What is worse, racism or rape?

[skepticalbip]

No, religion is not the only factor, but it is a very powerful one. Part of its power is its high social privilege which includes getting a free pass or protection from criticism, even so much so that friggin' atheists will go to far lengths to defend it.

I think Steven Weinberg summed it up most succinctly; "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is both a product of and a producer of irrational thinking. It goes both ways. Some people create the system, others learn from the system.

Religion is an excuse to do bad things.

 

[Toni]

No, religion is not the only factor, but it is a very powerful one. Part of its power is its high social privilege which includes getting a free pass or protection from criticism, even so much so that friggin' atheists will go to far lengths to defend it.

I think Steven Weinberg summed it up most succinctly; "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

I think he's mistaken.

I believe that for the most part, good people do good things. None of us are perfect; we've all done bad things.

I think that even people most of us would consider to be pretty bad don't only do bad things. And I think that sometimes, it doesn't take many bad things or anything that bad to be considered a bad person.

This is true within and outside of any and all religious belief systems.

Just looking at my own family: some are quite religious; some are not at all religious and never have been. Some were raised within a religious faith; some were not.

Even the best person among them is flawed and has done bad things. One of the worst people in my family also did some very kind and generous things--things that I witnessed.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Weinberg's point goes so far over Toni's head that she'd need a telescope to get a glimpse of it.

 

[bilby]

I think Steven Weinberg summed it up most succinctly; "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

I think he's mistaken.

I believe that for the most part, good people do good things. None of us are perfect; we've all done bad things.

I think that even people most of us would consider to be pretty bad don't only do bad things. And I think that sometimes, it doesn't take many bad things or anything that bad to be considered a bad person.

This is true within and outside of any and all religious belief systems.

Just looking at my own family: some are quite religious; some are not at all religious and never have been. Some were raised within a religious faith; some were not.

Even the best person among them is flawed and has done bad things. One of the worst people in my family also did some very kind and generous things--things that I witnessed.

The idea that people can be divided into 'good' or 'bad' is poor reasoning, and is one of the ideas that religion (particularly Abrahamic religion) is responsible for propagating and promoting.

Of course it is nonsense, as we all know from our own experience - but it's very beguiling nonsense; Who doesn't believe themselves to be virtuous (perhaps with one or two minor and certainly forgivable transgressions)?

There are no good people; There are no bad people. There are just people; and all of them do some good things, some bad things, and lots and lots of uninteresting things.

What matters is not getting caught doing things that others see as bad (or very bad); Even genocide is OK, as long as the people who judge you agree that it was (regrettable but) necessary.

The oft forgotten moral of the Nazi death camps (and the Cambodian killing fields, and the Stalinist gulags) is that evil is banal. Evil is mundane, and it is done by normal, unremarkable, ordinary people just like you and me. All that is needed for evil to triumph is for public opinion to be vaguely in favour of it.

There are no good people; Just people whose fame derives only from their good works, while their bad behaviour goes unnoticed, or is glossed over or excused.

There are no bad people; Just people whose bad behaviour is noticed and judged, while their good behaviour goes unremarked.

Religion provides a handy mechanism for excusing or glossing over bad behaviour. And regularly getting away with bad behaviour - or worse still, being lauded for it - inevitably leads to worse and worse behaviours. Which is, of course, the point that Weinberg was trying to make.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think Steven Weinberg summed it up most succinctly; "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

I think he's mistaken.

I believe that for the most part, good people do good things. None of us are perfect; we've all done bad things.

I think that even people most of us would consider to be pretty bad don't only do bad things. And I think that sometimes, it doesn't take many bad things or anything that bad to be considered a bad person.

This is true within and outside of any and all religious belief systems.

Just looking at my own family: some are quite religious; some are not at all religious and never have been. Some were raised within a religious faith; some were not.

Even the best person among them is flawed and has done bad things. One of the worst people in my family also did some very kind and generous things--things that I witnessed.

Weinberg offered an aphorism with common English usage for the meaning of a "good person" and "evil person". Your "no true Scotsman" analysis is a bit silly.

 

[laughing dog]

Weinberg's point goes so far over Toni's head that she'd need a telescope to get a glimpse of it.

That one broke every irony meter in the universe.

 

[laughing dog]

I think he's mistaken.

I believe that for the most part, good people do good things. None of us are perfect; we've all done bad things.

I think that even people most of us would consider to be pretty bad don't only do bad things. And I think that sometimes, it doesn't take many bad things or anything that bad to be considered a bad person.

This is true within and outside of any and all religious belief systems.

Just looking at my own family: some are quite religious; some are not at all religious and never have been. Some were raised within a religious faith; some were not.

Even the best person among them is flawed and has done bad things. One of the worst people in my family also did some very kind and generous things--things that I witnessed.

Weinberg offered an aphorism with common English usage for the meaning of a "good person" and "evil person". Your "no true Scotsman" analysis is a bit silly.

At best, Weinberg's aphorism fits just about any "ism" - it is shallow sophomoric thinking. Which explains its appeal to you and Jolly Penguin.

 

[skepticalbip]

Weinberg offered an aphorism with common English usage for the meaning of a "good person" and "evil person". Your "no true Scotsman" analysis is a bit silly.

At best, Weinberg's aphorism fits just about any "ism" - it is shallow sophomoric thinking. Which explains its appeal to you and Jolly Penguin.

Truths generally are simple and basic. It is beliefs that are contrary to reality that require long "explanation" to try to "justify".

 

[laughing dog]

At best, Weinberg's aphorism fits just about any "ism" - it is shallow sophomoric thinking. Which explains its appeal to you and Jolly Penguin.

Truths generally are simple and basic. It is beliefs that are contrary to reality that require long "explanation" to try to "justify".

I did not say it was truth or simple and basic. I said it was shallow, sophomoric bilge that fits just about any ism. If it fits about any ism (for example. libertarianism), then it really doesn't say very much about any specific system of thought.



If you bothered to think about Weinberg's idea that good people will be good no matter what and that bad people will be bad no matter what, then clearly it is irrational to blame religion for the evil done under its name. In other words, Weinberg's bilge that you admire is rejecting your argument and supporting the position of Crazy Eddie, Toni and myself.

 

[skepticalbip]

Truths generally are simple and basic. It is beliefs that are contrary to reality that require long "explanation" to try to "justify".

I did not say it was truth or simple and basic. I said it was shallow, sophomoric bilge that fits just about any ism. If it fits about any ism (for example. libertarianism), then it really doesn't say very much about any specific system of thought.
.

Right, libertarianism teaches beheading those who actively oppose their expansion and praises those who do behead opposition.

 

[Arctish]

I did not say it was truth or simple and basic. I said it was shallow, sophomoric bilge that fits just about any ism. If it fits about any ism (for example. libertarianism), then it really doesn't say very much about any specific system of thought.
.

Right, libertarianism teaches beheading those who actively oppose their expansion and praises those who do behead opposition.

TBF it's only a small sub-set of Libertarians who do that. Objectivist Libertarians withhold life sustaining material goods to kill off their foes, while John Birch Society Libertarians prefer using assault weapons.

 

[bilby]

At best, Weinberg's aphorism fits just about any "ism" - it is shallow sophomoric thinking. Which explains its appeal to you and Jolly Penguin.

Truths generally are simple and basic. It is beliefs that are contrary to reality that require long "explanation" to try to "justify".

Yup. That's why we know that the Earth is flat, atoms are indivisible, nature abhors a vacuum, and humans cannot cause changes to climate.



The unsupported belief that truths are generally simple is the fundamental error underpinning a lot of very bad thinking, and Libertarianism is a superb example of this error.

I am not sure that I can think of any claim that is less reasonable or accurate than "Truths generally are simple and basic", with the possible exception of some of untermensche's "contributions" to this discussion of 'Logical Possibility'

 

[skepticalbip]

Truths generally are simple and basic. It is beliefs that are contrary to reality that require long "explanation" to try to "justify".

Yup. That's why we know that the Earth is flat, atoms are indivisible, nature abhors a vacuum, and humans cannot cause changes to climate.



The unsupported belief that truths are generally simple is the fundamental error underpinning a lot of very bad thinking, and Libertarianism is a superb example of this error.

I am not sure that I can think of any claim that is less reasonable or accurate than "Truths generally are simple and basic", with the possible exception of some of untermensche's "contributions" to this discussion of 'Logical Possibility'

"Truths generally are simple and basic" does not mean that all simple beliefs are true... It is, however, sorta why Occam's Razor is a fairly reliable principle.

But to your "examples", it turns out that those beliefs were more complicated than the truth: Heliocentric solar system is a much more simple explanation to account for all the observations than a geocentric flat earth idea, "nature abhors a vacuum" becomes much more complicated in trying to explain observations than Newton's laws of motion which are quite simple, etc.

 

[bilby]

Yup. That's why we know that the Earth is flat, atoms are indivisible, nature abhors a vacuum, and humans cannot cause changes to climate.



The unsupported belief that truths are generally simple is the fundamental error underpinning a lot of very bad thinking, and Libertarianism is a superb example of this error.

I am not sure that I can think of any claim that is less reasonable or accurate than "Truths generally are simple and basic", with the possible exception of some of untermensche's "contributions" to this discussion of 'Logical Possibility'

"Truths generally are simple and basic" does not mean that all simple beliefs are true... It is, however, sorta why Occam's Razor is a fairly reliable principle.

Occam's Razor is indeed a fairly reliable principle; But so is Brandolini's Law.

 

[laughing dog]

I did not say it was truth or simple and basic. I said it was shallow, sophomoric bilge that fits just about any ism. If it fits about any ism (for example. libertarianism), then it really doesn't say very much about any specific system of thought.
.

Right, libertarianism teaches beheading those who actively oppose their expansion and praises those who do behead opposition.

The only way your response is at all relevent is if you are limit doing bad acts to only beheading people - which is an excellent example of shallow thinking devising a moronic straw man.

 

[Toni]

Weinberg's point goes so far over Toni's head that she'd need a telescope to get a glimpse of it.

Lololol

 

[Toni]

I think he's mistaken.

I believe that for the most part, good people do good things. None of us are perfect; we've all done bad things.

I think that even people most of us would consider to be pretty bad don't only do bad things. And I think that sometimes, it doesn't take many bad things or anything that bad to be considered a bad person.

This is true within and outside of any and all religious belief systems.

Just looking at my own family: some are quite religious; some are not at all religious and never have been. Some were raised within a religious faith; some were not.

Even the best person among them is flawed and has done bad things. One of the worst people in my family also did some very kind and generous things--things that I witnessed.

Weinberg offered an aphorism with common English usage for the meaning of a "good person" and "evil person". Your "no true Scotsman" analysis is a bit silly.

Are you going all meta on me now? Or do you not realise that Weinberg's bit fits your no tri Scotsman 'analysis?'

 

[LordKiran]

Yup. That's why we know that the Earth is flat, atoms are indivisible, nature abhors a vacuum, and humans cannot cause changes to climate.



The unsupported belief that truths are generally simple is the fundamental error underpinning a lot of very bad thinking, and Libertarianism is a superb example of this error.

I am not sure that I can think of any claim that is less reasonable or accurate than "Truths generally are simple and basic", with the possible exception of some of untermensche's "contributions" to this discussion of 'Logical Possibility'

"Truths generally are simple and basic" does not mean that all simple beliefs are true... It is, however, sorta why Occam's Razor is a fairly reliable principle.

But to your "examples", it turns out that those beliefs were more complicated than the truth: Heliocentric solar system is a much more simple explanation to account for all the observations than a geocentric flat earth idea, "nature abhors a vacuum" becomes much more complicated in trying to explain observations than Newton's laws of motion which are quite simple, etc.

This seems appropriate: https://medium.com/@edeubanks/argumentum-ad-simplicitate-9f5879fb7bb1

This appeal to simplicity frequently extends to a reference to Occam’s Razor: “the simple solution is usually the right one.” William of Ockham was a philosopher and theologian, and his principle was intended as a guide for theoretical models, not as an adjudication for final concepts or conclusions. A more complete statement of Occam’s Razor includes a couple of vital qualifications.

“All other things being equal, simpler explanations are usually preferable to complex ones.”

I would also argue that Occam's razor has more to do with curtailing assumption-making that it does outright favoring the simplistic.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It's really that simple. If religion isn't the ONLY cause, and if religion ALONE isn't a good enough cause, then blaming religion for the problem is irrational.

Religion plays a significant part in how religious people behave. It's really that simple.

We've already established that. We're just trying to nail down how big that part actually is.

Again, given the fact that 130,000 Muslims manage to NOT run people over with their cars for religious reasons, it seems evident that that part isn't as large as some on this forum are implying.

It IS that simple: if religion alone isn't enough AND if it can happen even without religion, then religion isn't actually the relevant factor we're looking for. It's an influential one, but not a causal one.