The Problem with Religious Moderates

[Freedom_from_Chains]

The Problem with Religious Moderates
We can no longer afford the luxury of political correctness. When religion causes violence, its root claims must be challenged.

By Sam Harris



Reprinted from The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason with permission of W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

People of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be confused. However, religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.

We have been slow to recognize the degree to which religious faith perpetuates man's inhumanity to man. This is not surprising, since many of us still believe that faith is an essential component of human life. Two myths now keep faith beyond the fray of rational criticism, and they seem to foster religious extremism and religious moderation equally: (i) most of us believe that there are good things that people get from religious faith (e.g., strong communities, ethical behavior, spiritual experience) that cannot be had elsewhere; (2) many of us also believe that the terrible things that are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per se but of our baser natures-forces like greed, hatred, and fear-for which religious beliefs are themselves the best (or even the only) remedy. Taken together, these myths seem to have granted us perfect immunity to outbreaks of reasonableness in our public discourse.

Many religious moderates have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths, but in doing so they neglect to notice the irredeemably sectarian truth claims of each. As long as a Christian believes that only his baptized brethren will be saved on the Day of judgment, he cannot possibly "respect" the beliefs of others, for he knows that the flames of hell have been stoked by these very ideas and await their adherents even now. Muslims and Jews generally take the same arrogant view of their own enterprises and have spent millennia passionately reiterating the errors of other faiths. It should go without saying that these rival belief systems are all equally uncontaminated by evidence.

(cont) http://www.beliefnet.com/story/153/story_15332_1.html#cont

[lvx35]

1. religious tolerance is the force driving us toward the abyss?

Ummm, no. Its actually the intolerance that is making the problem. And where do athiests get the idea that not believing in something higher will make us all be good to one another?

[Kiouni]

3. No Belief is Good Belief

Technically Buddhists are atheist and yet they are some of the most compassionate people. Human nature is not toward suffering it's about rising above it.

[lvx35]

4. Not for me!

The belief in a higher power is the biggest morally guiding thing in my life. If I believed with 100% certainty that I am nothing but an amalgomation of chemicals, meaningless, and everybody else is, then why would I be driven to do good works? Why would I spend my precious ONLY seconds as a living human working for my brother when I could be fucking him and his mother over for my pleasure?

[Freedom_from_Chains]

5. So, in other words, if there is not somekind of a payoff for you

in doing good things, you would just be an asshole?

[lvx35]

7. Yes. and so would the majority of others.

Why on earth would we give away our precious seconds of conciousness in a meaningless infinity doing anything but seeking pure, hedonistic pleasure?

[Freedom_from_Chains]

9. I don't know, why would you follow such a pursued

Is the only meaning of life that you can conceive of is immediate gratification of you senses?

[lvx35]

12. No, not at all.

But my higher sense of meaning is tied deeply into my sense of a higher power. My morality is concieved in terms of religious teachings, and if those are thrown out so are all my moral views. I honestly can't understand how you have moral views without the sense of a higher power, a bigger thing we are all part of.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

16. And I honestly can't understand how you could not have

some sense of moral purpose unless it is tied to some magical, mythical entity. So does that mean that if man were to absolutely prove tomorrow that there is no god, that we should then lock you up because it is hard telling what type of rampage you might go off on?

[lvx35]

24. well, it would free me of all my moral restraints.

And literally, a lot of other people. A lot of Christians (I'm not one) say the same thing; if God weren't there, they would be free to do whatever they wanted, whenever. And it makes sense to me. The work of following a religious/spiritual path is always focused on greater good, the helping of others etc. And that is concieved of as being part of being something bigger than ourselves. Without this there, its hard to see why a sense of purpose should drive moral action, because we are simply dust, a fleating configuration of chemicals that will fade away, and whatever we do will not matter to us in the end. I can't see how to be moral in that framework, I don't know how you do it.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

26. It doesn't make sense to me

If we have these kind of people in our mits, I think we should be concerned about them.

[lvx35]

32. The majority of people are like this.

I am absolutly the majority. There was a poll a few years back, and I could probably dig it up if you wanted, that showed like 85% percent of the population didn't think athiests could be moral.

I like when people know where their faith is and where there reason is. You have an extremely faith based assertion that people are innately good, with so much evidence to the contrary.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

36. And what evidence would that be?

[Kiouni]

38. would you agree

that any religion with a good set of morals should be respected?

[Freedom_from_Chains]

44. I would agree with that

But Christianity is not a religion with a good set of morals, in fact I would argue that it is immoral, particularly if one has read the whole book. The majority of it is about killing and persecuting those who do not believe in the god of the bible.

[FreedomAngel82]

108. No it's not

You're showing ignorance on my faith. The only place with most of the wars and such are in the Old Testament. As a Christian I follow Christ and the New Testament. If I followed the Old Testament I would be considered a Jew, but I'm not. Jesus was about everything opposite of the OT. Jesus was about enlightment and indidviudality etc. Only God can judge someone else.

[lvx35]

48. Absolutely.

even religions that I disagree with, if they conform to basic human rights issues, yes.

[Kiouni]

49. then

saying that all atheist are those people that dont give a shit is kind of wrong, if theist can encompass 95% of the population and religions i think it might go to far to say all atheist are immoral and apply its a pc labeling issue I'll call webster in the morning and bitch.

[lvx35]

56. The thing is that I don't see them behaving immorally.

I have a really good freind who is one...But I don't understand WHY not. I can't make sense of their perspective, and I am trying to understand it. But I am saying is that a lot of religious people would not be moral without their concept of God.

[Kiouni]

60. Well I would

say that is entirely about personal betterment you have conversations to better your self i am having this one to better understand how you take life, your experiences better me. My experience better you, personal growth is worldly as a "atheist" this is how i take life.

[lvx35]

69. cool.

You remind me of a freind, who is very dear, but also spiritual. I can't believe you have a concept of personal growth like that without seeing it, feeling it as part of this bigger beautiful magical thing that defies reason. Call it Love, call it whatever, but its bigger than this physical earth, to all my perceptions. I mean, don't you believe in something like that?

[Kiouni]

84. I think it was

Karl Yung (did i spell that right?) that called it the collective unconsciousness, the humanity that links us together.

[lvx35]

99. I respect Jung

but if you look at his framework, with all its images and achetypes, I think you gain a respect for the importance of religious figures at least in the human psyche. And that's all I really want, respect.

[RandomKoolzip]

76. That's what I don't understand about religious people.

The implication that without the threat of holy punishment, we'd all be behaving like sociopaths. If you don't have a conscience to begin with, going to church all the time is not going to magically bestow one upon you.

A sociopath will behave like a sociopath regardless of his religion or lack of it. In fact, I'd wager that religion is a pretty convenient cover for many sociopaths.

I'm sure that the implication that without a god there'd be total lawlessness would amuse the heck out of the Skeptical Inquirer editorial board.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

79. Well I think it is a position that is arrived at by the belief

that even if one is a sociopath that once they accept jesus christ as their lord and savior they will be magically transformed. This is also the point where I think where the belief in magic by christians becomes dangerous, that fact is people are not magically transformed. One changes behavior through hard work.

[FreedomAngel82]

109. You don't have to go to church

to be spiritual. Even Jesus said that. He said "wherever there are two or three people there's my church." It's about being together and praising God etc.

[NMMNG]

81. That is truly sad

I do good because it is the right thing to do, and avoid evil because it is wrong, not because there is some mythical sky daddy who is looking over me. I'm not trying to rack up brownie points to get some reward, or trying to avoid damnation and hellfires. It's just that simple.


I find it frightening that so many "good" religious people would turn into depraved individuals if they suddenly found out no God existed. When I became an atheist nearly 9 years ago I certainly didn't lose my moral compass. In fact, I found it to become stronger as I was now doing it for the right reasons.

[Solomon]

93. Well said Buffy. I'm glad this issue has been posted because I am

reading Sam Harris' book now and he has turned on a light for me with his argument that moderates are like enablers to addicts.

It's the moderates who allow stupid beliefs to continue.

I was raised in an extremely religious atmosphere and have always liked debating religion. At first I debated for religion. Now I debate against it. Most people don't like to debate religion and consider it rude behavior.

I think it's high time we stop worrying about being rude about it and start challenging people on their idiotic beliefs. I mean ordinarily I don't care what someone else believes, but when it comes down to supporting stupid ideas because someone believes what the Bible says about armageddon and the end of the world is where I draw the line.

I found the book to be quite refreshing and groundbreaking. His argument that it's not just the fundamentalists, but moderates too that are part of the problem is illuminating to say the least.

[lvx35]

100. If your so moral

Why are you deriding me while I'm sitting here trying to understand you? Yes, people of belief speak in mythologic terms and metaphors, and yes, the metaphor of a loving father/mother is one way people talk about God. And yes, we use metaphorical terms brother and sister to talk about our fellow humans, to emphasize the idea that we are part of a big family. The question I keep asking, but nobody can answer, is what do you find so meaningful about people if we are nothing but a temporary configuration of self relicating amino acids and protiens???? What therefore makes a human more special than a dog, a fish, a rock? How do you define the sancitity of human life without recognizing a soul, a level of humanity which is higher than their material self?

[NMMNG]

102. Sometimes I wonder if we are better than dogs and other animals

Our behavior certainly doesn't seem to suggest that we are. How many other animals would go to another land and purposely kill other animals because they have the wrong color skin, or worship the wrong "god"?

Nonetheless, what sets us apart from other animals, as well as inanimate objects, is our capacity to use reason. That, coincidentally, is why we can recognize that human life is sacred without appealing to fictitious things like gods, souls and the like. Human life is sacred because it is irreplaceable and unique, not because of fairy tales.

[lvx35]

103. So humanity is defined by reason?

I don't think so. I caregive for a mentally retarded retarded guy who is something of a stranger to reason, and I believe spiritual ideas that transcend reason.

But the real issue here is in your statement about the fictitious nature of gods and the soul. I have no problem with that statement in itself... What I have a problem with is the implicit idea that you have something better. The truth is, its ALL FICTION if one accepts your material world view. Everything we know, or will ever believe is, by material definition, not real, but a construction derived from the senses and existing only as firing neurons whithin a vast array of cells we call our brain. The materialistic self concept does not permit an understanding of ultimate truth, therefore we approach Truth, whatever that may be, through our own imaginings, whether they be atoms or gods.

[NMMNG]

110. I've been caregiving to the developmentally disabled for 18 years

And trust me, most of them sure don't grasp the concepts of gods, angels or spirits either.


And what I have is not necessarly better, it is just more authentic. I don't have some artificial system that relies on fantasies and fictions to keep me in line. I wouldn't turn into a barbarian if someone pulled the magic rug out from under me, because I don't have a magic rug. Not better, just more real.

[lvx35]

121. Now were getting somewhere

a quick note regarding DD folk, most I have worked with don't grasp those concepts abstractly, but the do grasp them literally, like the guy I work with most talks about heaven as if its a place you go like the mall. That's the thing about myths, children and simple minded people take them as literal, other people take them as symbols which convey truth, but they are a shared language by all. Religious teaching often conveys truth through these metaphors and myths, yes. But that doesn't make them fictions or fantasies, because they contain truth, they are useful. Like newtonian physics, which are known to be incorrect, yet still hold value, people USE them. For instance, I have worked with people who have the mental capacity of an animal, but when making ethical decisions, I value them as being human. Because I see them as possessing a soul. This is a reasoning process, and all my ethical choices are informed by what I believe as spiritual/religious truth.

I am not putting you down at all, I dated an atheist for years and she was one of the kindest most virtuous people I have had the pleasure to know. I just don't understand how you reason out what IS good, and where that sense comes from with a totally material worldview!

[NMMNG]

125. Primarily,

Good is doing what benefits people/other living creatures and the world, and refraining from what harms them, to the best of one's ability. In practice it is more complex of course, but the basic maxim is that simple. No manuals or deities required.

[lvx35]

126. Okay, so

you see yourself as having an obligation toward sort of the whole planet as a thing, or rather all life on the planet. And this feels good because you are able to feel like you are part of something bigger?

[NMMNG]

127. I don't see myself as having an obligation to everyone and everything

Just those I do and can concievably affect. I don't have the notion that I'm intertwined with the entire globe and that the movement of my arms will change the life of a woman in Zimbabwe, e.g., the Butterfly effect. If I don't take some form of direct action, (or in some instances, refrain from acting), my behavior has no effect on people.

[lvx35]

128. Well sure, you don't have magical powers.

But in certain situations, you do feel a sense of obligation, or pleasure, in helping others? Is it obligation, or pleasure? Do you do good deeds because you want you to, or you think you have a duty to?

I am signing off the night. Look forward to your response tomorrow.

[NMMNG]

129. I do them because I want to

Sometimes I receive pleasure, but mostly I do them because I want to ease the suffering of others, or increase their enjoyment of life.

[lvx35]

131. Just *wanting to do good* is not enough for me

to deal with the complex ethical situations in life. I need a concept of right action which comes from a higher framework. for instance fidelity to a loved one...I want to be faithful, but also situations arise where I want to do something else, in that moment. The happiness from being faithful is what I would call a spiritual happiness, because its long lasting and not rooted in earthly things I could point to. (Like you can't point to God) But when something that I really want to do in the worldy sense, comes up that goes against it, I have to make a decision based on something more than what I want to do. That's where spirituality comes in.
My point is that if you want to do perfectly moral things all the time, good for you. But most of us don't. Most of us want to do things from time to time that are bad for ourselves and others, so we need a higher framework for making decisions than just doing what we want, and that's part of the role religion plays in our society as a whole.

[NMMNG]

132. Don't twist things around

You are implying that I just sit around wanting to do good but don't act on it. That is not the case. I wish to do good and I do good. While I don't do all of the good I would like as I have neither the time nor the money, I do what I can.

Unlike some, I don't see the need to rely on mythology and fairy tales about some "higher power" to motivate me. I don't understand the need people have to denigrate humanity by making humans seem meek, base and powerless in the face of some awe inspiring fantasy character. Being part of the human race is high enough for me--humans, flawed though they may be, are wonderful beings.

[lvx35]

134. I give up.

You either didn't read or didn't understand what I said in my last post, which is a shame. You are turning this into a game against against a strawman in your head. Here's a wakeup call. The OP was a post AGAINST religious tolerance at a political website. What it was saying is that every Jew, every Muslim, every Hindu, and every person with a spiritual practice from their indigenous culture is an enemy, "leading us toward the abyss". It is grossly culturally and ethnically intolerant. It also demeans pretty much EVERY democratic candidate, from Kucinich to Kerry. You are saying each of them bows to a sky daddy. tone it down, buddy.

[NMMNG]

135. You lie

Never have I attacked a single jew, muslim or hindu. Don't try to paint me as some militant hater with your broad brush.

[lvx35]

136. What do you think they worship?

They worship God. Jews and muslims worship the God of the Abraham, for jews, their holy book is the old testament of the bible (the part with the wars in it) and muslims also include it in their faith, along with their story of jesus and the new testament. If you're attacking religion you're attacking all of it and all of us.

[NMMNG]

137. I did not attack anyone

I merely said I don't understand peoples' need for religion. If that is an attack in your eyes, what do you call your posts, for you said pretty much the same things about non believers....


If not understanding is an attack for me, it is an attack for you as well.

[lvx35]

139. Okay, fair enough.

That's a peaceful enough ending for now. I don't want to be an attacker. I hope you have a WONDERFUL holidy weekened and sorry our communications got off kilter...Maybe next time I'll figure out how you work! ;)

[NMMNG]

141. Truce

And may you have a very merry Christmas.

[FatDave]

140. Another athiest perspective

(Sorry for jumping in, and I know this is days old, but...)

I'm an atheist. My wife and my 2 best friends are as well. My brother and his wife too. And my mother. Not one of them is a criminal psychopath hedonist. My father and step-mother are fundamentalist Christians. They think the sun shines from GWB's ass.

In most European countries, Canada and Australia something like 1 in 4 people does not believe in God. In Sweden, the low estimate of non-believers is 64%, but I've seen numbers as high as 87%. None of these countries is overrun by hedonists or psychopaths. Many would say these places are actually far safer places to live than the US. As far as good deeds go, most of these countries provide more of their resources as aid to foreign countries than the US. Sweden gave .77% of their gross national product to foreign aid in 2004, campared to the US's .11%. And they did this with no expectation of an otherworldly reward.

Here's my sources:

Rates of atheism: http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html
Rates of foreign aid (scroll down to the charts): http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

Throughout history, how many people have died as part of a religious agenda? How many have died as part of an atheist agenda? Would that not imply that religion is the more dangerous philosophy?

The way I see it, morality does not require religion but a functional society requires morality. Most people, with or without God, do not want to hurt other people. I imagine this is evolutionary. A society that values human life will better survive than one that doesn't. Morality, therefore, is a property of being human, not of something greater.

But I do believe in something greater than mankind. I believe that there is order to the universe, order which arises from chaos. I call this nature. I get what some would call a religious experience when I marvel at the workings of the cosmos. To me, reality is far more glorious than any myths invented by man.

[lvx35]

143. I'm trying to wrap this up and get back to Bush bashing, but I'll respond

because it looks like you put some work time into that post.

first of all, I've observed virtuous athiests in my own life. My dear freind Jessica is one of the kindest and virtuous people I know, and she is an athiest. So I am not saying that athiests are intrinically immoral. What I find difficult about it is that I can't understand this mode of thinking that motivates moral action from an athiest. I am aware than this question can sound offensive to you, but its not meant to me. Its just that I can't imagine myself being moral without having spiritual concepts. Its a matter of psychological curiosity at this point, but its also a hard bridge to cross. I want to open up a door into your mind and have a look!

One difference seems to be that athiests *seem* to have a materialistic (not in a greedy sense) worldview, while mine tends to be life-oriented? anthropocentric? anthropomorphic? I don't know the word...What I'm try to say is that I look at the world around me as living. Like sitting here in this chair, I see the room around me, and I think of it as thought, or a dream, essentially conscious...I see everything as essentially conscious, or part of conciousness...I look around and see everything as made as the same stuff as me, and I note that I am conscious...so I see myself as this subset of this bigger set, and the bigger set is God. I think with athiests its different, like they see everything as material universe, and they are part of that, but their conciousness is just a temporal thing that is outside is all. Am I right?

Now the first part of your argument, that athiests can be moral, is agreed upon. But the second part is wrong. You asked me how many have died as a result of religion verses athiesm...well you have to ask who is really religious and who is really athiest, but if you look at the faiths of the leaders who were mass murderes, then atheism arises as a clear winner for the murder award in the 20th century. Both Mao and Stalin killed much more than even Hilter, both athiest, both banned the church and persecuted religion, and there are many more. So while athiests can be moral, the argument that a society without religion is good and moral flies in the face of reason and history.

I enjoy your final point about the order arising from chaos, it reminds me a bit of Taoism...And maybe your religious experience is not so different from mine...But the distinction between myth and reality is false in my perspective: Its all myths, some more powerful than others. :)

[FatDave]

144. No motivation necessary

From my perspective, all religions are a creation of man. Also, the overwhelming majority of religions, even the ones that don't descend from the Jewish tradition, have some version of the "do unto others" golden rule. Because so many religions (and even non-religious philosophies) independently arrived at the conclusion that we shouldn't harm one another, it stands to reason that morality is simply a trait of human nature. That athiests are moral people supports this theory. You say you don't know what motivates an athiest to be moral, but why do you think morality requires motivation? Is goodness not its own reward? Can't morality just be humanity's overall nature? Honestly, if you were to suddenly and completely lose your faith tomorrow, I don't think you would lose your moral compass along with it. I think you should give yourself more credit in that area.

True, Mao and Stalin killed a lot of people, and they also tried to impose atheism on the lands they ruled. But I don't think they were out exclusivly hunting down religious people. They were more about suppressing critics of their rule. On the religion side though, we've got the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, 9/11, the numerous times people tried to suppress the Jews, and some even say the war on terror is actually all about religion. And of course abortion doctors continue to be targeted by some fundamentalists. So yes, some atheistic regimes did a lot of killing, and it pisses me off that they did. Didn't help our reputations any. But when the pious kill, they typically do it solely based on religion. And can you possibly imagine how ludicrous that seems to an athiest? That people are killing and dying over arguments about what, to me, are nothing more than fairy tales?

But obviously killing and mass slaughter transcends religous boundaries, so your point is well-taken.

I know you don't want to keep dragging this on and on, but it's refreshing to discuss beliefs (and the lack thereof) with somebody seemingly so curious and non-judgemental. Typically I end up arguing with fundamentalists, and that just dead ends with "the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true". Anyway, if you have any more questions, I'm happy to answer here, or in PM, or maybe another thread more on topic.

Peace and Merry Christmas

[lvx35]

145. Thank you

To be honest I am really enjoying these conversations too. It hit me last night, contemplating the athiests reality, that the moral athiest is an incredibly beautiful person, (s)he stands in a material world apparently without explanation or future, and yet endeavors to to good for its own sake. I respect it a lot.
And yeah, we should continue this somehow, but right now I am skipping out on Christmas eve dinner, and my freind is telling me to get off and join. But soon!

[FreedomAngel82]

111. With religion

it appears that everything gets out of control when you have fanatics who forget freewill that we are blessed with.

[NMMNG]

119. Indeed

You can commit almost any atrocity in "God's" name and sleep like a baby at night it seems. Just as long as you can base your acts on some Bible passage you are justified.

[lvx35]

124. Agreed, Freedom Angel.

Its also people not doing practicing what they preach. AS GWB said:

"freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world."

before proceeding to completely ignore his own words and start a pre-emtive war under the guise of gifting the world with freedom. Its not the words, the religious ideas, that are at fault, its people draping themselves with them and ignoring them.

[JackDragna]

123. You're begging the question.

Why do we need to have a higher level of humanity for it to have meaning? Is it not enough to respect humans for their capacity for deep-level emotions and sentience?

Let me ask you this, since you seem to have walked down a path you know not where it leads: Does God define what is good, or does good exist outside of God's will?

[Tsiyu]

130. Seems so much like an ego trip, doesn't it?

"But, but... don't you feel CHEATED because you are of no more intrinsic value to the universe than a tree? Or a squirrel? Or a rainstorm?"

Geez Louise! The here and now is begging for our attention, yet some folks want "eternal remembrance and importance."

I just don't understand people who have such huge egoes -such insatiable desires to be relevant.

[FreedomAngel82]

107. Please don't speak for me

I'm a Christian and I disagree with you. Please don't speak for all of us Christian's. Please only speak for yourself. I have a soul and a spirit and so does every other human and even animals have a spirit. I help someone because I want to. Not because I'll get some nice little present.

[Kiouni]

34. What s the name of that movie

The one were the erect a plane refilling grid were it kills everyone on earth save a hand full of people and the guy puts on a teddy and goes to church to flush out god by shooting his kid yeah that movie was screwed up.

[JackDragna]

122. Why be good?

Because there are ethical standards outside of religion. To me, you are far more the monster than the atheist, for the simple reason that if for some reason you abandon your faith, you apparently have no qualms about becoming a psychopath. For those of us who do not believe in God or follow an organized religion, we are good not because we need a master to punish us, but because we have a humanity and kindness that transcends having someone write down rules for us. Your morality is weak, not ours.

[FreedomAngel82]

106. Not with me

With me I help someone because I see/know/hear someone needs my help and I can do something. It's just the person I am.

[Cooley Hurd]

80. I'm an atheist...

...and I call bullshit on your assumption. I operate under a very simplistic rule (and a biggie under the Judeo-Christian ethic): "Do unto others..." That means I treat EVERYONE with the same respect in which I expect to be treated.

[Perky]

83. Payoff?

You misinterpret the reltionship between God and Man... I do not believe so that I can go to heaven. I choose to serve Him, not out of fear of punishment or for some cosmic reward. I choose to serve Him because I love Him

The payoff is helping other.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

85. Hmmm, then I wonder why Christianity includes the whole

heaven and hell thing? They seem to make a pretty big point about it.

[FreedomAngel82]

112. It depends on who you

talk about the idea of heaven and hell. Fundies think of heaven as an actual place and hell as well with the fire and whatnot. But if your body is dead how can you be burnt? I believe that heaven is your spirit being with God and a positive paradise in your own happiness and with those who have gone on before. Hell is being away from God and your personal paradise.

[porphyrian]

114. Christianity is often treated as a single creature.

It isn't. There are more strains of it in existance than non-Christian religions. The only thing they have in common is that they believe Jesus was the messiah and the son of God. After that, there's everything from doomsday cultists to sweet old ladies who just want to help people. Some breeds of Christianity focus heavily on heaven and/or hell. Some barely mention them outside of scripture reading. Some treat Jesus as the son of God, some as God himself, some a confused blending of the two (perhaps the confusion comes from the term "Lord," who knows?). Some handle poisonous snakes, some barely attend church at all. However, they all identify themselves as Christians, and feel somehow as part of the same group.

The reason Christians don't fight more among themselves is that they are largely unaware of (or maybe just unconcerned with) how differently other Christians are interpreting the same material. Much of the fundies' power stems from this crafty co-opting of the big tent (big cross?) terminology and group identity. However, ask an individual Christian what they think about praying that "abortion clinics" be obliterated in a natural disaster and they will most likely think it's crazy. Maybe that's the key to reversing the infiltration of religion into our government, I don't know.

I would say that the most dangerous thing about religion is its effective use in controlling a population, not the beliefs themselves. Religion as government is bad because there is no accountability; God willed this to be so. Religion is too often employed by unscrupulous "leaders" for their own purposes, usually at the cost of many innocent lives. These corrupt individuals favor religions that teach followers to believe things on faith, because it makes deceit that much easier. Can anyone think of a real-world example of this?

[REP]

8. God Prevents Incest?

Why would I spend my precious ONLY seconds as a living human working for my brother when I could be fucking him and his mother over for my pleasure?

Well, don't know about you, but I "work" for my brother because I love him and help those who need it because they need the help - not because I might be punished or rewarded at some point after I die. And I don't fuck my brother because that's just sick.

[lvx35]

11. hehe. yes I was meaning in the sense of "smile on your brother, everybody"

"get together, try to love one another, right now."

But to your point: Why? In 50 years it won't matter, you'll be dead. Why not enjoy yourself, if there is no price to be paid?

[Kiouni]

14. well If you had seen

Ground hogs day you would know that this is just silly

[REP]

27. Because It Matters to Me, Now, While I'm Alive

And I wonder, what makes you so sure there's no joy in living a meaningful life; that there's nothing in it for me? That helping others and enjoyment of life are mutually exclusive? They aren't! And I'm not talking about ascetic kiss-a-leper "joy," either; it's possible to provide confort to others as well as yourself.

[lvx35]

39. Sure, I do find meaning in a virtuous life.

But I find that meaning through relating to a higher power. I can't understand you because I can't understand how its meaninful if you are just a passing pile of chemicals, and everybody else is. Its meaningful for me because I see people's souls, see my own, reflected in their eyes. That's a spiritual concept! :)

[FreedomAngel82]

115. Yep

And if you read through Genesis how do you think Adam and Eve's children populated in the first place?

[RandomKoolzip]

73. I DO believe that I am merely an amalgamation of chemicals...

...I am an atheist. I do not believe in a god or an afterlife. And yet, I have never raped anyone, never killed, never committed a felony, never spent too much time indulging my senses...shit, I've never even been in a fight. You know why? Because it feels bad to do that stuff. In fact, the thought of doing harm to others makes me queasy. The thought of helping others and improving the condition of life around me, however, makes me feel good, so I try to do my part when I can (time constraints notwithstanding; us atheists DO have jobs, ya know.) You don't need a cosmology to have a conscience.

Take a poll; query the leaders and the movers in the atheist/skeptical community and get some statistics as to the crimes they've committed, the murders they've been a part of, the rapes and molestations they've been on the giving ends of, etc. I think you'll find, by and large, that atheists and agnostics are not out destroying the lives of others; they're law-abiding citizens who simply don't believe in a higher power. Honestly, the implication that just because there's no heavenly punishment awaiting me should I commit some crime means that I'm out pillaging and being a total hedonist all the time pisses me off. Does James Randi look like a rapist to you?

If you didn't believe in a god, you'd be driven to do good works becuase it feels good to enrich the lives of others. I mean, doesn't it? I myself honestly worry about people who only do good works because they're afraid of punishment from some omnipotent invisible entity should they fail to behave in a certain fashion. Is belief in the afterlife the ONLY reason to help the less fortunate? That troubles me, this idea that morals can only be derived from cosmology...what about that feeling of well-being you get after checking in on your older relatives and making sure they have enough food to eat? What about the shitty feeling you get after you cut somebody off in traffic? Those feelings aren't coming from a god, they're coming from your nervous sytem. (and PLEASE do not counter this statement with "Well, who created your nervous system?" I don't believe in god, so don't even go there, pal. It's too late for me to be converted.)

What's keeping me from raping and pillaging and doing whatever the hell I want at any time? The shitty, empty feeling I get even THINKING about that kind of stuff. Do you think about killing someone you don't like, consider it to be an option, but then recoil from the attempt only because the threat of a holy bitchslap from a god?! That's fucked up.

If you don't feel a sense of guilt after doing harm to other living things, I'd be worried. Not because a god might punish you for it, but because you'd be a fuckin' psychopath. Are you seriously implying that without organized religion, we'd all be psychopaths?! I suggest you acquaint yourself with a few more atheists before you make that kind of judgement call.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

89. I'm like you, people who are unsure as to what kind

of horriable things they might do if they didn't have a god to beleive in scare me. If that's the only thing holding you back I guess we should all hope you don't loose your faith.

[JVS]

37. Which must be why Cambodia with a 95% Buddhist population...

has had a consistently peaceful history, especially within the last 40 years.

There is no religion that overcomes people's desire to kill and make life shitty for each other.

[eridani]

78. I'd say they were non-theistic myself

Welcome aboard, BTW.

[sandnsea]

28. tolerating extremist religious gibberish

That's what the writer is saying. Moderates have to stand up for their God and dogma with the same kind of resoluteness that the idgits do. Like standing up against Hitler's brand of religion, moderates can't continue believing that tolerance to any religious belief is the solution.

I would agree that moderates need to stand up for their own religious values, not so sure becoming dogmatic about it would be helpful though. Seems like this is what the radical right said a few years ago, one belief isn't as good as another, and look at where that has gotten us.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

35. I think what he is saying is that moderates contribute

as much to the fundamentalist problem as much as fundamentalist do in that they give creditability to the underlying belief system. For which there is not a rational reason to assign credibility to it.

At least that's my take.

[FreedomAngel82]

116. Check out these groups

SoJourners and Christian Alliance. Both are progressive Christian groups. The person who began SoJourners wrote the book "God's Politics" and is Jim Wallis.

[FreedomAngel82]

105. Exactly

And don't forget agressiveness like with the conservative Christian's. They are turning people away from religion.

[MazeRat7]

2. Religion: The Opiate of the Masses.

Beyond that, I assume you intended to post this in the religion forum. :) If not it certainly will be moved soon enough.

MZr7

[lvx35]

6. Ahh, yes Karl Marx.

And you can see how enlightened they all became in Soviet Russia when it was taken away....HA! All that happened is that VODKA became the opiate of the masses and the whole thing collapsed.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

10. Stalin did not get rid of religion because he thought it would

be better for the country, he got rid of it because they were a threat to his power. If the same group had of been atheists, he would have just as quickly got rid of them.

[realisticphish]

17. he got rid of religion

because he hated religion. he was raised (or sent to boarding school at, can't recall) an abby in russia, and was apparently mistreated fairly extremely. he grew up hating christianity for that reason

[Freedom_from_Chains]

21. He may have hated christianity, but if they had of served his

purposes, he would have used them. It was his nature. But since they posed a threat to his power, he got rid of them.

[realisticphish]

30. i disagree with you there

but only a little. I think that was certainly true of atheists (he looked only at his power etc) but that he would NOT have used christians to advance his power. but he didn't, and he's dead now, so who can say :shrug:

[Freedom_from_Chains]

41. Well we know that Hitler certainly used the Catholic Church

to promote his propaganda, as I guess the Catholics were smart enough to know it was not a good idea to oppose Hitler.

[realisticphish]

50. oh, most certainly

however, be careful in confusing the vatican with individual churches. i was just reading some research on the work abbeys and monestaries did in trying to hide jews and "undesirables" from the nazis, and it's pretty amazing how far they went to do so.

But hitler definately used the catholic upper levels as a vessel for his bullshit

[Freedom_from_Chains]

55. But also, keep in mind that it too has been alleged

that the vatican helped many Nazi's escape Germany as the vatican made a lot of money off the nazi regime.

[realisticphish]

62. re read my post

i don't contest at all that the vatican helped the nazis. a LOT of the money and art taken from holocaust victims ended up in rome. but i'm saying that the individual congregations, priests, monks, and nuns did a lot to fight against the holocaust.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

64. And I would not disagree with you there.

[JVS]

53. Hitler used every vehicle possible to promote his politics

From the Churches all the way down to bicycling clubs. The entire idea of his Gleichschaltung was to have all aspects of society coordinated in order to advance the interests (that is, what he viewed as the interests) of the German people.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

59. Which I think it would be fair to say is true of most politicians.

[JVS]

66. Only if all politicians are essentially totalitarian.

The kind of laissez-faire attitude towards religion that the OP complains about among religious moderates is a perfect example of not taking the attitude that every aspect of society must be coordinated.

[JVS]

46. After the German invasion of the USSR, religious persecution was relaxed..

along with a general tendancy towards Russian/slavic nationalism. Alexander Werth's "Russia at War" has an interesting account of this.

[realisticphish]

52. that really sounds interesting

I've read some books on the german approach to russian conquest. They were welcomed in many places, especially the ukraine, as liberators from stalin. If the germans had continued with this policy, then they may have won russia, and the war. but they began executing prisoners, etc, and the russians started to form solidarity against the germans (see stalingrad and kursk)

[JVS]

40. Stalin was actually in Seminary for the Georgian Orthodox Church IIRC

Which was one of the very few avenues for a poor person to get an education at the time

[realisticphish]

45. ah, thank you

the nugget of info was at the back of my head, and i was too lazy to google :)

[LittleClarkie]

15. Now the television is.

I guess without opiates, we masses will find SOMETHING to fill that role.

[me b zola]

54. So what caused the collapse of the US?

Could it be the so called christian's head up their ass so far that they were used as tools of a dictator?????????????

[Freedom_from_Chains]

58. Well after all, the real point of the creation of the church in

the first place was so it could be used as a tool of social control. Which is still serves pretty well as today.

[lvx35]

63. The church wasn't created like that but it does create social control.

religion happened, it evolved if you look at it in evolutionary terms. Its very old. In the terms of geneticist Rcihard Dawkins, it was a meme, and it was a very successful one. Why was it selected? For the same reason genes are selected, memes are. Because they contribute in a positive manner to their hosts. Religion is here because it worked, and the social controls it created were beneficial to society.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

67. No, it was specfically created as a tool of social control by the Romans

Read your history beginning with the Nicean Council of AD.325

[lvx35]

70. It was adopted by the romans, not created.

Who also crucified christ. It was around when people where following christ around. And the whole old testament is from before that, and that was apparently drawn on from other things. religions, shamanism, spiritual traditions have been found all over the world. When missionaries came to the new world and taught about Jesus, that had to convince the natives that Jesus was separate from Hare, or the Great spirit, because indigenous belief had so many of the same mythical ideas.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

71. I would disagree with you there and I have

extensively read Roman history.

[lvx35]

72. Dude, romans didn't create christianity.

They actually persecuted early christians. They had to use a fish symbol to point to secret meetings, which now adorns the back of christians cars.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

87. Dude, go back to the classroom.

[lvx35]

98. Sorry dude, I don't have access to kool-aid university.

My test scores were too high. If you want to know real history of christianity, look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Christianity

[Freedom_from_Chains]

101. Oh, aren't you just so cleaver.

Sorry, but I use real reference sources.

[lvx35]

61. No, it was corruption.

I mean we are in a time where a christian is hunger striking against vote fraud, christian peacemakers are getting killed and captured in iraq, and before the iraq war, I marched with christian preists in peace protests, and members of interfaith alliances. They are also out there taking care of the hungry, homeless etc through organizations like salvation army. Don't confuse the corruption of politics and the church with the actual political process and the actual church.

[me b zola]

77. I may come off very harsh...

...but I know the difference between a person who practices their personal faith vs those who are used by the repub machine.

Personally, mine is a deep faith--but it is not up for grabs for ANY political party to exploit. I speak harshly about those who allow their churches to be used as campaign central. What the "faithful" get in return is a mega-church where they can shop tax-free. :wtf:

I so deeply believe in the seperation of church & State. People have the freedom to worship as they wish. Churches are on many street corners, and in my case, I have a personal alter in my home. No one, no matter what they did, could prevent me from participating in my spiritual life. But I must insist that people's religious lives be kept from the political forum--it just does not belong there.

Religious progressive people have done wonderful work. The Catholic Church that I grew up in used to work for people who were economically or socially disadvantaged--not so much any more. Now we have come to a place where we must ask people that if they want to do good, then do good. Religion is now being used as a place where depraved rw politicians lurk to seek power, money, and votes.

I do not wish religion to be intertwined with government for any reason. IMHO, faith means to give unto Ceasar.....




signing off for the night......regards...............zola

[LittleClarkie]

13. So is this person arguing in favor of atheism for all?

It appears he's talking about the problem with any faith at all.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

18. No, he is arguing for reason and rationality.

Quite honestly, atheism is about as irrational as theism.

[Kiouni]

20. But at least

They made up their minds

[LittleClarkie]

47. I dunno. I have a soft spot for agnostics

the big shrug.

Thomas Huxley sounded like a cool dude to me.

Totally unsupported by logical argument (which I would lose, I know from hanging with atheists, because you can't prove a negative, and so the burden is on me to prove the positive) I've often thought that a belief in no god is nearly as hard to prove as a belief in God. Atheists will argue that it's not a belief in no god so much as an unbelief in any system. Even so.

[lakemonster11]

82. It depends on whether they're gnostic atheists or agnostic atheists.

I assumed for a long time that whenever someone described themselves as an atheist that they meant that they were sure there was no god. Like you said, you can't prove a negative, so there has to be some sort of belief operating there.

Recently, I've realized that many (maybe even most) of those who describe themselves as atheists are in fact agnostic atheists, meaning they don't purport to know whether or not any gods exist. They call themselves atheists to indicate that they don't follow any particular gods, not because they think that gods can not exist.

I'm an agnostic myself, though I'm nominally Christian and pray sometimes when the mood strikes (I never went to church growing up so I wouldn't know how to be dogmatic if I tried). I guess you could call me an agnostic theist (meaning, perhaps, that I choose to think that there's some higher power, but I admit I don't know anything about it and I admit that it may very well not exist anyway).

[Finder]

94. How is atheism irrational?

Most atheists become so based on evidence. Theists become theists based on faith.

[lvx35]

25. The author is argueing against religious tolerance.

its in the first line, his thesis:

"I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss."

[Freedom_from_Chains]

29. What he is arguing against is the notion that religion

cannot be subjected to critical analysis like any other thought system.

[Kiouni]

43. But any religion that

says not to question every thing it does would be hypocritical in nature because the idea behind all religions is to make you the best person you can be kind of like the army, if you say hey condoms make me a better person then maybe catholics aren't the way. saying no to HIV makes me a piss poor catholic i think.

[papau]

90. I am glad you rather than I took on this thread - The "discussion" by the

I am better than you because I dump on religion" crowd is quite tiring as logic can not get to them - as in this thread where the history they claim is a lie, and the pysch discussion is at the 3rd grade level.

Oh well - tolerance means we love them even if we hate the sin and know that they hate tolerance!

:toast:

:-)

:-)

:-)

:evilgrin:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

96. Christians advocate Christianity for all. Muslims advocate Islam for all.

Why can't we?

[WilliamPitt]

19. Flamebait.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

22. Discussion opener!

[Kiouni]

23. Discussion without

any give or take on a moral stance is a yelling match

[LittleClarkie]

57. Both a discussion opener AND a heat source

I could use a heat source about now.

[REP]

31. I'm Managing to Have a Discussion Without Flames

Yes, I know; ice is forming in hell. But still; I disagree with one poster's position and s/he with mine and neither one us of are flinging poo (yet).

[fishnfla]

138. Given that this is the stupidest post in the whole thread, I'd say NOT

Go back to reading your 20-30 papers a day, people are having a interesting discussion here.

PS have you read this guys book? Fascinating stuff. The new afterword in the paperback edition is, to me, the height of reasoned thought and argument

[rawtribe]

33. Good stuff on his website...

http://www.samharris.org/index.php/samharris/television/c

[Freedom_from_Chains]

51. Yes, I saw him on C-Span the other day and he is an

excellent writer. Much more able to articulate how I think about things than I will ever be.

[rawtribe]

65. That's why he makes the big bucks

:evilgrin:

I wish people would take the time to read his book or listen to the media on his website.

But that wouldn't make for a very good flame war, would it?

:eyes:

[Freedom_from_Chains]

68. Yes, he is definitely a voice of reason in the wilderness of insanity.

[realisticphish]

42. There is kind of a misconception there

I, as a "religious moderate," do not give a flying fuck about what other people believe religion/non religion wise. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, Agnostic, Pagan, yeah, I just don't care.

BUT.

If those religious beliefs (e.g. anti-gay and anti-choice shit) start to interfere with the general wellbeing of society, then I see no problem whatsoever in combatting them. Respect for a religion does not require a doctrine of non-involvement. to draw a paralell, I respect nazis' right to exist, but you bet your ass i'm going to get involved against them.

[BuyingThyme]

74. He's right. Most religious moderates are trained to hate and to lie.

Out of one side of their mouths they say they don't look down on others, and out of the other side they say the others are going to hell.

Of course, they believe the ones going to hell are lesser beings. Otherwise the others wouldn't be going to hell, would they?

No matter, because there's always that other side of the mouth.

[kwassa]

92. Sorry. You are wrong.

The position you are stating is not a moderate religious position, but rather an extreme position.

[Trillo]

75. Rather than insulting people of faith to get rid of religion,

simply create a just society that lacks despair. End predation.

Let people's lives be fulfilling, then they won't have any need to hope for something better, somewhere, sometime.

Until then, good luck.

[mmonk]

86. There is credence in that piece

which I give it that I wouldn't have in the past.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

88. Yes, Sam presents his views very well.

Some of his other stuff gets much more in depth.

[papau]

91. :-) Merry Christmas! :-)

:toast:

:-)

[Freedom_from_Chains]

95. Same to you and yours.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

97. THANKS FOR EVERYONE'S INPUT

This thread ended up having a lot of great comments on it.


Merry Christmas

[FreedomAngel82]

104. The thing I

disagree with is the whole judgement part at the end. I am a Christian but I believe only God should judge and has authority. I worry about my own soul and salvation. I do believe in going out and preaching the gospel, but God blessed us with freewill and with that comes the choice in what to believe. Only God can say what happens to a person in their afterlife. Not me. I have no authority whatsoever. We live in an information age. In this country there are churches all over the place, radio, music, tv etc. Lots of people I know at my church go on missionary trips and help people and also preach the gospel. Nobody makes someone else hear the message(s) except for that individual and that's how it should be.

[Ksec]

113. My problem is not with the Christians

Or Islam or whatever. Its when they try to become part of state. There is a seperation and its a wise decision by the forefathers. They foresee whats happening today/

[FreedomAngel82]

118. Yes

And when they want to take away someone else's freewill.

[Tsiyu]

117. It's like the words to the country song:

Jesus may love you, but I don't

God may forgive you, but I won't

It makes me sad to think that some humans believe athiests have less morality than Christians or "believers in Gawd."

I believe the opposite is true.

I take responsibility for my own poor choices; I don't blame my problems on "temptation from the Devil."

I realize my lifetime may be short. I want to leave the world knowing I did something to make it better for this old world before I am dead.

I don't feel disappointment in God when I am hurt by another and that person's life improves while mine gets worse. I don't feel the sense of revenge I felt when I believed in a god; when I believed that the words of the bible were true: Blessed are those who cry and get screwed and all that....Cursed are the bloodthirsty and the glutton and the violent....

I know now that no God is going to save the good from the evil. Iraq and Katrina are the surest proof I'll ever need, even if my own life was proof enough. If there is a God, it has no power over pain and misery and evil here on earth, in my opinion.

Therefor, what we do as humans is of the utmost importance. I DO believe this quote my mother says often:

"People ask of tragedy, 'Why doesn't god DO something?' Perhaps God asks them the same thing."

[JackDragna]

120. Finally, someone speaks the unspoken truth.

Religion, at least most organized religion, has always been a step behind social progress. Granted, there are some religious folk who lead the fight in some instances, but the essential nature of religion is to protect the status quo, to stick to outdated beliefs. So long as we base our morals and ethics on precepts on religious values and accept faith as a validation of those precepts, we have no way of making value calls as to which set of ethics is more correct than another. It is time for society to shed the burden of religion, or, at the very least, the religions that have dominated our socities for most of its history.

[MikeH]

133. Very interesting discussion in this thread

I will say for myself that I am a former Christian, now agnostic, but not an atheist. I would consider myself to be just on the believing side of agnostic. Actually, I am probably closest to being a deist. There are several websites about deism, which are easy to find, and which I discovered a few months ago.

lxv35's posts are right to the point as to why I, personally, have trouble with atheism. I, personally, have a hard time believing that our reasoning ability, and our sense of things like truth, beauty, goodness, justice, right and wrong, etc. are not rooted in some reality, perhaps a personal reality, higher than ourselves and the natural universe. I have a hard time accepting these good things as being only a result of chemical processes in our brain. I like the arguments of C. S. Lewis along these lines in some of his books.

On the other hand, I at one time took Christianity seriously, and I feel I gave it an honest try, and I found that it did not help me at all to better deal with any source of pain, frustration, or unhappiness in my life. And I have never had any kind of experience which has confirmed for me the reality of God, or anything that might be considered supernatural.

And I cannot accept the Christian teaching which implies that anybody who misses out on accepting Jesus Christ in this lifetime, for whatever reason, is going to be condemned to hell for all eternity. Even if I accept Christ for myself, say for fire insurance as much as for any other reason, I absolutely cannot live with having to worry about others being "saved" or "unsaved", and having to tell people about Christ motivated by such a belief.

That being the case, I understand where the atheists are coming from.

As I said earlier, I would consider myself to be closer to being a deist than probably anything else. They believe in using reason. They especially reject any alleged divine revelation. Any alleged revelation from God is considered to be at best second-hand and hearsay. And it is believers in the revealed religions who, in the name of their God, consider anybody who does not accept their particular revealed religion to be an infidel, and that seems to be closely related to what Sam Harris is saying.

I definitely want to accept uncertainty; that seems to be essential. The biggest danger seems to come from those who are absolutely certain in their beliefs.

[zippy890]

142. All religions "equally uncontaminated by evidence"

Finally someone dares to state the truth - I agree with Sam Harris, having read his book 'The End of Faith'

Bound to be extremely controversial, he speaks Reason to Myth. We are headed into the abyss, read the whole book. He does hold out hope for human kind if we can move toward a world government.


Thanks for posting this - moderate Christians are going to get their panties in a major twist, but its good to have the debate.