Protestant Family and my search for truth.

[IndiReloaded]

That's a good quote, I like it Gribble.

Though I think Steven forgot to mention that good people still do evil things even without Religion.

No Mish, he didn't. Read it again:

With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
--Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winning physicist, 1979.

[Mish]

It is easy for religious faith, even if it is irrational in itself, to lead a sane and decent person, by rational, logical steps, to do terrible things. There is a logical path from religious faith to evil deeds. There is no logical path from atheism to evil deeds. Of course, many evil deeds are done by individuals who happen to be atheists. But it can never be rational to say that, because of my nonbelief in religion, it would be good to be cruel, to murder, to oppress women, or to perpetrate any of the evils on the Hitchens list.
The link for the entire article is here, if you wish:
[url]http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o..._evil_thi.html[/url]

I have already recommended his book. Or, if you have issue w/Dawkins rather blunt commentary, try anything on this subject by Bertrand Russell.


The link for the entire article is here, if you wish:
[url]http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/richard_dawkins/2007/10/for_good_people_to_go_evil_thi.html[/url]

I have already recommended his book. Or, if you have issue w/Dawkins rather blunt commentary, try anything on this subject by Bertrand Russell.

Okay Indi, let's agree to disagree.

You believe that "There is a logical path from religious faith to evil deeds. There is no logical path from atheism to evil deeds."

I believe that "There is a logical path from religious faith and atheism and any other form of ideology to evil deeds."

Since neither of us can convince the other, let's just leave it at that

[Mish]

No Mish, he didn't. Read it again:

Indi, I know he didn't, that's why I said:


Originally Posted by Mishanya View Post

Though I think Steven forgot to mention that good people still do evil things even without Religion.

(Before you make a hasty reply the key being Steven's quote "But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." I.e. he hints that only Religion and nothing else makes good people do evil things, which is entirely untrue.)

[Only-virgins]

Hows it that even an argument? People cause violence or what ever you may call evil all the time no matter what they believe, but religion has sure been a great inspiration for it even though it preaches the opposite. Really ironic. Once religion is gone atheism didn't prevail, what happens is that humans finally begin to just be themself and be humans. The existence of doubt doesn't secure the existence of religion..family does...people are raised to be religious in most cases. Some break out and other fall to the trap of early childhood brainwashing. Religion has to stop at the home, I for one am not taking my kids to church or mentioning god ... If they ask me because they heard it somewhere I will tell them what I think and than tell them to think on their own...if they choose religion than I have failed as a father.

[Mish]

Hows it that even an argument? People cause violence or what ever you may call evil all the time no matter what they believe

That was all I was trying to say

Once religion is gone

It won't go away.

The existence of doubt doesn't secure the existence of religion..family does...people are raised to be religious in most cases.

Family secures the existance of the past, it simply passes the past knowledge of what worked for them onto the new generation. Every person has their own path and way to classify the unknown. Some choose Religion, others find their own way to classify it, relatively few choose to ignore the unknown completely due to the lack of facts. I think this is because most people don't like to be uncertain. Uncertainty can generate fear and people generally want to feel comfortable with the world around them. Many people want to live in a world that makes sense to them on every level (be it with facts or without). Then the experience is passed on to the progeny. The existance of some form of faith imo is secured in the fact that there will always be unknown that will need to be classified by most people.

[Only-virgins]

It won't go away.

I disagree.If it doesn't than it goes away when we all do.

[Mish]

I disagree.If it doesn't than it goes away when we all do.

Okay OV, I agree with that. If human race becomes extinct Religion will go away with it.

[Only-virgins]

Okay OV, I agree with that. If human race becomes extinct Religion will go away with it.

Are you religious? You just pretty much said there is no god...if religion was real than it wouldn't die with us because we would see god and his throne of gold when we die.

[Mish]

Are you religious? You just pretty much said there is no god...if religion was real than it wouldn't die with us because we would see god and his throne of gold when we die.

I didn't say there is no God.

I'm not Religious. But I have a strong belief in God and my views are very Pantheistic.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheistic[/url]

[IndiReloaded]

Okay Indi, let's agree to disagree.

You believe that "There is a logical path from religious faith to evil deeds. There is no logical path from atheism to evil deeds."

I believe that "There is a logical path from religious faith and atheism and any other form of ideology to evil deeds."

Since neither of us can convince the other, let's just leave it at that

No Mish, I'm sorry but you made a statement that a lot of religious types use in their arguments & its just plain wrong. 'Atheism' isn't a philosophy or *belief* ideology (your word) at all. That's the whole point.

That's why atheism (or rational humanism, if you prefer), when applied with reason as its supposed to be, doesn't logically lead to violence. There is no overriding belief that requires them to put aside the notion of limiting personal suffering (or whatever rational process one uses to define 'good' vs. 'evil'). The test of a belief comes when one normally WOULD behave a certain way in a given circumstance, but then DOESN'T b/c of said overriding belief. Atheism is very congruent in that regard. Religion is not.

[IndiReloaded]

...if religion was real than it wouldn't die with us because we would see god and his throne of gold when we die.

I love this idea. I've heard a similar one about what would happen if we leave religious folk behind when we move to another planet. I somehow doubt that religion (or the god idea) would resurface.

Tho the stories about the creation of the new world would be interesting read as they emerge, lol.

[Mish]

No Mish, I'm sorry but you made a statement that a lot of religious types use in their arguments & its just plain wrong. 'Atheism' isn't a philosophy or *belief* ideology (your word) at all. That's the whole point.

That's why atheism (or rational humanism, if you prefer), when applied with reason as its supposed to be, doesn't logically lead to violence. There is no overriding belief that requires them to put aside the notion of limiting personal suffering (or whatever rational process one uses to define 'good' vs. 'evil'). The test of a belief comes when one normally WOULD behave a certain way in a given circumstance, but then DOESN'T b/c of said overriding belief. Atheism is very congruent in that regard. Religion is not.

[url]http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk[/url]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism[/url]

[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism[/url]

[url]http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism[/url]

Almost every source I find on Atheism describes it as a philosophical point of view, ideology, belief or doctrine.

Indi, you yourself are pointing to strong links of atheism to philosophies and ideologies such as rational humanism (Can also add naturalism). I don't disagree that there are many different types of atheists, there are implicit atheists, explicit atheists, strong atheists, weak atheists, atheists who combine their philosophical view points of atheism with other apsects of their culture. Each one uses some form of ideology to justify their point of view (just like Religious people). So yes, from that perspective Atheism is a philosophical ideology which may or may not be used for good things or for bad things just like Religion.

Now as far as your argument goes that Atheism does not lead to violence. Suppose atheists formed a majority in a country and decided to get rid of all Religious people who they viewed as parasites (Like in Soviet Union), do you think they will do it in benevolent, non-violent and caring ways?

P.S. In response to this quote in particular "There is no overriding belief that requires them to put aside the notion of limiting personal suffering (or whatever rational process one uses to define 'good' vs. 'evil'). The test of a belief comes when one normally WOULD behave a certain way in a given circumstance, but then DOESN'T b/c of said overriding belief." Where did you find this information Indi? Are these personal convictions? A belief is not defined as "putting aside the notion of limitng personal suffering". A belief may be faith in anything which can not be supported by any factual evidence. A belief can even be an opinion or conviction. How will you be able to test that? It's obvious also that some beliefs are beyond testing (Even beliefs outside Religion). I'm not going to go into any Religious area on this so we don't end up with another 100 pages of debate, but I will bring a real life example. For instance a scientist may develope a breakthough on black holes, which he will be unable to test due the lack of a proper testing environment needed to simulate an actual black hole and lack of any other factual evidence. In this sense how could you test this scientists beliefs? How can you (using your own words) test him "behave a certain way in a given cricumstance, but then not behave in that way due to being overriden by his belief?"

[Gribble]

Unlike religions which almost universally teach bigotry against anyone who believes in a different god and outright hatred against anyone who doesn't believe in any god, atheism is simply the knowledge that gods do not exist. There's no dogma. No doctrine.

Most atheists are rational people. I don't respect your religious beliefs. Not in the least. However, I respect you and tolerate your beliefs. If someone came along and tried to take your right to worship away I'd be among the first to stand up for you, and I don't think I'd be alone.

[Mish]

Unlike religions which almost universally teach bigotry against anyone who believes in a different god and outright hatred against anyone who doesn't believe in any god, atheism is simply the knowledge that gods do not exist. There's no dogma. No doctrine.

You may belief this, but this is not the definition of Atheism that I have found so far. Both Oxford Dictionary and Merriam Webster (As well as many other) define atheism as belief or a doctrine. If you want to argue about this, argue with them.

Most atheists are rational people. I don't respect your religious beliefs. Not in the least. However, I respect you and tolerate your beliefs. If someone came along and tried to take your right to worship away I'd be among the first to stand up for you, and I don't think I'd be alone.

I'm not attacking any atheists. I just want to clarify that. I know that you personally Gribble (And OV and Indi) are rational and caring people who would not want to see anyone come to harm. I'm just stating the fact that there are and there were many others who happened to be atheists and who shared a need to eradicate those who don't share their point of view. People like that in the past did become a majority and they did take away rights to worship from others. I'm not saying that every atheist will do it, I'm saying that it's posible and it does, did and probably will happen again.

Like OV said, People cause violence or what ever you may call evil all the time no matter what they believe. This is self explanatory.

Anyway, like I said before. I agree to disagree to put this discussion to rest.

[Only-virgins]

No Mish, I'm sorry but you made a statement that a lot of religious types use in their arguments & its just plain wrong. 'Atheism' isn't a philosophy or *belief* ideology (your word) at all. That's the whole point.

That's why atheism (or rational humanism, if you prefer), when applied with reason as its supposed to be, doesn't logically lead to violence. There is no overriding belief that requires them to put aside the notion of limiting personal suffering (or whatever rational process one uses to define 'good' vs. 'evil'). The test of a belief comes when one normally WOULD behave a certain way in a given circumstance, but then DOESN'T b/c of said overriding belief. Atheism is very congruent in that regard. Religion is not.

You say everything I think. I don't even need to bother.