To the Anti-Religious

[Guitar's Cry]

People kill for many reasons. What seems to be happening is crusades 2.0. The conversion of atleast some of our military into holy warriors for Jesus. (And as a former christian do you think Jesus would have wanted this?)

The soldier driving the tank that ran through a civilian neighborhood said that he was actually in a lot of danger but he had watched the Passion of Christ and was spiritually armored against any harm. (I would argue that his Bradley Fighting Vehicle was what was providing the armor)

This is not ALL religion is bad... This is really about what religion is doing to our military. You can close your eyes and say well those soliders (Who nicknamed themselves the faith element) would be over their driving bradley tanks through civilian neighborhoods killing innocent people whether they had religion or not... But is that a valid point of view?

Holy wars are bad. In other countries people still enforce the old world laws of the bible and stone people to death. These are not fundies or crazy people... These are regular people with regular jobs who would stone their neighbor if they thought it was necessary and then would walk in their house, kiss their wife, tuck their kids in and have a roll in the hay before night night. Then they would go to work the next day and talk about how sad it was Satan corrupted their neighbor of 21 years. (Hypothetical in details)

My point is we can't have the ramblings of people who wrote in a book 2000 years ago controlling and dictating that actions of people today. Its insane. There also seems to be a tendency to use the meme of serving and answering to a higher power and not to your fellow man that can be exploited for hate and terrorism.

Holy wars are bad, but I still think they are done with religion as the excuse. The soldiers who carry out the war may or may not agree with with the religious implication (depending on the person and the force of propaganda), but I know that were I in battle or about to face it I too would have a mind towards spirituality.

Heading into death or being forced to kill is a time when spirituality becomes a psychologically useful tool.

 

[Amill]

Does anyone know any passages from Buddhist holy texts that talk about killing and punishing non believers/followers, or destroying and conquering other faiths? I've been looking online and have yet to find any.

I enter into discussions on religions that propose hate, intolerance, and inequality. It's very easy to find passages with those kind's of messages in the Abrahamic faiths, so those are the religions that atheists are more likely to try and stand against. There's not really much point in arguing against religions that aren't harmful.

 

[Sententia]

Holy wars are bad, but I still think they are done with religion as the excuse. The soldiers who carry out the war may or may not agree with with the religious implication (depending on the person and the force of propaganda), but I know that were I in battle or about to face it I too would have a mind towards spirituality.

Heading into death or being forced to kill is a time when spirituality becomes a psychologically useful tool.

I agree and disagree. Hah. So there.

Ok... I'll try to clarify. I think the soldiers in this particular case really had something against those that would whole heartedly embrace another religion to the point where they would run out and protest the slogan painted on the side of their tank.

But why? Were they religious zealots? Perhaps the most likely... But alternate theories abound. perhaps they were looking for zealots who are irrational and who would be motivated by the slogan to the degree where they would run out and protest and then the sniper perforates their grey matter. After all a reasonable person would run out unarmed to protest the ridiculous logic painted on the side of their tank.

Perhaps they just were bored and were looking to kill people and needed easy targets...

What flies in the face though is the soldiers admission that they were spirtually armored since they had watch Mel Gibson's horrendous trash movie, Passion.

I think religion is tool that can be used in situations like battle to justify atleast to yourself the horrendous acts your performing. In this case though it seems that religion was also a motivator to commit said horrendous acts.

Ultimately if you value the afterlife more then the real life and you have a context of how to get the most from the afterlife I think there is a very good chance you wont act morally in this life IF your framework allows immoral acts in this life to be justifiable afterlife benes.

Im sure you can see obvious examples... Flying planes into our towers. Etc etc. But also what about christians against gay marriage? They seem more concerned with the afterlife and condemning and spreading hate to people in this life to get that afterlife benefit.

I would suggest you read the story and what happened. Do you really think religion played the role of just an excuse in this case? One last point... If I were in battle I would not personally be minded toward spiritual mumbo jumbo. Who is to say that is right though? In some cases it may be bad... I say whatever, let evolution sort it out hee hee.

 

[Tiapan]

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

If you were the boss of the tribe and you gather your warriors to organise an attack on the neighbouring village, there is always the possibility that one of the young bulls will stand up and defy you, you are just an old fart and the young bull should take your place and you should wonder out into the desert and just die, right.

However if your smart you convince the young bucks that there is a super power groovy dude who, if you do as I say, he will take you to a hot rave party in the sky after you die. No one is going to prove you wrong, all the young bulls are conned, you chuck in a few smoke and mirror ceremonies and everyone is sucked in and off to battle they go dying happily in your name.

Welcome to the social control mechanism called religion.

Cheers

 

[Dunemeister]

Ahem. Getting back to the original question:

Seems we've had an influx of anti-religious atheists lately, making statements like "religion poisons everything," and "a rational religious person is... an oxymoron."

Good observation. I would like an atheist to offer an account of rationality according to which a standard (Christian, say) believer is irrational. It would also help to know why being irrational in that sense is supposed to be a bad thing.

You guys do realize that a goodly number of the religious you love to bash are atheists, right? Agnostics, too. There are strictly atheistic sects of Buddhism and Hinduism. Atheists (along with everyone else) are embraced by UU, and constitute a good chunk of our faith. There are even atheistic neopagans and occultists.

True, but I think that when atheists bash religious people, they generally have in mind monotheists and New Agers, which account for the majority of believers in the western English-speaking world.

So, how do you deal with these people? Are they subject to your bashing, or do you just ignore their existence?

As we've seen in this thread, people other than followers of Abrahamic religions are simply not considered in most atheistic invective. In your words, they are simply ignored. Part of the reason for this may be that abrahamic religions are by far the most influential in the Western world. Who cares about some goofball doing his prayer-fiesta sword dance in honour of Amadeus Mozart? He doesn't have much of a following and isn't part of the gang pushing for school prayer. Atheist invective lands squarely on Abrahamic and New Age traditions because they've got the most clout. And in the end, this is a political battle, not an ivory-tower intellectual one.

 

[Tiapan]

Ahem. Getting back to the original question:
Good observation. I would like an atheist to offer an account of rationality according to which a standard (Christian, say) believer is irrational. It would also help to know why being irrational in that sense is supposed to be a bad thing.

Define "rational", implicate "belief", is it equivalent to "faith"? Is "faith" by definition rational?
Homeopathy. Should we penalise or ban it as a scam,(taking money from people for bottles of distilled water supposedly laced with magical powers is snakeoil BS), when the placebo effect it induces results in 30% of the people that succumb, actually thinking they feel better after wards, so it must be a good thing right? Religion is the same, a placebo effect but if 30% of the population feel warm and cozy, believing it ,who are we to disagree?

True, but I think that when atheists bash religious people, they generally have in mind monotheists and New Agers, which account for the majority of believers in the western English-speaking world.

Bashing? I would have called it challenging but its just semantics. Yes there is a threat to the anti-theists what if god does exist and all logic is wrong, I'd commit suicide.

As we've seen in this thread, people other than followers of Abrahamic religions are simply not considered in most atheistic invective. In your words, they are simply ignored. Part of the reason for this may be that abrahamic religions are by far the most influential in the Western world. Who cares about some goofball doing his prayer-fiesta sword dance in honour of Amadeus Mozart? He doesn't have much of a following and isn't part of the gang pushing for school prayer. Atheist invective lands squarely on Abrahamic and New Age traditions because they've got the most clout. And in the end, this is a political battle, not an ivory-tower intellectual one.

The basic premise is the super natural nature of the theists key subject eg god or spirit whatever, cf no supernatural BS, surely you are in one camp or the other?

Cheers.

 

[MSizer]

Ahem. Getting back to the original question:

I would like an atheist to offer an account of rationality according to which a standard (Christian, say) believer is irrational. It would also help to know why being irrational in that sense is supposed to be a bad thing.

As we've seen in this thread, people other than followers of Abrahamic religions are simply not considered in most atheistic invective. In your words, they are simply ignored. Part of the reason for this may be that abrahamic religions are by far the most influential in the Western world. Who cares about some goofball doing his prayer-fiesta sword dance in honour of Amadeus Mozart? He doesn't have much of a following and isn't part of the gang pushing for school prayer. Atheist invective lands squarely on Abrahamic and New Age traditions because they've got the most clout. And in the end, this is a political battle, not an ivory-tower intellectual one.

To the first part of your statement, irrationality is not normative, which is why irrationality is a bad thing.

Secondly, I for one, do acknowldge the polytheistic faiths, but I rarely refer to them, because I don't oppose them. They're not exclusive the way Abrahamic (and some other) faiths are. Exclusive faiths (ones which specify a particular number of god(s)) allow for the notion of heresy, and we know what can happen then.

 

[themadhair]

To the first part of your statement, irrationality is not normative, which is why irrationality is a bad thing.

Secondly, I for one, do acknowldge the polytheistic faiths, but I rarely refer to them, because I don't oppose them. They're not exclusive the way Abrahamic (and some other) faiths are. Exclusive faiths (ones which specify a particular number of god(s)) allow for the notion of heresy, and we know what can happen then.

<temporary derail>
Dd you get my pm? I'm not sure if my internets are playing up or not with background downloads so I have to ask to confirm.
</temporary derail>

 

[yossarian22]

To the first part of your statement, irrationality is not normative, which is why irrationality is a bad thing.

I don't see how irrationality must be non-normative. Change one part of a rational normative system and you (should) get a system that is irrational but presumably still normative.

e: I tend to bash agnostics that refuse to take their premise (it is impossible to determine one way or the other) to its logical conclusion (that the answer does not matter).

 

[PureX]

I don't see how irrationality must be non-normative. Change one part of a rational normative system and you (should) get a system that is irrational but presumably still normative.

What does "normative" mean? (I looked it up but did not understand it.)

e: I tend to bash agnostics that refuse to take their premise (it is impossible to determine one way or the other) to its logical conclusion (that the answer does not matter).

That's because this is not a logical conclusion. Logically, if we can't know the answer to the question, then we can't know if the answer matters or not. Or is this what you mean by 'irrational' but "normative"?

 

[PureX]

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

If you were the boss of the tribe and you gather your warriors to organize an attack on the neighboring village, there is always the possibility that one of the young bulls will stand up and defy you, you are just an old fart and the young bull should take your place and you should wonder out into the desert and just die, right.

However if your smart you convince the young bucks that there is a super power groovy dude who, if you do as I say, he will take you to a ****-hot rave party in the sky after you die. No one is going to prove you wrong, all the young bulls are conned, you chuck in a few smoke and mirror ceremonies and everyone is sucked in and off to battle they go dying happily in your name.

Welcome to the social control mechanism called religion.

Cheers

A lot of organized religion is social control. But lot of religion is not organized, and is not about social control. If all you are seeing in religion is a social control mechanism, you are not seeing a huge aspect of religion.

There is an aspect of internal control involved in religion that I think is far more prevalent and important than the social control aspects of it. We humans are ignorant of many things about ourselves and our environment at the same time that we survive and thrive by our wits; by what we know about ourselves and our environment and how these work. This puts us in a perpetual state of fear of our own ignorance. And religion provides us with a means of dealing with that fear. In fact, it's only because religion can provide us with a means of dealing with our fears that it can be used to control us by religious organizations.

I don't believe we can hope to understand the ramifications of religion or the importance of it in people's lives until we understand that fear is a natural part of the human condition, and that so will be any means we find to help us control that fear.

 

[MSizer]

What does "normative" mean? (I looked it up but did not understand it.)

Hey Purex, yeah, normative is a hard one to pinpoint a definition for, especially since different people, including academics seem to have different opinions of its meaning. In my understanding, the idea that something is normative means it is something that ought to be, based on the fact that it is in agreement with a certain ideal standard (such as the opinion of the majority, or mathematical verification for example). So for example, if I said to you x is permanently static, but also x = x + 1, you could appeal to logic (which is normative) to refute my claim. If you were to say "I know your claim is false because I possess unique powers of super-knowledge" but showed no evidence for those powers, I could dismiss your argument due to it's non-normative nature. Kudos on not being shy to ask.

 

[PureX]

Hey Purex, yeah, normative is a hard one to pinpoint a definition for, especially since different people, including academics seem to have different opinions of its meaning. In my understanding, the idea that something is normative means it is something that ought to be, based on the fact that it is in agreement with a certain ideal standard (such as the opinion of the majority, or mathematical verification for example). So for example, if I said to you x is permanently static, but also x = x + 1, you could appeal to logic (which is normative) to refute my claim. If you were to say "I know your claim is false because I possess unique powers of super-knowledge" but showed no evidence for those powers, I could dismiss your argument due to it's non-normative nature. Kudos on not being shy to ask.

Thanks for that explanation. I do think I understand it better. Especially when you say that logic is normative. I think that's true, that it is, even though we don't all have the same clarity when attempting to practice it.

 

[Dunemeister]

To the first part of your statement, irrationality is not normative, which is why irrationality is a bad thing.

The word "normative" is multivalent. Which of its senses are you referring to? By "normative" do you mean statistical normativity, proper function, conformity to some set of (non-arbitrary) rules, or what? And on whatever definition you accept for rationality, how does theistic belief fall short (you can even pick on full-blooded Christian belief if you like)?

Edit: I see this issue has already been taken up. Sorry for the repeat.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I agree and disagree. Hah. So there.

Ok... I'll try to clarify. I think the soldiers in this particular case really had something against those that would whole heartedly embrace another religion to the point where they would run out and protest the slogan painted on the side of their tank.

But why? Were they religious zealots? Perhaps the most likely... But alternate theories abound. perhaps they were looking for zealots who are irrational and who would be motivated by the slogan to the degree where they would run out and protest and then the sniper perforates their grey matter. After all a reasonable person would run out unarmed to protest the ridiculous logic painted on the side of their tank.

Perhaps they just were bored and were looking to kill people and needed easy targets...

I can't argue with much of this. But my main point is that humans are naturally violent and territorial. I mean, we kill each other over silly things like hockey games and money.

What flies in the face though is the soldiers admission that they were spirtually armored since they had watch Mel Gibson's horrendous trash movie, Passion.

I think by "spiritually armored," they were suggesting that their fear of death and war was being numbed by their recent spiritual experience with the movie. I can't blame someone for using such influence to get through a frightening time.

I think religion is tool that can be used in situations like battle to justify atleast to yourself the horrendous acts your performing. In this case though it seems that religion was also a motivator to commit said horrendous acts.

Ultimately if you value the afterlife more then the real life and you have a context of how to get the most from the afterlife I think there is a very good chance you wont act morally in this life IF your framework allows immoral acts in this life to be justifiable afterlife benes.

Im sure you can see obvious examples... Flying planes into our towers. Etc etc. But also what about christians against gay marriage? They seem more concerned with the afterlife and condemning and spreading hate to people in this life to get that afterlife benefit.

Sure. But I would suggest other justifications would take the place of religion were it removed. Were the folks that flew the planes into the towers desperate? If I remember right, they were offered a better life for their poor and starving families (this could wrong, but it seems that a desperate act like that requires a desperate motive).

I would suggest you read the story and what happened. Do you really think religion played the role of just an excuse in this case? One last point... If I were in battle I would not personally be minded toward spiritual mumbo jumbo. Who is to say that is right though? In some cases it may be bad... I say whatever, let evolution sort it out hee hee.

I'm sorry, it's been awhile since I've been in this thread. Which story?

 

[Dunemeister]

In my understanding, the idea that something is normative means it is something that ought to be, based on the fact that it is in agreement with a certain ideal standard (such as the opinion of the majority, or mathematical verification for example).

This is coming close to what philosophers call deontological normativity. On this variety of normativity, there is a set of rules that set the standard for behavior. Morality is often thought to be deontologically normative, for example.

So what would it mean for someone to be irrational on this kind of normativity? I imagine it would mean something like failing to follow the rules of logic. So THEN the questions arise:

1. Which logical rules are truly normative? There are a great number of these, many of which even the best logicians have only a tenuous grasp of. So which ones are we dealing with here? Do we count strictly non-logical rules such as those involved in science? Are we dealing with induction, abduction, deduction, or what?

2. How does Christian belief (say) fall prey to irrationality? More particularly, how is it that I as a Christian believer am irrational?

So for example, if I said to you x is permanently static, but also x = x + 1, you could appeal to logic (which is normative) to refute my claim. If you were to say "I know your claim is false because I possess unique powers of super-knowledge" but showed no evidence for those powers, I could dismiss your argument due to it's non-normative nature. Kudos on not being shy to ask.

Just for clarity here, it is the STANDARDS that are normative, not one's claims to knowledge. If I claim superknowledge, my claim isn't non-normative -- normativity doesn't attach to this statement. Rather, my claimed methods of obtaining knowledge are not normative.

But now I have another question. What does it mean for the superknowledgeable person's method of knowing to be non-normative? Perhaps it's not shared by everyone, so it's not statistically normative. But if the person's method of knowledge is part of his design -- lucky him, he happens to have this superknowledge faculty -- then his knowledge is "normative" for HIM, isn't it? (Another way of putting it is that his claims to knowledge are warranted.) Poor sods that we are, we don't have that same faculty, so perhaps his knowledge claims are not normative/binding for US, but that's a different matter.

(Man, I love epistemology!)

 

[Guitar's Cry]

To the first part of your statement, irrationality is not normative, which is why irrationality is a bad thing.

Why is irrationality a "bad" thing based on it being not [logically] normative. It is certainly normative in the human experience: we all indulge in it.

Life would be sorely missing something without it.

 

[yossarian22]

What does "normative" mean? (I looked it up but did not understand it.)
That's because this is not a logical conclusion. Logically, if we can't know the answer to the question, then we can't know if the answer matters or not. Or is this what you mean by 'irrational' but "normative"?

MSizer already defined his form of normative, and it still does not preclude irrational behavior from being normative.

As for your other claim, does it matter what the last digit of pi is? (this is an admittedly strained example because we can prove that pi never ends) If we cannot determine the answer to a question, there is no answer in all practicality. If there is no answer and no way to obtain one, there is nothing to talk about.

 

[MSizer]

Why is irrationality a "bad" thing based on it being not [logically] normative. It is certainly normative in the human experience: we all indulge in it.

Life would be sorely missing something without it.

OK look, we're really sidetracking from the topic here. In response to "why is irrationality bad" - if you deny the value of rationale, you have no grounds to continue debating, because building an argument requires appeal to rationale. If we each just pick our own rules and revise them as we see fit (as theologians love to do) we can't expect to play nicely together in the sandbox.

As to the OP, polythiests are not ignored (at least by me anyway), they're just not mentioned often, since I have no objection to their beliefs. By the very nature of their beliefs, they don't have exclusive clubs like other theists do, therefore polytheists are not likely to be intolerant the way other theists often are.

 

[MissAlice]

Yes religions have created greater "not more" wars than any other without using the excuse of religion. That's not to say religion isn't the key to the cause of wars but many leaders and those in power considered divine in their own right will proclaim war in the name of god or religion. It use to be and still is the best political tool to convince its followers aside from death to those who do not follow.

So I think religion is the platform but not the ultimate cause of war. If you notice, it is still about greed, land, material, slavery and so on. Nothing that holy about it but since some religious texts say it's okay to have slavery and make wars then it does in many ways point to religion as the motive.