The Root of all Evil : The God Delusion
POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Thursday, December 17, 2015 06:12
VIEWED: 49488
PAGE 14 of 32
I said I suspect they cancel out. The fact that you think we should weigh ONLY the good done by religion borders on dishonest argument, the rest borders on insult.
Why do you think it's important to weigh the good done by Theists but not Atheists?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Of course you do.
Originally posted by citizen:
I assume you are missing the point on purpose.
Quote:It looks to me like you dodged it.
Originally posted by citizen:
I've already addressed that.
Quote:It doesn’t make any difference whether I accept that or not, people killed in the Soviet Union’s religious purges are as dead as those killed by Al Qaeda.
Originally posted by citizen:
You saying it doesn't make it true. You seem unwilling to accept that Atheism isn't a form of Theism.
The communist ideology of the Soviet Union was atheist. But you want to re-define that as something else in order to insulate atheism from the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union. That would be fine, except that you are not willing to make the same provision for Al Qaeda, and until you do, this use of religion as the root of violence is not internally consistent. You’re use of language automatically implies that religious beliefs are inherently violent, but the a lack of religious belief is not, when in fact Communism and Fascism demonstrate conclusive that the lack of religion and even atheism can be used as tools to justify murder.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:Quote:
Or it can be easily used to justify peaceful co-existance
So can Secular Humanism, even pure science can give us a reason to be nice to each other*, religion isn't necessary to get people to play nice.Quote:
which gets back to my original post... The violence is about the pursuit of power.
Sometimes certainly, I'll even agree with most times, but sometimes violence is just about anger and hate (I suppose you can turn that around and call it power but it's not the most accurate description IMO) and religion gives one more thing that people feel VERY strongly about to be angry and hateful over and can be used to promote anger and hate in other areas (persecution of homosexuals and "witches" for instance).
So, your logic follows, that since people feel VERY strongly about religion, ipso facto religion is
An equivalent argument for the "other side" would be to find some avowed 'human secularist', point out any faults, and declare it devoid of truth, and a thing to be stomped out.
So, to be very clear, I will state:
Secular Humanism can be easily used to justify peaceful co-existance.
We agree on that point. However, arguing that religion is the root of all evil (remember the original premise of this discussion) does -not- lead to peaceful co-existance; it tends to lead to hate, war, death and destruction. My position is better stated as such:
Belief in God (god, goddess, gods, etc), and hence religion of some variety, is not intrinsicly evil; it is often a force for good. Thus, religion is -not- the root of -all- evil.
To further stipulate, I will maintain that some people lack the intellectual capacity to be a "good human secularist"; if you 'liberate' them from the 'controls' of religion, you can end up with a Stalin. Of course, Stalin was not a proponent of 'Human Secularism' (to the best of my knowledge); we was a communist and an atheist. And, clearly in agreement with my original post, a 'power grabber', and used what structures were available to him to gain the power he wished. Is this "-1" for the atheist team? I think not. No more than I would blame Christians in general for the many misdeeds of George W. But Stalin is proof positive we should not go clammering off following the lead of an athiest blindly (which I will acknowledge a 'Human secularist' would tend not to given the 'test beliefs' convictions they uphold).
So remember, 'test beliefs', very important. I may not quite qualify for 'human secularist', but I'm a big one for 'test beliefs'. I'm also fond of 'check your assumptions.'
====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm
Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's a more polite way of saying, "you dodged it".
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Of course you do.
Quote:Actually, no I didn't, evidently you didn't like the answer.
It looks to me like you dodged it.
Quote:And the people who are dead in Iraq are still dead, what difference does that make?
It doesn’t make any difference whether I accept that or not, people killed in the Soviet Union’s religious purges are as dead as those killed by Al Qaeda.
Quote:I've been very clear on my reasoning, you in turn, accuse me of this and that, and make replies that amount to "Yes it is" and "Because I say so". If your position is so much stronger, and more internally consistent than my own, I'm at a loss to explain why you are unable to make your case without personal attacks.
The communist ideology of the Soviet Union was atheist. But you want to re-define that as something else in order to insulate atheism from the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union.
Quote:If your position was as undeniable as you seem to think you would not need these Straw man arguments.
That would be fine, except that you are not willing to make the same provision for Al Qaeda, and until you do, this use of religion as the root of violence is not internally consistent.
Quote:If you say so, but you're use of language implies that Atheism is solely responsible for all violence, and Religion is sometimes blamed.
You’re use of language automatically implies that religious beliefs are inherently violent, but the a lack of religious belief is not, when in fact Communism and Fascism demonstrate conclusive that the lack of religion and even atheism can be used as tools to justify murder.
You cannot be a, for sake of argument, Muslim fanatic, without being a Muslim. You're position is apparently, that you can, that is not consistent, internally or otherwise. Your position is further that you can't be anti-theist without being Atheist, which is not the case. For a start one could be anti-Theism and be Agnostic. You have continued to fail to make your case, because frankly I don't see personal attacks, and “yes it is” as a valid substitute for reasoning.
I'm ready to listen as soon as you are ready to speak.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This much I know is not true.
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm ready to listen as soon as you are ready to speak.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I have asked for your reasoning, and in responce you insult me. It's clear you aren't interested in anyone elses opinion, you are interested in shouting at people until they agree with you.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
This much I know is not true.
I rather suspect that you don't even know what my position is.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:When you put it like that, it seems very irrational, but I’m not quite sure that is what is intended. The idea that God created evil (as well as good) is seen much more rationally, when it is understood as God creating free will. Most Western liberal democracies exalt the ideas of “free speech,” “right to privacy,” and “personal freedoms.” But by doing so, are we also exalting the evils that are practiced because of these freedoms? So is it then irrational to support liberal democracies? There are those who believe that the good provided by these freedoms does not outweigh the evil that men practice with them. I’m not one of them; I tend to view these freedoms as a good thing.
Originally posted by Khyron:
My point was a bit different from the standard "problem of evil" argument, though. I wasn't really saying it's irrational to believe in God because there's evil in the world, I was saying it's irrational to worship him because there's evil in the world. For argument's sake, let's assume God exists. He created evil in the world (or rather, a person's capacity to do evil), so does the good he created really make up for it? People worship him because of the good he's done and ignore the evil he enables and allows, which is sort of like thinking a mafia boss or a warlord is a saint since he gives money to charity or tells his henchmen to help build an orphanage.
The alternative is that god created man to be a slave to him, and there are those who believe that is precisely why god created man. That actually seems fairly irrational to me. But this is actually an attitude that we tend to associate with evil, not good. The enslavement of man has never been views as preferable, even by those who’ve practiced slavery.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But I'm not talking about social liberties, I'm talking about freedom of will. One values social liberties because one knows there is such a thing as, for example, freedom of speech and one would like to have it because it'd probably improve one's quality of life in some way. However, having a limited freedom of will would be different because we wouldn't know that it is limited in the first place. We wouldn't be able to think "Hey, I wonder why rape never crossed my mind before" because a limited freedom of will wouldn't allow us to consider rape. If God were to limit our freedom of will to not consider evil thoughts, we wouldn't know we were lacking any sort of freedom and we wouldn't have evil thoughts.
And if evil is the price to pay for unlimited freedom of will (which, as I said, in most cases gets constrained by upbringing and society anyway), is it worth it?
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I guess for the most part he did do that. Maybe it just occurred to him that having one species on the planet who could think more broadly about the world seemed like a good thing at the time. God could have created humans as simpletons, much as most animals, I suppose. The life of ignorant bliss my cat leads does sometimes seem preferable, but as a scientist, I can’t say that I would truly prefer the inability to grasp the beauty and wonder of the universe. Do we not praise our ability to be free-thinkers? I don’t really understand how this comes back to God. God granted us the ability to be free-thinkers; that sounds like a gift to me. How we chose to use it is now up to us, not God.
Originally posted by Khyron:
If God were to limit our freedom of will to not consider evil thoughts, we wouldn't know we were lacking any sort of freedom and we wouldn't have evil thoughts.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Curtailing freedom of will by eliminating evil is hardly like making humans simpletons, and it wouldn't limit our capacity to be free-thinkers except when it comes to evil thoughts. You'd still have most of the things you cherish.
"Maybe it just occurred to him that having one species on the planet who could think more broadly about the world seemed like a good thing at the time."
By hypothesis, God is omniscient and he should've seen bad things were going to happen, and it's not like evil is something modern, it was part of society from the dawn of civilisation.
"God granted us the ability to be free-thinkers; that sounds like a gift to me."
Too much of a good thing can spoil it, though.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME