Belief in Religion

[maverixk]

Difference between a hammer and religion is that religion can be used to manipulate average people into doing something horrible. Hammer is just a tool, whereas religion is a way to affect human behavior, in a good way, or a really bad way.

I think a better analogy would be religion and a gun. Both of those do not do horrible things by default, but they can easily be used for that, from which we have countless examples. I don't think the concept of religion is nearly as dangerous as guns, but it is dangerous because it's a system that removes individual responsibility and enables any monstrosity because "God commands it".

If we removed religion and guns today, tomorrow would be a much more peaceful day, because without God and guns, the amount of damage you can do would be pretty limited.

While I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement I think the hammer analogy is just as valid as the gun analogy. You can kill pretty easily with a hammer, can't you? I know that it's easier with a gun, but I believe the analogy stands both ways. A hammer could be used to threaten someone, therefore affecting their behavior in a good, or more likely, really bad way.

[Scaredgirl]

Difference between a hammer and religion is that religion can be used to manipulate average people into doing something horrible. Hammer is just a tool, whereas religion is a way to affect human behavior, in a good way, or a really bad way.

I think a better analogy would be religion and a gun. Both of those do not do horrible things by default, but they can easily be used for that, from which we have countless examples. I don't think the concept of religion is nearly as dangerous as guns, but it is dangerous because it's a system that removes individual responsibility and enables any monstrosity because "God commands it".

If we removed religion and guns today, tomorrow would be a much more peaceful day, because without God and guns, the amount of damage you can do would be pretty limited.

While I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement I think the hammer analogy is just as valid as the gun analogy. You can kill pretty easily with a hammer, can't you? I know that it's easier with a gun, but I believe the analogy stands both ways. A hammer could be used to threaten someone, therefore affecting their behavior in a good, or more likely, really bad way.

Guns are designed to kill, whereas hammers are designed to hit nails. It's kind of like comparing a pencil and atomic bomb: both of them do nothing bad unless specifically used for something bad, but both can potentially kill a person (stab multiple times with the pencil). The difference is that an atomic bomb and a gun are designed for that one purpose, and they are much more efficient and easier to use.

It's the same thing with religion. Even though you could convince some people to become murderers by giving them scientific "facts", huge majority would not accept that, especially not today. Religion is a much better tool for that because of its supernatural nature. People are more inclined to accept crazy things when you don't have to prove them anything. Things like 9/11 would never happen if not for religious brainwashing.

Regardless of what religion is supposed to do, facts are that it can be used as a terrible weapon, which makes it very dangerous. Much more dangerous than a hammer.

[OldTrees]

Difference between a hammer and religion is that religion can be used to manipulate average people into doing something horrible. Hammer is just a tool, whereas religion is a way to affect human behavior, in a good way, or a really bad way.

I think a better analogy would be religion and a gun. Both of those do not do horrible things by default, but they can easily be used for that, from which we have countless examples. I don't think the concept of religion is nearly as dangerous as guns, but it is dangerous because it's a system that removes individual responsibility and enables any monstrosity because "God commands it".

If we removed religion and guns today, tomorrow would be a much more peaceful day, because without God and guns, the amount of damage you can do would be pretty limited.

While I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement I think the hammer analogy is just as valid as the gun analogy. You can kill pretty easily with a hammer, can't you? I know that it's easier with a gun, but I believe the analogy stands both ways. A hammer could be used to threaten someone, therefore affecting their behavior in a good, or more likely, really bad way.

Guns are designed to kill, whereas hammers are designed to hit nails. It's kind of like comparing a pencil and atomic bomb: both of them do nothing bad unless specifically used for something bad, but both can potentially kill a person (stab multiple times with the pencil). The difference is that an atomic bomb and a gun are designed for that one purpose, and they are much more efficient and easier to use.

It's the same thing with religion. Even though you could convince some people to become murderers by giving them scientific "facts", huge majority would not accept that, especially not today. Religion is a much better tool for that because of its supernatural nature. People are more inclined to accept crazy things when you don't have to prove them anything. Things like 9/11 would never happen if not for religious brainwashing.

Regardless of what religion is supposed to do, facts are that it can be used as a terrible weapon, which makes it very dangerous. Much more dangerous than a hammer.

If the intent of the designer matters then a hammer is an even better analogy to religion than a gun.
A Gun was designed to be used as a weapon (hunting, war, selfdefense, crime)
A Hammer was designed to apply greater pressure from the same amount of force (construction)
Religions have been designed with a variety of intents but the most common one is an attempt to answer "What Ought one do?"

The common intent behind Religion is constructive in a similar manner that a Hammer was designed to be constructive.
Guns were designed to be destructive.
Note: Constructive and Destructive imply neither good nor bad in this usage. Merely whether it was intended to assembles or disassemble.

You used intent of the designer in reference to Guns and Hammers but decided to use aptitude* when judging Religion. This appears fallacious.

*Your opinion of the aptitude. I disagree and think that Religion (as a category rather than specific religions) is rather poor at causing immoral behavior.

[Scaredgirl]

If the intent of the designer matters then a hammer is an even better analogy to religion than a gun.
A Gun was designed to be used as a weapon (hunting, war, selfdefense, crime)
A Hammer was designed to apply greater pressure from the same amount of force (construction)
Religions have been designed with a variety of intents but the most common one is an attempt to answer "What Ought one do?"

The common intent behind Religion is constructive in a similar manner that a Hammer was designed to be constructive.
Guns were designed to be destructive.
Note: Constructive and Destructive imply neither good nor bad in this usage. Merely whether it was intended to assembles or disassemble.

You used intent of the designer in reference to Guns and Hammers but decided to use aptitude* when judging Religion. This appears fallacious.

*Your opinion of the aptitude. I disagree and think that Religion (as a category rather than specific religions) is rather poor at causing immoral behavior.

Well, the issue here is that we have very different views on why religions were originally created. To me, most religions have always been about power and controlling the masses. They are about how it is ok to be poor and how bad things happening to you are not a big deal because it is God's plan. It's an ingenious system of making people content with what little they have, instead of starting to ask questions or oppose the authority.

But the most dangerous part is the principle of some higher power controlling everything, because you can use that idea to get weak-minded people to do just about anything, no matter how immoral it might seem. There are many crazy religious cults as an example of this.

*Your opinion of the aptitude. I disagree and think that Religion (as a category rather than specific religions) is rather poor at causing immoral behavior.

Religion has been the #1 reason for immoral behavior since the beginning of man. Ever heard of the Middle Ages? Religion has a higher body-count than everything else combined, so "poor at causing immoral behavior" is probably the least correct thing I have ever read on this forum, and I've read a lot of stuff.

[OldTrees]

If the intent of the designer matters then a hammer is an even better analogy to religion than a gun.
A Gun was designed to be used as a weapon (hunting, war, selfdefense, crime)
A Hammer was designed to apply greater pressure from the same amount of force (construction)
Religions have been designed with a variety of intents but the most common one is an attempt to answer "What Ought one do?"

The common intent behind Religion is constructive in a similar manner that a Hammer was designed to be constructive.
Guns were designed to be destructive.
Note: Constructive and Destructive imply neither good nor bad in this usage. Merely whether it was intended to assembles or disassemble.

You used intent of the designer in reference to Guns and Hammers but decided to use aptitude* when judging Religion. This appears fallacious.

*Your opinion of the aptitude. I disagree and think that Religion (as a category rather than specific religions) is rather poor at causing immoral behavior.

Well, the issue here is that we have very different views on why religions were originally created. To me, most religions have always been about power and controlling the masses. They are about how it is ok to be poor and how bad things happening to you are not a big deal because it is God's plan. It's an ingenious system of making people content with what little they have, instead of starting to ask questions or oppose the authority.

But the most dangerous part is the principle of some higher power controlling everything, because you can use that idea to get weak-minded people to do just about anything, no matter how immoral it might seem. There are many crazy religious cults as an example of this.

*Your opinion of the aptitude. I disagree and think that Religion (as a category rather than specific religions) is rather poor at causing immoral behavior.

Religion has been the #1 reason for immoral behavior since the beginning of man. Ever heard of the Middle Ages? Religion has a higher body-count than everything else combined, so "poor at causing immoral behavior" is probably the least correct thing I have ever read on this forum, and I've read a lot of stuff.

I am getting bored of you equating Religion and Christianity. If you unwilling to educate yourself about various Religions then please be precise in your language and use Christianity rather than Religion when you denounce the former. If on the other hand you do recognize that other Religions exist and have passing knowledge about the majority of Religions, please start using more diverse examples when attempting to critique the category rather than a single member of the category.

The majority of religions were based on attempting to understand and explain. Some have been used for other purposes later however you were arguing about the intent of design.

There are rare cases where Religion has been used to cause someone to do an immoral act that they otherwise would not have done. Unfortunately most cases of immorality were things the person already wanted to do.

[Scaredgirl]

I am getting bored of you equating Religion and Christianity. If you unwilling to educate yourself about various Religions then please be precise in your language and use Christianity rather than Religion when you denounce the former. If on the other hand you do recognize that other Religions exist and have passing knowledge about the majority of Religions, please start using more diverse examples when attempting to critique the category rather than a single member of the category.

The majority of religions were based on attempting to understand and explain. Some have been used for other purposes later however you were arguing about the intent of design.

There are rare cases where Religion has been used to cause someone to do an immoral act that they otherwise would not have done. Unfortunately most cases of immorality were things the person already wanted to do.

You said that religion is "poor at causing immoral behavior", and I gave you a real life example that shows otherwise. I do not have to list all the hundreds of religions and show how each of them are capable of immoral acts. I could have just as well mentioned Islamic extremists and global terrorism but I generally use Christianity as an example because that's the religion I, and majority of Elements community, know most about. But don't be fooled by that, I have studied my fair share of all the major religions, and I know more about the subject of religion than you think. If you start ignoring my arguments and instead focus on me not being educated enough, that's the first big step of you losing this debate and respect.

There are rare cases where Religion has been used to cause someone to do an immoral act that they otherwise would not have done. Unfortunately most cases of immorality were things the person already wanted to do.

You might want to look into things like "Dark Ages" and "Jihad" (just a few examples) before you make ridiculous claims like that. I mean seriously.. Or are you suggesting that those people were all evil by default and religion didn't really have an affect?



I think that when it comes to religious debate, you and me are from different planets, speak different languages, and have a totally different reality. Continuing this 1vs1 discussion seems pretty pointless to me. I already said what I wanted to say, so now I can move on to the next topic.

[Jenkar]

*noms popcorn*

[OldTrees]

I am getting bored of you equating Religion and Christianity. If you unwilling to educate yourself about various Religions then please be precise in your language and use Christianity rather than Religion when you denounce the former. If on the other hand you do recognize that other Religions exist and have passing knowledge about the majority of Religions, please start using more diverse examples when attempting to critique the category rather than a single member of the category.

The majority of religions were based on attempting to understand and explain. Some have been used for other purposes later however you were arguing about the intent of design.

There are rare cases where Religion has been used to cause someone to do an immoral act that they otherwise would not have done. Unfortunately most cases of immorality were things the person already wanted to do.

You said that religion is "poor at causing immoral behavior", and I gave you a real life example that shows otherwise. I do not have to list all the hundreds of religions and show how each of them are capable of immoral acts. I could have just as well mentioned Islamic extremists and global terrorism but I generally use Christianity as an example because that's the religion I, and majority of Elements community, know most about. But don't be fooled by that, I have studied my fair share of all the major religions, and I know more about the subject of religion than you think. If you start ignoring my arguments and instead focus on me not being educated enough, that's the first big step of you losing this debate and respect.

There are rare cases where Religion has been used to cause someone to do an immoral act that they otherwise would not have done. Unfortunately most cases of immorality were things the person already wanted to do.

You might want to look into things like "Dark Ages" and "Jihad" (just a few examples) before you make ridiculous claims like that. I mean seriously.. Or are you suggesting that those people were all evil by default and religion didn't really have an affect?


I think that when it comes to religious debate, you and me are from different planets, speak different languages, and have a totally different reality. Continuing this 1vs1 discussion seems pretty pointless to me. I already said what I wanted to say, so now I can move on to the next topic.

I apologize for assuming you equated Religion with Christianity. An argument is strongest when it rebukes the strongest critique of that argument. Christianity (and the other religions that believe in the same god) is one of weakest critiques to your argument. That is why I made my qualified assumption.

My perspective on the Holy Wars:

First lets examine The Crusades. The primary motive of the crusades was wealth (land and gold in this case). The Crusaders wanted the wealth (neutral) and were okay with obtaining it through warfare (immoral). The Church gave them a convenient rationalization for why it was OK to do what they wanted to do. The rationalization did not convince many who did not want to obtain wealth through warfare.

Second lets examine Modern Islamic Terrorism. The primary motive was retaliation and self defense from what they perceived as a corrupting influence on their culture. The individuals that became terrorists were okay with harming civilians and inspiring terror as a means of obtaining their political goals. Again Religion gave a convenient rationalization for why it was OK to do what they wanted to do. The rationalization did not convince many who believed harming civilians was not justified. Nor did the rationalization convince any who did not perceive the influence of the West as corrupting.

The basis for my perspective: Nobody ever decides to do any option in a choice that they believe at that time to be inferior to another mutually exclusive option. Moral convictions are the source of immoral actions. However they are also the source of moral actions.

Christianity and Islam have had much political influence. Politics tends to corrupt what it touches. If it is the non religious influences that are the major contributor to immoralities observed, then one would predict that a less political Religion or even denomination would have a much lower amount of immorality observed even after taking duration and scale into account. Buddhism is of similar scale but has had much less political influence. I do not recall any major examples of immorality tied to Buddhism. However you (or anyone else in this thread) might know of a counterexample to my prediction (from Buddhism or another Religion).

[darkrobe]

*noms popcorn*

lol. im glad i posted in this topic.

[doublecross]

A beautifully illustrated description of why I think that belief in religion is taking the easy way out (http://dresdencodak.com/2011/10/31/dark-science-12/)

Religion is the easier option.

People need something to believe. I think none of us are disputing that.
I just think that religion is the result of people who got tired along the way to finding the real explanation for things, and were willing to settle for just having some explanation.

[maverixk]

A beautifully illustrated description of why I think that belief in religion is taking the easy way out (http://dresdencodak.com/2011/10/31/dark-science-12/)

Religion is the easier option.

People need something to believe. I think none of us are disputing that.
I just think that religion is the result of people who got tired along the way to finding the real explanation for things, and were willing to settle for just having some explanation.

Easier? Maybe. Maybe not. I would say that it's different, it may be easier mathematically, but there are many issues that people in religions have to think about, to debate, to work out, and to work through. Honestly, I don't know why I'm arguing with you because I can tell that you've made your decision and won't be swayed, so this really won't get anyone anywhere, but I guess I'll try my best.

Saying that Religion is the easier option(The other, I'm assuming is science.) is like saying that playing professional soccer is easier than being a nobel laurate for physics. It takes a different set of skills and a different way of thinking. Religion was the original science, but since the early times when religion and science were the same thing, people have begun to think differently(like going from playing soccer to studying physics). Is being a scientist easier than being a religious philosopher for a living? Maybe, but unless you've been both I don't believe you're in any position to say which is easier.
Please don't just say that Religion is the easy way out because you can always just say that some magical wizard did it because I can turn around and say the same thing about science. The laws of physics did it. People nowadays, as ever in our history are trying to delve into both  of them in order to understand them better. Scientists are attempting to understand science, and Religious people are looking into God(or their gods, etc.), to discover what they can in order to better understand themselves, the universe, and everything in it.
Science is different, and is the brain child of Religion.

[OldTrees]

I cannot attest to the differences between a Philosopher and the category Religious Philosopher however I can provide my experiences as a Student of both Moral Philosophy and Genetics.

A core requirement of both fields is that you must want to believe what is right more than you want what you believe to be right.

From my anecdotal experience with theists and atheists, the belief/lack of belief held does not influence whether someone is more or less likely to hold to this virtue.


Sidenote: Religion and Science are still not opposites. Ask the desists.