Talk Elections

While in the past I have been pretty ambivalent about religion and its role in society, and I may be simply hungover in disgust from yesterday's Amendment One vote, I am starting to think the only way to improve society is to somehow, someway eliminate this belief in God that seems to drive people as individuals and people in groups alike to do hurtful, hateful or downright retarded things to themselves or each other.

Whether it is the BushKenya shenanigans, to the anti-gay positions of the prominent socially conservative posters, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the South's defense and prolonging of slavery in the first half of the 19th century, religion appears to be the (or at least a) cause of many of the world's challenges. Believers are stubborn in their beliefs being true and not understanding the difference between truth and faith, which by definition is a belief unsubstantiated by proof. Is the belief in God ultimately harmful to society? Discuss whether or not morality centered around pleasing a feared higher power is better for humans in an objective sense compared to morality centered around respect for humans and basic rights.

This is not an attack toward religious posters, I genuinely want to hear your opinion on this and a defense of religious beliefs' effect on society. I don't want an argument based around charity work, either, I want to talk about the belief itself and its effect on our treatment of one another at the individual and societal level, especially toward those who don't share a religious group's point of view (regardless of the beliefs or non-belief of those individuals or communities).

So are we a New Atheist now? I could come up with a fairly compelling secular argument against gay marriage, to be honest.

Strictly speaking, no, but I could myself being pushed over the edge by the particularly dangerous groups acting in God's name. I shouldn't limit that to myself; anti-religious sentiment will increase each time religion lands a "victory" for their side. But I don't see anything inherently wrong with BRTD's or Nathan's (and a handful of others) beliefs other than *it is based on something unconnected to earthly reality and *it helps validate the beliefs of the Bad Guys.

No more so than any other beliefs based in things unconnected to philosophically rigorous logical argumentation, which is the vast majority of things that people believe in and interact with. The concept of God isn't unique in that sense. What is unique is the sheer relentlessness of asshattery in this particular created species, which is arguably concomitant with sentience.

It can certainly be argued that the needs of the current era aren't ideally served by religious faith, or by such religious faiths as we have, but it's still an open question in my mind whether that's a problem with religious faith or with the current era. (The specific gay issue is...complicated, historically, including within the history of the Christian religion, much more so than the terms of the current debate would let on.)

I'm familiar with this concept that 'moderate' beliefs (I don't actually consider my own religious beliefs at all moderate, they just resolve into moderation given the terms of the arguments that are currently going on) can serve as cover for 'extreme' ones, and it's actually something that I worry about a lot, but that's hardly unique to theistic religious beliefs. That's the case whenever anybody believes anything sufficiently strongly.

Simfan, I'd be interested, purely in a devil's-advocate sort of way, in seeing you come up with a secular argument against gay marriage. The only such that I've ever seen that made any sense whatsoever were creepy social-Darwinist/eugenic type stuff.

I would say yes, provided the believers actually think that whatever god or gods they believe in want them to perform certain actions and act certain ways. Sure, that could include good things as well as bad, but it gets people to act based on the commands of a specious authority which they are generally encouraged not to question rather than thinking about what actions they should take and determining them based on sound reason and logic. Even if the particular instruction happens to be a good one, it sets a bad precedent and could affect how they think and act in a bad way down the line.

With deists and anyone else who believes in gods but don't think they have been instructed in a specific manner, any harm is largely negligible as it will normally at most affect only the life of the believer in some minimal fashion and not significantly affect others. There's still potential for consequences, but I think it is far less.

Ah, another fine display of pseudointellectualism on the R/P board. What a shock!

Is "compelling" pretentious now? Or is it "secular"? But I still don't understand your opposition. I really don't. Do you think something is wrong with certain kinds of people using more-complex-than-average vocabulary or syntax?

Nathan- I shall come up with it, give me a little bit.

This is a slightly tangential to the OP, but do you really think that humans are a reasonable and logical species though? I certainly haven't seen much evidence of this from groups of believers and non believers alike.  I don't think this is any sort of excuse or get out of jail free card for hatred preached or practiced mind you but I think it is an important prima facie jumping off point for discussions like this.  So then is it really religion that is the suspect or that we are just kind of hard wired to be prats to each other and ourselves.

Al, missed his cuppa and I can only assume it is raining out. He will get less grumpy when he dries out.

I don't think there's a simple yes or no answer to this question. Individual capabilities will of course vary, but I think as a species we have the potential to be reasonable and logical. Potential is the key word, and there are a number of factors that can help or hinder that. I think that strict dogmas, be they religious or otherwise, are a hindrance to that potential since they usually discourage questioning and critical thinking in lieu of blind obedience. Eliminating those dogmas is part of what I think will cultivate our potential and allow us to move forward as a species.

I answered "no" for this poll. Having a religion and/or believing in the existence of one or more deities is not what matters so much as what the characteristics of those religions or deities are. Are the faiths and beings in question accepting or intolerant of diverse peoples and perspectives? Do they encourage unquestioning acceptance of dogma or individual pursuits of knowledge and wisdom, ones subordination to the authority of clerics within a religious hierarchy or a relatively egalitarian arrangement where there is no middleman betwixt oneself and the deities (or spirits that are equal instead of "superior" relative to oneself), and what other cultural values do they inspire in followers? How does one even define the deity or deities? A belief in "God" on its own reveals very little about ones views so far as I am concerned. It has potential to be good or bad.

Though I dislike Abrahamic faiths and consider belief in God unnecessary, I am not an anti-theist.

ABsolutely NOT!!!

Say what you want about the BushKenya "shenanigans" but he is aiming to help people in Kenya...he is providing them with financial support and wants to move over there to help. You talk about belief in God leading people to do things you disagree with...what about those whose belief leads them to perform charitable acts by the masses? You say you don't want to talk about charity but it's VERY relevant in this conversation

If your question involved organized religion as opposed to belief in God- I would possibly agree with your conclusion...as it is belief in God has had a largely positive impact in the world. I'm proud to be a God fearing Christian man!

Well actually charity is a bad thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g) - it just masks the oppression.

You can't really separate the two. People organize, and if people believe in the same God they will organize. People who commit evil acts in the name of their God don't do so because they are organized, they do it because their beliefs make them feel justified in doing it. Being organized just makes them more efficient.


You act as if living in fear is a good thing.

Option 3, surprised I am the first to vote that.

Belief in God, itself?  No.  Using religion to shape one's political views and candidate preferences?  Yes.

^ Pretty much my view on this. That said, it's hard to distinguish belief in God/s from organised religions, which I have a more strongly negative opinion of. I voted "yes" in the poll.

Not everything is about you, you know...

First- I think organized religion is the cause of conflicts between peoples, not belief in God...Allah and God are the same- Mohammed and Jesus Christ are not

Second- Fear of how we will be judged leads many of us to be more kind and generous. It isn't for the right reason always, but if fear of God prevents some one from committing an act of violence- do you deny it is a good thing?

No, a belief in God is extremely beneficial to society.  The Abrahamic Gods in particular and their relevant creeds all imbue their followers with a sense of purpose.  Religions (Gods) provide people with a sense of higher purpose and a belief in an afterlife.  These two things encourage productivity and allow society to run more smoothly, because people who hold those two beliefs are more likely to be optimistic and energetic.  God does not need to exist in a physical sense to have a profound effect on society; so long as the masses believe in Him (Her/It/etc), He exists.

This is a really good point.

That said, I think I should clarify something.  Religion itself doesn't lead to people killing other people.  Religion just acts as a convenient in-group/out-group indicator in pre-existing sectarian conflict.  If you're a Shia militant in Iraq, you're not killing Sunnis to avenge the Prophet's grandson Hussein's death at the treacherous hands of Yazid, you're trying to maximize the Shia share of the goods in post-conflict Iraq and trying to minimize and steal Sunni influence.  You see a guy named Omar, you know there are basically no Shia Muslims named Omar, you kill Omar and take his stuff.

Similar dynamic in Northern Ireland.  People don't kill each other over the literalism of transubstantiation.  They use it as a convenient marker for who's on which side.

Allah as taught in the Koran and God as taught in the Bible are not the same, and as such their believers will behave differently.


If fear of punishment is the only thing keeping you from violence then you are not a good person and it is nothing to be proud of. If fear of judgement is all that makes you generous then you are shallow and it is nothing to be proud of. Self-centered fear is not the basis of true kindness or generosity.

You didn't answer my question...if some one was to commit and act of violence and didn't because of fear of judgment- is that a good thing? And regardless of the reason- isn't fear of judgment causing one to be more generous a good thing? I agree that if done only for this reason, the person is not truly better...all of us are guilty of this thinking at one point or another, but if it influences the person's behavior and therefore the way they treat others- it's impossible to deny it's a good thing

It's good that someone wouldn't do a bad thing, but it's not something to be proud of. It's not something that is to be lauded. Also keep in mind that fear of judgment can keep people from doing the right thing when the situation calls for it, or it could even make them do bad things - you are dealing with a double edged-sword. Fear is not a good basis for moral behavior or a civil society.

I'd agree if the fear was from govt cameras or big brother or camps...but this is a personal belief that we will be judged by our actions here. It's not as if by being a God fearing man I walk around cowered- worrying about being smitten on the spot. I know that I will be judged by how good a person I am here...I believe I would be as generous and kind if I weren't a Christian but take this for example...

People on this board have commented on my attitude in debates- such as this one. My first reaction when I see some one attacking my faith or my country or anything of mine is anger- but then I realize that isn't appropriate or Christian so I maintain my respect and engage in a cordial and very rewarding discussion. Look at Bush Kenya's attitude when he is attacked and called dumb for trying to do the right thing- he isn't angry and doesn't demean others- he is polite and kind. You seem to be the same way so this isn't limited to those who believe in God, but belief in God influences behavior in a VERY good way well beyond an internet board...

I agree some one shouldn't be proud for making a decision not to commit violence purely out of fear of retribution- but it is impossible to argue that it isn't a good thing from the perspective of society and especially the person who would have been wronged

Clarence, what you're saying is entirely correct but we do also need to bit the bullet and recognize that for many people faith in God can serve as a psychological blank check for cruelty or carnage. What has to be done is to distinguish between different ways religious faith works psychologically and argue that on balance more good is done than harm. And I, at least, definitely do think that's an argument that can be made.

Are you saying that the government isn't judging your actions with those things? What's the difference between that and a being that is watching you all the time in order to determine whether or not to punish you?


You keep trying to point this out, but as I said it's a double edged sword. What about someone who might want to back out of a suicide bombing, but carries on because he's afraid if he backs out Allah will judge him as a coward?

To that I have no response- good point
I still believe that belief in God does far more harm then good, but you got me on that one

Just a few points to the anti-theistic...

First, a quote from one of my favorite books (http://www.baenebooks.com/10.1125/Baen/067187800X/067187800X.htm?blurb), Mother of Demons, Chapter 12, by Eric Flint:


I bolded the core section. I note that while Flint - who is a Trotskyite! - does point out how religion can be used for harm, it was also a major step forward in culture and ethics. Not that the anti-theistic will ever admit it. :P

Now on to the fear of judgment issue. I've got an example of how that can lead to an act of much good, and it's a doozy. You have heard of Elwin Wilson (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/race/2009/02/elwin-wilsons-story-is-one-of-transformationthats-why-it-resonates-so-much-its-a-story-of-changing-ones-self-an.html), haven't you?

I'll provide the money quote here, as well:
I bolded the core bit again. Interesting, eh? Now while the fear of judgment wasn't the sole reason for Elwin's change of heart, it's clear it played a role. Elwin clearly believed that how he had acted was contrary to the ethics of his Christian faith - why else would he think he was going to hell? And in this case, it allowed for something important to happen: the possibility of redemption, a major theme in many religions, definitely in Christian theology - what was Jesus' sacrifice on the cross but a redemption for all mankind? Note: you don't have to believe that part yourself - that's not what I'm asking - but it is how Christians view it, which is the point.

Here are two more points where the Belief in God/Religion (the thread has gotten a bit tangled as to which of these is being targeted in the OP's question) was definitely on the positive end:

Abolitionism (of slavery) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism). Christianity was prominent in spurring opposition to slavery, amongst Protestant and Catholic alike. Yes, there was secular opposition to it as well but to ignore the religious contribution is to ignore reality. :)

The Congo Reform Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Reform_Association). Christianity again played a prominent role in opposing the horrors of what King Leopold and Company got up to in the Congo Free State: There is also more on this in the great book King Leopold's Ghost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Leopold%27s_Ghost), by Adam Hothschild. Again, there was also secular opposition to the Congo Free State as well but ignoring the religious contributions is intellectual dishonesty.

All in all, I'd say that the belief in God - heck, religion itself - can not be considered 'ultimately harmful to society'. And before I hear it, I'm not saying that it is necessarily beneficial to society, either - that is a whole other debate that I hope the likes of my namesake in this thread will handle ;) - just that the simplistic position that faith and/or religion is ultimately a bad thing is invalid.

I think it's much more of a mixed bag than you make it out to be.

While religions often codified ethics, this wasn't necessarily the introduction of ethics - rather I would surmise that it usually would be codifying the in-group's general sense of values that already existed. By officially codifying morals, you might help with group unity, but on the other hand you establish a dogma that may inhibit further ethical advancement. Questioning whether or not the holy doctrines of your group's religion could land you into significant trouble - after all, who are you to question the divine will of the gods? Who are you to question Pharaoh's right to rule over us? Who are you to question our right to sacrifice this child to the gods? Social pressure or even violent force was, and in many places still is to varying degrees, used to coerce people to conform to religious morality.

Furthermore, I'd say that the "Golden Rule" is not really the basis for many major religions in history, at least not when it comes to out-groups. The religion might encourage fair treatment of the members of your in-group, but outsiders could be treated quite badly - hardly the Golden Rule.

In terms of culture, again I think there's a mixed bag. On the plus side religious institutions helped spur engineering feats, as they wished to build bigger and more impressive temples and monuments. On the other hand, it could be argued that art might have been restricted. Not necessarily in terms of actual restrictions, but in that the bulk of the artists were encouraged to make religious art rather than allowing open creativity. In some cases though religions have actually restricted some types of art such as dance or music, arguably a blow to culture.



Christianity was also prominent in support of keeping slavery. The Old Testament quite clearly allows and regulates slavery - it tells you who you can enslave, how long you can enslave them, how much you are allowed to beat them, etc. - and the New Testament does not offer an outright condemnation of it. You can interpret some passages as anti-slavery, but there isn't any outright command to not own slaves. This allowed for the pro-slavery side to justify their enslavement of others using the same book that the abolitionists used to condemn it.

Personally I think secular morality influenced how many of the abolitionist Christians interpreted those New Testament passages, rather than it being a movement of purely Christian origin, due to the introduction of freedom of religion which allowed for greater questioning and personal flexibility within religion.

Err...the 'mixed bag' element is mentioned twice in the bolded section of the quote - the second half of the third sentence, and the fourth sentence. I don't see how I'm not mentioning it's a mixed bag - actually, I'm making it more of a mixed bag than you and your fellow anti-theists are in this thread, given your hostility towards it. :P

Perhaps another quote from the same source might clear something up:


This part came just before the quoted section in my first post. Note the universal aspect - the idea that there are things that don't just apply to the 'in-group', but to outsiders as well. All those rhetorical questions you posed would be answered by one or more universal belief systems. You might not like their answers either, but they *are* answering those questions from more than an 'in-group' perspective. And I find it hilarious that you're viewing Christianity as an 'in-group' religion when it most definitely was not formed and developed from that perspective - we managed to be 'out-group' from the perspective of pagan and Jew alike! :D

Universal belief system principles are still principles, even - and, again, this was in the original quote - the principles are violated in practice. The Golden Rule is not invalidated as a principle if people who claim to follow it fail in doing so - the blame for that is on the followers, not the Golden Rule itself. In a more general sense, altruism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism) is very much an element of religious faith: That quote is from the Wikipedia page on Altruism I linked above.

You seem to confuse 'culture' with 'arts', and a somewhat narrow view of the arts at that. :o The initial quote from Flint seems to be implying that the development of universal codes of ethics were improvements to the cultures affected by them, and in that regard religion was having a positive effect. The same quote also pointed out how the same religions could be used as tools of oppression. So, once again, I note that the 'mixed bag' conception has been part of my argument from the beginning. I'm arguing against the anti-theistic hostility exhibited by you and others in this thread by pointing out that religion has done plenty of good as well. The exact balance on the scale of positive and negative will vary by one's opinion on both individual faiths and the overall existence of faith as well.

Prominent? I'd say the invisible hand had a bigger role in supporting slavery, O Libertarian, and on a worldwide, multi-millennial scale at that! ;) But since my initial example was of the American abolitionist movement, we'll stick to that. The Old Testament doth reflect the time in which it was formulated, when slavery was practiced by everyone. However, judging by the Wikipedia page here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery) (I will note that this is one of those disputed pages subject to edit wars and claims of bias all around, but it's late Friday and I'm not about to spend hours hunting down more information :P) the Old Testament includes more protections for slaves than amongst other societies (although this isn't saying much and certainly isn't a justification for it). As for the New Testament, from what I could make out from the above linked page and several others involved in the subject, there is a lot of debate about those passages (and about everything else - 'this page's neutrality is disputed' pops up a lot). Now, moving forward in time, it is true that some Southerners used Christianity as one of their justifications for slavery, although they did so after the abolitionist movement popped up and began growing. However, the major role in supporting slavery went, yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proslavery_in_the_antebellum_United_States), to the market: All in all, I believe that Christianity played a bigger role in spurring the abolitionist movement than the pro-slavery movement. You, of course, are free to disagree.

OK, first of all, I never claimed that abolitionism was a movement of . I said it was prominent in spurring opposition to it AND mentioned that there was secular opposition to it as well. Don't put words in my mouth. >:( Second of all, you are rather strongly implying that secular morality was necessary for Christians to challenge slavery. In addition to the highly offensive nature of such a preposition, it's also flat out incorrect. Opposition to slavery amongst Christianity goes back a LONG way, long before your cited 'introduction of freedom of religion'. Bartolomé de las Casas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas) ring a bell? There have been Christian figures arguing against slavery going back to the days of the Roman Empire (before you say it, yes, there were others accepting it as well, but that doesn't change my point, now does it?). Now as for secular morality, the very rational societies of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome had a LOT of slavery and it was accepted in their culture to a large extent, and justified by such figures as Plato and Aristotle.

And just to show that I'm not a hypocrite about this, I will also point out that some Stoics seem to hold the record for first condemning slavery, followed shortly by early Christians and even the odd Chinese emperor (to an extent). Both secular and religious ethics can lead to either benevolent or oppressive actions, depending on how the followers of such ethics act.

Dude, I think your anti-theistic bias is blinding you here. I've been the one making the case for the mixed bag, by taking your negative views and examples on religion and faith and adding my positive views and examples to counterbalance them. I'm not claiming religion and faith is perfect, and I haven't been arguing that! :P

Oh, and The Mikado is quite accurate. If religion wasn't part of the picture, people would just find something else to mark out groups. ;)

And I said that is was more of a mixed bag than you are making it out to be. I think you're giving more credit than is due.


There are common things that societies need to run that religions typically incorporate, but again these notions would have had to have been in force already. It's not like religion introduced the concept that murdering your neighbor is not acceptable behavior in a group. No tribe would have even gotten to the point of developing a coherent religion if they didn't have that.

But it is a simple matter of fact that many religions treat outsiders differently, and that's usually because the outsiders don't hold the same 'universal' truths or morality.


If you lived under the religion of ancient Egypt, questioning the Pharaoh's right to rule wouldn't likely earn you any friends and likely would have been lethal. In other religions of course they'd just likely have the answer that the religion in question is just wrong. The problems aren't in the "universal" basic things that would have largely come before religion that pretty much everyone has always agreed upon, the problem are a lot of the things that aren't universal that many religions bring along with them.


Do you not understand what an in-group is? In-groups aren't about who is popular or who is the underdog. To an individual, their in-group is just the group they consider their self to be a part of, nothing more. If someone is a Christian then they are part of the Christian in-group, and members of another religion are in an out-group. (how "out" they are to an individual might vary of course, depending on factors like nationality, ethnicity, culture, past interactions, etc.) So of course pagans and Jews regarded Christians as an out-group, because Christians weren't part of their religious group, but the Christians would have viewed them as out-groups as well.


I didn't say the Golden Rule is invalid. I'm saying that many religious principles don't follow the Golden Rule to begin with. The Old Testament is full of rules and stories where people are treated quite horribly for poor reasons, for instance. I'm not talking about adherents not adhering correctly, I'm talking about adherents doing exactly what their religion tells them to when what is being done is bad.


I don't claimed all social divides and conflicts arose from religion. My position is that it creates extra divides which leads to more conflicts. I think the whole Israel/Jerusalem situation is a good example of this - without the religious component a good deal of the reason for fighting and hostility would be lost.

It might depend on how you define "belief" and "God."   If you say belief in God is ultimately harmful to society, what are you comparing it to?  Belief in something else that cannot be made into a "God"?  Or the absence of belief?

Absence of belief.

It is funny that my thread to vent is dismissed as psuedointellectualism.

So why am I the only one voting not sure still? I didn't expect this to be so polarizing.

Bunk.  You have an ethnic group which wanted reestablish an ethnic homeland after close to two millennia of it not being in existence and another ethnic group which feels that they were already there.  There is no reason to believe that the two groups would be any more amicable if there was no such thing as religion.

Would the first ethnic group have even wanted to reestablish their ethnic homeland in that specific place without their religious belief? Would the Nazis have even been able to prompt the hatred for them that enabled the Holocaust to happen if not for centuries of Christian anti-semitism, giving them additional reason to seek a homeland of their own? Would they even have continued to exist as a separate ethnic group in the first place without their religious beliefs, or would they have been more likely to interbreed and integrate with the native cultures after migrating?

For the other side, certainly the Palestinians would have reason to be pissed when a bunch of outsiders come in and claim their land. But what about the ethnic groups in the surrounding region? Do they really care about the Palestinians, or is it that they can't stand that the Jews have taken the Holy Land?

Religion isn't the only problem in the conflict, but the religious difference don't exactly help.

You can point to examples of ethnic groups remaining distinctive because of the influence of religion and you can point to examples of such groups amalgamating under said influence.  So without religion, maybe it would have been a different ethnic group trying to reclaim a different their homeland after suffering from genocide in the Second Pan-Terran War.

You're harping on the bad that religion does without crediting it for the good it does.

And again I stated that not all divides are caused by religion. I simply used that one specific example to point out where it makes the divides worse.


Seeing as my goal is to point out the bad that religion does, I don't see why I'm obligated to point out the supposed good it does, especially in consideration of the fact that the audience is already largely aware of it. It's not my job to make the other side's case for them.

Furthermore I don't particularly see much point in doing that because I don't think there's any real good religion does that can't be accomplished by secular means for secular reasons.

Short answer; Absolutely. Long answer...ugh, I don't want to have to go back and read this whole thing to get involved :P

The question that was posed in the OP was not whether secularism can achieve the same good as religion.  It was whether religion is harmful, and that question cannot be honestly answered without giving full consideration to both the beneficial and harmful effects of religion as it is practiced in human societies.

You are making some strong assumptions about what I'm making it out to be. Although it is accurate that I'm giving it more credit that you are - *ahem* You aren't giving it any credit at all - and you even admit it in your answer to Ernest! Anyone who doesn't share your belief system about religion would be giving it more credit than you are, since you can only go one direction from an extreme. :P


You are presupposing rather a large degree of conformity in culture/law/custom/etc between pre-religious societies. Leaving aside the questionable idea that societies were ever pre-religious - that depends on one's definition of 'religion', but there are clearly elements of faith going back at least as far as cave paintings and the like - there is quite a large amount of diversity between societies in what is viewed as right and wrong. If all of these universal ethics systems - ranging from basic to complex - already were established in societies, then why did this happen: {yes, Flint's book again} Tribal religions don't have to follow any set of ethical rules at all - many of them fall into the first of three categories of (remembering a LONG way back to college texts on the subject) types of salvation: salvation by ritual. You perform the rituals and that's it. The other two categories, for the record, are salvation by faith and salvation by good works. Ethics usually play a larger role in them.

Many cultures treat outsiders differently. Singling out religion seems an odd thing to focus on. The oh-so-rational Greeks of Antiquity considered anyone who wasn't Greek to be a barbarian. Period. It made no difference what they believed or how they acted. Whereas for a universal religion, you can be from a different culture but still be treated warmly if you share the same faith - I certainly consider the masses of African Christians (and Asian Christians, and Latin American Christians, etc.) to be my spiritual kin regardless of how much different the culture they come from is from mine. I've been around long enough to see how the more devout Christians were some of the staunchest supporters of the South Sudanese in their struggle against the North Sudanese, for example. And I consider Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, Ba'hai (and maybe others; there is some uncertainty in my understandings of the vast, vast, diversity of faiths out there) to worship the same deity I do, just in different ways. I remember, from long ago, a post on the NationStates forum (utterly dominated by your type, Dibble) from a Muslim in support of Christians against all the Christian-bashing that goes on there. And moving up a rung on the ladder, I consider my Buddhist brother and his Wiccan wife to be fellow spiritual travelers, and we three ended up aligning in an argument (over the movie Religious, for the record) against three anti-theistic members of her family, and we respect each other's beliefs. An 'outsider' is what you make of it. After all, all of you anti-theists treat people who don't believe like you do differently, as outsiders. You are an example of the very thing you decry! ;)


But the Pharaoh brings Ma'at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27at) down from the gods for everyone to enjoy! How could you question that! :P Unless you're an outsider barbarian in which case they'd hate you for non-religious reasons (the ancient Egyptians were very xenophobic - everyone who wasn't an Egyptian got a distinct color in hieroglyphics distinct from 'Egyptian male' and 'Egyptian female', for example). As for the rest of your statement, I already challenged your statement about above - where is the proof that there was any such thing before the universal religions sprung up? If everything in all religions were universal, there would be just one religion without distinguishing factors. The universal religions are claiming that they encompass all of what a religion should be, but since people disagree, you have multiple religions (and cross-variants, splinters, etc.). And again, cultures aren't universal at all. They differentiate from other cultures in many ways. The 'problem' isn't religion, but culture.


You didn't describe the concept in those terms, so get off your pedestal and don't be an ass about it. This, especially when combined with the example you gave from Ancient Egypt, absolutely implies an established group with some level of authority. Given that Christianity was something new, it was neither established nor the codification of some set of values that already existed (and I've argued that point above). It certainly became an in-group, but the idea that - based on the reading of your initial comments - it was already an in-group from the second Jesus gained one follower is not at all obvious. Now, using your refined definition, everyone who belongs to more than just themselves is in an in-group, and varying numbers of people would be in an out-group. In that case, every possible type of in-group in existence spreads division and is part of the 'problem'. So what's the point in mentioning any one type of in-group?


Actually, having read the entire thing, the New Testament summed it all down to two overarching points. I believe htmldon once said it best: Love God. Love others. The Old Testament, while quite a read (if you're going to use it as a weapon, go to the end of Judges and just use that, since it's the worst damn thing in the whole book) is ultimately not something that has to be followed - the Law of the Old Testament is explicitly violated by Jesus and his Disciples at least once. I will now wait for Fisty to arrive and derail the thread. :D And consider this: at least Christianity is honest enough not to remove those parts of the Bible - we kept the warts of the past. Would you be happier if we pretended they had never been written? And that's just Christianity - you can make any faith system you like, including none at all (there's a story about that amongst Hinduism I read in The Cartoon History of the World), and in a millennium it won't be the same as what was intended by the founder.


Ernest answered you on this one, and I'm in agreement with him, However...

this rather puts the lie to your claims of finding things a mixed bag, doesn't it? That's not what you're arguing at all! You seem to think that finding anything positive in religion/faith is not viewing religion as a mixed bag. You can't have it both ways: are you arguing that religion/faith is a mixed bag, or are you arguing that religion/faith is a bad thing? ;)

An invisible, unaccountable, all-powerful authority that no one else can see or interact with "telling" you what to think and do?

I say yes it is ultimately harmful.

Said consideration can and has been made by the other side. Such is the format of debate - I don't expect the theists to make arguments for my side.

One Who can, in fact, be interacted with, but of course you wouldn't see it that way.

Related, I'm not sure what's with our cultural fetishization of the fantasy of autonomous action.

That just makes it that much more dangerous. An imaginary authority that a large portion of the population believes they can "interact" with? That's pure madness. A society based on something that ambiguous and manipulable is in a perilous position.

Careful, the religious get very sensitive when you point that out to them.

It's important to remember here that religion and belief in God are not the same thing.

Why? And how so? Especially in an American context.


Yeah, I usually encounter a reaction similar to that of a rabid raccoon when I foolishly venture into these dark parts of the forum. I am rarely a welcome guest. :P

Because there are all sorts of aspects of religion that can't be summed up by "belief in God," (not to mention that religion is possible without belief in God).
Belief in God is something abstract, unless its qualified or contextualized.  By itself, it doesn't make much of a difference in anything.
There are plenty of people who believe in God in some abstract sense but aren't religious. I think that's especially true in America. 

They are two sides of the same nickel to somebody who has no time for such small change.

It seems you're referring to organized religion when you refer to religion in general, which of course makes all the difference. A belief in a god makes someone by definition religious. They may not belong to a specific religion, but that's not what religion itself is. Though in the US you could argue that the massive religious industry in this country has led to the perception that you must be involved monetarily and physically (going to church) in order to have a "religion". The overly complicated explanations by the religious in the US in particular to attempt to reason that somehow believing in the Christian god is somehow a separate concept from being religious is nonsense on the same level that gods are in general.

It's not so much that this is sane, it's that the idea that there's any analogous basis for constructing a view of the world that is sane is immensely problematic, unless you're selectively defining sanity to mean agreement with your own position, or using it as a shorthand for the most common types of mental processes in a population.


Yes, yes, we get it. You're better than us. Congratulations.

Ah yes, very good point. The problem is that I fully embrace the insanity in my trying to understand things I don't or can't. The point of religion is that it provides people with infinite understanding if they can communicate with a being that created and fully understands all. It puts people in a mentally destructive state of believing in their own belief. I have complete doubt in my reality, but religion depends on the absence of doubt. And that, I think, has had devastating effects on our society starting with an unwarranted sense of control that comes with absolutes. I live without nearly as many absolutes in how I view the world, but our natural tendency to categorize is perpetuated by the dictated facts and rules of religion. There is no logical room for interpretation for people who have such strong beliefs in the absolute rule of their god, yet there is so much variation even among people of any particular Christian faith.

It purports to, but there are ways of doing religiosity that can leave room for doubt or even introduce more doubt. Interacting with God (through prayer and mystical experiences) doesn't render me positive of God so much as it does less positive of the rest of my interactions. I do believe in my own belief, but that's because there isn't much else to stand on, and I recognize that that's the reason.

Of course, if the question were 'Is belief in God as most commonly processed in the minds of less-than-mystically-inclined believers harmful to society?', I'd have a different answer. It's just that I don't agree that secularization ameliorates the part of this that's the biggest problem.

No, a belief in a god makes someone by definition a theist.  I don't see how someone can be religious in the absence of any religious tradition, community, practice, experience, etc. Christianity is a religion, yes. I don't go for the idea that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship, since religion is all about a relationship to the sacred.  I'm not saying religion can't be idiosyncratic, since that involves a religious search or commitment in itself.  Religion really is as much about search and questioning as it is about belief.

???  No, not really.

The entire concept of a god is a societal phenomenon, which is the basis of what religion is at its core. If someone believes in the power of the christian god and the things it can and did do, that's absolutely religious. The rules and powers are contained in that belief regardless of whether someone hangs out with other people when they believe it. I also find the whole concept of there being any true questioning as there is already a doctrine of absolute truth. Which leads me back to the variation and interpretation issue. The absolutes of the Christian god make accepting alternative interpretations impossible, yet people assert there is any sort of two-way relationship. That's why religion is simply a societal woe, in that it creates imaginary friction, inflexible morality, and a hypocritical implementation of rules that are then expected of everyone.


Like I said above in this post, an all-knowing and all-powerful entity being the basis for the system of beliefs makes doubt impossible. How much of a conversation can you have with someone who already has all the answers? And those answers have been enforced societally for centuries. I find it hard to conceptualize any sort of religion as being flexible or variable. It is by definition a set of values and beliefs that are fervently and faithfully obeyed.

I do essentially agree that an aspect of modern religion is largely personal though, which is why I don't have a problem with anyone's beliefs on a philosophical level. Unfortunately religion itself disagrees by being that set of beliefs that are applied prior to interpretation.

I also am curious about the concept of setting uncertainty straight with something unchanging. If all faith is put into something for the reason of finding understanding, then how can anything be understood when all the decisions have already been made? Looking at everything through the lens of a particular ideology in order to understand it immediately removes the ability to find full understanding by removing outside perspectives. I can't gain a full understanding of a building without leaving one room.

No it doesn't. Many of the greatest religious thinkers where full of doubt. Try reading early existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard if you want an example.

I definitely don't think all people associated with religious thought have no doubt about anything, I'm just speaking on the terms of the institution of religion. There are far, far too many people in each of the countless religious sects to be able to stereotype. Religions thankfully don't quite have a stranglehold on philosophical and moral thought, but their influence is one that I definitely think is one based on absolutes and a lack of doubt. Just based on the concept of there being answers for everything that can be attained gives people an excuse not to doubt. That being said I will definitely look into this dude for that reason alone.