The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[soon]

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

LOL

One does not simply bring up a commonly expressed religious claim/argument when debating the topic of religion without it being inexplicably described as irrelevant.

When its irrelevant, yes. lol.  Not at all complicated.

 

[Iron MikeyJ]

I set a debate "trap" for SoulMonster, and he took the bait. We are NOT debating what other religious people have said, we ARE debating the claims that SoulMonster made. That's the difference here. 

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, soon said:

He brought it up as part of a line of thinking that if we're honest simply showcases that he had an off day.  That normally he's a clearer thinker and more reasonable debater.  I bet he's glad you and dazed finally showed up.  One does not start making one point, bring in something thats not really all that related and then say its what we were probably going to say.  That has been correctly called a straw man argument.

If you are going to argue that theism is bad for us, it is not unreasonable at all to point out that theism is not a requisite for good societies. Surely you see that it hangs together and strengthens the argument?

[soon]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

If you are going to argue that theism is bad for us, it is not unreasonable at all to point out that theism is not a requisite for good societies. Surely you see that it hangs together and strengthens the argument?

Thats not speaking to what Ive said and is deflecting.

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

It's not complicated. You are wrong.

You are trying to conflate his point and attack it based on your conflation. Try again, do not pass GO! do not collect $200

Im wrong that he was the only one to bring up a certain point?   No.  Moving on.

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I set a debate "trap" for SoulMonster, and he took the bait. We are NOT debating what other religious people have said, we ARE debating the claims that SoulMonster made. That's the difference here. 

But you aren't debating any of the claims, you are merely being stuck on auto-repeat in pointing out that an example I provided was unnecessary. What you are doing doesn't at all refute or challenge any of my claims. This is just derailing the thread instead of actually arguing for why theism is good for humanity. But hey, I understand it if that is all you got. 

5 minutes ago, soon said:

Thats not speaking to what Ive said and is deflecting. 

What? 

[DieselDaisy]

It would be only a point worth mentioning (''atheism...modern, highly secular societies'') if there were a multitude of extent theocratical (or near enough) states and a multitude of states which had removed religion entirely, and while the former were descending into an abyss and needed guidance the latter were thriving, and that the populations in the former were saying things like, ''jee whiz (these people speak like 1950s' small town Americans) I wonder how we'll survive as a county (pertaining to healthcare, lifestyle, jobs, age expectancy, etc.) when religion is finally gone? I do not think we can survive!!''.  

 

Edited February 22, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[soon]

Please read my posts on this subject before replying to me.

Once you do, you'll likely agree theres not much to say.

 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

It would be only a point worth mentioning (''atheism...modern, highly secular societies'') if there were a multitude of extent theocratical (or near enough) states and a multitude of states which 

To prove that it is possible to arrive at a great society without theism, and hence that theism is not a requirement, you only need one example.

You still hasn't understood we are not talking about causality/correlation. 

 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

To prove that it is possible to arrive at a great society without theism, and hence that theism is not a requirement, you only need one example.

You still hasn't understood we are not talking about causality/correlation. 

 

Taking your logic to its extremity, that less theism entails superior states, then surely a state which makes atheism its state ideology would ascend to the top tier. North Korea however...

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, soon said:

Please read my posts on this subject before replying to me.

Once you do, you'll likely agree theres not much to say.

I have read all your posts Can't say you have made a good case for why it was so bad to point out that theism is not a requirement for a good society when arguing for why theism is bad for humanity. As I said, many theists believe this so it made sense to point that out a priori. That you happened to not suffer from that particular misconception is just good. I could of course have asked every reader about this before I wrote my post, but that is kinda hard. 

But this just means that all who have read and responded acknowledges that theism is not required, and that even in the absence of faith, humans can arrange themselves in societies that comes with great quality of life. Phenomenal! This is usually one of the parts of my argument that is met with the greatest resistance. 

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Taking your logic to its extremity, that less theism entails superior states

This is still not my point  How can you not get this? 

[soon]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I have read all your posts Can't say you have made a good case for why it was so bad to point out that theism is not a requirement for a good society when arguing for why theism is bad for humanity. As I said, many theists believe this so it made sense to point that out a priori. That you happened to not suffer from that particular misconception is just good. I could of course have asked every reader about this before I wrote my post, but that is kinda hard. 

But this just means that all who have read and responded acknowledges that theism is not required, and that even in the absence of faith, humans can arrange themselves in societies that comes with great quality of life. Phenomenal! This is usually one of the parts of my argument that is met with the greatest resistance. 

Because I never spoke to any of that other then when I said i dont place value or truth on the premise.  My posts have clearly been trying to discover if your straw men was intentional or not.  You've carried on a confusing line of reasoning and at this point seem to be intend to have me say "oh, it wasnt confusing, sorry."  But it was.

Its dishonest of you to pretend that I ever spoke to anything more then this

Edited February 22, 2018 by soon

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I have read all your posts Can't say you have made a good case for why it was so bad to point out that theism is not a requirement for a good society when arguing for why theism is bad for humanity. As I said, many theists believe this so it made sense to point that out a priori. That you happened to not suffer from that particular misconception is just good. I could of course have asked every reader about this before I wrote my post, but that is kinda hard. 

But this just means that all who have read and responded acknowledges that theism is not required, and that even in the absence of faith, humans can arrange themselves in societies that comes with great quality of life. Phenomenal! This is usually one of the parts of my argument that is met with the greatest resistance. 

This is still not my point  How can you not get this? 

Why make the point at all?

I'd actually argue the success of a state like Norway (if you will) comes irrespective of that country's level of atheism (vis-à-vis christianity). Why then bother to even raise the point? 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, soon said:

Because I never spoke to any of that other then when I said i dont place value or truth on the premise.  My posts have clearly been trying to discover if your straw men was intentional or not.  You've carried on a confusing line of reasoning and at this point seem to be intend to have me say "oh, it wasnt confusing, sorry."  But it was.

Its dishonest of you to pretend that I ever spoke to anything more then this

I have no idea what you are talking about. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

@SoulMonster and @Oldest Goat,

You are both confusing what's going on here. SoulMonster has created the fallacy Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion,

This WHOLE debate started by me asking SoulMonster a couple of simple questions. To which he has responded, to which I have pointed out the flaws and fallacies in his positions. So now the both of you are changing the narrative and asking "why am I not responding to HIS points." To that I say, they are irrelevant. They are a diversionary tactics. Why should ANY debater respond to fallacies. I pointed them out as fallacies, that's all that is needed. 

Edited February 22, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[SoulMonster]

14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why make the point at al

Why raise the point that theism is not a requirement for a great society when arguing for why we would be better off without theism? Really? Are people being intentionally obtuse? 

Because many theists think that without theism we become immoral, that we lose guidance, that we revert to some barbaric state. Fortunately soon and Mike is not among them. 

Edited February 22, 2018 by SoulMonster

[soon]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I have no idea what you are talking about. 

Read my posts then.  Or I call bullshit

[SoulMonster]

Just now, soon said:

Read my posts then.  Or I call bullshit

Again, I read your posts but I honestly don't get what you are saying. 

[soon]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Again, I read your posts but I honestly don't get what you are saying. 

 

have a nice day

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@SoulMonster and @Oldest Goat,

You are both confusing what's going on here. SoulMonster has created the fallacy Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion,

This WHOLE debate started by me asking SoulMonster a couple of simple questions. To which he has responded, to which I have pointed out the flaws and fallacies in his positions. 

You asked me to explain why I think we would be better off without theism. I responded briefly by saying we would get rid of all shit that comes with theism while we could keep most of the benefits. You haven't pointed out any flaws or fallacies in this at all. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

You asked me to explain why I think we would be better off without theism. I responded briefly by saying we would get rid of all shit that comes with theism while we could keep most of the benefits. You haven't pointed out any flaws or fallacies in this at all. 

Lol...

I pointed out how ALL off this is YOUR belief. You have NO proof to back up this claim. So this belief is JUST as weak as the theist argument you are against. 

So then you went on the Norway quality of life tangent, to which I (and others) responded that it proves nothing. You made correlations to try to strengthen your position, but they were flawed from the BEGINNING. 

Which again, we have spent the last X number of pages debating THIS. Not things other theists believe or have said. This WHOLE debate is centered around YOUR claims. 

Why should I defend what I believe, when I can win this debate by debunking your claims? 

[SoulMonster]

36 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

I'd actually argue the success of a state like Norway (if you will) comes irrespective of that country's level of atheism (vis-à-vis christianity). Why then bother to even raise the point? 

That is what it means when you point out that you are not claiming causality! My point was never to say that secularism leads to a great society (=causality), nor even that there is correlation (that secularism and quality of life is connected), but to provide proof that theism is not required. 

Hmm. Let's try this:

You don't need to be a man to be a popular  author of Roman history, because [insert name of popular female author]. 

The above argument is identical in form to the argument I made (=you don't need theism for a good society, because Norway). And hopefully this example can help you understand. The argument doesn't attempt to claim that being a woman makes you a better author nor that only women can be great authors. Do you get it? 

Edited February 22, 2018 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Lol...

I pointed out how ALL off this is YOUR belief. You have NO proof to back up this claim. So this belief is JUST as weak as the theist argument you are against. 

So then you went on the Norway quality of life tangent, to which I (and others) responded that it proves nothing. You made correlations to try to strengthen your position, but they were flawed from the BEGINNING. 

Which again, we have spent the last X number of pages debating THIS. Not things other theists believe or have said. This WHOLE debate is centered around YOUR claims. 

Why should I defend what I believe, when I can win this debate by debunking your claims? 

Did you just say that the theist argument is weak? 

As I stated earlier, but I guesed you missed it, my conviction that we would be better off without theism is based on a cost-benefit analysis. Into this analysis goes various data and evidence and also weaker hypotheses. For instance, without theism there would be no more religious wars. This is a self-evident fact. So no, my belief that we would be better off without theism is not equal in any way or form to theistic faith which relies entirely on revelationary evidence and the requirement of a supernatural agent.

And pointing to Norway proves that highly secular societies can enjoy high quality of life. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

16 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Did you just say that the theist argument is weak? 

As I stated earlier, but I guesed you missed it, my conviction that we would be better off without theism is based on a cost-benefit analysis. Into this analysis goes various data and evidence and also weaker hypotheses. For instance, without theism there would be no more religious wars. This is a self-evident fact. So no, my belief that we would be better off without theism is not equal in any way or form to theistic faith which relies entirely on revelationary evidence and the requirement of a supernatural agent.

And pointing to Norway proves that highly secular societies can enjoy high quality of life. 

If you I remember sir, I asked you to PROVIDE this cost-anylsis data you claimed. To which you did not, and even admitted it's just MORE OF YOUR BELIEF. So my initial response is all that is needed.

As for the "theist argument being weak" So you do not think the theist argument is weak? I supposed I assumed that.

In a debate, whomever makes a claim carries the burden of proof. You can't do that, so you have turned to fallacies.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[Ace Nova]

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Even if true, how is that relevant to the discussion at hand? 

You have been implying that the world would be a better place without religion but based on history, maybe not? 

[Ace Nova]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Why raise the point that theism is not a requirement for a great society when arguing for why we would be better off without theism? Really? Are people being intentionally obtuse? 

Because many theists think that without theism we become immoral, that we lose guidance, that we revert to some barbaric state. Fortunately soon and Mike is not among them. 

I personally do not believe that we "automatically" become immoral without theism.  Every day I come on this forum and I read well thought out posts by atheists like you, Downzy, Dazey, Len...and I know that you, from what you represent in your posts here, are mostly "moral" folks. 

But unfortunately not all of society are as well read as you guys.

 

This describes it best:

Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. "The Crusades slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries."

In his bestseller The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins contends that most of the world's recent conflicts in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka show the vitality of religion's murderous impulse.

The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials?

Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.

It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number of people sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition which was active over a period of 350 years is estimated at 5,000.

Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power.

This figure is tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, it is minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly.

The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in Israel may advance theological claims "God gave us this land" and so forth but the conflict would remain essentially the same even without these religious motives. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.

Blindly blaming religion for conflict

Yet today's atheists insist on making religion the culprit. Consider Mr. Harris's analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka. "While the motivations of the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious," he informs us, "they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of life and death." In other words, while the Tigers see themselves as combatants in a secular political struggle, Harris detects a religious motive because these people happen to be Hindu and surely there must be some underlying religious craziness that explains their fanaticism.

But if religion sometimes disposes people to self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents. In particular, the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.

Harris can go on forever in this vein. Seeking to exonerate secularism and atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name, he argues that Stalinism and Maoism were in reality "little more than a political religion." As for Nazism, "while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity." Indeed, "The holocaust marked the culmination of ... two thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews."

One finds the same inanities in Mr. Dawkins's work. Don't be fooled by this rhetorical legerdemain. Dawkins and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism was directly descended from medieval Christianity, medieval Christianity did not produce a Hitler. How can a self-proclaimed atheist ideology, advanced by Hitler as a repudiation of Christianity, be a "culmination" of 2,000 years of Christianity? Dawkins and Harris are employing a transparent sleight of hand that holds Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes committed in their name.

Religious fanatics have done things that are impossible to defend, and some of them, mostly in the Muslim world, are still performing horrors in the name of their creed. But if religion sometimes disposes people to self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents. In particular, the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.

Atheist hubris

The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values.

Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people the Jews, the landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped have to be eliminated in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is permitted."

Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence.

Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/answering-atheists/atheism-not-religion-is-the-real-force-behind-the-mass-murders-of-history.html

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Kasanova King