|
Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil? (religion) (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Yeah, but on the counter argument, those events are within relatively short period of time in modern age, while religion has been used as an excuse ever since cavemen start having their own set of believes. (though religion has often been used as an excuse to advance a political agenda and territorial gains esp) |
LOL, that fact only detracts from his arguments more than anything. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| the fact is at no stage in any time frame has the atheistic banner been unfurled to rally support for warfare. appealing to "god's will" is a far more successful and historically common method of waging war. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Yeah, but on the counter argument, those events are within relatively short period of time in modern age, while religion has been used as an excuse ever since cavemen start having their own set of believes. (though religion has often been used as an excuse to advance a political agenda and territorial gains esp) |
You're making it sound like religion has been the main source of conflict until the 20th century when Hitler and the dictators came around. Ancient ome didn't fight Carthage over religion. The Greeks didn't fight King Xerxes (Persia) over religion. There have been many wars fought over religion, and many many others fought for completely different reasons. To say religion is the cause of our problems today denies the true reality that it isn't. It's the conditions we're living in. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
the fact is at no stage in any time frame has the atheistic banner been unfurled to rally support for warfare. appealing to "god's will" is a far more successful and historically common method of waging war. |
You're splitting hairs, being defensive, and not very critical. They have under secular ideologies and there's no difference there really. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
the fact is at no stage in any time frame has the atheistic banner been unfurled to rally support for warfare. appealing to "god's will" is a far more successful and historically common method of waging war. |
Depends on your definition of God. Is God a divine being? Is God the state? Or is God a man? Atheistic dictators become god with the state. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Depends on your definition of God. Is God a divine being? Is God the state? Or is God a man? Atheistic dictators become god with the state. |
Yeah, pretty much. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
You're making it sound like religion has been the main source of conflict until the 20th century when Hitler and the dictators came around. Ancient ome didn't fight Carthage over religion. The Greeks didn't fight King Xerxes (Persia) over religion. There have been many wars fought over religion, and many many others fought for completely different reasons. To say religion is the cause of our problems today denies the true reality that it isn't. It's the conditions we're living in. |
No, that's not what I meant to say. But religion has always been a strong influence on a lot of wars. Not the primary factor, but at least one of the secondary factors in a lot of wars. Well, at least from Western history. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Depends on your definition of God. Is God a divine being? Is God the state? Or is God a man? Atheistic dictators become god with the state. |
dont turn this into a definitions battle, theyre largely pointless. if what youre saying is that you can substitute "god" for "dictator" then i would partially agree. however what we're merely doing is accepting that sometimes other belief systems/organised structures etc can lend themselves to blind faith in something; a state of affairs that is implicit to religious doctrine.
we could sit here and argue about greed or nationalism causes huge wars. im sure we all accept that. wouldn't be much of an argument would it?
my problem with the parallels people are drawing is that religious systems depend upon interpretation by unelected leaders who hold too much sway over their followers. how is it possible to argue with the top tier of religious organisation when that top tier is responsible for telling you god's wishes (are you going to argue with god)? religious belief is so very strong and so righteous as well as being infallible. i think that's a pretty dangerous combination.
religion should remain in everyone's homes and churches and stay the out of everything else. no other belief system is so pervasive and insidious in the way in which it infects and colours all manner of debates. i think renegade made an excellent point back on page 1
| quote: |
to believe in "the unseen" above and beyond that which is real constitutes a dangerous act of cognitive dissonance. To believe passively in God is one thing, but to believe that the traditions of religion should be given precedence over the simple facts of reality (and then to fiercely fight for these traditions in a socio-political context) is, quite simply, "bad" for society. |
|
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
my problem with the parallels people are drawing is that religious systems depend upon interpretation by unelected leaders who hold too much sway over their followers. how is it possible to argue with the top tier of religious organisation when that top tier is responsible for telling you god's wishes (are you going to argue with god)? religious belief is so very strong and so righteous as well as being infallible. i think that's a pretty dangerous combination. |
You're a bit wrong there. Despite what the religious leaders say, Christianity, with its emphasis on free will and personal faith doesn't really support a strong church. (I think Romans, maybe Ephesians say something about body is the temple of God and man the priest of God)
I don't think Qu'ran dictates any sort of religious organization, because in order to be a Muslim, all you need is the Qu'ran and you're suppose to study it yourself.
But in reality, because an avg believer needs help understanding and interpreting holy texts, they belong to a church or a mosque or whatever, hence allowing religious leaders to influence the avg believers, esp in 3rd world nations with less education and ability to critically think.
Personally, I don't think God wanted sheep as believers, but someone who can use their free will to think for themselves. If that critical thinking comes to conclusion that God exists, then faith only becomes strong.
Also, because those holy texts were written in the context of their time of the history, some of the messages are irrelevant to modern times, and does require adapting to modern context.
Heck, even the Bible does it (from Leviticus I think with all the list of unclean animals to Acts where Peter I think was told to eat those animals)
This does not mean the core messages of those holy texts are irrelevant to modern believers of that religion.
| quote: |
religion should remain in everyone's homes and churches and stay the out of everything else. no other belief system is so pervasive and insidious in the way in which it infects and colours all manner of debates. i think renegade made an excellent point back on page 1 |
In an ideal world it would.
But in practicality, politicians have a hard time struggling with that for some, because religion does shape one's moral beliefs and shape the way a person interacts with others.
Religion is not something you can confine to home and churches, because if you're a believer, it supposedly defines a lot of who the person is in terms of moral beliefs. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
You're a bit wrong there. Despite what the religious leaders say, Christianity, with its emphasis on free will and personal faith doesn't really support a strong church. |
in the real world, i would argue the pope has a pretty strong following and his views do affect millions of people around the world. as do preachers that advocate particular parties at election time.
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
But in practicality, politicians have a hard time struggling with that for some, because religion does shape one's moral beliefs and shape the way a person interacts with others. |
what you mean is that religion gives some people a false belief that they have the right to inflict their faith and opinions upon others, regardless of logic or rationality, because their book of choice said that they should. that brings me back to my earlier points- its impossible to argue with someone when their one and only argument boils down to "god said so". there is no place for dogmatic magic and superstition in the public sphere.
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Religion is not something you can confine to home and churches, because if you're a believer, it supposedly defines a lot of who the person is in terms of moral beliefs. |
another problem with religion in my opinion. honestly, i think people that need an archaic text to tell them how to behave are lacking something that the rest of us already have. the fact that people put so much stock in religious doctrine, instead of considering real-world facts, is completely unacceptable. |
|
|
| WM2 |
Religion is a bad thing, even within the church. Having faith is an entirely different issue. Religion is the liturgical and theological bs that organized people of faith have created as a frame work to govern others.
I'm a Christian(although probably a bad one depending on who you ask), but I completely and utterly distrust the "Church" and what it stands for today. It's so annoying to me that people that claim to be one can't even get some of the most basic ideas of the bible right, and that it's not at all literal or historically correct. I'm working on a paper for a class right now that's a literary, historical and archaeological study of the bible. It's rather refreshing to read it and have the person talking to you about it give the real meaning for it and not what they learned at seminary. Some of the stuff I've studied and found out for myself has come up in class and it's hilarious to watch the retarded fundamentalist idiots argue with our teacher about the meaning of something because they have never been taught the history of that time period and probably never bothered to look it up or see if what they were told is really true. It's the people like that who are the problem when it comes to "religion" and it's not limited to any one faith.
Now, I don't feel like reading all of this to find out, but if Pascal's wager hasn't come up....
"Let us now speak according to natural lights...Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."
If you don't understand that it's rather simple. Pascal is saying that you can either believe or not believe. If you believe and you're right you're set. If you believe and you're wrong you've lost nothing. If you don't believe and you're right there is nothing so it didn't matter. However, if you don't believe and you're wrong you've lost everything. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
If you don't understand that it's rather simple. Pascal is saying that you can either believe or not believe. If you believe and you're right you're set. If you believe and you're wrong you've lost nothing. If you don't believe and you're right there is nothing so it didn't matter. However, if you don't believe and you're wrong you've lost everything. |
at the risk of butchering dawkins' response to this, he basically argued that its a silly propositition to assume you have a choice to believe anything. either you do or you dont, and having a false belief isnt going to fool god come judgement day ;) |
|
|
|
|
