Some great discussion in the comments of my recent entries, definitely worth checking the comments out if you haven't. Thanks to everyone for your thoughts.
I wanted to highlight my response to someone who basically said that I shouldn't blame religion for the terrible things that people have done, because they were just bad people using religion in a bad way.
"i am quite sure there is some corruption involved and its not automatically the relgion to blame."
Do you think we should give judges the power to seize anyone's assets without explaination or appeal? Lets call that the Donkey Power.
And there are lots of good reasons to use the Donkey Power - you could take everything a drug dealer has and give it to needy children. Only the corrupt judges would abuse that priveledge, so its not that there's anything wrong with the Donkey Power, only there's something wrong with anyone who uses it inappropriately. Right? Come on.
Any power granted to people can be used inappropriately. For that reason we should be very careful what powers we give and why.
I like many of the core social teachings of religions. I don't like the absolutes and eternal consequences that they use to blackmail people who can't think for themselves. Be good because you'll go to heaven? No, be good because we're all better off that way.
Some religious leaders teach heaven and hell to encourage people to do good. They're the judges who use the Donkey Power to steal from drug dealers and give to needy children.
Some religious leaders teach heaven and hell to get people to fly planes into buildings. They're the judges who use the Donkey Power to steal from you to buy themselves a new car.
And here's the other thing. Do you think that Osama sees himself as a bad person? Of course not. Not too many people wake up in the morning and think "I'm going to do some evil today." Osama probably genuinely believes that his god will reward him for what he's doing. Is his god wrong but yours is right? The answer of course is that there is no god. God is the Donkey Power that someone invented and that people use for good or bad like every other power.
If Osama didn't have his imaginary friend, would he be trying to kill Americans? Maybe he'd find another reason. But he'd have a tougher time recruiting his soliders, who'd rather try to find 1 virgin here on earth since they'd know they aren't getting 6 dozen of them when they die. They'd rather trade with the US and improve their own lives than kill themselves fighting a far superior military power.
"religion is just the vehicle used by some evil people."
And its a really fucking powerful vehicle, so why give it to anyone? Yeah the donkey power can be used to do good, but it can also be used to do bad. Why put the donkey power out there if we can fight crime and poverty in other ways? We don't need religion. We dont need to invent heaven and hell to have reason to do good. And we dont need to give evil people such a powerful weapon to manipulate people.
6 comments:
Sadly, there is no Donkey Power. I hope you are aware of this.
Here's to competent discourse. But alsohere's to hoping that you really don't think you're somehow smarter and more illuminated then most of mankind because you think your disbelief in a god is correct. Because that's kinda how it is coming off.
Nothing worse than a smug athiest. Believe what you will, but being demeaning to those who differ doesn't help anyone. This goes both ways of course, this I know.
As has been said before, perhaps some people just haven't been in a situation in which the existence of God is apparent.......
Am I a smug believer in 1 = 0.999... ?
In the case of that belief I understand that the definition of the terms aren't disputable and that the statement is fact. People who disagree are wrong, and probably think I'm smug about it. In this case my belief is based on definitional certainty. In the case of God, my (dis)belief is based on reason and overwhelming (lack of) evidence.
Someone who forms a logical conclusion based on overwhelming evidence will often come across as smug, especially if they refuse to tread lightly around someone's delicate feelings. God and religion are put on a pedestal, not to be questioned. When someone dares, believers are incredulous and make accussations about even the most delicately posed challenges. Compare this to politics, where hardcore conservative and hardcore liberal's sacred beliefs are challeneged every day.
perhaps some people just haven't been in a situation in which the existence of God is apparent
Appearances can be deceiving my friend. That's why we can use the best reasoning techniques available to us to overcome the biases of subjective perception.
here's to hoping that you really don't think you're somehow smarter and more illuminated then most of mankind because you think your disbelief in a god is correct.
If you were to reach a conclusion that a huge percentage of people believe in something that isn't there, and devote lots of time and energy to that something, how would you feel?
Do I think I'm smarter that people from 2,000 years ago that believed the world was flat? No, I think I have better information.
Do I think I'm smarter than someone who genuinely believes that they are reincarnated from animals? Maybe, but more likely they're just crazy.
Most people who believe in God just have bad information, mostly lack of training in good reasoning techniques combined with a lifetime of religious propoganda and misinformation. On top of that, many religious ideas are very appealing, so many people wouldn't want to put a lot of effort into questioning those beliefs.
And yes, some people who believe in God are just crazy or dumb. But I'm not really interesting in having discussions with those people.
Here's to competent discourse.
Amen, brother.
I should note that telling someone they are arrogant isn't competent discourse. Asking someone if they think they're better than other people isn't competent discourse. It might be an understandable emotional reaction to a forceful expression of conflicting ideas and a realization of the full implications of those ideas (if there's no God, what does that say about all the believers...), but it isn't competent discourse. It is just a personal attack.
Such criticism doesn't offend me; in fact it is useful since arrogance turns people off from the ideas presented regardless of their validity. I just want to point out that it isn't competent discourse.
"Do I think I'm smarter than someone who genuinely believes that they are reincarnated from animals? Maybe, but more likely they're just crazy."
This is pretty harsh. Someone who has been brought up to think a certain way and who has never seen any counter-evidence should probably not be described as "crazy" for continuing to beleive it, especially if that person has never had that particular belief challenged.
The quote above is the sort of comment that believers will latch onto and use as evidence that you are arrogant.
Dammit I was trying to pick something that most people would consider crazy. How about someone who believes Elvis is still alive? I dunno I'm quickly trying to come up with an obviously insane belief.
Yeah I guess there are major religions that beleive in animal reincarnation? I'll change it to "speak to animals." That should work right?
I'd like to go back to one of your original posts...
Why is it ok for people who believe in god to think that they are better than other people, but not the other way around?
Why is it okay for these people to go to other countries and try to convince "non-believers" to believe in a different make believe god?
And for that matter, why is it okay for these people to come up to me while I'm studying and try to convince me that I'm going to hell because I don't believe in god?
Is it only arrogance when you're on the minority side? When you believe in god, like the majority of Americans, it's okay to think you're better than the atheists?
Post a Comment