Religion's Inherent Flaws

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Whenever I debate with a liberal friend of mine, I have a hard time convincing him of the evils of religion. He seems to think that the flaws of religion are simply the flaws of particular religions - not religion itself. Furthermore, he suggests that religion can be beneficial because it gives people purpose in life.

Obviously, Marxist theory reveals that this is complete nonsense. However, Marx didn't devote (to my knowledge) a great deal of his time exposing the evils of religion. He knew that leftists themselves would typically find these evils self-evident, and, therefore, he concentrated on economics and such things. However, when it comes to gaining comrades - there is something to be said for convincing others of religion's evils.

Does anyone have some formulated, perhaps non-radical views on religion, that I might use to convince people that religion and the belief in God are inherently evil - not just used for evil means? Unfortunately, I am not sure I will be able to convince others of this - especially since condemning an entire institution rather than parts of it is essential to radicalism and contrary to reformist doctrine.

[Forward Union]

They are all based on superstition. None are based on solid scientific fact, the inherent flaw in ALL religions, is that they cannot prove themselves to be fact. They are assumptions.

[violencia.Proletariat]

The fact that god doesn't exist.

[Publius]

Whenever I debate with a liberal friend of mine, I have a hard time convincing him of the evils of religion. He seems to think that the flaws of religion are simply the flaws of particular religions - not religion itself.

Well, the flaws of every 'particular religion' with the exception of deism and pantheism, which aren't really 'religions' in the usual sense.


Furthermore, he suggests that religion can be beneficial because it gives people purpose in life.


That IS the problem.

It gives them the wrong purpose, like 'kill the unbelievers'.

That's A purpose, but it's not a GOOD one.



Does anyone have some formulated, perhaps non-radical views on religion, that I might use to convince people that religion and the belief in God are inherently evil - not just used for evil means?

Uhh, logic?

Ask him to lay at his beliefs, and poke the obvious holes that come up.

If you want to learn more about 'being an atheist' visit www.infidelguy.com

Lot's of arguments against God, debate, etc.

Eventually you'll be able to tear apart any claim a theist can or will make about God.



Unfortunately, I am not sure I will be able to convince others of this - especially since condemning an entire institution rather than parts of it is essential to radicalism and contrary to reformist doctrine.

The easiest, and best argument I have is this:

Anyone who is not a religious fundamentalist is wrong, according to logic and to the holy book they (partially) believe in.

Either the book is right, or it isn't.

How can the Bible be right in asserting God's existence but not be right in condemning homosexuality? Did God 'change his mind'? I don't think so.

Any belief that differes from scripture or is not derived from scripture is wrong according to that religion.

YOu cannot be a Christian and not support everything the Bible says, because a prime tenet of Christianity is the infallibility of God/the Bible.

Point at that he doesn't follow most of what the Bible says, and that he lives a moral life, indeed, if he did follow what the BIble said, he would be immoral because he would be killing non-believers and homosexuals.

There are 3 positions:

Fundamentalist - the book is right. End of story, you can't debate them.

'Liberal' - the book is sort of right. Nonsense. Completely wrong. The book cannot be 'partially right' according to the religion. This is view is nonsense.

Atheist - right.

Tell him if he doesn't support every form of violence the Bible advocates, he isn't a real Christian and will doubtlessly burn in hell according to his God.

Point out that not believing in any part of the Bible is a sin (True. You must 'trust God's word)

Point out the Bible says that all sins are equal in the eyes of God (Also true, Scriptoral)

so then logically conclude that he is as guilty and sinful as you are, and that he will burn in hell.


And there's plenty more where that came from.

[Zero]

It's amazing that we have to actually make people see that believing in the boogieman is no different then believing in god.

[Avtomatov]

I dont think the bible says anything about killing homosexuals. I know it says stuff like stoning prostitutes and sending them into exile.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 10:31 PM
'Liberal' - the book is sort of right. Nonsense. Completely wrong. The book cannot be 'partially right' according to the religion. This is view is nonsense.
this is the most common misunderstanding atheists seem to trip up on constantly. the bible wasn't written as a science book that can be interpreted strictly along the lines of "right" or "wrong". it is a book meant to provide spiritual guidance. during the catholic reformation the pope made it particularly clear that holy scripture alone can not guide faith, but equally so spritual tradition. it is this kind of flexibility that has allowed religion and spirituality to evolve over thousands of years. it is this kind of flexibility that allows believers to look at the context of which passages were written to better understand the moral implications behind them, and thus gain their spiritual guidance.

--

as far as debating theists, i think it is a waste of time. religion is flexible and has and will adapt itself to whatever economic condtion exists. i have said it before and i'll say it again, that the reality of god is inconsequential to the reality of the belief in god. instead of alienating yourselves into an atheistic communist ghetto, i would work harder to show how we can adapt a society's cultural traditions (including, but not limited to religion) to work within a classless framework.

[FidelCastro]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 19 2006, 08:44 PM
They are all based on superstition. None are based on solid scientific fact, the inherent flaw in ALL religions, is that they cannot prove themselves to be fact. They are assumptions.
It's called a FAITH. Keep in mind that most, if not all forms of science (physics, biology, chemistry) concern the world around us. Not the so called "spiritual world". Keep in mind that the diety worshiped, is a diety so therefore, he would most likely be able to manipulate, and outsmart a human.

[FidelCastro]

Originally posted by chimx+Jun 20 2006, 02:55 AM--> (chimx @ Jun 20 2006, 02:55 AM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 10:31 PM
'Liberal' - the book is sort of right. Nonsense. Completely wrong. The book cannot be 'partially right' according to the religion. This is view is nonsense.
this is the most common misunderstanding atheists seem to trip up on constantly. the bible wasn't written as a science book that can be interpreted strictly along the lines of "right" or "wrong". it is a book meant to provide spiritual guidance. during the catholic reformation the pope made it particularly clear that holy scripture alone can not guide faith, but equally so spritual tradition. it is this kind of flexibility that has allowed religion and spirituality to evolve over thousands of years. it is this kind of flexibility that allows believers to look at the context of which passages were written to better understand the moral implications behind them, and thus gain their spiritual guidance.

--

as far as debating theists, i think it is a waste of time. religion is flexible and has and will adapt itself to whatever economic condtion exists. i have said it before and i'll say it again, that the reality of god is inconsequential to the reality of the belief in god. instead of alienating yourselves into an atheistic communist ghetto, i would work harder to show how we can adapt a society's cultural traditions (including, but not limited to religion) to work within a classless framework. [/b]
Smartest idea yet.

[kaaos_af]

The real problem with religion is that it justifies oppression, heirarchy and division.

Hm. How to explain this? Okay--- take the Victorian poem 'All things bright and beautiful'-

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate
God made them high and lowly
And ordered their estate.

Religion was used by the old ruling class to justify its existence- they simply told the people they were put there by a god. The Tsars, the Kings of Britain, the Kaisers, the Popes, the Pharoehs, the priests of Central America, the Chinese emperors, they all made up the great myth that a god had put them in their position, and that to question their divinity was blasphemous. The Inquisition was a massacre of all the 'non-believers', i.e.- people who questioned the legitimacy of the throne.

Nowadays it is still used to divide the working class- according to Christians, homosexuals are 'unnatural', women are supposed to be in the home, children must have values and moral constraints, et cetera et cetera. It's just divide and rule.

[chimx]

so in feudal times it was used to justify the monarchical rule, with the pope crowning kings.

and then in the 16th century and onwards the church underwent the reformation and redefined itself to coincide with the growth of capitalism. people like martin luther and other reformers glorified work and capital gains. religion adapted itself again.

kaaos_of, your failure is in your short-sitedness. you are trying to view religious institutions in their capitalist framework within the context of a post-capitalist society. it is absurd as trying to view fedual religious institutions in a capitalist market. the point is that religion can and will change depending on the economic and political reality of the world around them.

duh.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Keep in mind that most, if not all forms of science (physics, biology, chemistry) concern the world around us. Not the so called "spiritual world".

When we look at the world around us, there is no spiritual world. So science concerns every known world around us. If you would like to provide some evidence of this "spiritual world" we would gladly take a look at it.


Keep in mind that the diety worshiped, is a diety so therefore, he would most likely be able to manipulate, and outsmart a human.

And those unicorns are invisible so we won't know they are there :rolleyes:

Why would a deity, who wants to be worshiped and is the sole power of the universe, hide?

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 19 2006, 08:38 PM
Furthermore, he suggests that religion can be beneficial because it gives people purpose in life.

Indeed religion can be beneficial because it gives peoplepurpose in life. But to which people does it give a purpose? To people who do NOT have any other real purpose in their lives. That's why people when people are in great despair, they tend to become religious. When they are afraid that because of the misfortunes of life( disease, death, poverty, depression etc.), they will lose every realistic joy of life, they need a new joy; and if they can't find a realistic one, then they find an imaginary, areligious one. The point is that religion appears when we surrender to the misfortunes of life; when we no longer believe in life, and therefore we need an afterlife to believe in.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Religion's inherent flaws? Well a while back I tried hard to find this, and it came up blank. Even if I come to the same conclusion as Publius, that pantheism and deism don't count (as well as vague notions along those lines) there is still no unifying factor that binds all religions.

Wow religion is based on faith....most people seem to forget that modern religions allow in part for science (often much more than in part), more often than they reject it. The criticisms against science are also often shared with non-religious as well.

Where science has its focus is on creation and the beyond, neither of which science has definite answers on. Religion is a cancer on our society, but I agree with some of Chimxs more down to earth and realistic views.

Religion fits the time it exists in, we have lived in reactionary times and therefore it has been reactionary.

Publius you may claim that the religious should be all or nothing, but remember being logically consistant is not their main concern, and the religious do exist at various points in between atheism and fundamentalism.

[Body Count]

Aside from just the idea that its "based on faith", there is also some basic flaws that have more technical grounds.

There is something called "The Euthyphro Dilemma", the dilemma is this : A) Are morally good acts good because god commands them? Or, B) Does god command acts because they are morally good?

The problem with A is that, if acts are only good because god says they are, then this would mean that god is nothing more then an ARBITRARY DICTATOR. Thats a problem for religious folks because they believe that god "has a reason" for everything.

The problem with B is that, if God commands acts because they are morally good, this would mean that they are good WITH OR WITHOUT gods opinion of the matter...in other words, this would mean that morality is INDEPENDENT of gods will. This creates a problem for the religious folk, because they believe that "god is the creator of everything".

This is one of my favorite problems to present to religious folks, and really, there is a lot more to it then I just posted, however, thats the meat of the argument. Read more about it here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_Dilemma , a quick google search has more information as well.

[Forward Union]

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
-- Bertrand Russell, "Is There a God?"

[leftist resistance]

religion is full of contradictions.
eg,homosexuals are 'unnatural'.but god made them into how they are,why are they being blamed?
religion is about salvation and peace...for those who believe in that particular religion that is.unbelievers and heathens will go to hell and are enemies of god's kingdom
it supposedly does not segregate...but inter-faith relationships(especially between the 3 abrahamic religions) are a no-no.believe me,this is from personal experience.and religion puts a line between believers and non-believers.of course,it is preferable to befreind believers than heathens.sure,some factions may not believe in this but the majority segregate people into these categories.
lastly,everyone is equal but the priests/clerics/etc etc, are more equal.and anyone who question them(even when they're wrong) is vulnerable to be called a heretic.

[Publius]

this is the most common misunderstanding atheists seem to trip up on constantly. the bible wasn't written as a science book that can be interpreted strictly along the lines of "right" or "wrong". it is a book meant to provide spiritual guidance. during the catholic reformation the pope made it particularly clear that holy scripture alone can not guide faith, but equally so spritual tradition. it is this kind of flexibility that has allowed religion and spirituality to evolve over thousands of years. it is this kind of flexibility that allows believers to look at the context of which passages were written to better understand the moral implications behind them, and thus gain their spiritual guidance.


Nonsense.

This is the Catholic idea of the Bible, not the Protestant.

Protestants follow the doctrine of sola scriptura, and I assumed that's who were discussing; a Protestant.

Though Catholocism is absurd as well.

As I said earlier: If you don't accept the book itself as totally right, how do you know what passages are right, and which are wrong?

The simple answer is, you make it up, because there's no logical difference in any of the absurd passages in the Bible.

I don't care how you or a theist dresses it up; if the Bible is wrong, your religion is wrong. Full-stop.

[FidelCastro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:28 AM

Keep in mind that most, if not all forms of science (physics, biology, chemistry) concern the world around us. Not the so called "spiritual world".

When we look at the world around us, there is no spiritual world. So science concerns every known world around us. If you would like to provide some evidence of this "spiritual world" we would gladly take a look at it.


Keep in mind that the diety worshiped, is a diety so therefore, he would most likely be able to manipulate, and outsmart a human.

And those unicorns are invisible so we won't know they are there :rolleyes:

Why would a deity, who wants to be worshiped and is the sole power of the universe, hide?
A diety would hide for a few logical reasons.
1. To make humans independant so we wouldn't be constantly looking to him for help instead of figuring shit on our own.
2. For free thought so we would have those who do not believe and those who do and those who are neutral etc.

[FidelCastro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:06 AM
Religion's inherent flaws? Well a while back I tried hard to find this, and it came up blank. Even if I come to the same conclusion as Publius, that pantheism and deism don't count (as well as vague notions along those lines) there is still no unifying factor that binds all religions.

Wow religion is based on faith....most people seem to forget that modern religions allow in part for science (often much more than in part), more often than they reject it. The criticisms against science are also often shared with non-religious as well.

Where science has its focus is on creation and the beyond, neither of which science has definite answers on. Religion is a cancer on our society, but I agree with some of Chimxs more down to earth and realistic views.

Religion fits the time it exists in, we have lived in reactionary times and therefore it has been reactionary.

Publius you may claim that the religious should be all or nothing, but remember being logically consistant is not their main concern, and the religious do exist at various points in between atheism and fundamentalism.
I agree, Religion is a bit on the useless side. But I haven't been arguing in favor of Religion, I've been arguing in the favor of God. Church is a way of worshiping him but I don't agree with religion because they stand for things in which a god would not. I believe in a higher being. I don't know which higher being it is but I'm sure one exists. Frankly, if I were to make a judgement on whiich god or gods exists, I would say it would be Pagan Gods.

[Connolly]

I can only conclude that you are taking the piss. :lol:


But I haven't been arguing in favor of Religion, I've been arguing in the favor of God

Its an upward struggle (infact impossible) if you cant produce evidence, historical and scientific, to back your argument.


I don't agree with religion because they stand for things in which a god would not.

And you know that first hand do you?

Have you spoken to your "higher being"? :lol:

Then - how do you know what Gods intentions are (not that he exists).


I don't know which higher being it is but I'm sure one exists.

How can you be sure - when you have not experienced it, observed it and science has not proved it.


Frankly, if I were to make a judgement on whiich god or gods exists, I would say it would be Pagan Gods.

Oh, such a choice! :lol:

choose Allah - he lets you have four wives ;)

[violencia.Proletariat]

1. To make humans independant so we wouldn't be constantly looking to him for help instead of figuring shit on our own.

Then why do people pray? Eh? If a god cannot prove his existence how can he expect anyone to follow him.


2. For free thought so we would have those who do not believe and those who do and those who are neutral etc.

So he is an unfair deity then. He gives us the independence to think rationally, and when he doesn't prove our own existence he is denying us the chance to worship him. Makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

[Janus]

One major problem is that there really is no reason to believe in a god. It really doesn't help anyone out except by giving some comfort but that's really it. But humans can live on their own and abide by a set of rules without worshpping some all-mighty deity.