Religion and Terrorism (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

Muslims are more prone to using terrorism because they do not have many other options to fight the ideology of the Judeo-Christian West. Plus the West has the luxury of generally defining what are legitimate military actions vs what is terrorism also tilts the scale.

If the Muslims would allow the Jews to exist on their tiny strip of land, there would be no conflict.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Once you start encouraging people to believe that there is nothing more to life than turning into a dust pile, you create a mentality that is inheriently dangerous.....

You're insinuating that most people who are religious are psychopaths who, without a fear of reprisal from beyond the grave, would go around committing crimes and murdering whoever they want. I don't believe that is true.ETA: On the other hand, you might be right, because that certainly explains those who feel justified in their crimes, murder, and terrorism in light of their confirmed supernatural faith.

It is odd to me that that is what you got out of that post that was a reply to the previous post from KCC.

Everything I said works fine with KCC's post, and is still an accurate description based on Jon's assumption. If you think that just because there is no God and no eternal punishment for misbehaving that it's o.k. to be bad, you're a psychopath. He is proposing that the only thing keeping many psychopaths in check is religion. I don't look down on people enough to make such an assumption. I believe that you, and the overwhelming majority of religious people would still do the right thing because I respect you too much to think otherwise."Religion is an insult to human dignity. 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

 

[The Commish]

Do you really want to do dueling quotes? Do you really want me to start posting all the quotes in the Bible that say God ordered the enemies of the Jews slaughtered including every woman and child? All the women raped? The old peopel killed? Because we can go there if you want but it would seem that would get uncivil quick.

I think this is a little different simply because of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. If we had just the OT to go by, then I'd be on board with you 100%. Fortunately, we don't. This history presented in the OT that shines a light on what things COULD be like is very depressing and heartbreaking.

 

[ScottyFargo]

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:17-20

 

[jon_mx]

Everything I said works fine with KCC's post, and is still an accurate description based on Jon's assumption. If you think that just because there is no God and no eternal punishment for misbehaving that it's o.k. to be bad, you're a psychopath. He is proposing that the only thing keeping many psychopaths in check is religion. I don't look down on people enough to make such an assumption. I believe that you, and the overwhelming majority of religious people would still do the right thing because I respect you too much to think otherwise.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. 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

Easily one of the most ignorant quotes of all time.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Everything I said works fine with KCC's post, and is still an accurate description based on Jon's assumption. If you think that just because there is no God and no eternal punishment for misbehaving that it's o.k. to be bad, you're a psychopath. He is proposing that the only thing keeping many psychopaths in check is religion. I don't look down on people enough to make such an assumption. I believe that you, and the overwhelming majority of religious people would still do the right thing because I respect you too much to think otherwise.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. 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

Easily one of the most ignorant quotes of all time.

It would be good for you to think about things a little more before jumping to offended mode.Steven Weinberg gives some examples. I am sure if you cared to think about this issue, you will find some yourself that fit this category:

"Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

 

[jon_mx]

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.Matthew 5:17-20

You do realize what Christ is saying there? No matter how hard you try to work to get into heaven you will fall short. The only way is through Christ.

 

[jon_mx]

Everything I said works fine with KCC's post, and is still an accurate description based on Jon's assumption. If you think that just because there is no God and no eternal punishment for misbehaving that it's o.k. to be bad, you're a psychopath. He is proposing that the only thing keeping many psychopaths in check is religion. I don't look down on people enough to make such an assumption. I believe that you, and the overwhelming majority of religious people would still do the right thing because I respect you too much to think otherwise.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. 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

Easily one of the most ignorant quotes of all time.

It would be good for you to think about things a little more before jumping to offended mode.Steven Weinberg gives some examples. I am sure if you cared to think about this issue, you will find some yourself that fit this category:

"Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

Well crap, as long as he gave a few examples then of course he can project his bigotry across the board to billions of people.

 

[Chadstroma]

Once you start encouraging people to believe that there is nothing more to life than turning into a dust pile, you create a mentality that is inheriently dangerous.....

You're insinuating that most people who are religious are psychopaths who, without a fear of reprisal from beyond the grave, would go around committing crimes and murdering whoever they want. I don't believe that is true.ETA: On the other hand, you might be right, because that certainly explains those who feel justified in their crimes, murder, and terrorism in light of their confirmed supernatural faith.

It is odd to me that that is what you got out of that post that was a reply to the previous post from KCC.

Everything I said works fine with KCC's post, and is still an accurate description based on Jon's assumption. If you think that just because there is no God and no eternal punishment for misbehaving that it's o.k. to be bad, you're a psychopath. He is proposing that the only thing keeping many psychopaths in check is religion. I don't look down on people enough to make such an assumption. I believe that you, and the overwhelming majority of religious people would still do the right thing because I respect you too much to think otherwise."Religion is an insult to human dignity. 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

Yup, that confirms it. You completely are :whoosh: on the point.

 

[Chadstroma]

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.Matthew 5:17-20

You are making a habit of not understanding things.

 

[Chadstroma]

Everything I said works fine with KCC's post, and is still an accurate description based on Jon's assumption. If you think that just because there is no God and no eternal punishment for misbehaving that it's o.k. to be bad, you're a psychopath. He is proposing that the only thing keeping many psychopaths in check is religion. I don't look down on people enough to make such an assumption. I believe that you, and the overwhelming majority of religious people would still do the right thing because I respect you too much to think otherwise.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. 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

Easily one of the most ignorant quotes of all time.

It would be good for you to think about things a little more before jumping to offended mode.Steven Weinberg gives some examples. I am sure if you cared to think about this issue, you will find some yourself that fit this category:

"Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

And the abolitionist movement was almost exclusively a Christian one. Your point?

 

[ScottyFargo]

Everything I said works fine with KCC's post, and is still an accurate description based on Jon's assumption. If you think that just because there is no God and no eternal punishment for misbehaving that it's o.k. to be bad, you're a psychopath. He is proposing that the only thing keeping many psychopaths in check is religion. I don't look down on people enough to make such an assumption. I believe that you, and the overwhelming majority of religious people would still do the right thing because I respect you too much to think otherwise.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. 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

Easily one of the most ignorant quotes of all time.

It would be good for you to think about things a little more before jumping to offended mode.Steven Weinberg gives some examples. I am sure if you cared to think about this issue, you will find some yourself that fit this category:

"Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

And the abolitionist movement was almost exclusively a Christian one. Your point?

Those were good people who would have been against slavery based upon humanistic principles alone, that they were religious was a coincidence. Meanwhile, otherwise good people were PRO-SLAVERY thanks to the influence of religion. This is just one example. Do you mean to tell me you can't think of other instances where good people do bad things based upon the influence of religious doctrine?

 

[jon_mx]

Those were good people who would have been against slavery based upon humanistic principles alone, that they were religious was a coincidence. Meanwhile, otherwise good people were PRO-SLAVERY thanks to the influence of religion. This is just one example. Do you mean to tell me you can't think of other instances where good people do bad things based upon the influence of religious doctrine?

Your assumption that people are inherently good is contracted by the entire history of the human species.

 

[timschochet]

Those were good people who would have been against slavery based upon humanistic principles alone, that they were religious was a coincidence. Meanwhile, otherwise good people were PRO-SLAVERY thanks to the influence of religion. This is just one example. Do you mean to tell me you can't think of other instances where good people do bad things based upon the influence of religious doctrine?

The bolded is simply false. As an atheist, I would love to believe that abolitionism could have become powerful as a secular movement, but the fact is that it took religious leaders and religious organizations to make that movement happen. In more modern times, Christianity was the source for resistance to Nazism, resistance to Stalinist Russia, and the formation and perpetuation of America's civil rights movement.

I believe your hostility to modern-day Christianity (post-Enlightenment) is unfounded. You and I and every other secularist in this country enjoy the freedoms we have because religious Christians fought to give them to us.

 

[timschochet]

Your assumption that people are inherently good is contracted by the entire history of the human species.

This is a separate issue, and I TEND to disagree with you, though with no level of certainty.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

Once you start encouraging people to believe that there is nothing more to life than turning into a dust pile, you create a mentality that is inheriently dangerous.....

Ignorant post.One can easily say:Who will value life more:1. The person who believes that himself and his children only have one life to share.2. The person who believes that this life is only a precursor to his eternal life that he will share with his family and God.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Those were good people who would have been against slavery based upon humanistic principles alone, that they were religious was a coincidence. Meanwhile, otherwise good people were PRO-SLAVERY thanks to the influence of religion. This is just one example. Do you mean to tell me you can't think of other instances where good people do bad things based upon the influence of religious doctrine?

The bolded is simply false. As an atheist, I would love to believe that abolitionism could have become powerful as a secular movement, but the fact is that it took religious leaders and religious organizations to make that movement happen. In more modern times, Christianity was the source for resistance to Nazism, resistance to Stalinist Russia, and the formation and perpetuation of America's civil rights movement.

I believe your hostility to modern-day Christianity (post-Enlightenment) is unfounded. You and I and every other secularist in this country enjoy the freedoms we have because religious Christians fought to give them to us.

Good people do good things. That these people were religious is a coincidence. They likely would have felt the same way about slavery whether or not they were Christian. In the south, similarly good people were prompted by religious sermons to embrace slavery points to the truth that for good people to do evil things takes religion. The religious in the north were not hearing sermons legitimizing slavery, therefore they did not have the same level of interest in maintaining it.

 

[Chadstroma]

Everything I said works fine with KCC's post, and is still an accurate description based on Jon's assumption. If you think that just because there is no God and no eternal punishment for misbehaving that it's o.k. to be bad, you're a psychopath. He is proposing that the only thing keeping many psychopaths in check is religion. I don't look down on people enough to make such an assumption. I believe that you, and the overwhelming majority of religious people would still do the right thing because I respect you too much to think otherwise.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. 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

Easily one of the most ignorant quotes of all time.

It would be good for you to think about things a little more before jumping to offended mode.Steven Weinberg gives some examples. I am sure if you cared to think about this issue, you will find some yourself that fit this category:

"Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

And the abolitionist movement was almost exclusively a Christian one. Your point?

Those were good people who would have been against slavery based upon humanistic principles alone, that they were religious was a coincidence. Meanwhile, otherwise good people were PRO-SLAVERY thanks to the influence of religion. This is just one example. Do you mean to tell me you can't think of other instances where good people do bad things based upon the influence of religious doctrine?

The vice versa is also true. That means that what you are pushing is void of merit because there is no weight behind it. Which was the point that you missed before. We (the human race) have tried the whole 'no religion' thing and what we got were some of the most evil governments of all time.

Of course, this also brings up the question of what is good and evil in the humanistic point of view? Really, there is no such thing as good and evil but rather a concept created by religion and thus is primitive, subjective and needless judgment. You can not have good people or bad people- you just have people that act as people. The murder of another person may be something that is negative because of the social impact that such actions have but there is no intrinsic evil about it because there is no good and evil. If you believe there is no God, then there is no judge on what is good and evil and if there is no judge on what is good and evil then you have no good and evil. Even social norms and restraints, like the murder one brought up earlier, fail to create good and evil because from closed society to closed society- you have different norms on what is good and evil. One group of people may see that murder and cannibalism is not only acceptable but encouraged (thus, not evil) while another finds this revolting (possibly evil?) or one group may see sleeping with your children as a normal practice and another as absolutely revolting. We can take that to a much lesser degree. In the US, corruption and bribery is seen as being wrong but we are actually in the minority on this when compared to the rest of the world where it is not only accepted but very much the norm and expected. So, why would a humanist even try to push the concept that 'good people do evil things' because of religion when in their perspective, there is no such thing as good and evil.

 

[Chadstroma]

Your assumption that people are inherently good is contracted by the entire history of the human species.

This is a separate issue, and I TEND to disagree with you, though with no level of certainty.

It really is not a separate issue. If you accept that there are such things as good and evil (whether you hold to a religious point of view or humanistic)- then that leads into whether or not terrorism is good or evil (or under what circumstances make it such if any exist to make it 'good'). If apart from religion people are inherently predisposed as good or evil then their actions taken after have to be explained by other means if their actions contradict their predisposition. Thus, the question has a direct impact on the discussion of 'Religion and Terrorism'.

 

[Chadstroma]

Once you start encouraging people to believe that there is nothing more to life than turning into a dust pile, you create a mentality that is inheriently dangerous.....

Ignorant post.One can easily say:Who will value life more:1. The person who believes that himself and his children only have one life to share.2. The person who believes that this life is only a precursor to his eternal life that he will share with his family and God.

I would say that your post is quite limited in perspective. I can easily turn this around on you. Who will value how they live more:1. The person who believes that they have a limited time to do what they please and that nothing that they do will ultimately have any consequences beyond that which they reap now. 2. The person who believes that their actions have eternal consequences that will have to be accounted for.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Everything I said works fine with KCC's post, and is still an accurate description based on Jon's assumption. If you think that just because there is no God and no eternal punishment for misbehaving that it's o.k. to be bad, you're a psychopath. He is proposing that the only thing keeping many psychopaths in check is religion. I don't look down on people enough to make such an assumption. I believe that you, and the overwhelming majority of religious people would still do the right thing because I respect you too much to think otherwise.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. 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

Easily one of the most ignorant quotes of all time.

It would be good for you to think about things a little more before jumping to offended mode.Steven Weinberg gives some examples. I am sure if you cared to think about this issue, you will find some yourself that fit this category:

"Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

And the abolitionist movement was almost exclusively a Christian one. Your point?

Those were good people who would have been against slavery based upon humanistic principles alone, that they were religious was a coincidence. Meanwhile, otherwise good people were PRO-SLAVERY thanks to the influence of religion. This is just one example. Do you mean to tell me you can't think of other instances where good people do bad things based upon the influence of religious doctrine?

The vice versa is also true. That means that what you are pushing is void of merit because there is no weight behind it. Which was the point that you missed before. We (the human race) have tried the whole 'no religion' thing and what we got were some of the most evil governments of all time.

Of course, this also brings up the question of what is good and evil in the humanistic point of view? Really, there is no such thing as good and evil but rather a concept created by religion and thus is primitive, subjective and needless judgment. You can not have good people or bad people- you just have people that act as people. The murder of another person may be something that is negative because of the social impact that such actions have but there is no intrinsic evil about it because there is no good and evil. If you believe there is no God, then there is no judge on what is good and evil and if there is no judge on what is good and evil then you have no good and evil. Even social norms and restraints, like the murder one brought up earlier, fail to create good and evil because from closed society to closed society- you have different norms on what is good and evil. One group of people may see that murder and cannibalism is not only acceptable but encouraged (thus, not evil) while another finds this revolting (possibly evil?) or one group may see sleeping with your children as a normal practice and another as absolutely revolting. We can take that to a much lesser degree. In the US, corruption and bribery is seen as being wrong but we are actually in the minority on this when compared to the rest of the world where it is not only accepted but very much the norm and expected. So, why would a humanist even try to push the concept that 'good people do evil things' because of religion when in their perspective, there is no such thing as good and evil.

I disagree, I find that there are moral absolutes absent religion. The golden rule works just fine and doesn't need to be written off because God gave us 10 commandments. Moral or cultural relativism is far too liberal and allows for crimes to flourish where they ought not to. God can not be a judge of what is right and wrong because his own interpretation of what is right and wrong has already been seen to change. God's morals are relative to his whims. That is not objectivity. There is not a word about slavery's evils in the 10 commandments. However, slavery is now and has always been wrong. That is an objective truth. For God, that is not true, there was a time when it was not immoral. That's ridiculous and I refuse to believe any rational person could believe such a thing if it were not for religion.Your examples of Mao and Stalin as standing in for "secular" nations is flawed because they were not driven by a desire to aid society by removing dogma, but instead of removing dogma that would have conflicted with their attempts at creating a cult of personality. That says nothing about atheism, it is an issue of abuse of power. It's just a different type of religion, instituting one false love for another.

 

[timschochet]

Everything I said works fine with KCC's post, and is still an accurate description based on Jon's assumption. If you think that just because there is no God and no eternal punishment for misbehaving that it's o.k. to be bad, you're a psychopath. He is proposing that the only thing keeping many psychopaths in check is religion. I don't look down on people enough to make such an assumption. I believe that you, and the overwhelming majority of religious people would still do the right thing because I respect you too much to think otherwise.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. 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

Easily one of the most ignorant quotes of all time.

It would be good for you to think about things a little more before jumping to offended mode.Steven Weinberg gives some examples. I am sure if you cared to think about this issue, you will find some yourself that fit this category:

"Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

And the abolitionist movement was almost exclusively a Christian one. Your point?

Those were good people who would have been against slavery based upon humanistic principles alone, that they were religious was a coincidence. Meanwhile, otherwise good people were PRO-SLAVERY thanks to the influence of religion. This is just one example. Do you mean to tell me you can't think of other instances where good people do bad things based upon the influence of religious doctrine?

The vice versa is also true. That means that what you are pushing is void of merit because there is no weight behind it. Which was the point that you missed before. We (the human race) have tried the whole 'no religion' thing and what we got were some of the most evil governments of all time.

Of course, this also brings up the question of what is good and evil in the humanistic point of view? Really, there is no such thing as good and evil but rather a concept created by religion and thus is primitive, subjective and needless judgment. You can not have good people or bad people- you just have people that act as people. The murder of another person may be something that is negative because of the social impact that such actions have but there is no intrinsic evil about it because there is no good and evil. If you believe there is no God, then there is no judge on what is good and evil and if there is no judge on what is good and evil then you have no good and evil. Even social norms and restraints, like the murder one brought up earlier, fail to create good and evil because from closed society to closed society- you have different norms on what is good and evil. One group of people may see that murder and cannibalism is not only acceptable but encouraged (thus, not evil) while another finds this revolting (possibly evil?) or one group may see sleeping with your children as a normal practice and another as absolutely revolting. We can take that to a much lesser degree. In the US, corruption and bribery is seen as being wrong but we are actually in the minority on this when compared to the rest of the world where it is not only accepted but very much the norm and expected. So, why would a humanist even try to push the concept that 'good people do evil things' because of religion when in their perspective, there is no such thing as good and evil.

I disagree, I find that there are moral absolutes absent religion. The golden rule works just fine and doesn't need to be written off because God gave us 10 commandments. Moral or cultural relativism is far too liberal and allows for crimes to flourish where they ought not to. God can not be a judge of what is right and wrong because his own interpretation of what is right and wrong has already been seen to change. God's morals are relative to his whims. That is not objectivity. There is not a word about slavery's evils in the 10 commandments. However, slavery is now and has always been wrong. That is an objective truth. For God, that is not true, there was a time when it was not immoral. That's ridiculous and I refuse to believe any rational person could believe such a thing if it were not for religion.Your examples of Mao and Stalin as standing in for "secular" nations is flawed because they were not driven by a desire to aid society by removing dogma, but instead of removing dogma that would have conflicted with their attempts at creating a cult of personality. That says nothing about atheism, it is an issue of abuse of power. It's just a different type of religion, instituting one false love for another.

I agree with most of Scotty's points here. I don't believe that religion is necessary for moral behavior. And his discussion of Mao and Stalin is absolutely correct. But Scotty, I don't think that this means we should simply dismiss examples of good behavior caused by Christianity as mere "coincidence" as you do. It isn't. We live in a complex world. Sometimes we need religion to generate good behavior. Sometimes religion generates bad behavior. Sometimes religion isn't necessary for good things to happen, but sometimes it is. I don't believe there are set rules on this; no matter what rules you or your detractors try to come up with, there are always historical examples to contradict you.

 

[The Commish]

I agree with most of Scotty's points here. I don't believe that religion is necessary for moral behavior. And his discussion of Mao and Stalin is absolutely correct. But Scotty, I don't think that this means we should simply dismiss examples of good behavior caused by Christianity as mere "coincidence" as you do. It isn't. We live in a complex world. Sometimes we need religion to generate good behavior. Sometimes religion generates bad behavior. Sometimes religion isn't necessary for good things to happen, but sometimes it is. I don't believe there are set rules on this; no matter what rules you or your detractors try to come up with, there are always historical examples to contradict you.

You don't understand Tim. Scotty knows everyone's motives. He can be judge and jury on this. Please let him continue.

 

[The Commish]

Chad, back to your original post of this thread (apparently I missed a good one last night). It's pretty simple really. There is good and bad in this world. That means there are good people and bad people as well and they can switch from one to the other. This will ALWAYS be true regardless of the "reasons" that exist. Take away religion and the world would have those characteristics. Add religion and the world would have those characteristics.

My view is simply this...your actions speak louder than your words. Your actions are yours. If you want to be a bad person, that's what you'll end up being. If you want to be a good person, that's what you'll end up being and you have no one to blame/credit than yourself. The people who do good things in the name of religion cause me to cringe just as much as those that do bad things in the name of religion.

 

[renesauz]

I really enjoy you two using data from 2006 when so much has changed since then. Should we use data from 2006 to see if Americans prefer laptops over PCs and Smartphones over beepers?

The Pew survey is way over used as a crutch for people trying to make this argument. It's over five years old, thanks.

Have any more current data to refute the pew data?

Newer

No Muslim country surveyed recorded majority support for suicide bombing, Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. In Pakistan, only ten per cent like Taliban and only 9 per cent support Al Qaeda.

As many as seventy per cent Pakistanis have unfavorable views of the Taliban and sixty-one per cent reject Al Qaeda openly. Between thirty-twenty per cent say they do not know the two groups well enough to express an opinion.

Recent Pew poll in PakistanPakistan is probably the nation Americans most think of when they think of terrorism or acts of terrorism. Again, the overwhelming majority do not approve of terrorism or terrorists acts to achieve any kind of objective.

So we have to take Timmy's comments with a grain of salt, as he's also been known to make some really far out anti-Muslim claims throughout the years. The other data is too old, six years ago is an eternity after all that has happened with the Arab Spring, Bin Laden's death, our pullout of Iraq and so much other stuff.

More than eight-in-ten (85%) Pakistanis say suicide bombing and other violent acts against civilians in defense of Islam are never justified. Far fewer (38%) said this was the case in 2002, when the Pew Research Center first asked this question.

Here is a great one for this thread:US views on Islam, Pew poll

WOW. Are you kidding? Only 15% of a nation of tens or hundreds of millions of people hates us enough to condone terrorism...and that's GOOD news? If even one half of 1% of a nations population condones these types of acts...we have a serious problem. To characterize 15% as an unimportant minority (on an issue like this) is both stupid and irresponsible. It only take ONE TERRORIST to blow up/kill hundreds. Several million (TENS OF MILLIONS!) present more than a small threat, and until that threat is reduced down into the <1% range, it's perfectly reasonable to treat all muslim nations/peoples as a potential threat.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Plus the West has the luxury of generally defining what are legitimate military actions vs what is terrorism also tilts the scale.

This is not a legitimate point. Going to a camp filled with unarmed kids and killing as many as you can is wrong and evil. If any civilization believes otherwise, they're wrong. This isn't just an invention of western thought, although it is a credit to western culture that we recognize these universal standards even if we sometimes fail to live up to them.

Of course killing a camp of unarmed kids is wrong and evil. The luxury I am referring to are situations which are not a clear as that one. Suicide bombings of a building targeting specific people vs drone strikes is more of the comparison I was looking at.

Muslims are more prone to using terrorism because they do not have many other options to fight the ideology of the Judeo-Christian West. Plus the West has the luxury of generally defining what are legitimate military actions vs what is terrorism also tilts the scale.

If the Muslims would allow the Jews to exist on their tiny strip of land, there would be no conflict.

Do you think there would be conflict if you flipped Muslims and Jews in that sentence?

 

[Chadstroma]

Chad, back to your original post of this thread (apparently I missed a good one last night). It's pretty simple really. There is good and bad in this world. That means there are good people and bad people as well and they can switch from one to the other. This will ALWAYS be true regardless of the "reasons" that exist. Take away religion and the world would have those characteristics. Add religion and the world would have those characteristics.

I agree. My view is that man has the capacity for both good and evil- being created as good beings but then after the fall being struck in total depravity. That dichotomy still exists with or without religion and will continue with or without religion.

My view is simply this...your actions speak louder than your words. Your actions are yours. If you want to be a bad person, that's what you'll end up being. If you want to be a good person, that's what you'll end up being and you have no one to blame/credit than yourself. The people who do good things in the name of religion cause me to cringe just as much as those that do bad things in the name of religion.

Your actions are indeed your actions and do speak louder than words or even belief. I would agree that those who do good in the name of religion to me are just as fake as those who bad things in the name of religion. Speaking in terms of the narrower Christian belief (vs the theistic which I have tried to focus on in the last few posts), good should be a natural out flowing of who you are after Christ has redeemed you. Or in Christian speak, your fruit of the spirit. It is a dangerous trap to do good in the name of religion because it is hollow and filled with selfish motives and thus not good acts at heart.

 

[Chadstroma]

I have got to study for the MAT and this thread is taking up too much time and brain power right now. I am going to try to not poke in as much because I tend to not be able to refrain from posting. So, if I am MIA for a while... that is why.

 

[timschochet]

One point that I wanted to make is that belief in an afterlife is not necessarily a the key to religious ethics. Judaism, for example, does not emphasize the afterlife, and it's ethical teachings have little to do with the reward of Heaven. Most Christians also believe that their ticket to Heaven is not based on works, but on belief; therefore, there is no "reward motive" for ethical behavior in Christianity. Rather, the ethics that Jesus teaches, in terms of how to live on Earth, is identical to Judaism (since Jesus was effectively a Talmudist.)

I would argue that therefore modern day religion serves community, in terms of ethics, as a school which teaches good behavior. I don't believe it is necessary for good behavior, any more than schools are necessary for learning. Suppose I wanted to learn the history of Russia: I could attend a class on the history of Russia at a local college, or I could go to a library and get books on the subject and learn for myself. If I choose the latter, I'm actually likely to learn more than the first method, since I'm probably going to go into much more detail. But most people aren't going to take the time to go to a library on their own to learn about the history of Russia. So if we, as a society, value people learning that history, then it is far better to encourage them to attend classes to learn it. From this analogy, I reach the conclusion that while religion is not necessary for ME (or anyone else interested in the subject) to learn ethics, religion may very well be necessary for a SOCIETY to learn ethics. And I also conclude, therefore, contrary to Scotty's claim, the ethical movements begun by religion in our history are no "coincidence".

 

[jon_mx]

Plus the West has the luxury of generally defining what are legitimate military actions vs what is terrorism also tilts the scale.

This is not a legitimate point. Going to a camp filled with unarmed kids and killing as many as you can is wrong and evil. If any civilization believes otherwise, they're wrong. This isn't just an invention of western thought, although it is a credit to western culture that we recognize these universal standards even if we sometimes fail to live up to them.

Of course killing a camp of unarmed kids is wrong and evil. The luxury I am referring to are situations which are not a clear as that one. Suicide bombings of a building targeting specific people vs drone strikes is more of the comparison I was looking at.

Muslims are more prone to using terrorism because they do not have many other options to fight the ideology of the Judeo-Christian West. Plus the West has the luxury of generally defining what are legitimate military actions vs what is terrorism also tilts the scale.

If the Muslims would allow the Jews to exist on their tiny strip of land, there would be no conflict.

Do you think there would be conflict if you flipped Muslims and Jews in that sentence?

No.

 

[The Commish]

Chad, back to your original post of this thread (apparently I missed a good one last night). It's pretty simple really. There is good and bad in this world. That means there are good people and bad people as well and they can switch from one to the other. This will ALWAYS be true regardless of the "reasons" that exist. Take away religion and the world would have those characteristics. Add religion and the world would have those characteristics.

I agree. My view is that man has the capacity for both good and evil- being created as good beings but then after the fall being struck in total depravity. That dichotomy still exists with or without religion and will continue with or without religion.

My view is simply this...your actions speak louder than your words. Your actions are yours. If you want to be a bad person, that's what you'll end up being. If you want to be a good person, that's what you'll end up being and you have no one to blame/credit than yourself. The people who do good things in the name of religion cause me to cringe just as much as those that do bad things in the name of religion.

Your actions are indeed your actions and do speak louder than words or even belief. I would agree that those who do good in the name of religion to me are just as fake as those who bad things in the name of religion. Speaking in terms of the narrower Christian belief (vs the theistic which I have tried to focus on in the last few posts), good should be a natural out flowing of who you are after Christ has redeemed you. Or in Christian speak, your fruit of the spirit. It is a dangerous trap to do good in the name of religion because it is hollow and filled with selfish motives and thus not good acts at heart.

I agree with you, but I was trying to make a different point I see all too often the "people do good things because they are good and people do bad things because of religion" (or whatever other scapegoat you want to use) nonsense. Those people are no better than the people who pawn their actions (good or bad) on religion. They appear to be saying that if a person is bad, it's because of something else, not because they are simply bad.

 

[bueno]

Let's look at the other side of the coin:

"Twenty-eight percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court," the poll discovered. "Nearly one-third of the country thinks adherents of Islam should be barred from running for President—a slightly higher percentage than the 24 percent who mistakenly believe the current occupant of the Oval Office is himself a Muslim."

linkAnti-Muslim views grow in US

Conservatives have been the least likely group to support Muslims. Robert Jones, CEO of the Washington-based Public Religion Research Institute, noted last month that while overall favorable views about Muslims had dropped from 41 to 30 percent since 2005, most of that erosion of support was among conservatives.

The survey also said the number of respondents unwilling to have a Muslim as a close friend rose from 9 to 20 percent; people who agreed that Muslims are supportive of the United States declined from 62 to 52 percent; and the percentage of liberals who said Muslims made America more dangerous tripled, from 8 to 24 percent.

Time poll

While the poll revealed that prejudice toward Muslims is widespread, respect for other religious traditions remains sturdy. Respondents held the Jewish faith in the highest regard, with 75% professing to hold a favorable impression — just slightly higher than attitudes toward Protestants and Catholics. Fifty-seven percent say they have a favorable view of the Mormon faith, compared with 44% for Muslims. Despite (or perhaps because of) this widespread antipathy, 62% of respondents say they don't personally know a Muslim American.

Anti-Muslim crimes on rise

Do you feel that anti-Muslim crimes rise to the level of terrorism in the US?

 

[bueno]

I really enjoy you two using data from 2006 when so much has changed since then. Should we use data from 2006 to see if Americans prefer laptops over PCs and Smartphones over beepers? The Pew survey is way over used as a crutch for people trying to make this argument. It's over five years old, thanks.

I agree with you, and I made that very same point in my post. The numbers in the Pew poll show that Muslim support of terrorism is actually decreasing, and I can only guess from the figures that Tgunz produced in the other thread that since that time it's decreased even more. This is a very good thing, and it's news that a lot of conservatives really don't want to hear. Conservative arguments on this issue seem to at times support the existence of a monolothic Islamic support for terrorism, and that doesn't exist and never has. However, if, and this is very optimistic, Muslim support for terrorism has dropped from around the 10% that the Pew poll reports to around 5% now, that's still 50 million people who support Terrorism. In order to have a moral equivalency, you'd have to have 50 million Christians supporting terrorism. And this does not exist. So again, people who try to equate Islam to Christianity in terms of support for terrorism are just flat out wrong.

I really think you are misrepresenting conservative views here. Conservative arguments support a large number of Muslims support terrorism. If we take 10% support as a rectally extracted number, that equates to about 100,000,000 people supporting terrorism. That is significant. What conservatives do seem to believe is that there is a near-monolithic Islamic support for sharia law. That too is significant if true.Islamic beliefs in general are so diametrically opposed to western beliefs (Christian and secular) that I don't see the two ever reconciling.

 

[bueno]

The scale currently leans toward Islam for violence, but this wasn't always the case and in no way shows that Christianity isn't succeptible to the same use.

There is no doubt religion is the strongest tool in existence for justifying terrorism/war. Perhaps racism or other forms of prejudice could give it a run for its money.... but these seem to often go hand in hand with each other.

It is the most effective social control on earth, the above is a given.

During which historic period was it not the case? The history of Islam seems pretty violent.

 

[bueno]

Once you start encouraging people to believe that there is nothing more to life than turning into a dust pile, you create a mentality that is inheriently dangerous.....

You're insinuating that most people who are religious are psychopaths who, without a fear of reprisal from beyond the grave, would go around committing crimes and murdering whoever they want. I don't believe that is true.ETA: On the other hand, you might be right, because that certainly explains those who feel justified in their crimes, murder, and terrorism in light of their confirmed supernatural faith.

It is odd to me that that is what you got out of that post that was a reply to the previous post from KCC.

Everything I said works fine with KCC's post, and is still an accurate description based on Jon's assumption. If you think that just because there is no God and no eternal punishment for misbehaving that it's o.k. to be bad, you're a psychopath. He is proposing that the only thing keeping many psychopaths in check is religion. I don't look down on people enough to make such an assumption. I believe that you, and the overwhelming majority of religious people would still do the right thing because I respect you too much to think otherwise."Religion is an insult to human dignity. 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

When good people do evil things they are no longer good.

 

[ScottyFargo]

When good people do evil things they are no longer good.

Yes, "religion poisons everything". When does an otherwise Good Person, who refuses to take their child to a hospital or seek medical care when they are injured because they believe in the power of Faith Healing- that God's love will turn into divine intervention and heal their sick child, cross the threshold into becoming a Bad Person?

Certainly we agree that child abuse is evil. Neglect is a form of child abuse. So when someone's religion leads them to neglect the welfare of their children because doing otherwise conflicts with their religious beliefs, can we not say this is an example of a good person performing an evil deed in the name of religion? Are they not corrupted by these dangerous beliefs?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Islamic beliefs in general are so diametrically opposed to western beliefs (Christian and secular) that I don't see the two ever reconciling.

I think this is an excellent point and something most people on either side can come to terms with. Accepting that cultures that branch from religions can exist in harmony without attempting to compel people to accept certain ways of life and beliefs is possible, but still decades away if not longer. I'm of the mindset of respecting cultures and religions at face value but that acceptance ends with the imposing of will and the distribution of untruths and propaganda. Everyone is guilty of this, the varying extreme degrees is wherein lies the problem.

 

[The Commish]

When good people do evil things they are no longer good.

Yes, "religion poisons everything". When does an otherwise Good Person, who refuses to take their child to a hospital or seek medical care when they are injured because they believe in the power of Faith Healing- that God's love will turn into divine intervention and heal their sick child, cross the threshold into becoming a Bad Person?

Certainly we agree that child abuse is evil. Neglect is a form of child abuse. So when someone's religion leads them to neglect the welfare of their children because doing otherwise conflicts with their religious beliefs, can we not say this is an example of a good person performing an evil deed in the name of religion? Are they not corrupted by these dangerous beliefs?

What you thought they were before this incident was wrong. They weren't "otherwise good people". This is the main problem with your premise and you thinking you "know" others. All you have to go by is what they show you.

 

[ScottyFargo]

When good people do evil things they are no longer good.

Yes, "religion poisons everything". When does an otherwise Good Person, who refuses to take their child to a hospital or seek medical care when they are injured because they believe in the power of Faith Healing- that God's love will turn into divine intervention and heal their sick child, cross the threshold into becoming a Bad Person?

Certainly we agree that child abuse is evil. Neglect is a form of child abuse. So when someone's religion leads them to neglect the welfare of their children because doing otherwise conflicts with their religious beliefs, can we not say this is an example of a good person performing an evil deed in the name of religion? Are they not corrupted by these dangerous beliefs?

What you thought they were before this incident was wrong. They weren't "otherwise good people". This is the main problem with your premise and you thinking you "know" others. All you have to go by is what they show you.

That's a dangerous precedent you're setting. Under your determination, all of those on this board who hold to the immorality of homosexuality may be evil people, instead of people who are confused by their religious beliefs into entertaining bigoted and divisive beliefs on sexuality. I can't be quite that pessimistic. I understand that people are fallible and can make mistakes, especially when they are being swayed by something that they hold as dear as their religious beliefs that they believe hold the key to their eternal salvation.

And also: why not judge religion by this same compass? If all we have to go on is what religion shows us, and what it is showing is that it allows people to place greater emphasis on faith than any other factor, why shouldn't everyone just write it off as dangerous nonsense that is proven to open the door to make good people do evil deeds?

 

[timschochet]

I really enjoy you two using data from 2006 when so much has changed since then. Should we use data from 2006 to see if Americans prefer laptops over PCs and Smartphones over beepers? The Pew survey is way over used as a crutch for people trying to make this argument. It's over five years old, thanks.

I agree with you, and I made that very same point in my post. The numbers in the Pew poll show that Muslim support of terrorism is actually decreasing, and I can only guess from the figures that Tgunz produced in the other thread that since that time it's decreased even more. This is a very good thing, and it's news that a lot of conservatives really don't want to hear. Conservative arguments on this issue seem to at times support the existence of a monolothic Islamic support for terrorism, and that doesn't exist and never has. However, if, and this is very optimistic, Muslim support for terrorism has dropped from around the 10% that the Pew poll reports to around 5% now, that's still 50 million people who support Terrorism. In order to have a moral equivalency, you'd have to have 50 million Christians supporting terrorism. And this does not exist. So again, people who try to equate Islam to Christianity in terms of support for terrorism are just flat out wrong.

I really think you are misrepresenting conservative views here. Conservative arguments support a large number of Muslims support terrorism. If we take 10% support as a rectally extracted number, that equates to about 100,000,000 people supporting terrorism. That is significant. What conservatives do seem to believe is that there is a near-monolithic Islamic support for sharia law. That too is significant if true.Islamic beliefs in general are so diametrically opposed to western beliefs (Christian and secular) that I don't see the two ever reconciling.

I never even commented on this thread regarding conservative views on Islam. I think, as you do, that American conservatives in general grossly misunderstand nearly all aspects of Islam. But that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

 

[jon_mx]

When good people do evil things they are no longer good.

Yes, "religion poisons everything". When does an otherwise Good Person, who refuses to take their child to a hospital or seek medical care when they are injured because they believe in the power of Faith Healing- that God's love will turn into divine intervention and heal their sick child, cross the threshold into becoming a Bad Person?

Certainly we agree that child abuse is evil. Neglect is a form of child abuse. So when someone's religion leads them to neglect the welfare of their children because doing otherwise conflicts with their religious beliefs, can we not say this is an example of a good person performing an evil deed in the name of religion? Are they not corrupted by these dangerous beliefs?

I know otherwise smart extremely liberal anti-religious types who live in Oregon who do not believe in doctors either and would not take their kids to one. It is not about religion despite your extreme personal hatred of religion which warps your views beyond hope.

 

[The Commish]

That's a dangerous precedent you're setting. Under your determination, all of those on this board who hold to the immorality of homosexuality may be evil people, instead of people who are confused by their religious beliefs into entertaining bigoted and divisive beliefs on sexuality.

Umm...no, not even close. My post was riddled in sarcasm. I am trying to show you what it sounds like when you talk about religion by applying it to people. MY precedent allows for both the people holding any "immorality" as ok and the beliefs that hurt others on equal ground. Both are equally dangerous. Regardless, it's about the people and their beliefs, not the tools they misuse to arrive at those beliefs.

I can't be quite that pessimistic. I understand that people are fallible and can make mistakes, especially when they are being swayed by something that they hold as dear as their religious beliefs that they believe hold the key to their eternal salvation.

The person not willing to take responsibility for their actions is probably the most destructive kind of person there is. It doesn't matter what they pass that responsibility off on, it's the lack of personal responsibility that's the problem.

And also: why not judge religion by this same compass? If all we have to go on is what religion shows us, and what it is showing is that it allows people to place greater emphasis on faith than any other factor, why shouldn't everyone just write it off as dangerous nonsense that is proven to open the door to make good people do evil deeds?

I hold people to a higher level of responsibility than I do objects/subjects because those objects don't make the decisions on how they are used. The bolded part is what I don't understand. If you REALLY want to judge religion you will look at both the good and the bad that people do in the name of religion, correct? You aren't doing that if you believe the bolded statement above. You are focusing on the extremists and passing it off as the norm. You are blatantly ignoring those who are doing good in the name of religion. Is it "dangerous nonsense" for a man to travel half way around the world to help build an AIDS hospice in an African country? Is it "dangerous nonsense" for a group of people to travel to Sri Lanka to help get little boys out of a world where they are treated as pieces of meat by other men and rented as "tour guides" to service these men for weeks at a time? I am NOT suggesting that these things are done because religion is good. It's neither good or bad in and of itself. The people are good or bad in all these scenarios.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Terror today in Ottawa involving someone who converted to islam.