Time magazine on religion = Fail

[Inferno]

Here's the original article... ... and here's PZ Myers take down.

I only have two things to add: Hitchens also said that no matter what kind of God anyone believed in, it's a bad, bad thing. And I agree, religion, in my opinion, is a great evil in no matter what form it comes. No matter how "moderate" the believers are, there's always that stench of bullshit surrounding them.
Also, the author basically admitted that it doesn't matter if what you believe is true or not, as long as your faith gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling. Can't you do that with reality to, instead of indulging a dream world?

 

[Nelipot]

Seems to me that if someone's belief or lack of encourages them to do better, be better, then that's the crux of the matter. That's all that interests me. There will always be people who shield themselves with belief of whatever kind to justify their uglier behaviours but I'd rather address specifics than generalities. Religion makes some people better and others worse and having the smarts to avoid the second group altogether is easier than trying to re-program them.

 

[Vanlavak]

Here's the original article... ... and here's PZ Myers take down.

I only have two things to add: Hitchens also said that no matter what kind of God anyone believed in, it's a bad, bad thing. And I agree, religion, in my opinion, is a great evil in no matter what form it comes. No matter how "moderate" the believers are, there's always that stench of bullshit surrounding them.
Also, the author basically admitted that it doesn't matter if what you believe is true or not, as long as your faith gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling. Can't you do that with reality to, instead of indulging a dream world?

That is so ignorant, people with do the shit they do or find a near substitute to that action with or without religion. Instead of having a crusade on religion, have a campaign to make people think at higher levels. Religion and belief in god does NOT equal the lack or reason, if you think that then that's just your desire to believe that you're right simply because you say so, classic political bullshit. Try pulling your head out of the sand and look around at the world, religion was the primary political tool five hundred years ago, not now.

 

[Inferno]

Here's the original article... ... and here's PZ Myers take down.

I only have two things to add: Hitchens also said that no matter what kind of God anyone believed in, it's a bad, bad thing. And I agree, religion, in my opinion, is a great evil in no matter what form it comes. No matter how "moderate" the believers are, there's always that stench of bullshit surrounding them.
Also, the author basically admitted that it doesn't matter if what you believe is true or not, as long as your faith gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling. Can't you do that with reality to, instead of indulging a dream world?

That is so ignorant, people with do the shit they do or find a near substitute to that action with or without religion. Instead of having a crusade on religion, have a campaign to make people think at higher levels. Religion and belief in god does NOT equal the lack or reason, if you think that then that's just your desire to believe that you're right simply because you say so, classic political bullshit. Try pulling your head out of the sand and look around at the world, religion was the primary political tool five hundred years ago, not now.

It's not? Ha! Which institution gets subsidies and tax benefits of about fifteen billion Euros in Germany alone? The Church. Which institution can heavily influence politics and avoid persecution? The Church. Who gets special benefits? Believers.
Of course some other justification for evil would be found, but it'd probably be much harder to justify.
What else but a campaign to make people think is this attack on religion? Religion is the great retardant, that great barrier that blocks so many of us to think for themselves.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Seems to me that if someone's belief or lack of encourages them to do better, be better, then that's the crux of the matter. That's all that interests me. There will always be people who shield themselves with belief of whatever kind to justify their uglier behaviours but I'd rather address specifics than generalities. Religion makes some people better and others worse and having the smarts to avoid the second group altogether is easier than trying to re-program them.

Personally, I have no problem with people who are religious and good. There are amazingly few of them - I know of two. That is, people who buy into the religion as a good thing and act on it. They are, of course, not good Christians, because they don't stone gays or people eating shrimp - but they are genuinely good people who believe their religion pushes them to it. I think they would be that open and awesome without religion. Neither of them proselytize or make a show about it, either.

I wish I had your smarts, because for the life of me I can't figure out how to avoid the second group. They insist that I'm being offensive with my heretical symbols that I post at my desk at work(I shit you not, this happened), they push anti-blasphemy laws to the UN trying to make it a crime to question the existence of their particular god, they scream and throw fits about the gay agenda and the homosex threat to the family and marriage, and they fleece billions of elderly men and women for their money to fuel their hate-filled political agenda.

I wish it was as simple as just ignoring them, but if I ignored them they would run roughshod over me. Richard Stallman, an advocate of Freedom rather than religion/irreligion at all - put it beautifully when he said that history teaches us to value freedom or we will lose it, and those who cry not to be bothered with politics simply don't want to learn. We have no choice - your second group will strip us of our freedom at their first opportunity if we don't stand up politically to stop them.

That is so ignorant, people with do the shit they do or find a near substitute to that action with or without religion. Instead of having a crusade on religion, have a campaign to make people think at higher levels. Religion and belief in god does NOT equal the lack or reason, if you think that then that's just your desire to believe that you're right simply because you say so, classic political bullshit. Try pulling your head out of the sand and look around at the world, religion was the primary political tool five hundred years ago, not now.

We have a campaign to make people think at higher levels. It's called free public education. The faith fanatics who, you say, would do this without religion, work tirelessly to try and derail the campaign. They fight the spread of knowledge and proper education, they demand that fantasy be entertained as reality and that kids shouldn't be taught to learn and understand, but rather should be taught to draw faulty conclusions and be praised for it.

You're lying to yourself if you think Religion doesn't influence Politics. I'm not sure how I can put that nicely or explain it better, if you don't see it already then I'm not sure it's possible to open your eyes to it.

 

[Nelipot]

'I wish I had your smarts, because for the life of me I can't figure out how to avoid the second group.' I'm nowhere near smart and I accept your comments about the rabid sleeve-tuggers trying to force the world into their perception of it. I do stick to my belief though that ignoring them works because if their propaganda falls on deaf ears they have no voice. A harder fact is that apathy is sometimes a good thing because it treacles the wheels of the freak groups hunting for power - without converts, they're nothing. The only things that really frighten me in the world as it stands today are the subterranean relationships between governments and businesses with oil and gas interests. Compared to that, the yapping poodles of religious fanaticism are as nothing.

 

[Inferno]

I do stick to my belief though that ignoring them works because if their propaganda falls on deaf ears they have no voice.

I seriously doubt that... They have too many followers for that to work. In a perfect world, yes. Here and now, no.

 

[Nelipot]

Not that many followers, just very noisy ones.

 

[Inferno]

Not that many followers, just very noisy ones.

The Catholic Church has over a billion members. Care to rectify your statement?

 

[Nelipot]

No, because there is no evidence that all of them are militant.

 

[Inferno]

No, because there is no evidence that all of them are militant.

No need for them to be militant. Just need em to follow their creed. In no part of my argument did I rely on "militant followers".

 

[Nelipot]

From what I've read of your argument, you imply a 'stench of bullshit' around anyone with religious belief and that 'religion is a great evil in no matter what form it comes'. Maybe it's not for you but that doesn't mean you need to be so extreme in berating others for what they choose to believe. Are they hurting you by their belief? No. Wipe the saliva away and try to live and let live; you can't accuse others of intolerance when you practise intolerance yourself.

And no, I'm not Xtian but neither do I feel a need to be Richard Coeur-de-Lion; I deal with individual nuisances if I have to but that's where it ends.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

From what I've read of your argument, you imply a 'stench of bullshit' around anyone with religious belief and that 'religion is a great evil in no matter what form it comes'. Maybe it's not for you but that doesn't mean you need to be so extreme in berating others for what they choose to believe. Are they hurting you by their belief? No. Wipe the saliva away and try to live and let live; you can't accuse others of intolerance when you practise intolerance yourself.

And no, I'm not Xtian but neither do I feel a need to be Richard Coeur-de-Lion; I deal with individual nuisances if I have to but that's where it ends.

There's a stench of bullshit around everyone with religious beliefs.

Religion is evil in no matter what for it comes.

I didn't imply it, I said it outright. Deal with it or don't, refute it with evidence and reason if you think you can, but don't come here and tone troll. And certainly don't spew your fake definition of "intolerance" to try to compare what anyone here says to actual intolerance.

BTW, if you think you're standing on some sort of rhetorical high ground by telling people to "wipe the saliva away" then you're stark raving bugfuck.

 

[australopithecus]

I think it's important to differentiate between people, religion and religious beliefs. Black and white world is where the fundies live, I prefer my shades more greyish. Not all religious beliefs are harmful, not all religions are evil and not everyone who holds a religious belief is a bullshit peddling fucktard. Do I agree that religion plays a massive part in what's making human civilisation a less fun place to be? Categorically, yes. Is everything to do with religion bad? No.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think it's important to differentiate between people, religion and religious beliefs. Black and white world is where the fundies live, I prefer my shades more greyish. Not all religious beliefs are harmful, not all religions are evil and not everyone who holds a religious belief is a bullshit peddling fucktard. Do I agree that religion plays a massive part in what's making human civilisation a less fun place to be? Categorically, yes. Is everything to do with religion bad? No.

I disagree. All religious belief is harmful by definition, because it is based on faulty ways of coming to conclusions. The fact that you might not object to a specific outcome of religious belief doesn't mean that the method used to come up with that outcome isn't negative. Religion is evil because it puts faith over reason, and feeling above thinking. A warm and fuzzy feeling isn't a way of knowing things about the world. Promoting that sort of bullshit is evil, no matter how benign the specific outcome might be.

And yeah, all people who are religious carry that stink about them. It isn't the only thing to judge a person on, but it DOES matter. It is absolutely bullshit.

 

[Inferno]

Joe pretty much said it already, but here it is in my own words:
Yes, they ARE hurting me with their bullshit. (Start reading at ever increasing speed and volume!) They're getting billions of Euro's in subsidies, money that should rather go to something constructive, like the economy or education or humanitarian aid or some shit. No, instead it's going to huge dicks in white/gold robes. And what do they do with that? Build huge houses with huge steeples and we all know they're [ur=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXfmjMlPEic]just a subconscious compensator in manifestation of a huge, stiff penis[/url]! And because they're not allowed to get any sex anywhere else, what do they do? RAPE CHILDREN. Granted, they'd be out molesting children no matter what, but Churches in general, be they Catholic or Baptist, erect this veil of chastity and holiness as well as a second veil of iron, intended to keep out police(wo)men. In other words, they're covering up for the sins of their brothers. If that isn't "hurting you by their belief" then there's something seriously wrong with you.

Now second, yes, religion is indeed a bad thing in not matter what form it comes. Like Joe said, in it's most innocuous form it makes your thinking all wonkey, because it always allows for that great cop-out "God did it". It's not so much a problem that you can't prove them wrong on that particular issue, because whatever you say they can always claim that "God is in the next castle", it's rather a problem of them extending their philosophy to other areas.

Now I've already shown a reason how religion can directly hurt us all, but what if it didn't? Would that mean I'd "live and let live"? No sir, James Bond is the one for me! Let's examine a belief that doesn't even have the potential to hurt me... Oh I know, how about alien abductions? I really can't see any harm in some cooks running around in foil hats and raving about green men butt-raping them. On the other hand, I wouldn't let them do it, if only because I'd not want to live in a society where people are influenced, in whatever way, by their crap. I'd have no problem with them if they're not converting and not influencing anyone else though. But religion's much bigger, it influences politics so much (and I'm in Europe!) that people all around me are rising up and demanding the church to be shut down.

Next, you accuse me of being intolerant and maybe I am. But in favour of what? I'm in favour of learning about all religions, not one. I'm in favour of everyone's opinion being respected the same, not only religious people. I'm in favour of all, men and women, being able to marry whomever they want, not only members of the same race and opposite sex. I'm in favour of wealth being as evenly and fairly distributed as possible, not of it being in the clutches of men in dresses. I'm in favour of MORE tolerance, but that means getting rid of an intolerant institution/set of beliefs, namely religion. (When I say religion in this last sentence, I mean the one that goes in your face.)

 

[australopithecus]

I disagree. All religious belief is harmful by definition, because it is based on faulty ways of coming to conclusions. The fact that you might not object to a specific outcome of religious belief doesn't mean that the method used to come up with that outcome isn't negative.

Agreed, however coming to one bad conclusion using a biased reasoning doesn't equal always coming to bad conclusions based on the same reasoning. The faulty reasoning that informs faith in a logically inconsistent god doesn't mean a person who holds that faith will always use faulty reasoning. I'd happily wager on a human alive today, religious or not, always uses faultless reasoning.

Religion is evil because it puts faith over reason, and feeling above thinking.

And anyone can do exactly those to things whilst not being religious. I know I have.

Promoting that sort of bullshit is evil, no matter how benign the specific outcome might be.

I think the term evil is slightly hyperbolic. And by slightly I mean very. Reasoning or thinking are not a moral behaviours, they're just actions that are morally neutral. Using faith or logic isn't evil. Stupid, yes. But evil? Not even remotely.

And yeah, all people who are religious carry that stink about them. It isn't the only thing to judge a person on, but it DOES matter. It is absolutely bullshit.

It's not anything to judge anyone on. But that is just my opinion, of course. Faulty reasoning is a human weakness, I prefer to judge people on their actions, not how they arrived at those actions.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Not me, chum...

Been seeing a lot of online discussions of Ron Paul and how he's unfit for public office even though some progressives agree with what they believe is an agreement on issues like war and drugs and war on drugs. The problem is that his positions come from a belief that the federal government should be all but eliminated along with the income tax and civil rights laws and everything else that we in America like to call "the 20th Century." So Paul is against the DEA, but he doesn't care if your local sheriff and judge decide that you need to be executed for smoking a joint. He's against intervention overseas because it costs money, and he doesn't care about dictatorships or human rights abuses or anything else that doesn't make a profit.

Why am I telling you this? Because it matters what people believe, because people act based on their beliefs. Because it matters how they come to conclusions on things, not just a small sampling of behavior. If you go to a doctor, and he correctly diagnoses your illness, but then you find out that he just flipped to a random page in a medical encyclopedia, would you go back? Wouldn't you question the general trustworthiness of the decisions of someone who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, science is a giant conspiracy, and aliens built the Pyramids... even if they haven't done anything noticeably stupid in your presence? Actions matter, but you predict future actions on both prior actions and the decision-making process that led to those actions.

 

[Nelipot]

You're hurting yourself, by the look of it. By substituting commerce for religion your comments would be just as valid to read. Tax exemptions, which I assume you mean, are not subsidies. The exempt amount depends on the amount donated and the books of any church are just as open to scrutiny by the tax people as those of any business.

Child rape? Come on, that by no means only occurs where priests have been corrupt. Some, the majority, are decent people whom you calumnise by your swingeing statements. You deny their integrity unfairly. Influence? Teachers influence people's thinking every day, it's called education - should we dispose of that too?

Churches as symbols? Absolutely, but symbols to honour their god and why not, if that is what they wish to do? Some have died for their church and that was their choice, I cannot find it in me to disrespect it even though I wholeheartedly disagree. Some of the most glorious art in the world is to be found in Xtian churches. Pagan though I am, I would be sorry never to have seen what some artists have made to glorify their god; I don't worship in such buildings but I appreciate them for my own reasons.

Religion limits women to mere functionaries? Perhaps but even under such a rule, women have made their presence felt. Change comes slowly but inexorably, a little at a time, even in the most fanatical belief systems. As to the party line on homosexuality, that too is eroding in all bar the most homophobic religions and as a result their churches are empty because bypassed and no longer at the heart of cultures as they once were. They either recognise it and change or they wither and die when the diehards die.

Equitable distribution of wealth? A pipedream, it will never happen nor should it. What people want or need is not chiselled in stone, it varies with time and circumstance.

You're in favour of a toleration which disposes of religion because you choose not to tolerate it. I don't even know where to start with that statement.

The level of wrath you exhibit leads me to wonder if you once had faith and lost it, by some betrayal... child abuse? I'm not being facile or insensitive but that's how it comes across. If so, your business but less passion has more impact when you express your views.

 

[australopithecus]

Not me, chum...

Been seeing a lot of online discussions of Ron Paul and how he's unfit for public office even though some progressives agree with what they believe is an agreement on issues like war and drugs and war on drugs. The problem is that his positions come from a belief that the federal government should be all but eliminated along with the income tax and civil rights laws and everything else that we in America like to call "the 20th Century." So Paul is against the DEA, but he doesn't care if your local sheriff and judge decide that you need to be executed for smoking a joint. He's against intervention overseas because it costs money, and he doesn't care about dictatorships or human rights abuses or anything else that doesn't make a profit.

Why am I telling you this? Because it matters what people believe, because people act based on their beliefs. Because it matters how they come to conclusions on things, not just a small sampling of behavior. If you go to a doctor, and he correctly diagnoses your illness, but then you find out that he just flipped to a random page in a medical encyclopedia, would you go back? Wouldn't you question the general trustworthiness of the decisions of someone who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, science is a giant conspiracy, and aliens built the Pyramids... even if they haven't done anything noticeably stupid in your presence? Actions matter, but you predict future actions on both prior actions and the decision-making process that led to those actions.

Ok, you got me there, I can't really argue with that. I still think the term 'evil' is a bit strong though, or at least is heavily context dependent.