shawn said:
I can think of example of Gulags which worked "quite well" or plantations and slave camps, sheesh, even Auschwitz "worked" very well.
i think your point, if you have one, is getting lost here. my point is that religion has constructed arguably "good" artifacts, as well as arguably "bad" ones. that is not an argument against religion, but an argument against harmful outcomes of which, say, the scientific experiments and technological production line in auschwitz are a case in point. science, technology and machinery are morally neutral, but the uses to which they are put by scientists, religious or not, or religious people, scientists or not, are not morally neutral. moral outcomes are not provable, measurable, reliably reproducible and observable and for that, you need a philosophical method, of which all religions have at least the basic workings. obviously such a moral framework can be claimed in the absence of religion, but not reliably so according to scientifically respectable standards, as nobody has yet developed a scientifically valid way to show morality developing in the absence of religion, which will have to wait until artificial intelligence allows us to experiment with a type of consciousness which can be insulated from any religious influence. even then, an argument against this sort of proxy experiment will still be possible on purely scientific grounds.
The ideas that one people is better than another all come from religion
shawn, you probably need to read a bit of daniel dennett's work on the phenomenology of religion from an evolutionary perspective. it will not require you, of course, to relinquish your atheism, dennett being one of the amusingly-titled "four horsemen" (the others being sam harris, christopher hitchens and richard dawkins) but it will almost certainly demonstrate that group chauvinism is an evolutionary phenomenon not even restricted to humans, let alone to religious humans.
the guilt for all the racism and the holocaust rests on those and on the heads who have promoted and taught such ideology.
if you're saying that the holocaust was only possible because of the history of christian anti-semitism, i would certainly agree in terms of those circumstances, but i think taking it further to blame the jews for inventing judaism which gave rise to christianity which gave rise to christian anti-semitism, i think you're straining credibility somewhat, as well as ignoring the moral agency and free will of the actual perpetrators.
I am sure you could apply the same concept you expound above to exonerate even hitler or other criminals.
er.. as in him making the trains run on time? but you are making a moral argument, which requires a moral argument in response.
Science is not merely about "what is utilitarian", that is another religious/philisophical idea.
i know that - my argument is not that science cannot produce non-utilitarian outcomes, but a refutation of your assertion that religion cannot produce "good".
And one does not need to be of any particular "religion" to produce poetry or defend people's rights.
er... i know. i am simply arguing that religious values can be shown to produce those "good" outcomes as well, refuting your earlier assertion.
That will merely biase whatever they do or say.
that is not a testable assertion - until we see whether our artificial-intelligence thought experiment from above starts to produce art in the absence of religion.
I do not need faith to see the effects of gravity. I know therefore that there is a force which affects things which is "invisible" which I then need to develop the "eyes" to see, much like ultraviolet or infrared.
you're not understanding my point. your "faith" here is that observable material effects, measurable by observation or indeed deduction/inference is the be-all and end-all of reality. i don't need "faith" to see the effects and operation of religion either, nor do i need "faith" to carry out the behaviours required of me by religion. i only need "faith" for the 13 axioms (or dogmas, if you prefer) which are irreducibly faith-based. you have similar irreducible, faith-based beliefs, even if you do not choose to recognise them.
I am certain, that is about all such people are good for, sharp answers and wrangling of words to no end.
says you. what they are also good for is challenging sloppy thinking, poor arguments and inexact terminology. do yourself a favour and buy yourself a copy of [famous atheist] bertrand russell's "history of western philosophy" and you'll understand how both philosophy and faith are inextricably bound up with science and the quests to understand truth and reality.
I don't need religion to convince me that life is important and people should not be harmed, this is self evident and consistent around the world regardless of what religion people do or do not have.
and that's all well and good (if not self-evident and consistent as you assert) but still not a terribly effective argument for the uselessness and malignancy of religion you are seeking to establish.
Well, we are being manipulated into a global conflict which will annihilate hundreds of millions (?, more, maybe billions, maybe less) in the next short period of time, via religion.
eh? who is manipulating you? who is manipulating me? we still have our moral agency and free-will last time i checked.
I have every right to be angry about such foolishness and I will not be quiet. Will you go quietly into your grave, doing nothing, saying nothing to prevent this?
who says i am? who says it is not my religion that prevents me from going quietly? believe me, shawn, plenty of people have tried to give up being jewish. it didn't save them from the mediaeval laws of
limpieza de sangue, or the pseudo-scientific theories of C19th racists, or the nazi gas chambers, or the soviet gulag, nor will it save us from the conspiracy theorists of fundamentalism and the lunatic fringe. there is one man that thinks i am part of a worldwide network of reptilian overlords from outer space - how exactly is becoming an atheist going to enable me to hide from prejudice at the genetic level?
Science is a tool which can be used for our enlightenment and our collective betterment,and it can be quite effective in that purpose, if we apply it correctly.
i agree! what the arse are we actually arguing about here, that religion prevents us from doing so? well, perhaps, but sometimes it also prevents us from doing things that we might otherwise regret. all i am saying here is that morality is a sine qua non, but the fact that it may be derived from or influenced by religious belief is hardly grounds for its lack of necessity.
alternatively, snoopy appears to be saying the same thing as me, but much more succinctly - to my chagrin.
b'shalom
bananabrain
