If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Religionish
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,735 Bot
And here we have one of the greatest fallacies that mankind has ever heard.At least religious fundamentalists are under the impression they're doing it because it's right
Religious people (fundamentalists or not) don't do things because they think it's right. They do them because they believe they have been ordered to do so by their God, and threatened with inimaginable pain and punishment if they don't comply.
Atheists on the other hand don't do certain deeds because of coercion or instructions from the boss upstairs. They do it because genuinely believe it's the right thing to do, even though there is not going to be a reward at the end of it.
Thus those who claim you cannot have morals without religion are completely and hopelessly wrong. In fact, some people would say the opposite is true.
Edited to say - Not an ideal place to start, but the best point I could find Aladdin - hope you don't mind
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
You see, I thnk that's a very subjective and twisted view of why people act. I don't doubt it applies to some people but it's a huge generalisation about why people act in a certain way.
To claim that all religious people act in a moral way because they are 'ordered to' dismisses the many complex ways people interact with their religion and ignores many people who do act in a positive way regardless of the possibility of reward. Which certainly some people do, no matter what their religion or lack of it is.
I think this also goes back to Shyboy's point - it does seem you're taking the most positive view of the reasons an athetist acts and using the most negative of someone who would describe themselves as religious. Which hardly seems fair or balanced.
I don't think that the above statement is completely true. Religion doesn't always run on threats of punishment.
If a person truly believes in a Creator then they may also believe that a creator would know more about what is right for his/her/its creation than themselves.
So most religous people who are trying to convert someone are actually doing it to the save the soul of someone else...
Albert Einstein
'All human beings have an innate need to hear and tell stories and to have a story to live by ... religion, whatever else it has done, has provided one of the main ways of meeting this abiding need. '
Harvey Cox
Fair point.
But I don't think it is unfair to state that many actions and deeds done by a great many religious people are done because they are instructed to do so, and certainly the promise of an ultimate reward for compliance if not punishment for non-compliance.
While I'm sure many religious people know of their own accord that theft, greed or murder are wrong, many others do not analyse it that far- the rules written on their holy book is all they need.. Non religious people do not need a deity to order them not to kill, steal or be greedy, and they refrain to do it simply because of their sense of right or wrong rather than to avoid breaking one of the rules set up by the good Lord.
Well, it's a bit odd to say that when only atheists who care about right or wrong would let that guide or bother them. To be atheist doesn't mean you're automatically following some logical thought out personal moral path, it only means that you don't believe in gods.
Some more quotes from Einstein:
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
He often used "God" is his writing to refer to the nature of the universe in a more poetic way, but he also wrote that the conflicts between science and relgion are all caused by the concept of a personal god. He certainly wasn't religious in any sense other than having an almost spiritual sense of wonder about the universe. His opinion was basically that questions such as the meaning of life are a religious one rather than a scientific one, although no-one in science has ever claimed to be able to find out the meaning of life. I would disagree though, and call it a philosophical question, because I identify religion as a belief in the supernatural by definition, and I'm sure if Einstein did, he believed it in the cosmological sense.
I don't believe it either. Everyone gets their morals from something other than religious beliefs. But it's often a question levelled at atheists by the religious. If you don't have a faith, I don't understand how you know what's right and wrong. And it's simply a point used to refute their argument, rather than a genuine belief. Of course, the true answer is "the same way you do, through my conscience." Simply asking the question is somewhat insulting to the human race tbh, if you honestly believe (as some religious people seem to do) that their entire moral compass is derived from a book. Of course the other option is that they don't really believe this at all, and are just using it as a way to attempt to smear atheism as immoral.
Or the other option is that some of it is defined by a book? And some from other sources?
Seems like your trying to make a very black and white arguement here. I don't think anyone has claimed that anyone got 'their entire moral compass from a book' - seems to be you claiming that, whereas no one religious is.
And to say 'through my conscience' is rather a simple cop-out isn't it?
How has someone's conscience developed, what factors have created and caused it? Has religion played a part in creating this along with other societal factors and family influence. In a society who's ethics and morals have been based upon a culture that included a religion how have those religious beliefs not influenced the development of someone's conscience.
So seems a bit odd to claim everyone get's their morals from something other than religious beliefs - seems to me religion has played a continuing influence on what is and isn't acceptable to people. Even if they aren't aware of it.
Well I could go into detail about the biological and memetic reasons for it, (as much as I know) but the point was that morals are natural, not supernatural, which is the implication of the religious when they ask the question "where do you get your morals from if you're not religious." Yes, moral ideas are passed on from generation to generation, and the facilitator may be religion in some instances (more in the past than now obviously). But that's not religion, that's moral philosophy. Religion is all the supernatural bullshit that goes along with it. Religion isn't "it's wrong to murder," it's "God commands you not to murder." The God bit turns moral philosophy into religion. But as the animal kingdom testifies, morals are nothing to do with religious or human ideas, and everything to do with what is most beneficial to the procreation of your genes. And in the human case, this means not being a wanker. The way some religious people go on, you'd think that in the 100,000 years of humanity until Moses turned up, people actually considered it moral to rape, steal, murder etc. My opinion is that it is absolutely an internal biological reason for morals, which may be added to by human ideas and language, but any ideas still have to fit into the hardwired version in our minds.
But I think the main point still remains - you seem to have a very narrow view of what religion is, one that seems defined to strengthen your case rather than consider how people actually relate to or benefit from their religious beliefs.
Well if you want to define religion as the collection and discussion of ideas on morality, then go ahead, but that isn't religion, it's moral philosophy. Organised religion has been known to engage in moral philosophy, so what? It's also engaged in education, charity and war, yet no-one defines those things as aspects of religions, just things that people happen to engage in, who also often happen to be informed by their theological beliefs while doing them. The fact that this backs up my argument is merely incidental.
It's also quite a simplistic way to look at the world.
Atheism is as varied as religion can be. All that atheists believe is that there's no god(s).
Sorry if that's been already said. It's just a lot of atheists I've met have a superiority complex and look down on followers of religion and it gets tiring after a while.
The problem with religion - and religious belief - is that's it's a very slippery snake. It's ready to stand up and be counted as soon as something positive is done in its name, but you try finding it when something negative is done - the 7/7 bombers video-taping their reasons for the bombing, springs to mind. It smacks of wanting to have its cake and eat it.
I tend to refer to the scriptures when trying to define religion, because after all, it's these so-called inspired texts (if not the absolute word of God) that religions are based on. However, everyone makes their own religion anyway, and in that light i find it difficult to see how anyone can label themselves with particular doctrine.
But isn't that the mirror image of its critics? They dwell on the bad things and downplay the good.
And my argument isn't that religion is wholly good, just that it's not wholly bad.
The medieval Catholic Church may have been an instigator of the crusades, but it also acted as both the equivalent of the UN and the Geneva Convention in wars in Europe and made attempts to limit war. It may have been an instrument of social control of the peasantry, but it also developed the system of paternalism where the wealthy and powerful did have respoonsibilities to the poor and downtrodden.
I'm don't think so, or at least that's not what i'm trying to do. I've never denied that good things are done because of religious belief, and i think everyone's happy to agree with that, but there does appear to be a distinct baulking when the same logic is applied to negative acts. I've heard many a time, on this board as well as elsewhere, people throw up their arms and try remove - or completely deny - the religious element of atrocities. There does seem to be ring-fencing that goes on when criticisms of religion are made, and for my part i want to see religion open to rigorous and rational criticism as much as any other belief.
That's largely my argument also.
We could argue tit-for-tat about good and bad deeds, but that's not really what i have an interest in - or i think is something that's particularly productive.
To extend the argument slightly, if it's not beneficial for people to believe in similar things to others, does that mean you oppose the principle of political parties? And if so, do you think that one individual can change things when everyone else is resistant?
So I'm happy to believe in the ideas of charity, freedom, loving thy neighbour - but would rather make up my own idea of who the guy or gal in the sky is
Should have made that a bit clearier
Not a word of that I would disagree with man
That's not entirely true.
While the initial Arab conquest of Palestine in the 7th century did not disrupt pilgrimage to Christian holy sites, by around the 10th century, the Turkish Muslim army was putting increasing pressure via attacks on the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire.
In 1009, the Caliph at the time ordered the Church of the Holy Sepulchre destroyed. Although his successor later permitted the Sepulchre to be rebuilt, there were a number of pilgrims and clergy who were were captured and killed.
The First Crusade in 1095, occurred to defend the Byzantines from the Turks and the ongoing emnity really spiralled out of control from there. Arguably, the first three Crusades were instigated because of Muslim agression. After that, emnity was established and less savoury reasons (and people) were involved from both sides, including the Church.
The upside of the Crusades is that the Islamic expansion was largely thwarted or else we might all be living under Sharia law now. The downside is the long term consequence of the creation of an Islamic 'mentality' that sought a retreat into isolation.
Edited to add - Not a criticism Teagan, realise you were responding to a point raised elsewhere - but I think it'll be nice to have the space to keep this on a more philosophical level, if you see what I mean?
I agree, but I think that religion invariably runs into problems due to its inflexibility. Let's assume for a second that the bible and koran were revolutionary moral codes at the time they were written, then you could argue that they had an extremely positive effect on the people who were educated by the teachings. However, as 2000 years passes, and morals change (and studies have shown that perception of what is moral changes fairly universally throughout the human race, even in communities that are isolated from mainstream moral opinion) then the capacity for these religions to inspire anything other than what is considered normal moral actions diminishes, and their capacity to inspire actions that we would consider barbaric today increases. I mean the people who founded America were considered visionaries in their time, and yet even they didn't include black people in their idea of all men being created equal. And that was only 200-odd years ago. The vast majority of religious people get round this by selectively editing their religious text, but a lot of well-meaning people also teach the idea that (their) religious ideas should not be criticised, and that faith is a virtue. Those two things combined are a breeding ground for religious fundamentalists, that do believe that the book is sacred rather than a guide.
I'd agree with this to an extent. But I'm not sure if its a problem with religion generally or with fundamentalism (though I see your point about the risk that mainstream can turn into fundamentalism)..
Fundamentalists almost by there very nature, are the noisest, less inclined to adapt their views, but also often the minority.
Now i can't talk about Islam, but most moderate Christians I know, such as my Mum, would see the Bible as guide, to be supplemented and adapted by common sense. They wouldn't believe that there Genesis is literal or that the rules of Leviciticus apply to Christians. But that the teachings of Jesus should be used as a guide - meekness, charity, love thy neighbour. I'd also think that they see humans as imperfect and so more forgiving of failings.
Of course the normal Prestbyterian is outshouted by the hardlineres. And of course some of the biggest critics of fundamentalists aren't atheists, but mainstream churches.
Well actually, I'd say the biggest critic of fundamentalists are usually fundamentalists of a different religion.
I think the worldwide muslim population today proves that the less open to discussion and criticism the religion is, the more extreme (read: literal) in their beliefs the population is. And whilst Christianity has had a lot longer to develop and kick out the bad ideas (with the exception of a tiny number of fundies), Islam has had a lot of catching up to do, even in this country, where people are afraid to criticise minority cultures and religions, in a way that they are not afraid to criticise Christianity. The "Christianaphobia" lobby want the opposite to happen, and for Christianity to be treated with the same "respect" (and I say "respect" because it shows no respect to be afraid of criticising a set of ideas for fear of upsetting the people who follow them) as Islam and other minority religions. I think they should all be treated with the same level of criticism that applies in any other field of discussion.