Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
"He did something wrong in the name of religion, ergo, the religion is wrong."
I hear antithiests/atheists go on about this: " Christians killed people, it's Christianity's fault"/"Christians hate gays , Christanity is wrong".
Why does no one realize that it's the crazy guy's fault? It's not the religion's fault. A holy document can be interpreted in nearly any way possible. It's possible to interpret the Bible to say that White people are superior to all other races. That doesn't mean the Bible should be interpreted that way.
Atheists never realize that they are attacking one specific interpretation of a religion. But to them, the religion is completely uniform and a giant monolithic block anyway.
Raise this objection against them, though, and they'll just call you bigoted and ignorant and too stupid to see the Atheist Truth. And they'll call you an apologetic as if that's a bad thing. The entire refutal will consist of painting you as too stupid to argue and that you're just a dumb immature child.
Which is funny, because I thought that shutting down the argument by saying, "Yeah, well you're dumb" is something Children do.
He who fights monsters, indeed.
Comments
You're doing it again, dear.
people, it's Christianity's fault"/"Christians hate gays , Christanity
is wrong".
Yeah, such generalizations are pretty dumb. Just imagine someone generalizing Atheists by saying "Atheists never realize that they are attacking one specific
interpretation of a religion. But to them, the religion is completely
uniform and a giant monolithic block anyway."
But luckily no one does so here.
Strawmen: 2
You should become a Mimicist chagen. It's a system where you only believe the parts of the bible you agree with and disregard the parts you don't, and God is anything you want him to be at any given time, and you adhere to the morals that you choose for yourself, and never the ones you don't want to apply to yourself.
Here's some more:
"Why does no one realize that it's the crazy guy's fault?"
No-one realises.
"the Atheist Truth."
Strawmanning.
"Which is funny, because I thought that shutting down the argument by saying, "Yeah, well you're dumb" is something Children do."
Comparing your opponents to children and saying it's funny, has an air of boastfulness. Not only that but this sentence adds nothing to your point.
"But to them, the religion is completely uniform and a giant monolithic block anyway."
Strawmanning.
There's more but I'm starting to sound like an ass too, har har.
Stop making generalizations whilst complaining about generalizations. It's very hypocritical.
(This is the closest I have come to ranting)
EDIT: "sounds like a good system if implemented properly"
What does? Context please.
interpretation of a religion. But to them, the religion is completely
uniform and a giant monolithic block anyway.
Well, this is a generalization, as you are no doubt aware.
Still, about the main topic. Thing is, people can argue about how a
given religious text should be interpreted until they drop dead and
possibly beyond. But that matters little. What matters is how people are
interpreting text. It is hard to prove which interpretation is correct,
but it can be seen which one is common. And it is completely
understandable to have problem with religion over that common
interpretation, at least until it ceases to be common and represent a
public face of the religion.
Another thing to keep in mind is that when people are arguing against an
influence of religion, more often than not they are de facto arguing
with exactly the extreme and obnoxious element they have full right to
have trouble with. Because it's those people who tend to be the ones to
push their religion on others. There might be nice people in every
religion, but let's face it - it's not these nice people who are going
to make decisions if religion is allowed more influence. Say, not all
Christians are homophobic, but it's the one who are who are going to
make decisions.
And another angle to consider. Say, certain widespread idea might not
actually be representative of the whole religion. However, it is the
most common, and quite a lot of people seem to hold to this idea for no
other reason than because they think their religion says to. Regardless
of whether it actually says to or no - is it not fair to see trouble in
the degree of influence they are allowing their religion to have over
them? If people are allowing anything to override basic decency and
empathy - then their relationship with this thing is troublesome. Again,
the question is not "whether their religious teaches it or not", but
that it is the source of their decisions. Suppose that you are wrong and
their interpretation of religion - an interpretation you disagree with -
turns out to be correct. Would it make their actions correct?
Say, you have a friend. Pleasant, smiling, friendly, helpful, kind, you
name it. One day said friend comes into your house and sadly informs you
that they intend to torture and kill you because their boss said so.
You can clearly see that they are serious and intend to do so. Just as
they start, the boss calls and informs them that he made no such order,
and they misunderstood what he meant. A "friend" profusely apologises
and lets you go.
A question - regardless of whether the boss really made such order or
no, would it not disturb you that a "friend" was willing to obey if such
order was made? Does it matter which orders the boss actually gave?
And it is completely understandable to have problem with religion over that common
interpretation, at least until it ceases to be common and represent a public face of the religion.
I think that makes sense. I mean, if racism is commonly associated with a certain religion, I could definitely see why some would dislike that religion even if not everyone who practiced it was racist. I think you could say something similar about violence depending on your view of that.
There might be nice people in every religion, but let's face it - it's not these nice people who are going
to make decisions if religion is allowed more influence. Say, not all Christians are homophobic, but it's the one who are who are going to make decisions.
I am not quite sure what you mean when you say "if religion is allowed more influence." Do you think you could clarify that? Would that mean something like having no separation of church and state (in the U.S.) or actively making laws based off of religious doctrine?
And another angle to consider. Say, certain widespread idea might not actually be representative of the whole religion. However, it is the most common, and quite a lot of people seem to hold to this idea for no other reason than because they think their religion says to. Regardless of whether it actually says to or no - is it not fair to see trouble in the degree of influence they are allowing their religion to have over them?
It seems strange to me that some would hold an idea for no other reason than because they think their religion says to hold it when that idea is not actually supported by the words of their scripture/religion teachings. One example of that kind of mentality that I can point to is so-called "radical Islam." Suicide bombings, trying to force people to convert to Islam or follow its religious practices, and harming people just because they are not Muslims are all forbidden according to the Qur'an, yet those who follow "radical Islam" claim to be acting according to the Qur'an's teachings.
I have heard some say that there are people looking to use anything to justify violence, whether it be a religion, a political ideology, or something similar. I wonder if that is really true. If it is, I would like to try to figure out what can be done to persuade such persons to throw away that violent view.
But that is not the only sort of people to commit wrong in the name of religion. Some are actually kind and nice people who probably wouldn't have developed their bigotry if not for religion. Of course, it is difficult to separate which is which, but they do exist.
As for why would people do things their holy books warns against - well, first, it allows quite a lot of interpretation. And, second, there is more to religion than holy text. Religion is as much a local tradition and practice, and the way a certain community understands/practices it is as much a part of religion as the text. Now, of course other members of such religion might claim that the community's way is wrong, but hey, they could claim the same and just as easily. Meanwhile, most common members have no cause nor any real opportunity to think that the interpretation they were brought in is incorrect.
But that is not the only sort of people to commit wrong in the name of
religion. Some are actually kind and nice people who probably wouldn't
have developed their bigotry if not for religion. Of course, it is
difficult to separate which is which, but they do exist.
I am not aware of evidence to disprove your point here, but I do agree that it is difficult to separate which is which, especially for those who have practiced a religion for their entire lives. Also, I am not quite sure what it means for a person to be good anyway (at least not in any objective sense of the word). I suppose some would define good according to what their religion defines piety as. I guess that goes back to the question at hand though.
As for why would people do things their holy books warns against - well,
first, it allows quite a lot of interpretation. And, second, there is
more to religion than holy text. Religion is as much a local tradition
and practice, and the way a certain community understands/practices it
is as much a part of religion as the text. Now, of course other members
of such religion might claim that the community's way is wrong, but hey,
they could claim the same and just as easily. Meanwhile, most
common members have no cause nor any real opportunity to think that the
interpretation they were brought in is incorrect.
I think you bring up a good point about interpretations. I just think it is rather strange for people to support interpretations which clearly go against both the text and general themes of a religious text. Then again, I am not theology expert, so maybe that kind of stuff is normal. I just find it odd since I rarely see that kind of justification used when people try to support their political, philosophical, or literary works through quoting parts of a document.
As though people are born with innate decency and empathy to non-kin and it takes a bad social institution to override their innate virtue!
So, you're saying people learn to be decent and empathetic, and religion allows them to un-learn that?That explains everything!
People aren't born decent and empathetic. It takes pervasive social control mechanisms like religion to make someone virtuous, and in most cases it fails.