best arguments against religion (no theists)

[Arioch]

@lightgigantic --

my point is that we now have secular heads of state sending troops to war and that in terms of destruction and conflict, it has gotten worse

Only because we have so many more people to kill now. Percentage wise(looking at people who died in wars) things are getting better.

 

[Aqueous Id]

well first you have to establish that god is "created"

that should be easy: early cultures, lacking science, create god to explain nature

atheism is created by weavers of urban myth

is a child born religious or atheist?
which idea has to be woven into the psyche?

blind faith, destructive consequences on human intellect by indoctrination with propagated myth can follow anything - even technology.

which one -religion or science- relies on propaganda?

In fact given the global state of a world tethering on the point of climatic/social/economic/agricultural collapse due to industry, I think it is a better form of the argument you present.

you mean industrial exploitation of science, or science itself?

I mean you are talking about popularizing the deconstruction of religion on dubious ideological grounds (ie it causes war, stunts civilization etc)

I want to popularize the intellect if possible
I want the intellect held sacred if possible
it is propaganda that needs deconstruction, little more
the references to war and slavery:
....these were to show how the intellect was deconstructed by religion
....these people were baptizing their slaves - how weird is that?

If you want to talk about deconstructing an ideology you already have one. It's too late to back down now ...

if by that you mean any idea that deconstructs propaganda
...and holds the intellect as sacred
......I can think of no reason to back down on that

You are advocating what you believe to be a truth (religion is myth, it is the major cause of war etc etc).
This is certainly advocating propaganda

My point wasn't that religion causes war
...but that it invades the mind with fervor
...that has been exploited repeatedly to provoke genocide

nationalism shares this with religion as the basis for war
and of course what is more nationalistic than the ideology that says:
....we are the chosen people
....I am saved
....God hates the idolaters (xenophobia)

As to the truth of the roots of religion in mythology and legend
or whether saying so amounts to propaganda:
....since this is matter of education (learning about the origins of world ....cultures) you are leading directly to my point:
.........education is the enemy of propaganda.

Now compare to a puzzled kid who is told that they are essentially a bunch of chemicals

You mean a course in biology?
You don't want kids to study biology?
I would think kids get an idea of their essence
....from all kinds of sources: role models, a mirror, reading, the arts....

You can't have ideology without propaganda - IOW ideas about how the world is have consequences

Ideas about how to manipulate vulnerable minds has consequences
....any ideology that exploits this needs to be deconstructed

perhaps the answer is to let education settle the issue

we have come a long way from indoctrination-style education
besides, folks are free to learn as they wish

the only obstacle is not knowing when you are being fed propaganda
and of course that's what it thrives on
so the deconstruction of propaganda is great, don't you agree?

 

[lightgigantic]

@lightgigantic --



Only because we have so many more people to kill now. Percentage wise(looking at people who died in wars) things are getting better.

That's certainly an optimistic view

 

[lightgigantic]

that should be easy: early cultures, lacking science, create god to explain nature

That's not establishing it - you are simply explaining your main thesis point (one which, btw, even certain atheists contend since the so-called god myth is found in all cultures in all times despite boundaries of geography, language, culture and chronology ... instead they say it is a consequence of the human psyche)

is a child born religious or atheist?

neither since both are an ideological stance - kind of like asking is a child born in favor or against british occupation of Ireland during the seventies and eighties

which idea has to be woven into the psyche?

Both of them ... along with mathematics and sciences too if you want to continue with the line of thought that a prominence of such studies can eliminate the requirement for religion.

which one -religion or science- relies on propaganda?

Neither of them rely on it although its dead easy to find examples of both being utilized as tools of propaganda (much like anything that carries any societal merit). IOw the moment anything develops a culture around it is the very moment it can be utilized for propaganda

you mean industrial exploitation of science, or science itself?

depends whether you mean the political exploitation of religion or religion itself

I want to popularize the intellect if possible
I want the intellect held sacred if possible

thats ok but .....

it is propaganda that needs deconstruction, little more

the moment I ask you what the above has to do with the religion is the moment you start with your propaganda
the references to war and slavery:

....these were to show how the intellect was deconstructed by religion

and its also not too hard to find stupid things done in the name of science

....these people were baptizing their slaves - how weird is that?

these people were born with birth defects as a result of prescription medication meant for pregnant mothers, these people developed lung cancers as a result of asbestos etc etc- will the weirdness ever end?

if by that you mean any idea that deconstructs propaganda
...and holds the intellect as sacred
......I can think of no reason to back down on that

thats ok
I am just pointing out that you have an ideology and that you have propaganda.

IOW its absurd to think that an ideology is so refined and so "right" that it doesn't touch propaganda (even if its refinement and "rightness" is an imagination)

My point wasn't that religion causes war
...but that it invades the mind with fervor
...that has been exploited repeatedly to provoke genocide

My point is that you get a better form of that argument if you use science as an example

nationalism shares this with religion as the basis for war

Incorrect since religion that cannot be utilized/hijacked by nationalism has zero scope for being the basis of war

and of course what is more nationalistic than the ideology that says:
....we are the chosen people
....I am saved
....God hates the idolaters (xenophobia)

Do a bit of research on communism and you will see that many writers compare it to a political natural selection - so it becomes
...we are the strong people
...I have special genetic qualities to further the human species
...Natural selection exterminates the weak

and voila! - Eugenics!

As to the truth of the roots of religion in mythology and legend
or whether saying so amounts to propaganda:
....since this is matter of education (learning about the origins of world ....cultures) you are leading directly to my point:
.........education is the enemy of propaganda.

So is accepting your ideas about the origins of world cultures education .. or merely another limb of propaganda?

You mean a course in biology?

You mean biology has established how selfhood is merely a consequence of chemical processes?
(last I checked abiogenesis was strictly a theoretical model)

You don't want kids to study biology?

Depends on the propaganda driving it I guess ....

I would think kids get an idea of their essence
....from all kinds of sources: role models, a mirror, reading, the arts....

hence my suggestion ... Now compare to a puzzled kid who is told that they are essentially a bunch of chemicals

IOW that all these other ideas of self hood are contextualized by the axiom that they are a bunch of chemicals

Ideas about how to manipulate vulnerable minds has consequences
....any ideology that exploits this needs to be deconstructed

Thats why parties both side of the fence have a field day deconstructing the other's ideology I guess ...

perhaps the answer is to let education settle the issue

which then begs the question "Who settles education?" ...

we have come a long way from indoctrination-style education

sure
now it is institutionalized

besides, folks are free to learn as they wish

so you are willing to retract your previous wishes about christian teachings on evolution and whatnot?
Or do you mean to say folks are free to learn as you wish?

the only obstacle is not knowing when you are being fed propaganda
and of course that's what it thrives on
so the deconstruction of propaganda is great, don't you agree?

I'm not sure you understand.

Let me ask you another way - Can you name any sort of ideology that doesn't have propaganda?

 

[wynn]

that should be easy: early cultures, lacking science, create god to explain nature

Have you been there, in those early cultures, many thousand years ago?

is a child born religious or atheist?
which idea has to be woven into the psyche?

Is a child born tabula rasa?

which one -religion or science- relies on propaganda?

Both can.

....these people were baptizing their slaves - how weird is that?

No weirder than kids being allowed to continue with their education after they reply in school tests that muscles hurt after exercise because milk acid builds up in them, and such.

.........education is the enemy of propaganda.

It sure is. But knowing which is which - that is another matter.

You mean a course in biology?
You don't want kids to study biology?
I would think kids get an idea of their essence
....from all kinds of sources: role models, a mirror, reading, the arts....

When you were told in school, that you are essentially nothing but a bunch of chemicals: How did that make you feel?
Were you proud of yourself? Did you look forward to life? Did it make you optimistic and confident that you will be able to overcome any obstacles that you will encounter in life?

we have come a long way from indoctrination-style education

Where did you attend school, and when?

besides, folks are free to learn as they wish

To talk about such freedom is ridiculous at least, and otherwise cruel to the extreme, when children have to answer on school tests "We are made of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus" and such, while facing to fail the grade and destroying their options for further education and job opportunities if they reply otherwise.

the only obstacle is not knowing when you are being fed propaganda
and of course that's what it thrives on
so the deconstruction of propaganda is great, don't you agree?

To "deconstruct propaganda," you need a system of values and beliefs that is absolute.
Science is not an absolute system. As such, it cannot serve to deconstruct propaganda.

 

[lightgigantic]

Is religiousness in the mode of passion or ignorance still religiousness?

that simply further illustrates how conflict arises from the politics of selfishness

 

[wynn]

that simply further illustrates how conflict arises from the politics of selfishness

But strictly speaking, religiousness is still possible, in some ways, even if just nominally, while in the modes of material nature.

I think it would help if people would understand how the modes of material nature work and how this is reflected in a person's religiosity.

Because the fact of the matter is that people do commit violence claiming to do it in the name of God.
Without an understanding of the modes of m.n. and how they affect religiousness, non-theists are justified not to be appeased with a simple answer that "The Crusaders were killing people for political and economical reasons" and such.

The Crusaders did claim to be acting in the name of God.
Suggesting that they were lying does not help the theistic cause.
Trying to present it as a merely political or economical issue, presents only a partial picture.
Saying that religious principles were subverted for political or economical reasons needs to be further explained.

 

[lightgigantic]

But strictly speaking, religiousness is still possible, in some ways, even if just nominally, while in the modes of material nature.

I think it would help if people would understand how the modes of material nature work and how this is reflected in a person's religiosity.

Because the fact of the matter is that people do commit violence claiming to do it in the name of God.
Without an understanding of the modes of m.n. and how they affect religiousness, non-theists are justified not to be appeased with a simple answer that "The Crusaders were killing people for political and economical reasons" and such.

The Crusaders did claim to be acting in the name of God.
Suggesting that they were lying does not help the theistic cause.
Trying to present it as a merely political or economical issue, presents only a partial picture.
Saying that religious principles were subverted for political or economical reasons needs to be further explained.

If they can't begin to understand it's political/economical underpinnings, they can't understand m.n.

 

[wynn]

If they can't begin to understand it's political/economical underpinnings, they can't understand m.n.

How are they supposed to understand political/economical underpinnings, if they can't understand the modes of material nature?

 

[Arioch]

@lightgigantic --

Are you arguing that religion is never the cause of such death?

 

[NMSquirrel]

Oh..BTW..

Why can't theists be against religion??

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

They can, but it's so incredibly rare that unless the theist in question tells us this we have absolutely no reason to think it.

 

[lightgigantic]

@lightgigantic --

Are you arguing that religion is never the cause of such death?

I'm arguing that it is a secondary cause at best. IOW arguments that religion causes war are fallacious because its merely one of the many tools available to politically driven conflict.

A key backing for this claim is that secularism, far from making things more peaceful, has fine tuned the tools of destruction to a level unprecedented in history.

 

[lightgigantic]

How are they supposed to understand political/economical underpinnings, if they can't understand the modes of material nature?

Political/economic underpinnings are certainly more centered in people's vocabulary and comprehension of the world than m.n.

 

[Arioch]

@lightgigantic --

IOW arguments that religion causes war are fallacious because its merely one of the many tools available to politically driven conflict.

This is a though task you've set for yourself. You have demonstrate that all wars are driven by political underpinnings and that those political underpinnings are not based on religion in order to validate your hypothesis. Good luck with that.

A key backing for this claim is that secularism, far from making things more peaceful, has fine tuned the tools of destruction to a level unprecedented in history.

The tools have changed, so what? That doesn't have any impact on the reasons behind the violence. And buddhists killing hindus because they're hindus doesn't exactly have any secular reasoning behind it.

 

[kx000]

All faith is blinding, but as they say only a bat see's best in the dark, and only a blind man can hear from a mile away.

 

[lightgigantic]

@lightgigantic --



This is a though task you've set for yourself. You have demonstrate that all wars are driven by political underpinnings and that those political underpinnings are not based on religion in order to validate your hypothesis. Good luck with that.

I can't think of a single conflict that isn't thoroughly saturated in the politics of nationalism, resources, etc.

If you've got a better idea, maybe you can get the ball rolling.

I also fail to see how the absence of religion in the inter/national dialogue of war suddenly renders the scene more peaceful (except in the imaginations of certain atheists of course)

The tools have changed, so what?

Its more the case that the tools have changed as a consequence of nationalism, standing armies, etc ... all of which are classic trade marks of secularism

That doesn't have any impact on the reasons behind the violence.

So you don't think having a standing army (or feeling the need to have standing army) has any impact on how it is utilized or equipped?
Or that it creates specific industries? (No prizes for guessing which social body is the greatest financial supporter of the sciences btw ...)

And buddhists killing hindus because they're hindus doesn't exactly have any secular reasoning behind it.

You would have to be specific ... and while you are at it justify it as characterizing it as typical of defining conflict.
Good luck with that one ...

 

[Arioch]

@lightgigantic --

You would have to be specific

Ever heard of a lovely place called Sri Lanka?

And I don't have to get the ball rolling. You're the one who made the statement, now you have to support it. And you should take your own advice, you know, the bit I quoted above.

 

[lightgigantic]

@lightgigantic --



Ever heard of a lovely place called Sri Lanka?

sure, but I have never heard of hindus vs buddhists being the defining characteristics of the nations rich history of conflict

And I don't have to get the ball rolling. You're the one who made the statement, now you have to support it. And you should take your own advice, you know, the bit I quoted above.

I supported it by saying its primarily a political issue (and gave the example that secularism, or the absence of religious dialogue in conflict, in no way translates into a recipe for peace ... imaginations of certain atheists aside) .

You digressed , saying its not the case.
So here we are, waiting for you to support your statement.
:shrug:

 

[wellwisher]

People often over relate to a group, so their ego can take credit for traits within the group abstraction, even of they don't deserve it. For example, a white supremisist might say Albert Einstein was white therefore whites are smarter. That white association makes him smarter by association. Since his team is the best he is also best.

Say we related to being human. I might say humans would survive if the earth underwent a major change and culture was destroyed. The truth is some humans would survive. But most would lack the ability to cope or adapt. If the person is relating to being human, he can personally accept credit for this survival scenario, due to the group abstraction. This is true even if he personally would not survive.

Since the ego can become dependent on the abstraction for some extra ego inflation, this same group association can make one vulnerable to ego deflation. If you insult a group, you can insult all the egos in the group, who are trying to inflate within the group abstraction. If I say humans are inferior to martians, this makes it harder to accept as much credit for the abstraction's survival card, causing the ego to deflate. To avoid this deflation we may need to fight or insult the other group abstraction.

This is not only true of religion, but to all group abstractions.