The Religion thread

[Mulu]

In case anyone is curious, there is a terminal counter argument to everything I've proposed. I'm surprised I haven't seen it yet, as it is the logical ending of any Religion v Reason debate. Then again, typically only people who study theology will make it, and apparently ALFA doesn't have such people. So, since no one else is going to offer it, I guess I will as the thread has otherwise reached a natural conclusion on its primary topic.

Religious person: "I accept that my beliefs are irrational. Nevertheless, I prefer to live in a Universe with God than in one without."

At that point, the debate is over. The source of debate comes from religious folk who try to pretend that their faith is based on reason or logic or evidence, or that belief in science isn't. That's all very easy to refute. A true theologist knows better, and simply embraces the irrationality of faith. As long as there are people willing to embrace irrationality, and those people are the majority, religion has nothing to worry about.

[Zakharra]

Mulu wrote

But *all* religious societies are necessarily trapped in religious dogma that retards development. An atheist society would not be. Soviet Russia was unfortunately trapped in Communist dogma, but a humanistic society would have no dogma other than a belief in due process, equality under the law, and humanity's capability to become better, and those are rather beneficial dogmas.

The USSR is an excellent example of how a non-religious society, atheist, can be. It was run by one of the most ruthless men to yet exist. The USSR was an atheist society. That doesn't mean that all atheist societies would be run that way, but it does show how far they can fall. Just like a fanatical religious one can fall.

Mulu, you seem to be arguing that all religion is bad for people and that only a 'reasoned and enlightend and humanistic' society is capable of overcoming the ills and evils of the world. You are forgetting one thing. Humans. It makes no difference wether we believe in a religion, an ideal or nothing, people will find ways to do what they want to. Evil and/or power hungry people will find ways to attain the power they want to enforce their view of how things should be.

Your view looks like; All religion is bad.

[Mulu]

The USSR is an excellent example of how a non-religious society, atheist, can be.

I consider the USSR to be an aberration, just as I consider Iran to be an aberration. Atheism does not equal communism, and religion does not equal fundamentalism. Some organizing principles are worse than others.

Mulu, you seem to be arguing that all religion is bad for people and that only a 'reasoned and enlightend and humanistic' society is capable of overcoming the ills and evils of the world. You are forgetting one thing. Humans. It makes no difference wether we believe in a religion, an ideal or nothing, people will find ways to do what they want to. Evil and/or power hungry people will find ways to attain the power they want to enforce their view of how things should be.

Your view looks like; All religion is bad.

Oh, I'm not forgetting humans. In fact, acknowledgement of human flaws is at the heart of my statement that humanity isn't evolved enough yet to actually acheive a 'reasoned and elightened and humanistic' society. However, for human society to evolve, it needs to give up religion and other irrational beliefs. It's part of the process. It's not the whole process. The whole process includes purposeful parenting, fairer laws, reliability and fairness of punishment, and a whole host of legal and social and perhaps even biological changes that will prevent evil and/or power hungry people from having significant impact on society, and will also prevent people from being as likely to grow up to be evil and/or power hungry in the first place.

But that's another topic entirely.

[Zakharra]

You're also assuming that human society will evolve logically or in a enlightned manner, under the care of people who really do have everyones best interest in mind. Instead of the far more likely path of normal human needs, desires and lusts for things.

Would you ban/outlaw religion?

[Nekulor]

If anything religion keeps some of those ills in check in many people.

[Mulu]

You're also assuming that human society will evolve logically or in a enlightned manner,

Oh, I'm assuming nothing of the sort. If you want to talk about odds, odds are the human race will go extinct by its own actions. Many of the religious people of the world desire this to happen, since many of the big religions are apocalyptic cults after all, especially Christianity. Some of the sects actually pray for the End of Days, and all believe the myth. I think it's possible for humanity to evolve into a much better society, but it's certainly not guaranteed.

Still, to get there, religion has to be given up. Not necessarily outlawed, just rendered obsolete. If people had better educations, religion would be greatly reduced in scope and impact. So, step one is to invest heavily in a good public education system, especially science and critical thinking programs, which would of course have many other benefits as well. Then you take away tax and other legal protections from churches, as there is no reason to encourage them. Let them live by the same rules as any other business, thus acknowledging that's what they really are. Increase the investment in the unmanned exploration of space a hundredfold so we start really learning about our Universe and increase our chances of finding life elsewhere, and of course invest in social programs that call for planned pregnancies rather than the 40% of unwanted pregnancies we currently have, delay pregnancy and childbirth to allow for more mature parents, decriminalize and heavily regulate drug use, etc.

There's a path to follow that will reduce poverty, crime, disease, abortion, war, famine, abuse, religion and its problems (ignorance, intolerance, etc). It's even a well lit path. Unfortunately, it doesn't benefit the wealthy, at least not in the short term. It only benefits common folk, and those common folk are by and large too ignorant to even realize the benefits offered and entrenched powers like religion and big business make sure the common folk are afraid of and even hate any such policies, so policy makers are loathe to follow the path to a better society.

I suspect it would take a charismatic leader that could motivate average people to demand better policies. Then again, such a person would likely be shot fairly quickly.

[Nekulor]

Mulu, I think most of us agree, religion tends to do bad things when followed very fervently, but there is nothing wrong with being spiritual,yes?

[mxlm]

I consider the USSR to be an aberration, just as I consider Iran to be an aberration. Atheism does not equal communism, and religion does not equal fundamentalism. Some organizing principles are worse than others.

The USSR was not an aberration. It, along with the Third Reich and the PRC provide examples of what happens when entire societies are founded on or heavily influenced by millenarian views.

Which is why the power of American Evangelicals is so terrifying.

The USSR and PRC may have been avowedly atheist, but in practice they were religious. It's just that their religion focused on the state and the founders of the state rather than ye olde Messiah.

[Nekulor]

MXLM, these people CREATED new religions with an egocentric, self destructive focus, much like modern splinter churches (chaos gnosticism, Satanism, ect.) that focus on corruption, individual greed and the pursuit of violent acts as a means of advancing oneself while screwing humanity. Many of these cults died because of this.

[mxlm]

These people being....who, exactly?

Although I find it amusing that two out of your three 'bad things' are characteristic of quite a few American churches. Mainstream churches, at that. They, um, seem to be gaining strength, not losing it.

Incidentally, I'd be curious to know how it is you reconcile your support of torture and your Christianity.

[Grand Fromage]

Yeah, uh, you guys really need to pick up a book once in a while. Religion was suppressed in the USSR because Stalin wanted no loyalty to anyone or anything but him, not because of any sort of atheist ideology. He fully understood the controlling force of religion, thus all worship (or similar thoughts; the USSR didn't remain Stalinist long enough for it to turn into a true cult like emperor worship in the Roman principate) was to be directed to Stalin and, by extension, the State. You can see a more developed example of this today in North Korea, where Kim Il Sung is essentially deified.

It remained that way with the successive premiers because religion would still divide state loyalty. Also, there was no incentive to go back on the policy. Most of the religious leadership was dead after Stalin, and there wasn't exactly a lot of popular agitation.

[mxlm]

Hmm. You said what I was trying to say, but much more eloquently.

Bastard.

[Grand Fromage]

Hmm. You said what I was trying to say, but much more eloquently.

Bastard.

Considering I'm majoring in history with a focus on the USSR, I'd hope so.

[Grand Fromage]

Oh man I just found out everything I know is wrong. :(

Please be warned: all atheists, even those who don't know they are atheists (pet cats for instance) are the reincarnation of Josef Stalin.

***

It has often been claimed that atheism plays a significant role in everything bad that happens in the world. A case in point is the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, like every country in Western Europe, North America and Australasia was not run under religious law. People who like to defend atheism say that the correct term for a country like this is secular, not atheist, but they are stupid. Putting aside the fact that the wrong term has been used, that lack of ideology is not on a par with presence of ideology and that every developed country in the world is not run under religious law, we'll use the Soviet Union as proof that atheism invariably equals evil.

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Atheists

[Mulu]

Mulu, I think most of us agree, religion tends to do bad things when followed very fervently, but there is nothing wrong with being spiritual,yes?

Spiritualism, mysticism, belief in the paranormal, phrenology, crystal healing, naturopathy the tongue map, it's all still irrational. It may not have the "organized evil" qualities of true religion, and thus be considered harmless, but a better mind dismisses such superstitions. Ultimately, belief in something that isn't real does cause damage, as it affects policy and therefore scientific and social progress.

I'll give an example, alternative medicine. People spend a lot of money on herbs and bear gall bladders and whatnot in an effort to treat their ills. Harmless? Well, the problems include the environmental impact of using bits of endangered species, delay in recieving real medical treatement (sometimes with lethal consequences), and waste of tax dollars, among others. Congress actually created an agency to look into alternative medicines. It runs double blind tests to determine the validity of various claims. The tests always show the claims to be invalid, because they are, but you have to *prove* it to know for sure. Waste of money, I say.

In the meantime, belief in superstitions means a disbelief in the primary thesis of science: That the world is natural and understandable. People who disbelieve in the primary thesis of science see no strong reason for it to progress.

Even stripped down to its barest minimum, spirituality as a belief that we are somehow special or more than our physical being, essentially a belief in the soul outside of the dogmas of religion, still takes something away from us. If the only way we can be special is to have some effervescent, unmeasurable quality, then the measurable part, the physical part, really isn't that important. Belief in more than we are has a trivializing effect on what we actually are. I think we're pretty darn special just by virtue of sentience, without any hocus pocus. Horribly flawed, but special.