“With or without religion, 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.â€
Just curious about this. I have had multiple arguments where I use this, although it is argued back that;
"Although not in the name of atheism, secular people can do wrong acts too" and "Good people do evil acts as well, so what's your point?"
What do people think about these counter arguments?
I think that is not always true. People do awful things in the name of religion. But they also just do awful things sometimes.
People will do awful things in the name of politics or nationalism too. Now, politics and nationalism may also be tied up in religion, but certainly not always. Pol Pot did a lot of awful things for non-religious reasons and how would we prove if he were a good person or bad person? If only by his actions then others could just say that those who do bad things because of religion are already bad people regardless of religion--just look at the bad things they did.
I would say that people who hold a common belief that has a specific and discriminatory way of defining good and evil allows for this.
I would think in almost any case religion is the culprit, but I guess nationalism works too. The whole thing seems to stem from brainwashing.
You can teach a kid to believe almost anything, so long as it is before he/she is able to freely develop their own critical faculties.
Quote from: victormarte on December 30, 2014, 05:04:04 PM"Although not in the name of atheism, secular people can do wrong acts too" and "Good people do evil acts as well, so what's your point?"
A good reply would be touch on what motivates people to do good or evil. Religion motivates a lot of really terrible behavior that almost certainly wouldn't otherwise exist (superstitious killings, for example) or at least not to that extent, while the claim that good behavior is the domain of religion is demonstrably untrue.
I think that the more faith you have that your "ideas" are the correct ideas the more his statement becomes true.
Religion is just a better/faster way to inspire that faith but it does occur in secular ideologies as well so it's not just religion that does this.
As fear is more abundant than courage, and ignorance more than intelligence, doing good usually is due to selflessness and altruist ideals, whereas doing "evil" is almost always selfish.
Quote from: victormarte on December 30, 2014, 05:04:04 PM
“With or without religion, 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.â€
Just curious about this. I have had multiple arguments where I use this, although it is argued back that;
"Although not in the name of atheism, secular people can do wrong acts too" and "Good people do evil acts as well, so what's your point?"
What do people think about these counter arguments?
When good people do evil things, are they still to be considered good people? The quote doesn't make sense in that way... And the idea that evildoing requires religion is an obvious fallacy.
Gerard
Quote“With or without religion, 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.â€
Define good people, then we can have a debate on it.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 11, 2015, 08:23:25 PM
Define good people, then we can have a debate on it.
Well, that's a hard question I must admit. Even "good people" aren't always good.
Gerard
Quote from: victormarte on December 30, 2014, 05:04:04 PM
“With or without religion, 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.â€
Religion is not to go towards God by forsaking the world, but to find Him in it.
Just curious about this. I have had multiple arguments where I use this, although it is argued back that;
I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you. <-2>1 Corinthians ch.1 v.10<0>
"Although not in the name of atheism, secular people can do wrong acts too" and "Good people do evil acts as well, so what's your point?"
Atheism is not incompatible with an appreciation of the Divine. All too often a superficial, theist belief in God may be no more than an idolatrous image of thought that obscures the true Divine.
QuoteWhat do people think about these counter arguments?
Honest answer? I'm not entirely sure. they can do every thing else,
Good secular people don't do evil things, that is why they are good people, same for religious people. It's a bad argument to say it takes religion for good people to do bad, because it implies that religious people are good people and also secular people are good people and don't do evil without religion. However, this does not mean religious people don't do evil in the name of religion, and secular people do evil in the name of secularism. Solitary
Quoteevil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.â€
Do they not err that devise evil? but mercy and truth shall be to them that devise good. <-2>Proverbs ch.14.v.22<0>
Quote from: Shiranu on January 11, 2015, 08:23:25 PM
Define good people, then we can have a debate on it.
I was just thinking, define "good" and "evil" and then we can have a conversation. But I agree, the quote is somewhat meaningless.
Quote from: Faisal on January 14, 2015, 11:26:28 AM
Do they not err that devise evil? but mercy and truth shall be to them that devise good. <-2>Proverbs ch.14.v.22<0>
That's what is neat about ambiguous Testaments---you can pick and choose what you want.
Quote from: Solitary on January 14, 2015, 11:48:30 AM
That's what is neat about ambiguous Testaments---you can pick and choose what you want.
Do you have any theological queries I can help you with?
Any belief system held too deeply and too unquestioningly can lead to bad acts by otherwise good people. It's basically the Nuremburg defense: "$DEITY commands it" is exactly the same as "I was only following orders", the abdication of personal responsibility. Religion provides exactly that kind of cover--followed by, in some traditions, the ability to do private penance rather than actual reparations to those who have been wronged by their actions.
The fault in Weinberg's quote is not in the assertion; it's that it leaves out the reason why religion causes good people to do bad things (and thus allows room for believers to go "Well, nonbelievers do bad things too!"): religion explicitly provides some sort of intangible cover or even benefit for the bad behavior, in that it's "in a good cause", "you can always do penance" and/or "there's a reward in the afterlife". Historically, the non-religious don't demonstrate that kind of behavior as an explicit development of their lack of religion. They may find other reasons, of course.
Religion is not the root of evil, despite how much I hate all religious beliefs. The root of evil comes from the faults in mankind in following the flock like sheep, or using fictional beliefs to validate their insane rationality. Any psychopath can claim to kill people in the name of god, and he wouldn't be wrong, because he interrupted the bible into how he wanted it to justify his actions.
Thats what religions are, they are a means to validate the world in people.
Quote from: Faisal on January 14, 2015, 01:08:46 PM
Do you have any theological queries I can help you with?
Oh boy a real live pilgrim.
Sure, your average believer isn't a psychotic killer.
The main problem with religion is when it turns fundamentalist, which is the real core problem in religion. That's where belief turns into "certainty", and that they "know" what their god wants and because it's their god that wants it, anything and everything is permissible to gain that end, and psychosis suddenly becomes a virtue in the mind of that person.
What religion is, is an early theory of the universe. Unfortunately, unlike alchemy, it didn't have the decency to die off after a better theory came along; like astrology, it's a theory that appeals to emotion and egotism rather than to observation, and those are hard to get rid of.