Debate discussion: Gramarye and Inferno's debate.

[australopithecus]

"Religion is an evil that needs to be addressed"
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=51&p=131276#p131276

 

[Prolescum]

This'll be a hard one. I don't quite agree with the sentiment, but I'd struggle to find solid arguments against it.
An insult to the enlightenment? Perhaps. An evil? It's pretty difficult to defend the exceptionally long list of socially destructive behavour of the religious establishments. Religion itself?

Well, let us see. Allons-y!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Hah! Cool enough to be quoted alongside Dawkins, but I got to go FIRST! :lol: :lol:

Good start, in that Inferno has laid out a couple of points that he's going to focus on. There's nothing worse than the sort of rambling scattershot disasters that most debates immediately descend into. Let's hope Gramarye follows Inferno's lead in that aspect of it.

 

[tuxbox]

It is a flawed argument.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It is a flawed argument.

What is?

 

[tuxbox]

It is a flawed argument.

What is?

That religion is evil and it should be replaced. I will not get into the specifics on why it is flawed, since it is an on going debate, as it would not be fair to Inferno to give Gramarye ideas.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That religion is evil and it should be replaced. I will not get into the specifics on why it is flawed, since it is an on going debate, as it would not be fair to Inferno to give Gramarye ideas.

"Religion is evil" is a statement, not an argument. At least let Inferno make his case, right?

 

[tuxbox]

That religion is evil and it should be replaced. I will not get into the specifics on why it is flawed, since it is an on going debate, as it would not be fair to Inferno to give Gramarye ideas.

"Religion is evil" is a statement, not an argument. At least let Inferno make his case, right?

Fair enough.

 

[australopithecus]

I still think the term evil as a blanket for religious belief is a bit OTT. of course a lot of things religious faiths assert and do are evil, but as I stated in the original thread to Joe, flawed logic isn't evil in itself, but if flawed logic leads people to arrive at an immoral act, or more likely to act immorally then it needs to be addressed and changed.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

... and this one is going off the rails already? Gramarye opens by defending Muslim terrorism as "maybe good, maybe bad," moral relativism. Not exactly a strong start.

 

[australopithecus]

I'm not sure that's what she's asserting however this;

To a Muslim, jihadism is not terrorism; they use the term 'al-jihad fi sabil Allah', which means striving in the way of Allah.

While Jihad isn't terrorism definitionally, if someone uses the concept of Jihad as a pretext to acts that cause terror (9/11 was the example given) then they are terrorists and they have used their religion as a justification. Islam, while not being the reason (usually it is political) is the foundation of the flawed reasoning that lead to that action. Again, this doesn't make Islam evil, it makes the act it gave justification for evil, and if religion allows for that spurious logic to breed then it needs to be addressed.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

To paraphrase the cliche, one man's terrorist is another man's guerilla fighter.

Perhaps definitions are in order, that way we do not have to resort to cliches.

 

[Laurens]

I think I'd personally phrase it: 'Religion gives justification to evil that would otherwise have no justification and needs to be addressed for that reason' rather than 'Religion is an evil that needs to be addressed'

Of course that does not have the same ring to it and its not as succinct, but it's a more defensible statement if you ask me.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think I'd personally phrase it: 'Religion gives justification to evil that would otherwise have no justification and needs to be addressed for that reason' rather than 'Religion is an evil that needs to be addressed'

Of course that does not have the same ring to it and its not as succinct, but it's a more defensible statement if you ask me.

Or at least possibly "religion is harmful" rather than "evil"... because we're calling it evil based on the harm it causes, so you have to make that case anyways and you can avoid the baggage of the word.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Is religion 'the great cop-out' as Dawkins claims? No. People of faith spend significant intellectual effort considering and analysing their faith; I give as example the Talmud, (in Hebrew תַּלְמוּד 'learning'); the many volumes of which are rabbinical guidance on Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs and history. Dawkins states that 'Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence'. For years people believed in relativity as a theory. In 2011 it was finally proved at Stanford (http://www.newsy.com/videos/proving-einstein-s-theory-worth-it/) and then disproved (http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/204110/scientists-prove-einsteins-theory-of-relativity-wrong.html).

My head went BOOM.

 

[australopithecus]

For years people believed in relativity as a theory. In 2011 it was finally proved at Stanford (http://www.newsy.com/videos/proving-einstein-s-theory-worth-it/) and then disproved (http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/204110/scientists-prove-einsteins-theory-of-relativity-wrong.html).

Perhaps Gramayre should steer clear of discussing something which clearly isn't her speciality; in this case physics. The experiment as Gran Sasso and CERN hasn't disproved relativity, (still at this point the experiment is still up for refutation) and even if the neutrinos did go superluminal then there are other explanations for this, extra dimensions of space being the most exciting prospect. Her analogy fails. Even if relativity does collapse it is because of experimentation, something religious faith is void of.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

This is going to be a fairly interesting discussion -
you see, the idea that religion is an evil that should be replaced, as a statement, shows a somewhat blatant disregard for the several billion people that are religious and don't do anything horrific nor deny science, and instead focuses upon a select group whom, for all anyone could guess, could behave like that simply because of several other factors aside from the belief itself.

As an example - if religion in the Afghanistan region suddenly disappeared and replaced with the lack-of-belief atheism sentiments, it would still be the Wild-Wild West of the Middle East. In many cases religion itself is less of a motivational factor for doing evil than a comforting factor for doing what, seemingly, needs to be done.
If I had to gun down someone because they were transporting weapons or had something that I needed, I would feel a comfort in the knowledge that I didn't just snuff two lives out permanently and that the cause was just beyond my own decisions.

Also, I deplore that such a statement ignores the fact that people can be zealots for just about anything that one can think of. Though it is less-common, there are irrational atheists that, as the irrational religious people do, assert a mythical moral highground and use it for abuse and tyrannical ideaologies.
*cough* UB's Reeducation Camps *cough*

As Karl Marx noted: Religion is the Opium of the People. It serves less as a driving force and more of a relief from the struggles and challenges of everyday life. Being religious is not exclusive to rationality, nor is being atheist exclusive to being rational.

 

[Laurens]

Could an atheist be convinced to fly a plane into a building under the same premises as the 9/11 hijackers?

Would the Jews have been persecuted if it didn't say things like: "So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves. And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and our own children!", Matthew 27:24-25 and "For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and pleased not God, and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up their sins always: but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.", Thessalonians 2:14-16 in the Bible?

Would there have been any excuse to torture and murder suspected witches if it weren't for verses such as this: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.", Exodus 22:18?

Would the inquisition have any justification if it weren't for verses like this: " If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt,", Deuteronomy 13:12-16 ?

I think the answer to all of these is no. So I'd say that religion itself (not just people doing things in the name of religion) is at fault for these atrocities because it does provide justification for them. I wouldn't go so far as to say that all religion is evil (the majority of religious believers are far from evil), but you can't fob these things off by saying that "it's not the religion, it's people doing things in the name of religion" there is a problem in the religion itself if you can find passages that justify your killing people.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

You're absolutely right. There's no evil, immoral, irrational, merciless, aggressive, non-manipulating, non-prejudicial atheists in the world Inferno.

Jolly good generalizations there.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This is going to be a fairly interesting discussion -
you see, the idea that religion is an evil that should be replaced, as a statement, shows a somewhat blatant disregard for the several billion people that are religious and don't do anything horrific nor deny science, and instead focuses upon a select group whom, for all anyone could guess, could behave like that simply because of several other factors aside from the belief itself.

You know I love you like a brother... but I'd love you more if you were an atheist. :lol: