Why faith is evil

[Magic Man]

Excuse me for taking this discussion to the next logical step.

I'll excuse you for thinking that you're taking it to the next logical step, as long as you realize that calling people evil is not the next logical step.

I know of many church congregations who subscribe to blind faith. Actually it is a requirement. It is traditional even. To say their faith is evil is to condem them as a group as well as all the people who came before them.

I'm sure in your eyes, that's the case, but there is no reason calling faith evil is necessarily calling people with faith evil.

 

[LuisDantas]

As long as we remember that whatever can be used for evil can also be used for good. People aren't good or evil- they just right and wrong decisions. Some of these decisions can be evil- such as raping a child or adult, murder, etc. We can make good decisions, too. Like I fixed dinner for my kids tonight, and little things like that.

If someone kills because their faith believes "tells" them to do it, there are 10 other people who are giving to the poor because their faith "tells" them to do it and so on from there. :shout

It really depends entirely on how well-chosen and well-questioned that faith is, Christine.

Cases in point:

Marshall Applewhite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jim Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religiously motivated murder in Arvida and Colorado Springs, CO

I'm a defendant of faith myself. But it by all means must be questioned to be valid, on that I am adamant.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis, you and I almost always have a different religious or political opinion. The thing is, we always demonstrate mutual respect for one another. When we have to use our basic logic to come to a just and fair staff decision, I cannot think of one time where we have disagreed.

I believe you and I are the perfect example of why different people can work together for the common good. I believe we both demonstrate genuine compassion for others. I believe we both would rise for one another if injustice reared it's evil head and threatened one of us.

Thanks.

That said, blind faith in some religions is traditional. It has been handed down from father to son or mother to daughter for hundreds of years. The current generation is not going to let this tradition or their religion die.

So? Blind faith is still evil. Religions ought to take care of themselves, and that involves curing themselves of blind faith, much as it involved removing such things as caste systems, ethnocentrism and slavery tolerance in the past.

At the same time, people who live by the old ways need to coexist with the modern world and be responsible citizens and treat others with respect.

Agreed.

No group of people should suffer because of my belief. No basic rights should be withheld from any group of people who live or think differently than me.

That is an ideal. In actual practice one's rights keep bleeding over into others'. That is to a degree unavoidable - and one of the main reasons why blind faith is to be avoided at all costs.

At the same time, just because a person chooses to believe in the old ways of blind faith, they should not be considered evil just because they are different or not as hip to our ever changing world that we all live in.

Agreed. It is possible to have nasty traits and still not be an evil person. It happens often, in fact.

Blind faith is not evil,

Oh yes it is. At the very least, it is the breeding grounds for evil behavior.

intolerance is. faith in it's self is not evil, trying to convert people against their will to a different way of thinking might possibly be however. You might demonstrate your compassion by confronting people of faith, but if you try to convert them to another way of thinking, you could quite possibly end a religion that has been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Not a real chance, Rick.

But if it did happen, I would fully credit the blind faith itself. The defining characteristic of evil is that it strikes at its own basis of sustenance, you know.

If that is your goal, would it be acceptable for them to try and convert you as well?

I count on it, in fact. I fully understand the drive of, say, Jehowah's Witnesses to convert people. But I also expect them to take the heat and accept their failures when they meet them.

Truth be told, I'm not sure that either I or those who disagree with me ever had a real choice on the matter...

If one faith or thought pattern is affecting another person's quality of life, then I agree with you. Just remember the door swings both ways.

Isn't affecting the quality of life the whole point of faith (and for that matter, of avoiding same)? I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why is faith necessary for any of that?

I'd say that the things you list are generally marks of community, not faith. As it happens, humanity has generally developed faith and community together, but there's no particular reason to keep it that way.

I can't say why, other than that not everyone is the same. I am motivated to succeed and do better in life by the thoughts of improving my economic status, elevate my quality of life, and to do what I want to do. It's through my own will power alone. Not everyone is like that though. For some people faith in God is what motivates them. But to say people do not need faith motivation is like saying everyone has the same music preferences.
Yes it is community, but a different form of community. For some people it gives hope, peace, tranquility, a support system, and a sense of belonging. Some people can get this from the local chess club, and some get it from a church.
As for the whys I don't know. I didn't decide how our species would function, I just study it.

Oh yes it is. At the very least, it is the breeding grounds for evil behavior.

Our species has proven time and time we don't need religion to be evil. We have fought and killed people over race, sexual orientation, nationality, gender, being different trespassing, resources, land, and even just wearing the wrong colors in the wrong area.
I don't like religion, but just because I don't like it, doesn't mean that it's wrong or evil.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can't say why, other than that not everyone is the same. I am motivated to succeed and do better in life by the thoughts of improving my economic status, elevate my quality of life, and to do what I want to do. It's through my own will power alone. Not everyone is like that though. For some people faith in God is what motivates them. But to say people do not need faith motivation is like saying everyone has the same music preferences.

No, I think it's more like saying that nobody likes just one kind of music.

Yes it is community, but a different form of community. For some people it gives hope, peace, tranquility, a support system, and a sense of belonging. Some people can get this from the local chess club, and some get it from a church.

I get that different people are motivated by different things, but as you rightly point out, it could be anything. While chess plays a positive role in many people's lives, we don't normally get politicians and community leaders giving speeches talking about the "virtue of chess" in glowing terms, or setting aside special funding for "chess-based initiatives".

While chess can play a positive role in people's lives, it's interchangeable with many other things. I think that inherently, religious faith is the same way... it's just that as a society, we've built faith up to seem much larger and more important than it actually is.

 

[LuisDantas]

Our species has proven time and time we don't need religion to be evil. We have fought and killed people over race, sexual orientation, nationality, gender, being different trespassing, resources, land, and even just wearing the wrong colors in the wrong area.
I don't like religion, but just because I don't like it, doesn't mean that it's wrong or evil.

I do like religion. It is blind faith that I have major issues with.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Truth be told, I'm not sure that either I or those who disagree with me ever had a real choice on the matter...

I believe you might be on to something here. :yes:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"You see the people that have faith as evil?"

No.

That was my point.

 

[Autodidact]

You need to make the case for why faith is necessary to accomplish these things. One can have the pros of religion, charity, empathy, resolve to stop using drugs, without an appeal to a few simple things held true without evidence. And if this is true, then faith is only worth its cons.

I don't think so. If, empirically, people tend to do these good things because of their faith, then that should count in the plus column for faith. Faith may not be necessary, but in actuality, maybe it does inspire these good acts.

I guess the question is, again, empirically, has faith inspired more good actions than evil ones. Good question. Hard to look at without bias. What do you think, RF?

 

[Autodidact]

You would think that people who have been called names and been hated all their lives would have a little more compassion for folks with unlike minds. Is this about what is right or get even time? Calling a whole group of people evil is just plain wrong.

It is hate mongering plain and simple. Dawkins can kiss my butt!

That's not what I said, Rick. I didn't say these people are evil, but rather that this action is an immoral action. Not religionists, but faith itself.

 

[Autodidact]

You're right for the most part. People do deserve some compassion and guidance, if they are trying to be better people. However if they blantantly don't care about the welfare of others and don't listen to their hearts and cause people harm based on what they believe then that makes it kind of hard to have compassion for them.

If an enlightened person comes upon a man beating a puppy, she feels compassion for the puppy and for the man beating the puppy.

 

[Autodidact]

My husband loves to tell a story about how a gun doesn't pick itself up and shoot itself. It is true, for the most part, although it would be harder to kill someone with something other than a gun (or would it?).

What I mean is that faith by itself doesn't do anything. Just like a gun laying on a table with no one near it or touching it can't fire. Faith needs a person to use it and the gun needs someone to shoot it.

Here's what I'm saying, Christine. Morally, we should try to be honest. We should value truth for its own sake, as well as because it leads to good actions. To be honest requires two things, not just saying what we think is true, but also being careful as to what we decide is true. Faith violates the second part. Therefore, in and of itself, and regardless of what actions it inspires, it is a morally negative approach, in my view.

 

[sandandfoam]

Here's what I'm saying, Christine. Morally, we should try to be honest. We should value truth for its own sake, as well as because it leads to good actions. To be honest requires two things, not just saying what we think is true, but also being careful as to what we decide is true. Faith violates the second part. Therefore, in and of itself, and regardless of what actions it inspires, it is a morally negative approach, in my view.

Hi Auto,

I honestly believe that objectivity is impossible. I am in a position whereby whatever I know rests on faith.
Am I immoral in your view?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi Auto,

I honestly believe that objectivity is impossible. I am in a position whereby whatever I know rests on faith.
Am I immoral in your view?

I doubt that what you know rests solely on faith.

We don't blindly make assumptions about how things work and then never bother to see if they're right or not; we look for agreement between how we think things work and how they actually do work. Over time, this helps us to refine those assumptions to make them better and better.

This doesn't give us certain knowledge, but it is still a type of knowledge.

 

[Autodidact]

As long as we remember that whatever can be used for evil can also be used for good. People aren't good or evil- they just right and wrong decisions. Some of these decisions can be evil- such as raping a child or adult, murder, etc. We can make good decisions, too. Like I fixed dinner for my kids tonight, and little things like that.

If someone kills because their faith believes "tells" them to do it, there are 10 other people who are giving to the poor because their faith "tells" them to do it and so on from there. :shout

I'm questioning your statistics.

 

[sandandfoam]

I doubt that what you know rests solely on faith.

We don't blindly make assumptions about how things work and then never bother to see if they're right or not; we look for agreement between how we think things work and how they actually do work. Over time, this helps us to refine those assumptions to make them better and better.

This doesn't give us certain knowledge, but it is still a type of knowledge.

I agree it's a type of knowledge but it is a type of knowledge which allows me incorporate stories about God which would stretch my version of knowledge into what most skeptics would classify as faith - wouldn't it?

 

[Autodidact]

i think so too

are you going to blame the gun or the person that used it....

Well to follow your analogy, I'm claiming that believing something without sufficient evidence is analogous to using the gun without being careful about where you're aiming it.

 

[Jeremiah]

That was my point.

I don't view faith as evil, so your point does not really apply to me.

Honestly to me, it has about the same substance as saying, "homosexuals are not evil, it is the homosexual lifestyle that is evil." To me it is a worthless distinction. People are the sum of their beliefs; if having faith in God is evil, then people who have faith in God will consequently be viewed as evil. It is a worthless, splitting of the hairs, and it will be no more effectual then "hate the sin, love the sinner."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't view faith as evil, so your point is not really apply to me.

Honestly to me, it has about the same substance as saying, "homosexuals are not evil, it is the homosexual lifestyle that is evil." To me it is a worthless distinction. People are the sum of their beliefs; if having faith in God is evil, then people who have faith in God will consequently be viewed as evil. It is a worthless, splitting of the hairs, and it will be no more effectual then "hate the sin, love the sinner."

It would be good for you to read posts and actually think about them for a minute before responding.

I wasn't talking about you. And that's abundantly obvious from the post, which you've misread not once, but twice.

Now, for the third time:

I don't think that's what Auto or Dawkins was saying.

They said that faith is evil, not the person.

That's a HUGE difference.

 

[Jeremiah]

It would be good for you to read posts and actually think about them for a minute before responding.

I wasn't talking about you. And that's abundantly obvious from the post, which you've misread not once, but twice.

Now, for the third time:

Do you have anything worthwhile to say, or is this just a contest of who has the biggest ego?