horrors of religion

[Diederick]

Although an extreme case this certainly points to the danger that religion plays when a belief is taken to the extreme. A father prayed instead of taking his 11 year old to the hospital because he couldn't seek medical help without disobeying God.

There are many horrors that originate from religion. Personally I don't see religion trying hard enough to counteract this sway into the negative spectrum of things. For a placebo trying to keep the people in this world going in the face of the Absurd; it is remarkably persistent - regardless of its many flaws and downright "horror".

I would pray rather than take myself to a hospital, and I'm atheist.

I think the chances of being cured in the hospital, or at least by medical science, are far greater than the chances of being cured through prayer. Though the placebo-effect is proven to work positively, it doesn't heal significant medical conditions.

I suspect this thread is a strawman.

Why? I don't see any fallacy in the original post, though it is a negative representation of a small portion of religion - it is still a perfectly valid example of the "horror" of religion. If you mean that this thread will be going nowhere, then I agree with you.

 

[Kathryn]

I have politely asked for the information a few posts back.

It may very well exist but I haven`t seen it.

Your inability to provide it is more evidence for your straw man building.

(Kathryn sighs)

Linwood, the conversation DEVELOPED into a little bit of discussion of Christianity but my statement about collective guilt included all religions - not just Christianity. I stated (repeatedly) that IF religious individuals are going to be judged collectively based on the actions of other individual religious persons, then we need to judge individual atheists (or clowns, or agnostics, or whatever group you wish to add) collectively based on the actions of individual atheists/agnostics/ballerinas/zookeepers/you name it.

In order to be logically consistent we would have to do that.

For the record, I don't believe that's sound logic and I prefer to focus on individual responsibility rather than prejudiced, judgmental, and closed minded generalizations about large groups of people.

Now, let me refresh your memory concerning the OP:

"A father prayed instead of taking his 11 year old to the hospital because he couldn't seek medical help without disobeying God. "I can't do that because biblically, I cannot find that is the way people are healed. If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God. God promises in the bible to heal, for that to take place in our lives we have to live on God's instructions. His daughter had diabetes and at the time could not walk, talk, eat , or speak. She died on the floor as people surrounded her and prayed. If this is not an example of how religion can be a poison, please tell me why."

This is the post - THE OP - UNDER "RELIGIOUS DEBATES" and titled "THE HORRORS OF RELIGION" that I based my comments on. In common usage, the term "bible" refers to the collections of sacred writings of the Jewish and Christian faiths. Granted - we can use the term "bible" more loosely, to include the texts of other religions, or, in more flippant speech, even to include guides to bird watching and crop rotations, but generally speaking, this term describes Judaic and Christian texts. I believe the context of the OP strongly implies religious texts, probably either Judaic or Christian, so that's what I went with.

No strawman there, Linwood.

 

[Sunstone]

It still remains true that religions are enablers. They sometimes enable great good. And they sometimes enable great evil. But the fact they operate as enablers or facilitators explains a lot.

 

[Kathryn]

It still remains true that religions are enablers. They sometimes enable great good. And they sometimes enable great evil. But the fact they operate as enablers or facilitators explains a lot.

PHILOSOPHIES are enablers. Man can, and given enough time and resources, will, use any moral or philosophical system to his own benefit, often at the expense of others.

It's human nature.

 

[linwood]

I stated (repeatedly) that IF religious individuals are going to be judged collectively based on the actions of other individual religious persons, then we need to judge individual atheists (or clowns, or agnostics, or whatever group you wish to add) collectively based on the actions of individual atheists/agnostics/ballerinas/zookeepers/you name it.

Besides the obvious illogical course such a statement leads us down it remains that no one here stated that adherents should be collectively judged by their religions atrocities.

Therefore your defense is still against an argument no one has made.

No strawman there, Linwood.

Funny how I can still smell the hay.

 

[Sunstone]

PHILOSOPHIES are enablers. Man can, and given enough time and resources, will, use any moral or philosophical system to his own benefit, often at the expense of others.

It's human nature.

Quit trying to deny the fact that religions function as enablers.

 

[Kathryn]

Oh Linwood, that's not hay - that's whatever it is you're smoking.

 

[Kathryn]

Quit trying to deny the fact that religions function as enablers.

I'm not denying it - I'm expanding the premise to it's logical conclusion.

You could say, "Potatoes make people fat." I would answer that "The MISAPPLICATION OF POTATOES can make SOME people FAT."

Family members CAN be enablers, religious groups CAN be enablers, your buddy you drink with every weekend CAN be an enabler, your professor CAN be an enabler. But only if YOU CHOOSE to eschew sound principles.

 

[Kathryn]

A concept cannot perform an action. Therefore a belief system cannot DO anything. Therefore a religion cannot BE an enabler.

 

[Sunstone]

A concept cannot perform an action. Therefore a belief system cannot DO anything. Therefore a religion cannot BE an enabler.

You are either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding and misconstruing what I am saying. I would prefer to think your misunderstanding is unintentional.

 

[Kathryn]

I had typed a whole paragraph about the inconsistent application of logic I've been reading here, but then I realized I was wasting my words.

I understand what you're saying. I simply don't agree with your reasoning.

I believe that we are at an impasse -and rather than deginerate into personal attacks, I move that we agree to disagree, and move forward.

 

[Sunstone]

I had typed a whole paragraph about the inconsistent application of logic I've been reading here, but then I realized I was wasting my words.

I understand what you're saying. I simply don't agree with your reasoning.

I believe that we are at an impasse -and rather than deginerate into personal attacks, I move that we agree to disagree, and move forward.

I think you are equivocating on the word "religion" but rather than get into your misuse of logic I will agree to disagree and move forward.

 

[Kathryn]

LOL, yes, Sunstone, on to the next thread! You know what I'm talking about!

 

[linwood]

Oh Linwood, that's not hay - that's whatever it is you're smoking.

Trust me, what I`m smoking has a far more pleasant aroma than hay.

 

[Kathryn]

Trust me, what I`m smoking has a far more pleasant aroma than hay.

Sheeze, I hope so.

Now, Linwood, if you didn't bring enough to share with everyone, turn that in to me this instant.

 

[Fortunato]

By the way, Fortunato, I like the way you think. I tried to give you frubals, but apparently I've given out too many in the past 24 hours. I could rage against the machine but I still wouldn't be able to put my frubals in your basket!

Thanks, I've enjoyed your posts, especially your comparison of the original post to clowns. Don't worry about the frubals, there's more to life than frubal glory!

My POINT is that if religious persons are COLLECTIVELY guilty because of the actions of some religious believers, then using the same line of reasoning, atheists are COLLECTIVELY guilty because of the actions of some atheists.

Ah! I'm sorry for my misunderstanding this part of your post. It's very easy to misread what someone else has written and go running off on a separate tangent and that's what I did in this case.

I think we merely have a different definition of religion.
You`ve chosen the first at your link.
I tend to lean more towards the second or even fourth definition you`ve provided.

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith​

I'm sorry I misunderstood which definition you were using. Based on your definition of religion I agree Stalinistic Russia could be called a religion, but when the original post and all of the subsequent postings seemed to be using definition #1, I naturally assumed you were doing so as well. I think that a lot of the time these posts get filled up with people arguing back and forth on a subject, when in fact what they're arguing about are different definitions. Everyone has the right to use any commonly accepted definitions available when they argue, but to avoid confusion, care should be take to clarify which ones they're using, especially if it's likely that they'll be misunderstood. In online forums like this, it is all to easy to falsely attribute negative motivations towards people.

 

[linwood]

I think that a lot of the time these posts get filled up with people arguing back and forth on a subject, when in fact what they're arguing about are different definitions. Everyone has the right to use any commonly accepted definitions available when they argue, but to avoid confusion, care should be take to clarify which ones they're using, especially if it's likely that they'll be misunderstood. In online forums like this, it is all to easy to falsely attribute negative motivations towards people.

Very true.
I`ve seen pages and pages of online argument come to immediate agreement once the definition of a single thing was finally understood by the arguing parties.

 

[Jeremiah]

Please excuse me if I don't read the entire thread. I am having this conversation in another forum (I know you guys/gals thought you were the only ones, but sorry I have multiple forums; just one gets boring but I still love you.) but I just wanted to share my thoughts here as well. So I am just going to dump this here.

If there is error in the gun control laws we cry for rectification; yet, it is the common mantra to separate the church from the individual. This is done so in an attempt to absolve the church of blame, but this denial of correlation is a fleet from responsibility. If it is the responsibility of the church to provide moral and spiritual guidance, then instead of trying to distance itself from the problem, like some politician at election time, the church should, by creed of it purpose, assume responsibility and accept all that that implies. Only by doing so will the church have the power needed to correct the problems. However, since the church is a social network then its burden falls on our shoulders; you and me. Its failures are our failures and like the government the church will wither and decay under denial and apathy. It is a dark day when faith brings despair but even darker if we turn our heads and pretend it didn't happen.

The very hand of God uplifting the whole of humanity; you theist scarcely know what it is you have; basking in its glory, sometimes I think its radiance blinds you.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

So I noticed no one here arguing Richard's case actually bothered to respond to either of my posts back on page 9.


Sunstone: Religion is an enabler. So what? So is every major institution that has ever existed. Until you can show how religion is different than any other major institution and how that difference actually leads to more harm done, then you have NO CASE.

MTF

 

[Sunstone]

Sunstone: Religion is an enabler. So what? So is every major institution that has ever existed. Until you can show how religion is different than any other major institution and how that difference actually leads to more harm done, then you have NO CASE.

MTF

I'm shocked anyone could assert that religion cannot be an enabler unless it is proven that religion is significantly different from every other major institution that ever existed. That is an illogical requirement.