luvluv

Mageth, why didn't you quote the part where Frederick Douglass talks about the difference between true Chrisitianity and slave-holding Christianity. And why did you neglect to mention that Fredrick Douglass himself was a Christian?

There actually are some quotes in the Bible against slavery, and Christianity is actually one of if not the most inclusive religions in the world. (Paul said "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor master, male nor female").

But be that as it may that is, again, not the topic of my post. Even if you say that the advances made by these people were humanitarian and not religious, my entire point was that it takes a religious standpoint to motivate a man to make such an extreme devotion to humanitarian goals. It is entirely my point that the people leading these missions were in fact religious. If religion was not necessary for someone to lead a life as devoted as MLK's or Gandhi's, why do we generally only see religious men in these roles throughout history. My question is whether or not religion increases the ceiling on moral commitment on these "humanitarian" ideals, not expressly whether or not these humanitarian ideals come from religious texts.

(It could be argued however that in Matthew 25 that Jesus became the first strict soliditarian, and that alone would mean that every humanitarian movement was some kind of derivative of the concept of solidarity.)

99Percent

luvluv: "And no, religion is not a good thing, simply because it obliterates individual free thinking."

That's a dogmatic statement, and you science guys aren't supposed to make those.

Excuse me? So if I say that the Earth is round is that dogmatic too?

Would you say that folks like Dr. King, Ghandi, and the abolitionists were not free thinkers? They totally went against the grain of their societies, again at peril of their lives.

Well yeah, that is why they were leaders, and not followers.

Lots of things obliterate individual free thinking: patriotism, peer-pressure.

True, it so happens that I am against patriotism too.

I'd say in general the human being is not a free-thinking animal, most people follow the trends of the group. But if you look at this quality in things like fashion or music tastes for instance, the herd-instinct is alive and well in non-religious people.

It certainly sounds strange that a supposedly religious person like you thinks of people as animals.

And since there will always be weak people, and since billions of these weak people will be able to lead more whole lives through practicing a relgion, why would you want to deprive them of that.

I so also happen to believe that people are not weak. I don't want to forcefully deprive of anyone's religion of course, but I honestly think that religion, any religion, is a great burden for any human being, precisely because at its root of any theistic belief is the idea that human beings are weak or bad by nature, when it is actually the complete opposite.

luvluv

tronvillian, even if you say that believing in an afterlife makes giving one's own life for a cause easier, can't you see you are arguing for my position? If believing in an afterlife makes it easier to devote, and perhaps even sacrifice, one's own life for a cause, doesn't that make it superiour in producing great moral men?

That's a great point by the way, I never thought about how non-belief in an after life might make it an obvious policy of atheists to "not get involved." An atheist would obviously have a greater interest in his own safety than a person who believes there is something else afterwards.

Obviously, this same thing can be a drawback, since it makes people a lot less squeamish about flying planes into buildings and the like. Still, it seems that the dedication that is inspired by belief in an afterlife can also propel a man to do a greater good than he would have been capable of otherwise.

Also, no matter how much you believe, giving one's life is a terrifying prospect. It may be made easier by relgion, but it is still something harder by far than the great majority of men ever even attempt.

Mageth

If religion was not necessary for someone to lead a life as devoted as MLK's or Gandhi's, why do we generally only see religious men in these roles throughout history.

Umm...perhaps because the majority of people thruout history have been "religious" people of one sort or another.

I'm not denying that religion can be a motivating factor in some who back humanitarian causes. Of course it can, but it's not a requirement. As you say, F. Douglass was a religious man. Do you honestly think that, if he was not, he would not have been against slavery?

why didn't you quote the part where Frederick Douglass talks about the difference between true Chrisitianity and slave-holding Christianity

An interesting point. That's the problem with using a flawed system such as Christianity for morals - it can be used to justify pretty much any atrocity, as well as any kindness.

There actually are some quotes in the Bible against slavery, and Christianity is actually one of if not the most inclusive religions in the world. (Paul said "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor master, male nor female").

Where are the bible quotes? And yet, if you produce them, there are many more that condone it. Your quote from Paul is not much good; he doesn't condemn slavery, just seems to infer that, in church, you should treat your slaves as brothers.

Mageth

That's a great point by the way, I never thought about how non-belief in an after life might make it an obvious policy of atheists to "not get involved." An atheist would obviously have a greater interest in his own safety than a person who believes there is something else afterwards.

Self-preservation is a wonderful survival tool.

Honestly, just because theists may be more willing to "give their life" because they believe in an afterlife, it does not follow that it's an "obvious policy" of atheists to "not get involved." Lots of atheists "get involved."

luvluv

99percent says:

"Excuse me? So if I say that the Earth is round is that dogmatic too?"

No, because it is a fact that the earth is round. You cannot be dogmatic about facts. It is not however, a fact that religion obliterates free thinking. I am actually a pretty free-thinking person, if I do say so myself.

I too, am against patriotism, by the way. However, I am not so sure it is always a bad thing and should therefore be abolished. I think a little patriotism can be good, especially if it causes you to care for your countrymen. I think excessive patriotism is bad, but again, so is excessive anything. The fact that you can go overboard with a legitimate position is no reason to abandon that position.

"It certainly sounds strange that a supposedly religious person like you thinks of people as animals."

My friend if conclusion-jumping were an olympic sport, you'd be subsidized by now. I am simply saying that people in all areas, not just areas about religion, generally go with the crowd. Free thinking is not encouraged in our society when it comes down to what to wear, what to drive, where to live, and whether or not to groom oneself. Most people do what commercials tell them to do, and I don't think atheists have a better record of being smart consumers than theists. I just used the phrase "herd-instinct" as an analogy. It is a Mr.Fantastic-like stretch to go from that to saying that I think of people as animals.

"I honestly think that religion, any religion, is a great burden for any human being"

Aren't you guys the ones who are always saying that a person should go with whatever morality works for them best? So why are you worried about people who choose a religious morality? If it works best for them, you shouldn't have anything to say about it.

luvluv

Mageth sez:

"An interesting point. That's the problem with using a flawed system such as Christianity for morals - it can be used to justify pretty much any atrocity, as well as any kindness."

So can science. There were many scientists who supported slavery on the basis of blacks supposedly being inferior.

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

ohwilleke

First, note that you have named a Protestant, a Hindu and a Catholic. This implies that the mere sociological fact of religion, rather than the God being prayed to is relevant in your argument.

Second, there is no such thing as a non-proslytizing missionary. Some use a soft sell, some use a hard sell. But, there are all out there to save souls, not lives.

Third, it isn't at all obvious that religious people have a lock on good deeds. It is true that many people in the Western world have claimed religious affiliation, and that people who have been exceptional are drawn from that pool. But, there are also many great figures in history (Socrates and Epicurius, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, Voltaire and members of the Shelly-Wolsencraft family, for example) who were not greatly influenced by religion, if they were influenced at all. Important early English and American feminists were also either deists or atheists. Transendentalist figures like Thoreau and Emerson, who certainly had an important moral influence on the country (Thoreau, for example wrote the essay "civil disobedience" which became one of the touchstones for MLK, Jr.), left organized religion and were at best deistic or pantheistic in their beliefs. John Stuart Mills, an important figure in the history of moral theory, political theory and feminism, did not premise his moral argumetns on a theological basis, whatever he himself believed.

There have been plenty of wars (and events within wars) that were clearly motivated by religion. The Irish were persecuted on a very explicitly religious basis by the English for reasons that certain had religious belief as a prominent factor -- the few native Protestant Irish were spared the ravages that were visited on the Catholic Irish. A very real part of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was to try to bring religious consensus to Europe. The Crusades were driven by the vision of the "Holy Land" --- there was land much closer which could have been conquered, but this was something about which a consensus could be reached. The Hugenauts of France were really presecuted because of religion -- the French King feared the heresy would spread in his kingdom and lead to its ruin. The Inquisition was really conducted for the same reason. The Cromwell's Revolution of 1648 in England had Puritanism as a primary objective (banning many "Catholic" observances, such as Christmas), something evidenced by the religious laws put into place when it succeeded. Hitler may have had purposes in addition to religion (and I will sidestep for the moment the argument that he was a Christian), but the Jewish Holocaust for which he is most villified was gratuitious killing for an expressly Christian purpose. Battles between Mulsims and Hindus in India today are really efforts to enforce religious homogeneity, just as they were in the early days of Indian nationhood when massive religious massacres were conducted. Mass killings of Christians by Muslims in the Spice Islands of Indonesia areally are motivated by a desire for religious homogeneity. The Iranian revolution had many purposes but there is no doubt that the desire to establish an expressly religious theocracy was one of the objectives and one of the things that actually happened. What distinguished Arab tribesmen who have lived peacefully for centuries in 500 A.D. form the legions who conquered from Spain to Indonesia in the 700-800s A.D., Islam, -- and whole peoples were made to learn Arabic because of a religious injunction -- wiping out many existing cultures.

Bosnia is a good example of a place where ordinary people got along despite religious differences, but the ideology of the Serbian leaders who felt that the Muslim and Catholic infidels had to be wiped out by the correct Orthodox Christians, did drive the war. It was not the ordinary people, but the leaders themselves who were motivated by religion.

Hitler has a religious basis which helped him rally his people to war. None of the figures who gave rise to World War I are known for their Atheism. Alexander the Great is not known as a particularly evil conquerer. Communism did have Atheism as one of its tenants, this is true. But, it is hard to say that Atheism was a cause of Communism's flaws. Indeed, Communism was full of high moral purpose, not unlike that of Jesus himself, to help the poor and oppressed. Franco made his name as a Facist crushing the secular Communists and Anarchists in Spain (I'm not asserting that this was a religious war, but he was a theist). In Vietnam and China, neither party to the civil wars of this century was particularly active in religious belief -- folk religion rather than organized religion was the norm in those countries. In 18th century India is was the Sikhs and Hindus who were the military agressors.

Men like Richelieu, a Cardinal, and many of the English kings and queens were no shining example of morality despite their religiousity (one English King walked the streets in sackcloth).

JL

luvluv,

What if these martyrs and heroes of morality were moved by personal ambition and lust for power; have they not been afterall immortalized?

Indeed it was done in the name of a god, but you yourself mentioned this may only be a guise.

Eudaimonist

I respect the accomplishments of Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and similar individuals. However, I would not place them above Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Robert Goddard, Albert Einstein, and other productive and ingenious individuals who pursued their visions with excellence and determination.