[SPLIT] The "finer" points of apologetics and its rebuttal

[enwiabe]

I don't want to derail the AN culture thread, but I do want to answer the arguments put forth by abes22 and pi:

abes22 wrote:

"Important things don't warrant impoliteness."

a) The point I was making was that it's not a matter of politeness or impoliteness. Regardless of how you phrase it, people are going to take offense.
b) Factually incorrect. Is it important to subdue and arrest an armed robber? Is it polite to deck them and put them in handcuffs? Would you call any retaliatory action in war polite? These are just two important things where politeness is not "warranted", or more accurately, not a meaningful descriptor of the required action.

pi:

"In fairness, the number of people who do "evil things" solely due to religion is very very very few. I'm not very religious myself (so I won't be able to quote scripture etc etc in this thread), but I don't buy the point that just because there are a few crazies out there from every religion that the whole idea needs to be torn apart and dismissed. Religion also has lots of positive aspects too."

pi, given that you don't like when Paul does exactly the same thing "I don't know much about the topic, but here's my opinion anyway..." don't you think you ought to do your due diligence before commenting?

But my claim was a strong one that requires some backing.

Imagine a child. Just born. It's a male, who's just been "born into the Jewish faith". An interesting concept isn't it? That religions should be hereditary. And the one you share with your parents always seems to be the "correct one". But I digress.

At 8 days of age, this child has part of its skin hacked off, and the blood from the wound is sucked from the penis by a grown man.

Tell me who looks at a young child and thinks "what a lovely baby boy, now give me a sharp object so I can cut part of its dick off" without religion? And unquestioningly, too. To do that, it must be a religious edict. It must be "because god said so".

"Because god said so" is a bludgeon with which rights are oppressed.

No condoms in Africa? Because god said so. Enjoy your AIDS epidemic.
No gay marriage? Because god said so.
Stone the gays? Because god said so.
Bully the gays out of their sexual orientation, causing them to suffer all sorts of mental difficulty? Because god said so.
No justice for child rape victims? Because god said so.
Women can't choose what they wear? Because god said so.
Children should feel petrified for setting a foot wrong or they're going to hell? Because god said so.
Kill the apostates? Because god said so.
Stone people for committing adultery? Because god said so.

Remove "because god said so", and make people accountable to their peers and you've got a much harder time of convincing people to commit atrocities.

That's not to say we wouldn't still have conflict, but at least people would not be able to manipulate others into thinking the supreme creator of the universe told them to do it. Once you've convinced someone that their ultimate judge and jury wants them to commit an act, nothing will stop them.

And I'm categorically not talking about the crazies. I'm talking about those who would be otherwise very good and moral people. What causes a loving father of two, a charitable family man, to want to prevent gay people from getting married? He's not crazy, he's simply been brainwashed to believe that if gays are allowed to marry, it will displease the supreme arbiter of the universe. If you honestly believed that to be the case, you'd be against it too.

According to the scripture of the Old Testament, Abraham was definitely going to kill Isaac until god told him not to. And I tell you what, if anyone told me to gut my kid "because god said so" I'd say "No, fuck you."

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[pi]

pi:

"In fairness, the number of people who do "evil things" solely due to religion is very very very few. I'm not very religious myself (so I won't be able to quote scripture etc etc in this thread), but I don't buy the point that just because there are a few crazies out there from every religion that the whole idea needs to be torn apart and dismissed. Religion also has lots of positive aspects too."

pi, given that you don't like when Paul does exactly the same thing "I don't know much about the topic, but here's my opinion anyway..." don't you think you ought to do your due diligence before commenting?

The difference between me and Paul is that I'm not making racist and sweeping generalisations without basis, whilst he was. I was simply pointing out that just because there are a few instances of adverse effects from religion (and you nicely listed them in your post, and I'm sure there are more), there are also positive implications too. And that doesn't require a basis as it is fairly intuitive.

As I said, and as you reminded me, I don't know enough about religion to attempt to contradict your post. So I'm not going to. But what I do know (anecdotally somewhat) is that if you go to the poor slums in India and dismiss their god as one that provokes "evils" and the like, you're dismissing more just their culture. You're dismissing their hope.

For people who have nothing, god and religion is something. It's free, it's comforting, and it's uniforming. And to take all they have and throw it against a brick wall just because you believe it's responsible for AIDS in Africa (although was religious instruction that spread AIDS in the first place? But I digress), etc. is a very insensitive thing to do. And you could argue that their hope is simply a result of brainswashing etc etc but living with hope and religion is much much better for them than living without it.

Your post makes a lot of references to homosexuals, for which I agree with you. It is disgusting that some members of some religions have not moved on to adapt themselves to the present and what is humanely fair, but if you look at the poll from the House of Reps, even atheists voted against gay marriage, implying that religion is not the cause of this hate and that there are other confounding factors that have not been considered. Some people just aren't comfortable with it, and I don't feel that I have the right or the authority to accuse them for having a "wrong" opinion, and I also don't think that religious "brainwashing" is the sole reason either.

I know religion isn't perfect, and I don't think any reasonable person will say it is. Like everything and everyone, it has faults.

But, is religion responsible for global warming? Is it responsible for the countless murders in our society? Is it responsible for the Chinese Floods of 1931? Is it responsible for the Swine Flu? Is it responsible BoS? Was it responsible for the cancellation of Cheez TV? Not at all.

Alternatively, did it put great thinkers such as Kepler, Einstein and Newton on the right path? Does it continue to provide moral fiber for many in the world? Has religion been linked to less domestic violence and substance abuse? Yes, in fact it does play a role here.

Your post makes out religion to be the worst thing ever when it really isn't, it's the individual interpretation of it that shapes people. And I know that you specified "I'm categorically not talking about the crazies", but I don't see the average dad stoning gays either tbh. Not once did you consider the positive implications it has, especially on the poor, the ill and the desperate.

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[Genericname2365]

Your post makes a lot of references to homosexuals, for which I agree with you. It is disgusting that some members of some religions have not moved on to adapt themselves to the present and what is humanely fair, but if you look at the poll from the House of Reps, even atheists voted against gay marriage, implying that religion is not the cause of this hate and that there are other confounding factors that have not been considered. Some people just aren't comfortable with it, and I don't feel that I have the right or the authority to accuse them for having a "wrong" opinion, and I also don't think that religious "brainwashing" is the sole reason either.

While I agree with most of your post, I suspect not wanting to alienate some of the conservative and religious voters in their seats may have played a part in the underlying reasoning behind some of those votes. Admittedly though there would be conservative voters opposing gay marriage who are not religious, and I'm not sure if the majority of the public opinion is in favour of gay marriage or not (could depend on the seat I guess?).

[enwiabe]

The difference between me and Paul is that I'm not making racist and sweeping generalisations without basis, whilst he was. I was simply pointing out that just because there are a few instances of adverse effects from religion (and you nicely listed them in your post, and I'm sure there are more), there are also positive implications too. And that doesn't require a basis as it is fairly intuitive.

As I said, and as you reminded me, I don't know enough about religion to attempt to contradict your post. So I'm not going to. But what I do know (anecdotally somewhat) is that if you go to the poor slums in India and dismiss their god as one that provokes "evils" and the like, you're dismissing more just their culture. You're dismissing their hope.

For people who have nothing, god and religion is something. It's free, it's comforting, and it's uniforming. And to take all they have and throw it against a brick wall just because you believe it's responsible for AIDS in Africa (although was religious instruction that spread AIDS in the first place?), etc. is a very insensitive thing to do. And you could argue that their hope is simply a result of brainswashing etc etc but living with hope and religion is much much better for them than living without it.

Your post makes a lot of references to homosexuals, for which I agree with you. It is disgusting that some members of some religions have not moved on to adapt themselves to the present and what is humanely fair, but if you look at the poll from the House of Reps, even atheists voted against gay marriage, implying that religion is not the cause of this hate and that there are other confounding factors that have not been considered. Some people just aren't comfortable with it, and I don't feel that I have the right or the authority to accuse them for having a "wrong" opinion, and I also don't think that religious "brainwashing" is the sole reason either.

I know religion isn't perfect, and I don't think any reasonable person will say it is. Like everything and everyone, it has faults.

But, is religion responsible for global warming? Is it responsible for the countless murders in our society? Is it responsible for the Chinese Floods of 1931? Is it responsible for the Swine Flu? Is it responsible BoS? Was it responsible for the cancellation of Cheez TV? Not at all.

Alternatively, did it put great thinkers such as Kepler, Einstein and Newton on the right path? Does it continue to provide moral fiber for many in the world? Has religion been linked to less domestic violence and substance abuse? Yes, in fact it does play a role here.

Your post makes out religion to be the worst thing ever when it really isn't, it's the individual interpretation of it that shapes people. And I know that you specified "I'm categorically not talking about the crazies", but I don't see the average dad stoning gays either tbh. Not once did you consider the positive implications it has, especially on the poor, the ill and the desperate.

Are you claiming that without religion, humanity would have no hope?

That we would not give to charity?

That Physics would not have progressed to where it is today?

In fact, it can be appropriately argued that we would be far further along, because of Christianity's contribution to impeding any substantial scientific development for 1400 hundred years.

We don't need religion for any of the positive things you mention, so I would be giving a lot of false credit to religion for bestowing them on people. Individual people have hope because they have a strong character. That is something they develop themselves, and I give them the credit for being hopeful. And their parents for helping to instill that hope. Religion may be the tool they use to carry that hope, but I think it's frankly insulting to humanity to say that without religion they wouldn't have found that hope.

The reason why atheists voted against equal marriage rights is exactly as genericname2365 wrote. What is a non-contentious issue for most people is a wedge issue for dyed-in-the-wool religious voters, who are sadly an all-too-powerful voting bloc and lobby group. Equal marriage approval ratings stand at 70% of all Australians approving. Why do the government drag their feet? So as not to alienate a core constituency of the religious conservative, which can honestly mean the swing to and away from power.

Because most reasonable people do not vote on single issues, they won't lose many votes by implementing equal marriage rights. Unfortunately, if they do implement them, they fear that far too many religious voters will desert them.

[thushan]

From what I can see here - I think pi means that religion is not ESSENTIAL per se, but it is one of many things that, in the right situations, can enhance culture and identity as well as hope.

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[pi]

Are you claiming that without religion, humanity would have no hope?

That we would not give to charity?

That Physics would not have progressed to where it is today?

LOL, typical response. When did I make any of those claims, I merely said that "it does play a role here". If I had said: "Religion was fundamental and 100% required for these to happen" then *maybe* you'd have a valid point in these questions.

All of your questions are "what ifs?" can neither I nor you can justify them.

We don't need religion for any of the positive things you mention

No, YOU don't need religion for that. There's a difference.

[enwiabe]

Are you claiming that without religion, humanity would have no hope?

That we would not give to charity?

That Physics would not have progressed to where it is today?

LOL, typical response. When did I make any of those claims, I merely said that "it does play a role here". If I had said: "Religion was fundamental and 100% required for these to happen" then *maybe* you'd have a valid point in these questions.

All of your questions are "what ifs?" can neither I nor you can justify them.

We don't need religion for any of the positive things you mention

No, YOU don't need religion for that. There's a difference.

So if religion is not a required ingredient for all of these things, why does it deserve the credit?

Do you think that the people who currently give to charity would not do so without religion?

[pi]

Do you think that the people who currently give to charity would not do so without religion?

I think many wouldn't as religion provides them with a moral fiber (as I said earlier) and encourages, if not makes them feel almost guilty if they do not, making of charitable donations. So some would still, but I very much doubt all of those who donate now would if religion wasn't in place, and that's not even considering the fact that many charities have a religious undertone anyway.

That does not mean that those who are not religious are lacking moral fiber, it's just that for those who are religious, the morals are easily distinguishable.

[enwiabe]

Do you think that the people who currently give to charity would not do so without religion?

I think many wouldn't as religion provides them with a moral fiber (as I said earlier) and encourages, if not makes them feel almost guilty if they do not, making of charitable donations. So some would still, but I very much doubt all of those who donate now would if religion wasn't in place, and that's not even considering the fact that many charities have a religious undertone anyway.

That does not mean that those who are not religious are lacking moral fiber, it's just that for those who are religious, the morals are easily distinguishable.

Show me one lick of research which shows that the irreligious give less to charity than the religious. Just the one. "I think" doesn't count.

[thushan]

Because its helpful. Not essential, but helpful.

Some people who give to charity might do it anyway, others may not do it if religion were not a factor. Either way, religion does help in this case.

[brenden]

If someone is giving to charity because of their religion, does that really make them good, pi? I'd happily donate half my paycheck to World Vision if I though that, in the end, I was going to have everything for eternity when I died and wouldn't get that opportunity if I didn't donate. I mean, can self-interest really be called morality?
And I also just wanted to clarify, somewhat off topic - Einstein considered himself an agnostic and didn't believe in a personal God.  (Pet hate of mine)

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[pi]

Show me one lick of research which shows that the irreligious give less charity than the religious. Just the one. "I think" doesn't count.

No-one can give you that link because no-one has had religion pulled away from them as your scenario suggests:
"Do you think that the people who currently give to charity would not do so without religion?"

Had that of happened to people, maybe either of your view or mine could be validated. Until then, "I think" suffices in a hypothetical situation.

If someone is giving to charity because of their religion, does that really make them good, pi? I'd happily donate half my paycheck to World Vision if I though that, in the end, I was going to have everything for eternity when I died and wouldn't get that opportunity if I didn't donate. I mean, can self-interest really be called morality?

The question posed didn't ask me to consider whether they'd be "good people" or not, just whether they donate. And no, anyone who donates with another motive (whether it's for God, for fame, etc.) isn't doing it for the right reason, but I'll take their money anyway if it helps someone

Apologies for the Einstein thing.

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[enwiabe]

If someone is giving to charity because of their religion, does that really make them good, pi? I'd happily donate half my paycheck to World Vision if I though that, in the end, I was going to have everything for eternity when I died and wouldn't get that opportunity if I didn't donate. I mean, can self-interest really be called morality?
And I also just wanted to clarify, somewhat off topic - Einstein considered himself an agnostic and didn't believe in a personal God.  (Pet hate of mine)

And that's why I argue that it is a logic fallacy. Religion is simply the middle man in this case. You're always welcome to agree or disagree with the religion, and it says more about the man who thinks it's a good idea to have an imaginary friend who tells him he's bad if he doesn't give money to charity. I give credit to the man, however, and not his imaginary friend.

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[enwiabe]

Show me one lick of research which shows that the irreligious give less charity than the religious. Just the one. "I think" doesn't count.

No-one can give you that link because no-one has had religion pulled away from them as your scenario suggests:
"Do you think that the people who currently give to charity would not do so without religion?"

Had that of happened to people, maybe either of your view or mine could be validated. Until then, "I think" suffices in a hypothetical situation.

Er, what? Plenty of people live without religion every day. Est. 20% of the world in fact. Do you think that they do not give to charity?

[JellyDonut]

Show me one lick of research which shows that the irreligious give less to charity than the religious. Just the one. "I think" doesn't count.

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/20/study_less_religious_states_give_less_to_charity/