Why faith is evil

[Autodidact]

Sometimes it is credulity.

So why is credulity a good thing when applied only to the God you have arbitrarily and randomly chosen to be credulous about? Isn't that a good way to be tricked into worshipping the wrong God? And in your belief system, wouldn't that have disastrous consequences?

In short, why should anyone suspend their good sense and caution only when thinking about Pete's God, and at no other time? (Try not to respond with a circular argument. I'm sure you'll agree they're a waste of time.)

 

[Autodidact]

I'm not avoiding the question.

Well you sure as heck aren't answering it.

I'm choosing my words very carefully to avoid being deluged with questions I can't answer.

Yes, I understand. You sense that your position is so weak that if you just answer our questions, it will fall apart.

 

[Autodidact]

You didn't read the thread title, then?

Apparently you didn't. The thread title is, "Why faith is evil," not "Why religionists are evil." It's condemning a methodology, not a group of people.

 

[Autodidact]

A distinction without a difference. I don't buy the "love the sinner, hate the sin" crap from the Christians, either.

I'm sorry you can't understand this elementary distinction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Faith is indeed evil when it leads to suicide-bombings and torture and genocide and things of that nature.

Faith is not evil when it leads to redemption, healing, altruism, love, compassion, mercy, and fellowship.

There is definitely a Dark Side but that doesn't negate the existence of a Light Side.


:sw:

So... since faith can lead to both good actions and bad actions, would you agree that we as a society shouldn't accept "faith" as justification all on its own?

After all, if we put the actions you describe to the test by asking whether they're good or bad, then we can keep all the good actions motivated by faith while filtering out all the bad actions motivated by faith, right?

 

[Autodidact]

It does if you want to avoid some nasty cognitive dissonance. You can't separate a person from their choices.

Then there would be no point in the argument, the goal of which is to persuade people to change their choices.

Why bother? Not like anyone listens.

Wow, I thought I was listening and responding to every point you made. You're not confusing agreeing with listening, are you?

 

[Autodidact]

Blah, blah, blah. No amount of dancing can make calling the other side "evil" anything approaching productive conversation.

I haven't called anyone anything. What I, and Mr. Dawkins, are condemning is an approach, an approach that can lead perfectly good people to commit evil acts.

Speaking out against evil is a moral requirement of all of us.

No, it's indifference.

Well if you can't be bothered, then don't bother.

 

[Autodidact]

Interesting. All this time I thought it was man operating in fear that was the cause of evil?
Hmmmmm.

To me what stands out as foolish in this argument is that it is fear and not faith that causes the evil.
Many have fears of things that are not really happening and base actions on these fears which is irrational.
It is faith that keeps one from operating in the irrational behaviour from fear.

I think it's the combination of the two. When you suspend a requirement for evidence, and combine that with fear of people who are different from you, one of the results you get is vicious attacks on people who do not share your belief.

If you are open to evidence, then it can alleviate your fear and avert your violence. If you're closed to evidence, then no amount of it can dissuade you from attacking those you fear, when you feel justified by your belief. The lack of evidence insulates your mistaken, fear-based belief from being questioned.

 

[Autodidact]

Hardly.


Yeah, She did.

No, I didn't. In fact, I challenge you to find a single post from me in this thread calling anyONE, as opposed to any action or method, evil.

Auto did not make that distinction.

Yes, I very clearly did.

Poorly. Well, that's not true. She argues very well, it's just that her position is wrong.

Thank you. In that case you should be able to demonstrate that.

Hey, at least I'm upfront. You're trying to convince me that Auto's playing nice.

I try to maintain a modicum of courtesy.

 

[Autodidact]

OK, let's get one thing straight: I am many things, but I am not a doormat. I don't put on a false smile and shake hands with people who insult me.

I would be happy to debate the merits and motives of dis/belief with Auto, or you, if you showed me a shred of respect in return. When you start off with a rant about how I'm evil, however you may sugarcoat and "civilize" it, you don't get any more respect than you give.

I may be a *****, but I'm not a two-faced one.

OK, NOW you can have the last word.

The appropriate response would be to show where my logic or premises are wrong. I don't think I have shown you the least disrespect in this thread; on the contrary, I have responded to all your points thoughtfully, giving them the respect they are due.

If you believe that it's o.k. to believe things without evidence, then persuade us why.

 

[Autodidact]

And at this point you will support your arguement by presenting the
harmonious, peaceful glories of the shining light examples of faith free/religion free societies?-

Nth Korea, China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot and the entire Soviet Union and satellite States.....
In which nobody ever went hungry, nobody was imprisoned, persecuted or killed (for their faith or politics) and Godless society shone like a beacon to the world.....

Stupidity, bigotry and bastardry are not conditions confined exclusively to people of faith.....clearly, on the historical evidence of the 20th Century, anybody, including atheists, can be mad despotic murdering Aholes.

"Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism" Vladimir Lenin.

Actually, I think Marxism is another good example of the evil of believing things without evidence. I'm not (in this thread) arguing against religion so much as the methodology of believing things (such as Gods) without evidence. Marxism is a very theoretical, abstract philosophy which turned out not to work. If its proponents were open to evidence, they would adjust, change, give it up. Instead they use the same methods that religionists have sometimes used, including torture. I see it as the exact same thing, methodologically speaking.

So it's not about theism vs. atheism, it's about evidence vs. lack of evidence.

 

[Autodidact]

And if you don't believe in the Bible, does that mean God wasn't the worse mass murderer of all time?

Correct. You would see the fictional character, YHWH in that role.

 

[Autodidact]

I just don't see how faith can be good or evil. It doesn't do anything by itself. There are plenty of peaceful people who have faith just as their are plenty of people with no faith that are peaceful. The faith by itself doesn't cause murder, etc, people do that- we all know that. Sometimes faith can be a motivation, and sometimes lack of faith can be a motivation, too.
Is this a way to pass the buck, and take the blame off ourselves and dump it on something inanimate?

Would you agree that people's beliefs lead to or influence their actions?

 

[Walkntune]

The appropriate response would be to show where my logic or premises are wrong. I don't think I have shown you the least disrespect in this thread; on the contrary, I have responded to all your points thoughtfully, giving them the respect they are due.

If you believe that it's o.k. to believe things without evidence, then persuade us why.

People who achieve higher and better circumstances in life do so by believing for them and acting accordingly even though all evidence around them will say otherwise.
This separates those who do achieve dreams from those who allow life circumstances to dictate them.

 

[Walkntune]

Would you agree that people's beliefs lead to or influence their actions?

This is true whether the beliefs are based in faith or fear which is far more dangerous.

 

[Autodidact]

One more thought: I know it how easy to think "If there were no _________, then the world would be a better place". But that isn't actually how it works. If we were to eliminate all religion, for example, people really wouldn't change.

Sadly, you're probably right. I do think it's a good idea though, and worthwhile, to exhort people to good and condemn evil.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Apparently you consider unsupported assertion a form of argument. This is exactly the sort of thing the OP is arguing against.

Not unsupported, exactly. Supported by the Bible.

 

[Autodidact]

If religion causes people to be less educated, then how are people's scores are lower now than they were before? There are less religious people, right? I noticed you don't spell too well so it didn't work for you (just kidding, I just wanted to make a point).

Actually, I believe IQ and education are both going up.

 

[Autodidact]

That's due to the public perception of atheists. And that, of course, is due to atheists themselves promulagting negative atheist stereotypes. Atheism is only as hard as you make it.

Could you give an example?

 

[Autodidact]

So when you distance yourself from Mao and Lenin, it's legitimate. But when Christians distance themselves from Fred Phelps and Jim Jones, it's not?

How convenient for you.

In the context of this thread, the question would be: do you share their methodology. I am advocating against the methodology which I believe is shared by religionists and Marxists. I would even say that the reason both can lead to evil actions is that they share this methodology--a willingness to proceed without or even in the face of evidence.