CharlieHebdo

1303133353645

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    good people can be theists and religious. Bad people can be atheists. We are not denying this Getafix. I'd say however that you cannot be a good Christian or Muslim and be a good person. You can be Christian but you'll have to compromise on the commandments of your holy book or even ignore it altogether. And you'll need to stop confusing devotion to a doctrine And moral behavior. Worship is NOT moral. It does not in itself contain even a shadow of moral code.

    I'd have to agree with this. Worship of anything or anyone is insane unjustified deification, whether it be a god, a pope, a celebrity or a parent - because no one is perfect.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yes Stalin, yes Mao. Atheists and mass murdering lunatics on an epic scale.

    Someone said religion makes good people do bad things. I'm afraid I have to point out that religion also makes a lot of good people do a lot of good things as well - something the religio-phobes on here seem all to keen to overlook.

    And the idea that atheists somehow lack prejudice is laughable. Has no one noticed how aetheism has often gone hand in hand with exteme nationalism?

    Even if you strip away 'religion' people will seek moral codes to live by and ways to organise their lives. You'll still have to deal with conflicting ideologies and philosophies and history shows that they can be just as bad and irrational , if not worse than 'religion'.

    Also, in much of Europe - Germany for instance - a huge amount of social provision for the less fortunate is still provided through churches. So there is a lot if good that goes on in religion as well as the inevitable bad.

    I agree with this as well, with one caveat. Religion does make good people do good things, but the question is why are they doing it? Is it due to devotion, or some fear of a terrible afterlife if they don't do it, or is due to genuine heartfelt warmth, intelligence and conscience? If the former then there is the risk that they could be misguided in the future by some zealot. If the latter, then there is less risk. The same applies to any idealogy.

    That's where education comes in. Education of as many people as possible is the most important thing we can do, so they can intelligently question any idealogy. Also, people must be given an opportunity to have a decent, dignified life, as I've said before.

    Germany today is a good example. The population is very intelligent, educated, well off (generally income distribution is better than other advanced economies) and hard working, for the most part, but with a social conscience.

    I would also like to add that the idealogy that I am most concerned with these days, and which seems to be as out of control as radical Islam, is unbridled, radical trickle down capitalism.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Where does the whole western European concept of social welfare, funded from the entire community, come from? I'd argue that the origins lie very much in Christianity. Those who argue that it's origins lie in secular socialism, should also take a look at the origins of socialism - in the UK they are almost inextricably linked to radical Christian teaching.

    I just find all this extreme anti-religious stuff a bit deluded.

    It was reported in the Guardian yesterday that the UK is probably one of the least religious countries in the world. So the discussion any Brits on here are having is taking place in a very unusual context. Most of the rest of the world does not have the same views. And it's really important to remember that you don't convince any one by forcing your own orthodoxy down other people's throats. The middle east is not going to go from being highly religious to secular overnight. You have to recognise that if you want to even allow secularists and aetheists the space to breathe in much of the middle east, there is a long road to travel. You need to counter the extremists and support moderates who will tolerate dissent.

    I find it as objectionable as any one else that there is so much religious intollerance in the Middle East (although, having said that, it was actually quite a diverse place until relatively recently) but you're not going to change that by telling people to renounce their religion overnight. It's not even the beginning, let alone the end of the conversation that needs to be had.

    Here is the Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/12/uk-one-of-worlds-least-religious-countries-survey-finds

    Interesting that Thailand is one of the most religious countries, and yet their serious internal problems seem to have nothing to do with religion.

    Another interesting article on the Grauniad about angry (and not so angry) aetheists: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/oliver-burkeman-column/2015/mar/03/are-atheists-all-angry

    So basically what I'm saying is, feel free to push your own minority aethesit/secularist views, but don't expect too many people to be listening. My view is that it's actually much more productive to support and engage with people who are expressing constructive, tollerant views, regardless of their religion, than obssess about imposing a global aetheist hegemony. Challenging religious bigotry amongst ordinary non-extremist Muslims is certainly important, but there is a time and a place for that, and northern Iraq in 2015 is probably not it.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Actually, progress in the West was very often done in spite of religion. It was the Church who fought with the last energy against women vote, or more recently against same sex marriage. And a paedophile can be an unbeliever of course, but if he's a Catholic priest he's got his whole institution to cover up his crimes and protect him. Not to mention forgive him. It seems that equality in the eyes of the law is not exactly something certain religious people respect. And don't get me started on the sharia law that is tolerated in the U.K.

    But regarding institutions doing good work name me one social reform that could not have been done through secular forces or one charity that could not work if secular. Religion is at best peripheral to social progress. At best. As it very often opposes it.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    Looks like that in reponse to the Charlie Hebdo attacks, France is getting its own Patriot Act.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/13/us-france-surveillance-idUSKBN0N40VC20150413?irpc=932
  • Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Actually, progress in the West was very often done in spite of religion. It was the Church who fought with the last energy against women vote, or more recently against same sex marriage. And a paedophile can be an unbeliever of course, but if he's a Catholic priest he's got his whole institution to cover up his crimes and protect him. Not to mention forgive him. It seems that equality in the eyes of the law is not exactly something certain religious people respect. And don't get me started on the sharia law that is tolerated in the U.K.

    But regarding institutions doing good work name me one social reform that could not have been done through secular forces or one charity that could not work if secular. Religion is at best peripheral to social progress. At best. As it very often opposes it.

    Well, since I don't believe in God it comes as no surprise to me that there are bad people in the church. Just as there are bad people in every organisation.

    And obviously all these goods works could be done by non religious organisations as well - and often are.

  • Posts: 4,603
    In reply to Getafix - how do you define non-extreme anti-religious stuff.? By definition, atheists think that the whole thing is junk. Perhaps we are just meant to have those thoughts but keep quiet? To portray atheists as extreme just because they say what they think makes little sense but fits in with an agenda whereby the religous are threatened by open dialogue and want a "free ride" without having to justify their fairytales. When atheists starts piling Boeings into skyscrapers, I will agree on that definition of extreme. Re religion making good people do good thinks, can you give any examples of religious people doing good things that they are not perfectly capable of doing without religion (not rhetorical, I want examples),
    who has claimed that atheists lack prejudice?
    Re moral codes , nobody is claiming that society does not need norms and values in order to operate effectively but it would be nice to work things out for ourselves rather than have them sent down on slabs of stone from the big guy in the sky. What a dreadful and hopeless view of humanity that we are so thick that we cant work out for ourselves how to behave. Presumably, atheists think its perfectly OK to kill people for example? It is possible to work out that murder is not a good thing without reading an old book of fairy tales.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Well, there's lots of evidence that Christians in the US give a lot more to charity than non churchgoers because they are compelled to by their religion.

    Whether that money is ultimately spent on things we'd consider worthwhile is another matter. But yes, I think there's quite a lot of evidence to show that those who go to church give away more of their money to what they regard as good causes.

    Regarding morality and where we get it from, I don't think religions have a monopoly on morality or that the world will fall apart without religion, but it's notable that it was the ideologies that rejected God in the 20th century that went on to find justifications for mass killing on a scale the world had never previously seen.

    The notion that getting rid of religion automatically stops people killing or murdering is just fantasy I'm afraid.
  • Posts: 4,603
    any link to data re religious giving more to charity? I have never heard that before
  • Posts: 4,603
    The notion that getting rid of religion automatically stops people killing or murdering is just fantasy I'm afraid.

    Who has proposed that notion?
  • Posts: 11,425
    Here: http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/3630830

    There are lots of others and lots of different spins on what it means. Apparently if you remove the sense of religious obligation, apparently Christians give less, but then the obligation is the whole point.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Actually, progress in the West was very often done in spite of religion. It was the Church who fought with the last energy against women vote, or more recently against same sex marriage. And a paedophile can be an unbeliever of course, but if he's a Catholic priest he's got his whole institution to cover up his crimes and protect him. Not to mention forgive him. It seems that equality in the eyes of the law is not exactly something certain religious people respect. And don't get me started on the sharia law that is tolerated in the U.K.

    But regarding institutions doing good work name me one social reform that could not have been done through secular forces or one charity that could not work if secular. Religion is at best peripheral to social progress. At best. As it very often opposes it.

    Well, since I don't believe in God it comes as no surprise to me that there are bad people in the church. Just as there are bad people in every organisation.

    And obviously all these goods works could be done by non religious organisations as well - and often are.

    Hence religion is at best utterly irrelevant to goodness or social progress. At best.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I just think people on here are getting a bit hung up on religion being the origin of all that is bad in the world. As an atheist I see humans as the origin of all that is bad and also all that is good. I just don't think religious people are generally any more or less to blame for what goes wrong than anyone else.

    Islamo nutters happen to be the baddies of the moment but before that it was Commies, and before that Nazis. And one day it will be something else.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 7,507
    I can see why people living in America would be unusually hostile towards religion and religious practice. But in Europe religious conservatism is far less of an issue. Pretty much the only religion related problem we have is Islamophobia, although it really has more to do with hatred than phobia in many cases. It is possible to have a functioning society with moderate christians and muslims, would you believe...
  • Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »
    I just think people on here are getting a bit hung up on religion being the origin of all that is bad in the world. As an atheist I see humans as the origin of all that is bad and also all that is good. I just don't think religious people are generally any more or less to blame for what goes wrong than anyone else.

    Islamo nutters happen to be the baddies of the moment but before that it was Commies, and before that Nazis. And one day it will be something else.

    I am not saying religion is the only evil of this world. And evils are not mutually exclusive. Religious people as a whole are not all bad, but at its core religion is based on blind obedience, belief over reason, and that is before we even start thinking about its more nefarious influence. It can and should be criticized, questioned and challenged.

    Yes, Islamo nutters are now the most important threat ti civilization. But the Christian fundies are also a threat, a threat kept at bay thanks to the vigilance of secularists like us, who openly call them on their BS. Oh and the Nazis of yesterday happened to be Christians too.
  • Posts: 11,425
    So when people are bad you attribute it to their religion and when they're good it's due to their rational atheist secular side?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Being a thinker, I encourage and applaud any thing that helps people to think for themselves, critically and independently.

    My main argument with religion is that it prevents people from thinking and encourages faith over reason in many cases. That can be beneficial in some cases (when helping people to cope with the currently unexplainable for instance - like sudden deaths in the family or catastrophes) but it is potentially dangerous because faith is in essence 'blind' imho.

    The human mind is very susceptible to lack of reason & irrational thinking as it is, even when we think we are being rational (recent behavioural economics studies have shown this - Daniel Kahneman's work in particular, for which he won a Nobel Prize), so anything that compounds this is potentially dangerous, no matter what its good intentions.
  • Posts: 4,603
    As I said, bad people do bad things but religion has the power for people to change their behavior and they do things that, under normal circumstances, they would not do. There are so many examples, its all there to see. Plus, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is also untrue.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Many of our best intellectual and scientific minds have been and continue to be religious believers. The idea that the religious are incapable of intelligent, rational thought is an old canard.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I am not suggesting that the religious are incapable of being intelligent or rational. Not at all.

    However, if one is deeply religious in the literal sense, then at ones core there is a belief in concepts that are essentially irrational and to some extent idiotic - no matter how smart one may be on other matters.

    It is impossible in my opinion to properly reconcile this personal irrationality with intellectual reasoning (about humankind's origins or what happens after death for instance). It's either one or the other - it cannot be both. If anyone can explain how it can be both, I'm ready to hear it.
  • Posts: 4,603
    Yes, its a big problem. People from all walks of life can spend 99% of their life being rational, sensible etc , making decisions based on previous evidence, applied maths, scientific constants etc BUT when it comes to religion, they just abandon all of that and place their faith in a fairy tale. It makes no sense. The fear of death plays a big part. Religion is holding all of the aces in that department. Atheism has nothing to offer other than honesty and integrity. But it's cold and holds little comfort. Continuing to live in a different dimension once your heart and brain has stopped is a tempting proposition. But cobblers is cobblers not matter how you dress it up
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    I am not suggesting that the religious are incapable of being intelligent or rational. Not at all.

    However, if one is deeply religious in the literal sense, then at ones core there is a belief in concepts that are essentially irrational and to some extent idiotic - no matter how smart one may be on other matters.

    It is impossible in my opinion to properly reconcile this personal irrationality with intellectual reasoning (about humankind's origins or what happens after death for instance). It's either one or the other - it cannot be both. If anyone can explain how it can be both, I'm ready to hear it.

    Here are some quotes from that famous idiot, Albert Einstein. I'm not saying I agree with him (I don't) but I can't dismiss what someone of Einstein's intellect has to say on this matter:

    “The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”

    “My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”

    Clearly Einstein's views on the divine and God did not fall into easy categorisation in terms of religion, but he also said

    “I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.”

    The last quote makes it clear that he believed in a single superior power of some kind.

    And one more quote from Albert relevant to this conversation:

    “Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”

    If as fine a mind as Einsteins could conclude that their is a divine order and superior intelligence/power behind the universe then I find it hard to dismiss that point of view as inherently nonsense. I don't personally share the view, but it would be arrogant of me to say that his beliefs were irrational hocum.

    So I see religion as partly expressing a long-standing belief in the divine, that even Einstein embraced.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I am not suggesting that the religious are incapable of being intelligent or rational. Not at all.

    However, if one is deeply religious in the literal sense, then at ones core there is a belief in concepts that are essentially irrational and to some extent idiotic - no matter how smart one may be on other matters.

    It is impossible in my opinion to properly reconcile this personal irrationality with intellectual reasoning (about humankind's origins or what happens after death for instance). It's either one or the other - it cannot be both. If anyone can explain how it can be both, I'm ready to hear it.

    Here are some quotes from that famous idiot, Albert Einstein. I'm not saying I agree with him (I don't) but I can't dismiss what someone of Einstein's intellect has to say on this matter:

    “The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”

    “My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”

    Clearly Einstein's views on the divine and God did not fall into easy categorisation in terms of religion, but he also said

    “I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.”

    The last quote makes it clear that he believed in a single superior power of some kind.

    And one more quote from Albert relevant to this conversation:

    “Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”

    If as fine a mind as Einsteins could conclude that their is a divine order and superior intelligence/power behind the universe then I find it hard to dismiss that point of view as inherently nonsense. I don't personally share the view, but it would be arrogant of me to say that his beliefs were irrational hocum.

    So I see religion as partly expressing a long-standing belief in the divine, that even Einstein embraced.

    I think this actually confirms my point. I'm assuming these quotes were his responses when confronted on religion or god?

    There is nothing in the above statements that suggested he had an opinion on the subject either way. Just that he didn't know. He may have had a suspicion or an assumption (e.g. that there is some sort of order to the universe - his comment on immutable laws governing it for instance), but he did not appear to have a firm conclusion on it either way - which is the proper scientific answer given we don't have all the facts yet (it's an ongoing learning /investigative process, and hopefully the recently restarted large hadron collider gives us more answers shortly). That's different from being firmly religious and believing in chosen ones etc.

    I do agree with his statement on fanatical atheists though - as I said some pages back, fanatics come in all guises and cannot be reasoned with, whether they be religious fanatics or fanatical aethists.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 11,425
    In my experience there are a lot of very intelligent, decent Christians, who take a rather critical approach to their religion - rejecting elements that they find out-dated or redundant. Just as there are Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc who do the same. The idea that religion is necessarily monolithic, static and not open to new and evolving interpretation is a rather stereotpyical view. Christian theology has changed repeatedly (if often slowly) throughout history. Yes, there are people who see religion as static and unchanging, but many others don't, and I don't think it helps any kind of wider conversation to suggest that people who believe in God are inherently stupid or incapable of rational thought.

    I'm not an expert, but the Shia in Islam, so I understand, see the Koran very explicitly as a text that has to be interpreted by humans and applied to a changing world. The interpretation is not static and so laws and rules can change over time. That wouldn't satisfy me if I was living in Iran, but it's a very different approach to the view of and extremist Sunni salafists and wahabists who want 'go back' to some imagined medieval pure form of Islam.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    No doubt there are many religious people who reject the more outdated elements in their belief systems. I think they have to, otherwise they would be forfeiting the assumption that they are intelligent.

    My point from earlier though is that if one considers oneself devoutly religious, then by definition it will be impossible for one to reconcile religion with common sense, because one then has to accept the good with the bad - one then cannot pick and choose. This was mentioned in an earlier post as well - that it's not possible to be a 'good' religious person (of any faith) without accepting the most fundamental fallacies intrinsic to it. I don't think there is such a thing as moderately good religious. So there has to be at some level (even if it is subconscious) an acceptance of the inherent misconceptions in faith beliefs - i.e. to be at some level illogical. US presidents (who have to pledge their allegiance to the flag and to Christianity), are also guilty of this, which to me is scary. Either people haven't thought deeply enough about this, or they are just ignoring that fact.

    Having said that, I'm personally not suggesting, like some here, that we have to be so harsh in our criticism of religion and completely ostracize & marginalize it. I understand why it's necessary for some, and it does serve a good purpose as well - of that there is no doubt.

    My view however is that we have to be more clear in asking religious people to confront the delusions inherent in their faith. As an example, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Western governments asked moderate muslims to do that within the Islamic community in order to marginalize the Islamic radicals - that's a start and I say that has to be expanded to all faiths, including Christianity. We should also cut off funding for faith based schools etc.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I agree. Just because something is justified by one person's faith, it doesn't mean that can't be challenged. Actually the best way to do that sometimes is to have a better understanding of the theology than the supposedly religious person. Most religious people actually really know very little about their religion.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The problem is not that people have religious or spiritual beliefs. The problem is that most people will do as they are told by authorities, political or religious-it makes little difference as long as that blind obedience is in place. This is why religion is an even stronger power tool than political ideologies, as it also deals with the afterlife.
  • Posts: 7,653
    The folks from the US are currently stance anti Islam while at the same time a battle is being waged upon equality based upon sex and sexual orientation this all in the good name of Christianity. The laws that are created called freedom of religions acts in several states are no more than discriminatory attempts by local government to maintain a so called religious viewpoint even if they are spiteful and disgusting.

    Religion in our western world is still a force that slows down any equality and humanity even if it has lost a lot of ground, we are still being governed by a two thousand year old collection of tales [most of them very much borrowed from even older religions] that is constantly being misused by preachers and their ilk for monetary reasons and manipulation of people always for the gain of power and money. Which has been the case through most of our human religious history even further back than Christianity, Islam & Judaism goes.

    Religion or believe is an integral part our of human psyche as is violence, I am not sure how we can lose either of them because masses of people tend to react different from single persons.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »
    So when people are bad you attribute it to their religion and when they're good it's due to their rational atheist secular side?

    No I'm saying that faith is irrelevant to moral and that worship is not to be confused to morality.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    These gods who demand worship are the very definition of immorality and sin themselves.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »
    Many of our best intellectual and scientific minds have been and continue to be religious believers. The idea that the religious are incapable of intelligent, rational thought is an old canard.

    Actually no they are pretty much a minority now. And even for Einstein it is debatable whether he was a theist or not. Even if he was that would be an appeal to authority.
Sign In or Register to comment.