in the world doesn't mean you don't try, moron.

You think homosexuals are persecuted now?

That's potentially the dumbest thing you've written in this topic yet. Are you really this stupid? Nevermind that Lusankya's points are still valid regarding the fact that the definition of persecution goes beyond your simplistic definition of being jailed. Throughout the world homosexuals are being beaten, sometimes to death, and often times for religious reasons.

If that's what you think, then militate against religion. If you can argue well here, on sd.net, why not in other places, too? You'll bother a few people (especially if you knock on their doors before noon on Saturday ), but surely you'll sway a few? And then you can tell us how much better your community is with less religion around.

What are you even saying here? Because that's all I can get from this whiny "I can't defeat your argument through logic, so I will defeat it through an appeal to popularity" tirade.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

...or I've heard the argument that it's because they don't repress sexuality in the way we do.

Um, for your information, Japan is in several ways quite a bit *more* repressive on sexuality than even the rather puritanical US. Where the US has its violent, anti-gay hysteria, the hideous circumcision fetish, and the sheer terror at the thought of exposed breasts, Japan has rampant misogyny, pedophilic tendencies, and a *very* strict ban on showing certain parts of genitalia in *any* form.

The reason Japan seems more 'open' in regards to sexuality is because of the large amount of...'interesting' fetishes that come from that country. The problem is that most of these fetishes have come up as ways to get around the repressive sexual views of the culture in general.

For instance, the whole tentacle-rape phenomena. That started because Japan strictly forbids showing the male phallus in any form of art. How do we get around? By replacing the male phallus with a huge alien tentacle that looks quite obviously like a male phallus, yet isn't quite one, exploiting the loophole. The misogyny and pedophilia are still plainly visible as most of the females involved in this art are shown to be both unwilling and also uncomfortably young.

Back on topic with the whole defense-of-religion thing, in regards to the whole 'Blame the people, not the ideology they follow' argument.

Let's take that argument, replace 'Ideology' with 'Ideologue', and replace 'Christianity' with 'Hitler' and see how well it holds up:

We shouldn't blame Hitler for the Holocaust, should we? After all, *he* didn't kill all those Jews. It was the lower-downs on the command chain that actually operated the gas-chambers and fired the rifles. Sure, they were following his orders, but they did so out of their own free will, so he can't be blamed for their own free actions, can he?

Sure, he created a constant bombardment of dangerous propaganda and an inhumane, intolerant mindset, but it was the German peoples' own choice to follow him, right? So we should blame them, and not him, because it's not his fault that a country followed his hateful propaganda, enforced through a rigid power structure he formed, calculated to thoroughly indoctrinate the populace, he can't take the blame for that!

Besides, look at all the good stuff he's done. He revitalized the German economy, created jobs, put Germany back on the map and put food on peoples' plates. What could we possibly do without Hitler? Even if we could somehow illogically lay the blame on him for the WW2 atrocities, it can't be denied that he's had a massive positive influence on Germany, can it?

[Justforfun000]

Well this thread has been enlightening. I haven't seen one good intrinsic argument FOR religion that has stood up even remotely.

Humanism - WON

Religion - Zero

It looks so easy to spell it out. I guess the problem is you're dealing with people with the "lights are on, but nobody's home" syndrome....

[K. A. Pital]

"Also" is the keyword here. Yeah, maybe we should. But then again, when a murder is committed, do you also blame the weapon, or just the murderer?

A weapon doesn't tell it's owner "go kill some guys!". Religion tells it's followers to impose it's rules on other people. Actively.

See?

[Astarial]

...or I've heard the argument that it's because they don't repress sexuality in the way we do.

Um, for your information, Japan is in several ways quite a bit *more* repressive on sexuality than even the rather puritanical US. Where the US has its violent, anti-gay hysteria, the hideous circumcision fetish, and the sheer terror at the thought of exposed breasts, Japan has rampant misogyny, pedophilic tendencies, and a *very* strict ban on showing certain parts of genitalia in *any* form.

The reason Japan seems more 'open' in regards to sexuality is because of the large amount of...'interesting' fetishes that come from that country. The problem is that most of these fetishes have come up as ways to get around the repressive sexual views of the culture in general.

For instance, the whole tentacle-rape phenomena. That started because Japan strictly forbids showing the male phallus in any form of art. How do we get around? By replacing the male phallus with a huge alien tentacle that looks quite obviously like a male phallus, yet isn't quite one, exploiting the loophole. The misogyny and pedophilia are still plainly visible as most of the females involved in this art are shown to be both unwilling and also uncomfortably young.

I concede the point, then. I was under the impression that it was more open about it. I guess my point was, there are more differences between Japan and the US than atheism rates.

Back on topic with the whole defense-of-religion thing, in regards to the whole 'Blame the people, not the ideology they follow' argument.

Let's take that argument, replace 'Ideology' with 'Ideologue', and replace 'Christianity' with 'Hitler' and see how well it holds up:

We shouldn't blame Hitler for the Holocaust, should we? After all, *he* didn't kill all those Jews. It was the lower-downs on the command chain that actually operated the gas-chambers and fired the rifles. Sure, they were following his orders, but they did so out of their own free will, so he can't be blamed for their own free actions, can he?

Sure, he created a constant bombardment of dangerous propaganda and an inhumane, intolerant mindset, but it was the German peoples' own choice to follow him, right? So we should blame them, and not him, because it's not his fault that a country followed his hateful propaganda, enforced through a rigid power structure he formed, calculated to thoroughly indoctrinate the populace, he can't take the blame for that!

Besides, look at all the good stuff he's done. He revitalized the German economy, created jobs, put Germany back on the map and put food on peoples' plates. What could we possibly do without Hitler? Even if we could somehow illogically lay the blame on him for the WW2 atrocities, it can't be denied that he's had a massive positive influence on Germany, can it?

Godwin's Law.

[K. A. Pital]

Godwin's Law.

Except for the fact that regardless of the Godwin Law, the analogy is true.

Replace Bible with Mein Kampf. Mein Kampf is hateful. That is true for the Bible, too. It's also racist. Which is also true for the Bible, especially the Old Testament.

So now, how come we apply differend standards? Are we going to search for good Nazis to claim Nazism was okay, or are we going to condemn Nazism but rightfully judge people on their own, if some were misled into the Nazi mindset?

I'd pick the latter you know.

[General Zod]

Godwin's Law.

Is retarded. The validity of an analogy doesn't change just because the comparison might be overused.

[General Zod]

Godwin's Law.

Except for the fact that regardless of the Godwin Law, the analogy is true.

Replace Bible with Mein Kampf. Mein Kampf is hateful. That is true for the Bible, too. It's also racist. Which is also true for the Bible, especially the Old Testament.

So now, how come we apply differend standards? Are we going to search for good Nazis to claim Nazism was okay, or are we going to condemn Nazism but rightfully judge people on their own, if some were misled into the Nazi mindset?

I'd pick the latter you know.

Beat you to the Mein Kampf comparison three pages ago.

[Hugh]

I never suggested banning religion. Don't put words in my mouth.

Here's what you wrote earlier...

the only way to protect innocent people from being harmed by people who are acting under the influence of religion is to make sure that nobody is under the influence of religion in the first place.

And how do you suggest to do that?

I would, however, heavily discourage it, through scientific education, and by removing the tax-free status of religion. I would also ban advertising of religion, in the same way that the advertising of cigarettes is banned. I would also ban evangelising of all kinds, and have any politician who chose a stance on purely religious grounds impeached.

But that wouldn't make sure that nobody is under the influence of religion, now would it?

I have repeatedly stated that it's NOT all OK. But of course you cheerfully ignore that.

Actually, you have repeatedly stated that religion is OK, because it has two or three good things nestled in amongst the intolerance, bigotry and violence that pervade it.

To quote myself...

I admit that the Bible is full of contradictions and that makes it a poor source of ethics when taken on the whole.

And that's just the latest one.

You also have repeatedly insisted that because you know people who are both nice and Christian, that therefore religion is not responsible for any of the evil that is done in its name, and have only conceded points after editing their words.

I thought cutting down quotes to the essential was basic netiquette? The complete text is in the original posts, anyway. You can see I haven't changed anything. Heck, I even refrained from correcting spelling errors.

And my claim was that people who are both nice and Christian make religion less evil AND that people who do evil in the name of religion carry the responsibility for their actions. I did NOT claim that one implies the other. It would seem I'm wrong anyway. But stop misrepresenting my position.

Note once agian that I said "restrict" access to the opiate. I never suggested banning religion. I even bolded the word, so you could see it more clearly.

That was after you suggested that nobody should be under the influence of religion. As in "restricting" access 100% or so?

Aside from the fact that you have shown no link between my suggestions and your analogies to prohibition (and the analogy wouldn't work anyway, since I never suggested banning religion),

See above. Repeating your claim doesn't make it more true.

(snipping a long rant to which I can only answer "fair enough. go ahead and try")

Did you know that although 7% of Americans claim to be atheist, only .2% of the prison poluation claims to be atheist? And that Japan, which has one of the highest rates of atheism in the world, has the lowest crime rate? Perhaps I should go and live in a community with less religion around.

That's an even better idea. Put your money where your mouth is. And don't forget to write.

[General Zod]

I never suggested banning religion. Don't put words in my mouth.

Here's what you wrote earlier...

To quote myself...

I admit that the Bible is full of contradictions and that makes it a poor source of ethics when taken on the whole.

And that's just the latest one.

Then why are you still continuing to defend it?

And my claim was that people who are both nice and Nazis make the Nazi regime less evil.

Emphasized editing mine. No further explanation necessary.

[General Zod]

Ghetto edit: fixed botched quote job.

To quote myself...

I admit that the Bible is full of contradictions and that makes it a poor source of ethics when taken on the whole.

And that's just the latest one.

Then why are you still continuing to defend it?

And my claim was that people who are both nice and Nazis make the Nazi regime less evil.

Emphasized editing mine. No further explanation necessary.

[K. A. Pital]

That's an even better idea. Put your money where your mouth is. And don't forget to write.

Actually I'm rather sure he's going to get a kick out of it if he does. A good, advanced secular country... what else can a decent atheist person wish for?

I'm sure as hell he doesn't want to live next to religious tards who scream "BURN IN HELL, GAY ANTICHRIST" as he passes by.

[Hugh]

To quote myself...

I admit that the Bible is full of contradictions and that makes it a poor source of ethics when taken on the whole.

And that's just the latest one.

Then why are you still continuing to defend it?

I don't. From my previous message...

It would seem I'm wrong anyway.

How much more explicit do I need to be?

And my claim was that people who are both nice and Nazis make the Nazi regime less evil.

Emphasized editing mine. No further explanation necessary.

Indeed. I lose.

[Hugh]

That's an even better idea. Put your money where your mouth is. And don't forget to write.

Actually I'm rather sure he's going to get a kick out of it if he does. A good, advanced secular country... what else can a decent atheist person wish for?

I don't know... An absence of nasty surprises? Or do you think that religious intolerance is the only possible kind?

I'm sure as hell he doesn't want to live next to religious tards who scream "BURN IN HELL, GAY ANTICHRIST" as he passes by.

And I don't want to live and work next to dirty punks who make fun of me because I have long hairs. But nobody cares because, you know, "they're just talking".

No offense, but we were discussing what people do in the name or religion, and, frankly, it's better to keep it that way.

[General Zod]

I don't know... An absence of nasty surprises? Or do you think that religious intolerance is the only possible kind?

So, what's your point? The simple fact is that religion alone is responsible for a good deal of the intolerance that exists, or at least justifying its continued existence. Most first world nations have worked towards eliminating gender based and ethnic based intolerance, and done so fairly well. There aren't many other forms left after you get rid of the big ones that many religions will allow to persist.