best arguments against religion (no theists)

[lightgigantic]

There are clear examples of religion subverting human intelligence

And there are clear examples where it doesn't

How about the Inquisition?

How about the renaissance?

the holocaust?

Colonial American writing?

Witch hunts?

Providing basic moral frameworks for society in general?

Slavery?

antislavery?

Crusades?

Pursuing agendas of peace?

Most wars?

that's mostly your imagination since most wars are about securing resources - IOW the only way you can play the current theater of war in the middle east as something religious is if you completely overlook the issues of oil security

Which of those glorifies human intelligence, and which was not based on religious ideology?

Its kind of like judging a genre by its worst examples - for instance I can easily find bad things about any authority you care to mention - teachers, politicians, police officers, parents etc - yet I don't think that is sufficient grounds for saying the institutions they represent have no value, subvert human culture etc.

I say neither.

that's your bias

the simple truth is that anything that takes the form of a strong social institution can potentially called upon to justify a political end

IOW what you are mostly talking about (in the best form of your argument, which you haven't necessarily presented just yet) are political representations of religion

 

[wynn]

IOW what you are mostly talking about (in the best form of your argument, which you haven't necessarily presented just yet) are political representations of religion

The political is inevitable, and for all practical intents and purposes, determines everything else.

Thus it behooves to take religion at its political value.

 

[lightgigantic]

The political is inevitable, and for all practical intents and purposes, determines everything else.

Thus it behooves to take religion at its political value.

so the ultimate dialogue of school teaching is politics, the ultimate dialogue of law is politics etc etc

 

[wynn]

In practice, yes.

 

[lightgigantic]

In practice, yes.

I disagree.

I think the political is closer to a consequence of the discipline of knowledge as opposed to the defining / determining / topmost dialogue of it

The examples aqueous provided (and their diametrically opposed alternatives) illustrate this

 

[wynn]

I think the political is closer to a consequence of the discipline of knowledge as opposed to the defining / determining / topmost dialogue of it

Anyone approaching any institution or person is faced with their political face, so this is the relevant face for them.
So, as I said, for all practical intents and purposes, the political determines everything else.


A person might believe in all kinds of fancy stuff about how we are all parts and parcels of God and that God loves us and all that.
But all this is worth nothing if said person is incapable of common courtesy in their dealings with others.

 

[lightgigantic]

Anyone approaching any institution or person is faced with their political face, so this is the relevant face for them.
So, as I said, for all practical intents and purposes, the political determines everything else.


A person might believe in all kinds of fancy stuff about how we are all parts and parcels of God and that God loves us and all that.
But all this is worth nothing if said person is incapable of common courtesy in their dealings with others.

You are talking about something different.

That is disparity between ideology and practice, not politics.

 

[wynn]

That is disparity between ideology and practice

- which is what politics is about, and what we have to deal with when we deal with people and organizations.

 

[lightgigantic]

- which is what politics is about, and what we have to deal with when we deal with people and organizations.

Not really since disparity between ideology and practice doesn't give a uniform reading.
iow its the business of individuals, not organizations per se

 

[wynn]

Not really since disparity between ideology and practice doesn't give a uniform reading.

So?

iow its the business of individuals, not organizations per se

One cannot approach an organization other than via individuals that are part of said organization.

 

[lightgigantic]

So?

It will depend entirely on who you meet (If one is of your viewpoint anyway)

One cannot approach an organization other than via individuals that are part of said organization.

So the organization doesn't represent anything outside of the individual?

 

[wynn]

It will depend entirely on who you meet (If one is of your viewpoint anyway)

How else could it be?
Can you have lunch with the Roman Catholic Church or the FBI?

So the organization doesn't represent anything outside of the individual?

An organization canno represent anything other than via the individuals.

 

[lightgigantic]

How else could it be?
Can you have lunch with the Roman Catholic Church or the FBI?

I'm not sure you understand - Your entire perspective will depend on whomever you meet - for instance if you had a dreadful Grade 1 teacher, you would think all school teachers are dreadful (or maybe just all primary school teachers or all grade 1 teachers)

An organization canno represent anything other than via the individuals.

Can an individual represent things that are not on par with the institution?

 

[wynn]

I'm not sure you understand - Your entire perspective will depend on whomever you meet - for instance if you had a dreadful Grade 1 teacher, you would think all school teachers are dreadful (or maybe just all primary school teachers or all grade 1 teachers)

That doesn't automatically follow.

My relations with the FBI depend entirely on the FBI agent I am dealing with. This is the reality about my state of relations with the FBI.
That particular agent may be what the FBI considers a good representative of the FBI, or a not so good one.
But he is all the relation to the FBI that I have.

Can an individual represent things that are not on par with the institution?

Surely you can have an affinity for noodles that is not characteristic for all the people or doctrine in your organization ...

And yet all the relation I have with your organization, is via you.

 

[Aqueous Id]

@ LightGigantic:

You are right in saying there are also examples of religion's appeal to human intelligence

but the episodes of mass hysteria that would not have likely occurred, as I mentioned.. the holocaust or slavery or wars of the Holy Roman and Ottoman empires [to mention a few] ... if not for the subversion of the intellect by religion, give a strong argument against it, that was my assertion. In each case religious propaganda was invoked, typically of a strong political flavor, to foment the atrocities that followed.

 

[Pineal]

That doesn't automatically follow.
My relations with the FBI depend entirely on the FBI agent I am dealing with. This is the reality about my state of relations with the FBI.
That particular agent may be what the FBI considers a good representative of the FBI, or a not so good one.
But he is all the relation to the FBI that I have.

This is key to me. How is the particular FBI agent conceived of within and treated by the FBI as a whole and especially by the director - if under all this were are talking about a law enforcement organization or school with a guru, excuse me I mean director or principal.

One of the ways I came to evaluation organizations what what they reacted to as a problem and what they did not, what they seemed to approve of and reward and what they punished and pushed away.

Once you have patterns you can begin to see what is considered a good agent and a bad agent and draw conclusions about the organization and the leader.

Sometimes it is absolutely stunning what was OK and what got you 'in trouble.'

This can be around issues of what can be spoken about and what cannot, how one should express emotion or not, how people behave, etc.

 

[Pineal]

@ LightGigantic:

You are right in saying there are also examples of religion's appeal to human intelligence

but the episodes of mass hysteria that would not have likely occurred, as I mentioned.. the holocaust or slavery or wars of the Holy Roman and Ottoman empires [to mention a few] ... if not for the subversion of the intellect by religion, give a strong argument against it, that was my assertion. In each case religious propaganda was invoked, typically of a strong political flavor, to foment the atrocities that followed.

I agree with this, but we must also note the precise operation...where the intellect subverts our reactions. And in fact religions often use the intellect to subvert us. The aprioris may differ from those in other fields, but once the aprioris are in place, rationale is used to subvert. And secular society continues this trend, precisely by making the intellect and 'rationality' transcendent, without using that last term.

 

[lightgigantic]

That doesn't automatically follow.

My relations with the FBI depend entirely on the FBI agent I am dealing with. This is the reality about my state of relations with the FBI.
That particular agent may be what the FBI considers a good representative of the FBI, or a not so good one.
But he is all the relation to the FBI that I have.

Just like one's relations with a grade 1 depend entirely on the teacher

Surely you can have an affinity for noodles that is not characteristic for all the people or doctrine in your organization ...

If an FBI agent offers to sell you cocaine, can you guess whether such an act is within the structure of the organization they are working for?

And yet all the relation I have with your organization, is via you.

I am certainly not all the association you have had.

 

[wynn]

Just like one's relations with a grade 1 depend entirely on the teacher

Sure.

If an FBI agent offers to sell you cocaine, can you guess whether such an act is within the structure of the organization they are working for?

Oh yes. Possessing and purchasing drugs isn't a federal offense (I think?), but the agent could be testing me. Perhaps they consider me a suspect in a federal crime, and are testing me. With guys like the FBI, one never knows, but one better cooperate merely upon seeing a badge.

I am certainly not all the association you have had.

Currently, you are.


Religious identity, unlike some other forms of identity, is something that is in effect 24/7, in relation to everyone.

Someone who works as a, say, computer programmer, is a computer programmer from 8 to 5, or whatever their working hours are. Outside of their working time, they have other duties and identities.

A member of a religious organization, however, is a member of a religious organization 24/7, in relation to everyone. This is because a religion defines the entirety of the practitioner's life.

A member of a religious organization does not function as a private person anymore, at least not in relation to the people who are not members of said religious organization (or are not related to him from times when he was not yet a member).

This is how any contact with member of a religious organization, is a contact with the religious organization.

And the more extraordinary claims the doctrine of said religious organization maintains, the greater is the weight on each individual contact with a member of a religious organization.

If a religious organization claims to be divine, then, by implication, each contact with a member of said religious organization is to be claimed divine.

While for ordinary terms, this may seem absurd, the legitimate question is:
If we are to believe that a religious organization is divine, then when or how are outsiders supposed to come into contact and come to know this divinity - if not precisely in each and every contact with a member of said religious organization ?


And if a religious organization doesn't claim to be divine, then why bother with it?

 

[NMSquirrel]

relgious identity, unlike some other forms of identity, is something that is in effect 24/7, in relation to everyone.

A member of a religious organization, however, is a member of a religious organization 24/7, in relation to everyone. This is because a religion defines the entirety of the practitioner's life.

A member of a religious organization does not function as a private person anymore, at least not in relation to the people who are not members of said religious organization (or are not related to him from times when he was not yet a member).

This is how any contact with member of a religious organization, is a contact with the religious organization.

And the more extraordinary claims the doctrine of said religious organization maintains, the greater is the weight on each individual contact with a member of a religious organization.

If a religious organization claims to be divine, then, by implication, each contact with a member of said religious organization is to be claimed divine.

all this speaks to the ideal, not the reality..

While for ordinary terms, this may seem absurd, the legitimate question is:
If we are to believe that a religious organization is divine, then when or how are outsiders supposed to come into contact and come to know this divinity - if not precisely in each and every contact with a member of said religious organization ?


And if a religious organization doesn't claim to be divine, then why bother with it?

who determines divinity?