Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rusting Car Bumper · 09-11-2002, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by waj:
<strong>The worst actions of theists are no more proof that religion is evil than their best actions are proof that it is good.</strong>

Indeed.

The Rabbi's that were on that FrontLine show about Faith, doubt and 9/11 were quite interesting and intellectually mature.

One said

Quote:

Look, it's very simple for me. There's no dodging this. This was done in the name of religion, and I care deeply about religion. It's amazing how good [it] is at mobilizing people to do awful, murderous things. It's not just their religion; it's religion as an experience. I can't hide from that.

Anyone who loves religious experience, including me, better begin to own [that] there is a serious shadow side to this thing, because it motivates. It mobilizes and it creates big ways of thinking and understanding the world. It creates remarkable cover, because it can divide the world up -- who's good and who's bad, who's right and who's wrong; and as long as I'm on the right side, I can do no evil. Right?

Instead of saying "All religion is evil" it is more accurate to say "Religion did this so you have a duty to be constantly vigilant not to let those of your religion do evil in its name."

DC

Tristan Scott · 09-11-2002, 09:45 AM

Saying that something is "done in the name of religion", is not the same as saying that "religion did this". I could do anything and say that I'm doing it in the name of religion, but that certainly doesn't mean that religion did this thing.

Corwin · 09-11-2002, 10:02 AM

Religion gives a small number of power minded individuals an amazingly effective tool to manipulate others into specific actions, even actions that are against their own interests.

How many athestic suicide bombers have we seen?

There's a reason for this.

Not that atheists are inherently more moral, (although we are, but that's an unrelated topic for a different day...) but because how can you convince an atheist to blow themselves up? About the only way is to convince us that 'this is the only way to save your family/country/whatever.' And even then, we aren't happy at the thought. When you have a bunch of barely out of puberty boys who have been raised to believe in sugar plum candyland paradise after death.... it's disgustingly easy.

Is religion inherently evil? No.

Is religion inherently dangerous? Yes. It's a narcotic that puts society at risk, and increasingly it's a risk we can no longer afford.

Heathen Dawn · 09-11-2002, 10:23 AM

Monotheism is evil.

Godless Dave · 09-11-2002, 10:27 AM

Corwin summed it up nicely I think.

Wyz_sub10 · 09-11-2002, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott:
<strong>Saying that something is "done in the name of religion", is not the same as saying that "religion did this". I could do anything and say that I'm doing it in the name of religion, but that certainly doesn't mean that religion did this thing.</strong>

That distinction is meaningless *if* you truly believe you are doing it in the name of religion and if you are being motivated by religious pressures.

I agree that you can *say* it's religious when it is not, but if the motivation is religious, then your differentiation doesn't exist to any relevant degree, IMHO.

southernhybrid · 09-11-2002, 12:07 PM

IMO, the actions of Sept 11 demonstrate that fanatics are dangerous. Tim McVeigh was an agnostic, but also a dangerous political fanatic. Religion is man made and not necessarily inherently evil or good.

Tristan Scott · 09-11-2002, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Quote from Corwin

Religion gives a small number of power minded individuals an amazingly effective tool to manipulate others into specific actions, even actions that are against their own interests.

Yes, and shame on the "others" for allowing themselves to be manipulated. The responsibility of the "power minded individuals" can only go so far.

The main message to come out of the Nuremberg trials was that in the final analysis it is the individuals that commit crimes that must bear the responsibility. Just saying "I was ordered to do it" was no defense. Along that same line I don't believe that it would or should make any difference if you were to say that your "religion demanded you do it."

Whether it is your intention or not, blaming religion on these crimes offers some degree of exculpation towards the perpetrators. That is my main problem with this whole argument.

Tristan Scott · 09-11-2002, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Quote from Wyz-sub10

That distinction is meaningless *if* you truly believe you are doing it in the name of religion and if you are being motivated by religious pressures.

I disagree. I don't think Casey Kasem is in any way responsible for what happened on 9/11/01.

Albion · 09-11-2002, 02:00 PM

I think the problem with using religion as a justification is that people can appeal to an absolute deity that gives an external and all-powerful approval (or even imperative) for their actions. It's much more satisfying and persuasive to yourself and potential followers to say "God demands that I do this" than to admit you're just after political power or something.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-11-2002, 09:45 AM	#12
Tristan Scott Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southwest USA Posts: 4,093	Saying that something is "done in the name of religion", is not the same as saying that "religion did this". I could do anything and say that I'm doing it in the name of religion, but that certainly doesn't mean that religion did this thing.

09-11-2002, 10:02 AM	#13
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Religion gives a small number of power minded individuals an amazingly effective tool to manipulate others into specific actions, even actions that are against their own interests. How many athestic suicide bombers have we seen? There's a reason for this. Not that atheists are inherently more moral, (although we are, but that's an unrelated topic for a different day...) but because how can you convince an atheist to blow themselves up? About the only way is to convince us that 'this is the only way to save your family/country/whatever.' And even then, we aren't happy at the thought. When you have a bunch of barely out of puberty boys who have been raised to believe in sugar plum candyland paradise after death.... it's disgustingly easy. Is religion inherently evil? No. Is religion inherently dangerous? Yes. It's a narcotic that puts society at risk, and increasingly it's a risk we can no longer afford.

09-11-2002, 10:23 AM	#14
Heathen Dawn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 4,656	Monotheism is evil.

09-11-2002, 10:27 AM	#15
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	Corwin summed it up nicely I think.

09-11-2002, 12:07 PM	#17
southernhybrid Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: heavenly Georgia Posts: 3,862	IMO, the actions of Sept 11 demonstrate that fanatics are dangerous. Tim McVeigh was an agnostic, but also a dangerous political fanatic. Religion is man made and not necessarily inherently evil or good.

09-11-2002, 02:00 PM	#20
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	I think the problem with using religion as a justification is that people can appeal to an absolute deity that gives an external and all-powerful approval (or even imperative) for their actions. It's much more satisfying and persuasive to yourself and potential followers to say "God demands that I do this" than to admit you're just after political power or something.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.