Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil?

[Road Warrior]

Yes, atrocities are often justified by appeals to a higher cause. But my point all along has been that acting as the ultimate higher cause has been one of religion's raisons d'etre.

Yes, religion is a tool for seeking the ultimate higher cause. My point is that those who use it for purely secular motives, such as genocide, land/resource grabs or other earthly goals is misusing religion.

 

[johnhanks]

Yes, religion is a tool for seeking the ultimate higher cause. My point is that those who use it for purely secular motives, such as genocide, land/resource grabs or other earthly goals is misusing religion.

This is where we part company. I see such uses as part of its regular functioning - one of the pay-offs that sustained the very expensive practice of religion in what were often subsistence cultures.

To take a case in point - if appeal to religion to justify the massacres and land-grabs of the European crusades was a mis-use, then who in 11th century Europe was putting religion to its proper use?

 

[Road Warrior]

Do you believe guns are evil or is it merely a matter of whether or not the user puts the gun to use for good or evil?

 

[johnhanks]

Do you believe guns are evil or is it merely a matter of whether or not the user puts the gun to use for good or evil?

Inappropriate question, I think. Nowhere have I suggested I consider religion to be "evil"; in this post I made a point of saying that blaming religion for fulfilling the functions it was evolved for would be futile. Religions are tools shaped (largely unconsciously) by cultures to serve their ends; one of those ends is to re-define, as and when expedient, what is right and what is wrong. Present-day religious people, looking back on historical acts they abhor but which were blessed or condoned by the religion of the day, are fond of calling these blessings 'mis-uses' of religion (the 'no true Christian' defence). This position is weakened by the fact that such usages were the contemporary norm; as I asked earlier, if religious blessing of the European crusades was a perversion of religion's proper purpose, then who in 11th century Europe was using it properly?

 

[Road Warrior]

Many hear spend a lot of time blaming religion for this or that. To me, it's like looking at a Bible sitting on a table and blaming it for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Irish Revolution or Sarah Palin. It's an inanimate object. It does nothing without the action of a human being. Same goes for "religion". What is religion? It's set of beliefs. Regardless if those beliefs are "Peace, Love, Dove" or "Let's eat babies", they can do nothing without the action of human beings. Therefore, to blame religion, Socialism, Capitalism or any other idea for the actions of man is to misplace the blame.

If we want to understand why men from Europe fought men from the Middle East or why men from Spain sought to conquer South America, then it is important to understand why they'd want to do that, not just the excuse(s) they used to do it.

 

[johnhanks]

Many hear spend a lot of time blaming religion for this or that. To me, it's like looking at a Bible sitting on a table and blaming it for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Irish Revolution or Sarah Palin. It's an inanimate object. It does nothing without the action of a human being...

On the other hand it's also the invention of human beings, and in societal terms a very expensive one. I doubt the earliest religions would ever have got off the ground if they hadn't delivered hard, real-world pay-back to the cultures that practised them. (This pay-back needn't have been the kind the practitioners envisaged, or even of a form discernible to them.)

... If we want to understand why men from Europe fought men from the Middle East or why men from Spain sought to conquer South America, then it is important to understand why they'd want to do that, not just the excuse(s) they used to do it.

I doubt many historians would disagree with you there. I suspect that religion has rarely if ever been the true, deep-down motivation for aggression and atrocity, however often it's been cited as the justification; but its very nature - source of ultimate and unquestionable authority, supreme arbiter of right and wrong and distinguisher of Us from Them - has made it very, very fit for that purpose.

 

[ChristineES]

Many hear spend a lot of time blaming religion for this or that. To me, it's like looking at a Bible sitting on a table and blaming it for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Irish Revolution or Sarah Palin. It's an inanimate object. It does nothing without the action of a human being. Same goes for "religion". What is religion? It's set of beliefs. Regardless if those beliefs are "Peace, Love, Dove" or "Let's eat babies", they can do nothing without the action of human beings. Therefore, to blame religion, Socialism, Capitalism or any other idea for the actions of man is to misplace the blame.

If we want to understand why men from Europe fought men from the Middle East or why men from Spain sought to conquer South America, then it is important to understand why they'd want to do that, not just the excuse(s) they used to do it.

This is something I have said in the past, but never so eloquent as this.

 

[1robin]

Yes, atrocities are often justified by appeals to a higher cause. But my point all along has been that acting as the ultimate higher cause has been one of religion's raisons d'etre.

Given that "atheist regimes" have existed only in the past 100 years or so, this is a dubious assertion. For most of history, over most of the world, religion and state have been coterminous. Experiments to separate the two are historically recent.
Again this is no more than religion doing what it's good at - in this case, labelling certain people / populations as being outside normal moral strictures, and thus fair game. Has it ever occurred to you how convenient it was for the OT Israelites that the Amalekites, Midianites, Jerichoites etc. all turned out to be irredeemably evil and thus fit for righteous (and profitable) extermination?

Good point, never heard that one before. I have seen a secular archeological show that claimed that the cananites actually walled up live children in the walls of dwellings for luck or something and many barbaric practices of the others are somewhat certain. Still a good but irrelevant point. In the context of my statements I am not considering the justification of the violence as far as provoked or not. I am lumping all of them on one side verses all the ones on the other. I do not support your only 100 years idea. It would be hard to define religions in the monotheistic sense stop and paganism, atheism, materialist, secularism etc... start. I was speaking more of the monotheistic v/s atheist, materialist, and secularist. That could be tweeked but it probably won't make much difference.

I must have missed the post where you were told that. Are you sure he/she used those exact words? I'd be surprised.

I thought you might find that hard to believe. Here is the quote.

You cannot "justify" your value. You cna either feel it, or not, and if you need to "justify" it to feel it, you probably have a very weak basis for your own worth by: Me myself

This concerns worth or value which is a moral judgemnt. That is not the only case by a long shot. From a debate of a very famous atheist:

In a debate between the philosopher Frederick Copleston and the atheist Bertrand Russell, Copleston said, “Mr. Russell, you do believe in good and bad, don’t you?” Russell answered, “Yes, I do.” “How do you differentiate between good and bad?” challenged Copleston. Russell shrugged his shoulders and said, “On the basis of feeling – what else?” I must confess, Mr. Copleston was a kindlier
gentleman than many others. The appropriate “logical kill” for the moment would have been, “Mr. Russell, in some cultures they love their neighbors; in other cultures they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?" http://www.meadowlarkchurch.org/pdf/study_20041102041446.pdf​

I am in no way suggesting all Atheists believe this nonesense. I am suggesting Atheism leaves no way at all to justify moral absolutes and so atheists stumbling around in the dark grab on to things as rediculous as feelings.​

 

[Road Warrior]

I suspect that religion has rarely if ever been the true, deep-down motivation for aggression and atrocity, however often it's been cited as the justification

That's my point. It's used as an excuse, as justification, but it isn't the cause nor the true motivation. Most wars are over the same thing; resources, real estate or other strategic reasons to protect one's own group from destruction. Very secular, mortal reasons. Religion and superstition help people cope with the horrors of battle, of facing their own possible deaths, but they aren't the causes of war.

Look at the Irish "Troubles". Irish Catholics and British Protestants. A religious war or really a nationalist one where the Irish want the invader Brits to get off their island?

 

[1robin]

That's my point. It's used as an excuse, as justification, but it isn't the cause nor the true motivation. Most wars are over the same thing; resources, real estate or other strategic reasons to protect one's own group from destruction. Very secular, mortal reasons. Religion and superstition help people cope with the horrors of battle, of facing their own possible deaths, but they aren't the causes of war.

Look at the Irish "Troubles". Irish Catholics and British Protestants. A religious war or really a nationalist one where the Irish want the invader Brits to get off their island?

Please allow me to add something to your discussion. Both atheism and religion are very often not the cause but the justification. I agree 100% percent but will add that while the atheist regime can use atheism consistently, at least the Christian regime could not. The atheist can use racial superiority, the lack of sanctity of life, and evolutions dominance of the strong over the weak, etc..... all these are consistent. The Christian cannot find a consistent rational in the bible for unjustified aggression. That hasn't stopped them from twisting scripture or just declareing God wills it, but this is no reflection on a religion if they are misuseing it. I would suggest that is true more or less for at least the monotheistic religions (maybe Islam is not quite so clear).

 

[JustWondering]

You seem to be working under the notion that religious people do not have reason. Only a small percentage of folks did the things that you mentioned: People refusing medical care, 9/11, etc. You are also working under the assumption that atheists, since they have no religious beliefs are immune to such things. I totally disagree. Atheists have no religious beliefs, but they can have other agendas that have absolutely nothing to do with God and/or spirits- and they can be just as deadly (I know that not all atheists have any agendas, I meant they CAN have them).
On top of that, what gives you the idea that people of religion have no reason? Sure some theists have no reason, but some atheists have no reason, either. What makes you think that we of religious faith have no logic? Sure, some theists have no logic and some atheists have no logic, either.
All this destruction and such is the result of human failings and not religion or not religion alone.

You need to reread my post and stop putting words in my mouth. I plainly said there would still be crime, war and nasty people even without religion in the world. Second, I never said religous people were not cabable of reason and logic, I said religion is not founded on reason and evidence (which is completely true).

 

[JustWondering]

If anyone wants more information about Objective morals and religion/atheism. Here is more than you can stand.

Without God, What Grounds Right and Wrong?
I think all points of view are addressed but don't know they are.

I like how the bible's morales include slavery and killing your children if they disobey you. I also like the part about how women are second class citizens that need to stay in the kitchen. The bible's morals rocks!

 

[JustWondering]

This is insupportable. I however concede that religion has had way too much violence in it. Atheist regimes have killed vastly more than religions have. Atleast in a religous context some can actually be called evil and it have an objective value. Apparently (as I have been told by one in this thread) the Atheists values come from whatever he happens to be feeling at the moment. Right, wrong, morality have no ultimate context at all.

Atheism does not equal anarchy. Atheism does not equal barbarism. Some of the finest people I personally know are atheists. They'd give you the shirt off their back. But feel free to bad mouth people you don't know based on a stereotype. Don't let me interrupt you.

 

[1robin]

Atheism does not equal anarchy. Atheism does not equal barbarism. Some of the finest people I personally know are atheists. They'd give you the shirt off their back. But feel free to bad mouth people you don't know based on a stereotype. Don't let me interrupt you.

This is the standard diversion tactic and an appeal to victimization of the uninformed Atheist. I do not think and have never wrote that I know of, that Atheists are any less capable of being Moral than any other person. This after telling some one else they had put words in your mouth. I said that an atheist can't justify objective morality in particular or morals at all in general within Atheism. An atheist must look elsewhere to justify morality, it simply has no meaningful defenition for morality in it. Since objective morals are necessary and instinctually granted and can not be found in Atheism but can be found in Christianity then in atheism good, or bad are meaningless but in Christianity at the very least there is justification for the concept of good and evil. Try again.

 

[1robin]

I like how the bible's morales include slavery and killing your children if they disobey you. I also like the part about how women are second class citizens that need to stay in the kitchen. The bible's morals rocks!

Produce one scripture outside the levitical law in the old testament that states that slavery or killing children for disobedience is an encouraged practice. Keep in mind no one was or is expected to follow the old testament except the Jewish people and that for only a certain period of time. Also remember that Christ is the clearest and highest example of God's character and has precedent over all other interpretational squabbles and warped use of scripture, and he enslaved and killed no one. In fact his example true or false is the highest pattern of virtue in human history. Then we will debate your contention.

 

[Sunstone]

I said that an atheist can't justify objective morality in particular or morals at all in general within Atheism. An atheist must look elsewhere to justify morality, it simply has no meaningful defenition for morality in it. Since objective morals are necessary and instinctually granted and can not be found in Atheism but can be found in Christianity then in atheism good, or bad are meaningless but in Christianity at the very least there is justification for the concept of good and evil. Try again.

Once again, you are asserting as fact something you are forced to take on faith alone. You have no objective basis for asserting the existence of objective morals. You can only assert their existence on the basis of faith. In fact, you and the atheist are in the same boat, but the atheist is not deluded into believing his or her morals are objectively grounded in deity.

 

[1robin]

Once again, you are asserting as fact something you are forced to take on faith alone. You have no objective basis for asserting the existence of objective morals. You can only assert their existence on the basis of faith. In fact, you and the atheist are in the same boat, but the atheist is not deluded into believing his or her morals are objectively grounded in deity.

Perhaps that is because the Athests beliefs are not objectively grounded in reality. Is that what you will say if we were invaded and the new government came for your family. Would you say you can't do this because I don't personally find it advantageous, or would you appeal to what everyone appeals to in times of contentious issues, that it is wrong, or they do not have any ultimate right. Sorry for the example. The point I am makeing is that everyone acts like objective morals exist. Without them none of the great resistance to evil men and suffering in history can be justified, and Atheists can't find any justification to stop child prostitution in Taiwan within Atheism. Atheism by definition rules out the only thing that can make moral judgements or moral concepts valid. I have not sought out a way of proveing something so universally excepted, needed, and obvious. I will attempt to do so but regard it as a waste of time. Atheism doesn't gurranty anarchy but provides no rebuttal either. Even if they don't exist (I am in no way suggesting they don't) they would have to be invented to have any basis for establishing justice. Thomas Jefferson (no Christian in any sense) knew that the only way to justify rights was an appeal to God. Dostoevsky said it this way, "If there is no God then all things are permitted". Are you actually saying that tortureing a child without some (unimaginable) justified reason is not actually wrong in a larger sense than that of human opinion. I think you will find all the proof you need at this site. Without God, What Grounds Right and Wrong?

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps that is because the Athests beliefs are not objectively grounded in reality. Is that what you will say if we were invaded and the new government came for your family. Would you say you can't do this because I don't personally find it advantageous, or would you appeal to what everyone appeals to in times of contentious issues, that it is wrong, or they do not have any ultimate right. Sorry for the example. The point I am makeing is that everyone acts like objective morals exist. Without them none of the great resistance to evil men and suffering in history can be justified, and Atheists can't find any justification to stop child prostitution in Taiwan within Atheism. Atheism by definition rules out the only thing that can make moral judgements or moral concepts valid. I have not sought out a way of proveing something so universally excepted, needed, and obvious. I will attempt to do so but regard it as a waste of time. Atheism doesn't gurranty anarchy but provides no rebuttal either. Even if they don't exist (I am in no way suggesting they don't) they would have to be invented to have any basis for establishing justice. Thomas Jefferson (no Christian in any sense) knew that the only way to justify rights was an appeal to God. Dostoevsky said it this way, "If there is no God then all things are permitted". Are you actually saying that tortureing a child without some (unimaginable) justified reason is not actually wrong in a larger sense than that of human opinion. I think you will find all the proof you need at this site. Without God, What Grounds Right and Wrong?

Again, you are in the same epistemological boat as the atheist since you must take on faith that your morals are objectively grounded.

By the way, Dostoevsky neglected to say that even with god, all things are permitted, since there is no basis for determining an objective grounds for god's morals.

 

[1robin]

Again, you are in the same epistemological boat as the atheist since you must take on faith that your morals are objectively grounded.

By the way, Dostoevsky neglected to say that even with god, all things are permitted, since there is no basis for determining an objective grounds for god's morals.

What Doestoevsky didn't say is not grounds for a claim. Being that if you have God then his moral views are absolute even if we refused to accept them and everyone has an ultimate reconing concerning his moral requirements your statement is less than helpful even if true. I never conceeded that they have to be taken on faith, I am researching that issue and will respond when I have a personally satasfactory response. It is not necessary to account for where God gets his morality from to establish it as objective as far as humans are concerned. Given he does exist would mean his moral requirements and standards would in effect be objective from out viewpoint anything else is unnecessary. Let's just hypothetically say that God just invented his standards, does that make them any different in effect and meaning concerning us. Since given his reality means he will judge our eternal fate then no additional understanding is relavent. From your response I take it you ignored the website which I believe covers the proof of objective morality exhaustively.

 

[Sunstone]

What Doestoevsky didn't say is not grounds for a claim. I never conceeded that they have to be taken on faith, I am researching that issue and will respond when I have a personally satasfactory response. It is not necessary to account for where God gets his morality from to establish it as objective as far as humans are concerned. Given he does exist would mean his moral requirements and standards would in effect be objective from out viewpoint anything else is unnecessary. Let's just hypothetically say that God just invented his standards, does that make them any different in effect and meaning concerning us. Since given his reality means he will judge our eternal fate then no additional understanding is relavent.

Even if god exists, and even if god has morals, and even if those morals are objective standards, you would still have to take on faith that god exists, that god has morals and that those morals are objective standards. You have no objective means of discerning any of that, and so you are reduced to faith.