Strange Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 The overwhelming majority just ignore the "bad" bits.
Manticore Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 20 minutes ago, Strange said: The overwhelming majority just ignore the "bad" bits. That doesn't leave much - so why bother at all.
Strange Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 5 minutes ago, Manticore said: That doesn't leave much - so why bother at all. I wouldn't agree it doesn't leave much. But even if it does, so what.
dimreepr Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 32 minutes ago, Strange said: The overwhelming majority just ignore the "bad" bits. Indeed, so many people, not only, live in peace but find solace and meaning in their faith; it's strange (no pun intended) how the good bits like tolerance, forgiveness, charity etc are ignored by very intelligent people because a tiny minority are swayed by politics or self-interest. 1
John Cuthber Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 21 minutes ago, Strange said: I wouldn't agree it doesn't leave much. But even if it does, so what. And, once again, what does it leave? 1 minute ago, dimreepr said: Indeed, so many people, not only, live in peace but find solace and meaning in their faith; it's strange (no pun intended) how the good bits like tolerance, forgiveness, charity etc are ignored by very intelligent people because a tiny minority are swayed by politics or self-interest. It's not strange at all. The good bits are common sense and the bad bits are bad. There's nothing "special" left
Strange Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: And, once again, what does it leave? Apparently it leaves enough "good" bits for a very large number of people.
dimreepr Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: It's not strange at all. The good bits are common sense and the bad bits are bad. Yet you seem to lack tolerance and forgiveness, but what makes you think the bad bits would be eliminated with religion? 7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: There's nothing "special" left Yes there is, the solace and meaning found in it by billions of peaceful people.
Manticore Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Yet you seem to lack tolerance and forgiveness, but what makes you think the bad bits would be eliminated with religion? Yes there is, the solace and meaning found in it by billions of peaceful people. Less than a third of the world population - even if you lump all of the sects together.
dimreepr Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 Just now, Manticore said: Less than a third of the world population - even if you lump all of the sects together. That would still number in the billions, but even if it's only millions my point stands. If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. - Voltaire
Strange Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Manticore said: Less than a third of the world population - even if you lump all of the sects together. So? You think people can only believe something if enough other people believe it?
John Cuthber Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 1 hour ago, dimreepr said: That would still number in the billions, but even if it's only millions my point stands. If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. - Voltaire Isn't he the one who said "Every sensible man, every honourable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror." 1 hour ago, dimreepr said: Yet you seem to lack tolerance and forgiveness, but what makes you think the bad bits would be eliminated with religion? Yes there is, the solace and meaning found in it by billions of peaceful people. "Yet you seem to lack tolerance and forgiveness, but what makes you think the bad bits would be eliminated with religion?" I don't. But they would stop having the best ever excuse. "The Word of God" told me to do it. "Yes there is, the solace and meaning found in it by billions of peaceful people." That's relevant as soon as you prove that they wouldn't find solace without religion. Otherwise it just isn't an answer to my question. 22 minutes ago, Strange said: So? You think people can only believe something if enough other people believe it? Well, it might indicate that more than 2/3 of the world manage to get by without it; so it's clearly not that great.
dimreepr Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 Yes, he did, but it changes nothing. Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Strange Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 14 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: Well, it might indicate that more than 2/3 of the world manage to get by without it; so it's clearly not that great. I'm not sure where the obsession with numbers comes from. There may be religions with only 10s or 100s of followers. There are others with millions or billions. How do those numbers invalidate what people believe?
dimreepr Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 17 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: I don't. But they would stop having the best ever excuse. "The Word of God" told me to do it. 2 Since we are both atheists, there is no word of god, it's the word of man; so I'll ask again, what makes you think the bad bits would be eliminated with religion?
John Cuthber Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 39 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Since we are both atheists, there is no word of god, it's the word of man; so I'll ask again, what makes you think the bad bits would be eliminated with religion? What? The people who cite the scriptures as the Word are the ones doing evil things in its name. Without that "reason"- in which they believe (regardless of our opinion) they might not behave that way. Our lack belief is relevant because we aren't the ones killing "in the name of God". How did you think our views on the existence of God mattered to, for example, the murderers in Spain? 49 minutes ago, Strange said: I'm not sure where the obsession with numbers comes from. There may be religions with only 10s or 100s of followers. There are others with millions or billions. How do those numbers invalidate what people believe? They don't; and I was pointing out that many people (perhaps most) get by without religion so they must be finding their meaning and solace elsewhere. You have it the wrong way round. Even if there were just a handful of atheists it would be enough to prove the point that religion offers nothing "unique".
Strange Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 1 minute ago, John Cuthber said: The people who cite the scriptures as the Word are the ones doing evil things in its name. Without that "reason"- in which they believe (regardless of our opinion) they might not behave that way. On the other hand, as there have been purely political (non-religious) terror groups it might not make any difference. Some people are morivated to use violence to express their grievances and will use religion, politics or anything else to justify it.
dimreepr Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: What? The people who cite the scriptures as the Word are the ones doing evil things in its name. Without that "reason"- in which they believe (regardless of our opinion) they might not behave that way. Our lack belief is relevant because we aren't the ones killing "in the name of God". How did you think our views on the existence of God mattered to, for example, the murderers in Spain? "Killing in the name of" is political despite religion.
Strange Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: Even if there were just a handful of atheists it would be enough to prove the point that religion offers nothing "unique". I never said it did. It is just the path some people choose.
Strange Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 4 minutes ago, dimreepr said: I'll cite Stalin as a for instance. And Baader Meinhof. And the Red Brigade. And (arguably) both sides in the Irish Troubles. And ...
John Cuthber Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, dimreepr said: I'll cite Stalin as a for instance. Why bother? It's not as if anyone disputed the existence of murder for non-religious reasons. What I pointed out was "God told me to do it" is one of the strongest justifications. There's another difference. It's by no means clear that Stalin thought he was "doing the right thing" when killing; he didn't think that some higher power had granted him the authority. (Maybe he did- in which case what we need to do is try to stop delusional people getting into power but that's a different issue.) Stalin may have thought that the killings were "necessary" but he didn't think they were "good". That's different from killing "infidels" because they are out-group. 12 minutes ago, Strange said: I never said it did. It is just the path some people choose. I answered this when you asked it before On 8/18/2017 at 2:20 PM, Strange said: Did anyone say it is the only option? Or that it can do things nothing else can? Edited August 19, 2017 by John Cuthber
dimreepr Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: Why bother? It's not as if anyone disputed the existence of murder for non-religious reasons. What I pointed out was "God told me to do it" is one of the strongest justifications. There's another difference. It's by no means clear that Stalin thought he was "doing the right thing" when killing; he didn't think that some higher power had granted him the authority. (Maybe he did- in which case what we need to do is try to stop delusional people getting into power but that's a different issue.) 1 When ignorance reigns life is lost, the source is immaterial because it's always political.
John Cuthber Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 1 minute ago, dimreepr said: When ignorance reigns life is lost, the source is immaterial because it's always political. And while science actively seeks to remove ignorance, religion tries to maintain it. So, assuming we want fewer dead people should people subscribe to science or to religion?
dimreepr Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: And while science actively seeks to remove ignorance, religion tries to maintain it. So, assuming we want fewer dead people should people subscribe to science or to religion? What's science got to do with politics?
Strange Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 (edited) 58 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: What I pointed out was "God told me to do it" is one of the strongest justifications. Is it? Can you enter that as a plea in court? 58 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: I answered this when you asked it before so we could go round in circles again ... Edited August 19, 2017 by Strange
Recommended Posts