Yeah once we get rid of all religion it will be great. On the other hand Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Paul Pot. Not religious guys.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I believe that the ultimate source of morality is enlightened self interest and empathy. We understand that if we live in a fairer and kinder society that we benefit in the long run. Emotionally well adjusted individuals do not like to hurt other people because they vicariously feel some of the pain. Religion at its best simply codifies this natural morality. My daughter attended a very interesting school that had no punishments. Consequences for actions were acceptable but they had to be consequences that naturally followed instead of being artificially created. Whenever there was a problem students were challenged to reason it out. Oddly enough this worked amazingly well. Using their sense of fair play and empathy they found their own solutions. In the Judeo-Christian-Islam view mankind is inherently evil and can only be righteous through God. This counterproductive because believers view anyone with a different faith as evil.

While I disagree with religion I also defend anyone's right to believe and worship as they please. I think that mankind is inherently religious. Even if I got my wish and all current religions were relegated to the dustbin of history people would probably just think up new ones. Hopefully better ones than the last batch since we know a lot more about the universe and human nature now. Religion does fill various psychological needs. I think that people like myself, and apparently Duffy, that don't believe in any religion have a type of social dysfunction. We value truth above fitting into their society's orthodoxy. Most people are socialized and indoctrinated into their society's predominant religion and worldview.

I do admire certain faiths. I certainly admire the Religious Society of Friends. They were early supporters of women's equality and suffrage, reformers of criminal justice and were active in the underground railroad helping fugitive slaves escape to freedom. I also admire the Baha'i teachings of peace and universal brotherhood. I don't believe that either of these religions are literally true but I am impressed by how they inspire their followers. I think that we can synthesize a worldview that takes the best ideals of various faiths without needing any supernatural element to support it. Take what you can use and leave the rest.

Of course I never said it did. Interesting how you omitted the prior portion wherein I pointed out that 84% of the world's population believes in religion ...

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I'm sure you do, but 84% of the world's population consists of believers in some form of religion, so, they likely do not agree with you. FWIW, I study Buddhism, so I, personally, agree with you. But, the vast majority of the world sees it slightly differently and I do not agree the world would be better if we eliminated the moral compass by which the majority of the world conducts itself.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Hitler claimed to be Christian. In Mein Kampf he stated, "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." NAZI's also used Martin Luther's "The Jews and their Lies" as propaganda. You can certainly question the sincerity of his beliefs. Hitler may have simply used religion in the same manner that politicians today use religion to further their aims. Hitler was often critical of orthodox Christian views preferring a more nationalistic Christianity but he just as often condemned atheism. You can't so easily pawn Hitler off on us.

Who is us? I just said I don't think a world without religion is likely to be a better place. Hitler was about as religious as Donald IMHO.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

As I pointed out, some conservatives do the same thing. If someone doesn't like abortion don't have one but don't try make it impossible for everyone else. If someone thinks the universe is thousands of years old instead of billions that is fine but don't try to to call it science teach this in biology classes. If someone thinks that all sex outside of marriage is wrong than don't have it but don't insist on teaching your religion's taboos to my kids as "abstinance only" sex ed. Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone of the same gender but don't try to make it so nobody else can.

Not all conservatives feel as above just as not all liberals follow your stereotype.

My son is trans, I don't care what you think about that. I was pretty skeptical myself until I saw how much happier and less anxious my child is as a boy than he was as a girl. I only care if you violate my son's civil rights. i also couldn't care less what you eat, drink or wear. While there are a lot of things people say that I don't agree with I always held that censorship is more dangerous than the expression of any idea.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/...ester-vigil-13082050

I don't know if this is the solution. If the leftists finally come around to seeing Islamism for what it is, that won't necessarily stop Islamists from being Islamists.

What's so odd about this leftist embrace of Islam is that Islam is so diametrically opposed to most of what they believe in. Most, because their faux multiculturalism, cultural relativism, and identify politics seem to take precedence over anything else they believe.

One problem is that the left seems to draw a line between terrorists (or even to cast a wider net, extremists) and Islamists. The Islamist may not be a budding terrorist, perhaps not even an extremist, but the Islamist is the one who will cheer the terrorist act. And even if they oppose that, they're still the one who thinks it's ok to stone a daughter who converts to Christianity or worse, becomes an atheist. Or who believes in female genital mutilation. Go to predominantly Muslim countries, and those are the prevailing opinions/beliefs. And that's a problem that the left won't admit much less condemn. The left likes to single out terrorists and their direct supporters and claim that they are only a minuscule minority of all Muslims, ignoring the fact that the significant portion, if not a majority of the Muslim world hangs on to these other pernicious beliefs and are perfectly willing to act on them.

When will they proclaim solidarity with Mormonism?

There may be some truth to that. But a significant portion of Mormons already are. Perhaps when Mormons become in the US less equated with the Republican party.

So, you believe removal of a belief system that teaches people to live good lives on earth would make the world a better place? Really?

Not to hijack this thread, nor to support whatever-the-fuck-his-name-is' point on other matters, but doesn't this depend on what the replacement is? That for some reason a religiously based morality (teaches people to good lives) is somehow better than a morality based on fact and reason.

It's kind of trite, but I think Penn Jillette had a point when he said,

"The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping ram[pages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don’t want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don’t want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you. You know what I mean?"

We had a discussion like this here in the LR several years ago. A person doesn't have to be religious to act morally. However, most of the proposed alternative moral systems we've had in here fell short on actual logic and reason.

That said, I don't think there's such a thing a humanity without religion. People, by nature, develop ideological frameworks for their lives. And, by nature, people cling together with like-minded adherents to similar ideologies. That might be religion, politics, whatever. We could magically get rid of every current religion, and there would be some new system filling the same functions in short order.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Certainly, I think it does depend on the replacement. My response was simply to contradict what appeared to be a ridiculously over-broad statement.

As to Penn's comment - kinda ridiculous to go right to rape and murder, especially in light of the fact that we still have laws that act as a deterrent along with the fact that most people do not have a propensity to rape or murder.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

At a high level my take on that opinion piece is that the countries with the highest rates of crime and poverty etc are the ones that have the highest rate of religious followers (and vice versa) therefore religion creates violence and misfortune.

Or maybe, just maybe, those people follow religion at a greater rate because of the suffering and a need to pray for help. Perhaps as societies become more affluent people take things for granted and don't feel any great need to pray for help?

In other words, people turn to religion because of the violence and suffering rather than turn violent because of religion. Both are possible, but the former makes much more sense.

I agree to some extent with Penn's point. As I mentioned, it's a bit trite.

But if not rape or murder, do we also exclude other violent crimes or acts? I suspect that most people, absent some justification such a self-defense, don't have that propensity either. (Although I'd be interested in a survey of the religious beliefs of those convicted of beating their wives and kids.)

And how do we factor in those violent acts that are founded on the basis of religious belief, regardless of how the individual is interpreted or misinterpreted that belief?

Putting aside violent acts, what's the religious belief that is more of a moral justification than one based on facts and reason? Do athiests cheat on their taxes more than people who are religious? And for those who don't, what's the basis? Is it their religion or is it something else?

Putting aside religious quirks, such as Mormons not drinking coffee, or Adventists and Jews honoring the Sabbath, I wonder if most people are moral largely independently of their religious beliefs.

I am not sure how you get a morality based on fact and reason. I am sure most atheists believe it is wrong to rape and murder but I can't see how it is based on fact and reason. I'd buy an argument that there is a natural law some things are good and some evil they just are. However I cannot explain that via fact and reason. If I am just a random occurence in a an uncaring universe I don't see how it should really matter that I care about your happiness etc. Society may make a law that I cannot rape or murder and for that reason I may comply but that is just self interest.

.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I don't think the focus should be on not committing violent acts. What about the simple concept of religious charities? How about the simple concept of loving thy neighbor?

Understand that I am not claiming religion is necessary for goodness, kindness, charity, etc. I am simply protesting the concept that the world would be better without religion.

Many of those who take religion to the point of violence also take orders to kill from their dog. Given that 84% of the planet believes in some form of religion, the extremist are really in the minority. Evil will exist in the presence or absence of religion.

You seem to be focusing on those in the US., but the US only makes up 5% of the world's population.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

There are lots of ways to come up with up one. Some are based on some form of natural law. Some are based on some inherent human nature, based on some evolutionary development. But I don't think either get us there all the way. They can answer the big questions, but as an example, I don't think instincts and traits developed through evolution can solve the question on what to do with human embryos and stem cell research as an example. I tend to thing a better approach is some form of utilitarian consequentialism.

Most of ethics is secular. It doesn't always answer the more difficult questions (stem cell research), but to some extent, the idea is to get there via reason, and as more facts are added to the equation and understood, there's a better likelihood of agreement or consensus.

I don't think the focus should be on not committing violent acts. What about the simple concept of religious charities? How about the simple concept of loving thy neighbor?

Understand that I am not claiming religion is necessary for goodness, kindness, charity, etc. I am simply protesting the concept that the world would be better without religion.

I understand, but I'm not sure that religion is the thing that makes the difference. Take your example of loving one's neighbor. It's a concept that has evolved over time, often depending on the definition of a neighbor. In a nomadic family or clan, neighbor might only be reserved for members of the clan, with outsiders treated skeptically if not harshly. In a large multicultural society, neighbor may have a much more expansive definition.

At core, however, is the instinct or impulse one might have to care for a neighbor, however defined. Where does that come from? I don't think religion provides it. And while I'm not convinced reason does either, at least reason as the ability to extrapolate to other or new situations. Religion might do that too, but religion is also entrenched and much less adaptable. And while I'm open to retrenchment and lack of adaptability as being a good thing, I'm not convinced it is.

the extremist are really in the minority. Evil will exist in the presence or absence of religion.


I'm less and less convinced that extremists are in the minority. Female genital mutilation is a large problem throughout the Muslim world (and not just African countries as Reza Aslam would falsely claim). It's evil, but it's also a belief shared by a large portion of those populations. I think I read not too long ago a poll in Pakistan that showed a significant majority of the population thinking that death was the appropriate punishment for adultery, apostasy, etc.

These extreme beliefs may also have been common in Christianity prior to the enlightenment. Did Christianity change, or was it tempered by reason?

I'm not sure either, but, again, I don't think the bad aspects of religion outweigh the good. In addition, I believe most societal/cultural aspects of treating one another well are born out of religion. And, let's not forget, this nation was founded on religion, premised on freedom.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

You're preaching to the choir.

But I don't think liberals "seeing the light" is going to do any more to get rid of terrorism than if the religious in the west suddenly wake up and realize they are just a different side of the same coin is going to get rid of it.