Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Datheron · 03-07-2002, 02:11 PM

Blu,

First of all, let me say that I agree with you strongly in the idea that religion is a tool to used for either good or bad; history has shown us much of both sides of the coin.

What I'm pondering, however, is whether its inherit nature (i.e. neutral) makes it invulunerable to judgement. In other words, is there no blame placed on religion just because it is a tool? In WWI, the introduction of machine guns, tanks, and all forms of modern weaponry was one of the main causes of the staggeringly high casualty count - one can make the argument that a gun cannot hurt without a trigger finger, but doesn't the fact that so many were hurt and killed because this weapon is used, as opposed to lesser ones, hint that the weapon itself is partially at fault?

I think what I'm trying to say here is that a tool extends the abilities of the user, and by doing so (I like to use the term "catalyst" for religion), it is also somewhat at fault. I usually bring up the example of the Crusades to illustrate my point; while it is true that corruption and greed were what ultimately drove 9 marches to the Holy Land, such a rally would not have been possible without the religious fanaticism of religion at the time, and thus it can be labelled as a part of the cause, making it equally viable to be blamed.

As for your idea that we set a few bad examples as scapegoats for the entire religion, if I'm not mistaken, is that not how we treat all tools? The potential for abuse, and the fact that such abuse has occurred, is reason enough to be wary of the tool; obviously, one wants to minimize the danger as much as possible. Why do we prohibit drunk driving, when it's the case that most DUI cases do not result in accidents? Why do we have laws against underage drinking, when most kids do it anyway and are not really harmed by their unlawful actions? Why do we have a police force, when most people are model citizens? The answer is that the potential for abuse, and the history of abuse, has made us wary and given us a cause for prevention.

Answerer · 03-07-2002, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkBronzePlant:
<strong>Blu,

I'll answer solely for myself here. Overall, I feel that religion does have a huge influence over people: how they act, what they believe, how they think. It would be sheer lunacy, IMHO, to deny this. This influence can, and is, both positive and negative. I do not say that all effects and outcomes of religion are negative. However this thread (somehow) turned into a discussion of how religion, when properly applied, can cause people to think and act in horrible ways.

Now, you give examples of how people can have ulterior motives (e.g. 'I want to own slaves') and then try to use the bible to justify themselves. And I agree with you that this happens. Sometimes. There definitely have been some cases where someone has an obvious ulterior motive, but then as an afterthought uses religion as a justification.

In and of itself, this is one of the problems I have with religion... that this "divine word of god" is about as clear as mud, and can be interpreted and manipulated to one's heart's content. Is it the "fault" of religion that people continiously re-interprete it? I'd say it's a flaw, a serious one.

But I digress; back to the original point. We've agreed that there are at least some times when people act in some horrific manner for whatever reason, but give religion as an excuse. But I argue that equally, there are many examples of religious teaching being the sole, or major, motivator of evil deeds.

Blu, I ask you flat-out, why are there so many attitudes against homosexuals? Why can a person be killed in this country just for being gay?

More generally, Blu, I ask you... do you feel that religious teachings cannot or have not ever motivated anyone to commit an evil or horrible act? I'm curious as to your answer. You made the statement "Open eyes see more" in your last post. But I don't think you are heeding your own advice. The more I read your posts, the more you seem to just be standing on a soap-box screaming, wondering why everyone else doesn't subscribe to your black-and-white view of things.</strong>

Yeah, darkplant, I agree with you, that dear Blu doesn't say or care what I have to say, perhaps you could explain better(although I don't think he will listening). Anyway, the world is a better place without religion to be use as a tool to cause conflicts.
Well Juilbex, I agree lets stop for it is getting way out of hand.

DarkBronzePlant · 03-11-2002, 07:00 AM

Well, it looks like Blu got disgusted at not receiving 100% agreement, and left.

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

03-07-2002, 02:11 PM	#51
Datheron Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 553	Blu, First of all, let me say that I agree with you strongly in the idea that religion is a tool to used for either good or bad; history has shown us much of both sides of the coin. What I'm pondering, however, is whether its inherit nature (i.e. neutral) makes it invulunerable to judgement. In other words, is there no blame placed on religion just because it is a tool? In WWI, the introduction of machine guns, tanks, and all forms of modern weaponry was one of the main causes of the staggeringly high casualty count - one can make the argument that a gun cannot hurt without a trigger finger, but doesn't the fact that so many were hurt and killed because this weapon is used, as opposed to lesser ones, hint that the weapon itself is partially at fault? I think what I'm trying to say here is that a tool extends the abilities of the user, and by doing so (I like to use the term "catalyst" for religion), it is also somewhat at fault. I usually bring up the example of the Crusades to illustrate my point; while it is true that corruption and greed were what ultimately drove 9 marches to the Holy Land, such a rally would not have been possible without the religious fanaticism of religion at the time, and thus it can be labelled as a part of the cause, making it equally viable to be blamed. As for your idea that we set a few bad examples as scapegoats for the entire religion, if I'm not mistaken, is that not how we treat all tools? The potential for abuse, and the fact that such abuse has occurred, is reason enough to be wary of the tool; obviously, one wants to minimize the danger as much as possible. Why do we prohibit drunk driving, when it's the case that most DUI cases do not result in accidents? Why do we have laws against underage drinking, when most kids do it anyway and are not really harmed by their unlawful actions? Why do we have a police force, when most people are model citizens? The answer is that the potential for abuse, and the history of abuse, has made us wary and given us a cause for prevention.

03-11-2002, 07:00 AM	#53
DarkBronzePlant Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Francisco, CA USA Posts: 3,568	Well, it looks like Blu got disgusted at not receiving 100% agreement, and left.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.