An Argument Against Monotheistic Religion

[Decolonize The Left]

An Argument Against Monotheistic Religion

The purpose of this paper is to argue coherently, and hopefully persuasively, that monotheistic religion is inherently authoritative, irrational, destructive, and oppressive. Should this be accomplished, a belief in religion would be logically incompatible with a leftist orientation towards the world, for this orientation is rooted in historical materialism and is egalitarian, rational, creative, and liberating.

Please note that this is not an attack against religious individuals, rather against belief in religion itself. Please also note that the term “religion” is used synonymously with “monotheistic religion” throughout the course of the paper.

Religion is Authoritative


All monotheistic religions posit an ultimate deity which is all-powerful and all-knowing. This deity is also said to be the ultimate judge of one’s actions as a physical human being. All monotheistic religions posit that one must submit to this ultimate authority or suffer the eternal consequences. Hence, monotheistic religions are authoritative.

Religion is Irrational


All monotheistic religions posit an ultimate deity which is all-powerful and all-knowing. There is no material evidence for the existence of said deity what-so-ever. Hence to believe in said deity, and to conform one’s actions around belief in said deity, is to believe and act without reason and logic.

Now, it can be argued that this is non-rational action, rather than irrational action. Unfortunately, this is not the case. For reason can function; one can reasonably conclude given that there is no evidence for said deity that one ought not to believe in said deity. In other words, it is reasonable to believe with justification, and unreasonable to believe without. Given that religion is unjustifiable, it is irrational to hold religious beliefs.

Religion is Destructive


A belief cannot be destructive in itself – but religion is more than a belief, it is a tool. It is a tool which is used, like all ideologies and beliefs, to make sense of our conditions as human beings. Hence we can judge this belief by its repercussions – i.e. how does this belief affect humanity?

More individuals have died in the name of God than anything else through the history of humanity.

Now, some may argue that religion has produced positive outcomes as well, including many progressive movements. But this ignores that these movements occurred only within one religious sect – one which is inevitably opposed to all others (for if one is correct, the others are by definition wrong). Religion is highly divisive in this sense, and hence any progressive outcomes are contextualized within said sect. On the other hand, religion as a whole has brought untold destruction of human lives and societies and this reality reaches beyond sects.

Recap


Let us briefly review what we’ve covered so far. Monotheistic religion is:
-Authoritative due to its positing of an ultimate authority.
-Irrational due to its complete and utter lack of justification and evidence.
-Destructive due its long-winded history of atrocities.

Religion is Oppressive


There are two ways to approach this claim. The first, and easiest, is to note how religious language is discriminatory, and used as a tool for the blatant oppression of women, homosexuals, and even entire peoples. But this is not our task as this has been done before many times. Furthermore, this first way deals with the ways in which religion is used for oppressive purposes, and while this is important, it is not the purpose of this paper.

The second, and most difficult, way is to analyze the religious portrait of human existence and to note how this portrait is oppressive. This is our task, for this portrait reaches across all sects and is common to all monotheistic religions. The crux of this portrait is that it devalues human life and hence is oppressive. Let us examine the justification for this claim.

All we know (epistemologically speaking) is existence – it is the verb ‘to be,’ it is the basis of everything. All we know is material reality – this life. It is your memories, your current experience, your sensory perceptions, and your thoughts. This is life – it is all you really know.

This poses a huge existential problem. We are confronted with the most primal existential question: why only this life? This question is age-old and cannot be answered by science.

Science and the empirical method attempts (with large degrees of success) to explain the how of human existence.
On the other hand, religion attempts (without any measure of success) to explain the why. It does so through the positing of a God, soul, after-life, etc…

It is the purpose of this section to analyze how religion explains the why. And furthermore, to draw conclusions from this analysis, namely that this explanation is oppressive.

The first point is that religion devalues the body by positing a soul. For in reality, the body (and the mind/brain) is all we know and hence ultimately valuable. But in religion, the body is merely a vessel for the soul, which is eternal. Hence the soul becomes eternally valuable, while the body is only temporally valuable. This is a blatant devaluation of the body, and hence this belief is oppressive.

The second point is that religion devalues life itself by positing an afterlife. For in reality, as we have already noted, life is all we know. But in religion, this life is merely a stepping stone on the way to the after-life, which is eternal. Hence the after-life becomes eternally valuable, while this life is only temporally valuable. This is a blatant devaluation of human life, and hence this belief is oppressive.

The third point is that religion devalues human judgment by positing God as the ultimate judge. As we have already noted, we only know this life and body. Yet religion wants us to withhold our ability to make judgments about our condition, and other individuals. Religion wants us to believe that this is a part of ‘God’s plan’ and that God will ‘judge all equally.’ In other words, religion wants to cripple us by suppressing our ability to form free opinions about our condition, and more importantly, to act based on those opinions. Hence, religion is oppressive.

We can see that through the positing of a soul, a God, and an after-life, religion effectively devalues human life. This devaluation of human life encourages individuals to relate to their lives in regards to unjustified beliefs, rather than in regards to life itself and beliefs drawn from logic, reason, and material reality. This, in turn, encourages individuals to lose focus of what matters – existence and the conditions of life.


Recap


Let us briefly review what we’ve covered so far. Monotheistic religion is:
-Authoritative due to its positing of an ultimate authority.
-Irrational due to its complete and utter lack of justification and evidence.
-Destructive due its long-winded history of atrocities.
-Oppressive due to its devaluing of human existence.

Belief systems which are authoritative, irrational, destructive, and oppressive are reactionary. Such a belief system is incompatible with the revolutionary left. It is philosophically incoherent to claim to be a revolutionary leftist and to claim to be religious. Belief in religion is detrimental to the revolutionary left for the reasons stated in this paper and therefore ought to be abandoned if any individual wishes to call themselves responsible and coherent.

- AugustWest

[Sendo]

So you're really railing against the God of the Hebrew Scriptures and of John (Revelations).

I find myself playing devil's advocate (forgive the irony) for religions just because I think you can't use critiques of Judeo-Chritianity to fairly or effectively destroy religion.

[Decolonize The Left]

So you're really railing against the God of the Hebrew Scriptures and of John (Revelations).

I find myself playing devil's advocate (forgive the irony) for religions just because I think you can't use critiques of Judeo-Chritianity to fairly or effectively destroy religion.

This paper was written as an argument against monotheistic religion. Monotheistic religions are the most prevalent today, and all share very similar characteristics which make them easy to critique as a whole.

And I'm not trying to "destroy religion," merely point out how it's incoherent to be religious and be a 'revolutionary leftist.'

- August

[Sendo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Basic_beliefs

Not all monotheists are in the Semitic line. (Judaism, Judeo-Christianity, Islam)

As for more people died in the name of God.....

A fun little sound bite, but very misleading. Many soldiers have been the INSTRUMENTS of death through the use of religion to control them (anti-Islam, anti-Communism, anti-Hispanci....relgiion does not have a monopoly on whipping up war frenzy), but few if any wars were ever fought for religious reasons.

The Crusades were really about conquest. I laugh at the idea that the Popes ever honestly believed they were doing God's will.

[Decolonize The Left]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Basic_beliefs

Not all monotheists are in the Semitic line. (Judaism, Judeo-Christianity, Islam)

I fail to see the point of these statements. Zoroastrianism is nowhere near as popular as the 'big three' monotheistic religions. As I mentioned in my previous response, the 'big three' monotheistic religions are the most prevalent today and therefore deserve close critical analysis.


As for more people died in the name of God.....

A fun little sound bite, but very misleading. Many soldiers have been the INSTRUMENTS of death through the use of religion to control them (anti-Islam, anti-Communism, anti-Hispanci....relgiion does not have a monopoly on whipping up war frenzy), but few if any wars were ever fought for religious reasons.

The Crusades were really about conquest. I laugh at the idea that the Popes ever honestly believed they were doing God's will.

You make a fundamental logical mistake as here you are arguing that religion was not the root cause of these wars. But you fail to note that I only claimed that these wars were waged in the name of God. "God" was the justification and hence is very important as if we can remove the justification, those responsible have less to work with in launching their wars.

And furthermore, here's some information about the atrocities committed in the name of religion:
http://skeptically.org/hhor/id4.html

- August

[Demogorgon]

"God" was the justification and hence is very important as if we can remove the justification, those responsible have less to work with in launching their wars.
No they wouldn't. They would just say something else. The Soviet Union got itself entangled in plenty of conflicts after all and never invoked God, it is easily done. War is never fought over beliefs. It is appallingly naive to think it is. If religion vanished tomorrow the world would not change one iota.

[Decolonize The Left]

No they wouldn't. They would just say something else. The Soviet Union got itself entangled in plenty of conflicts after all and never invoked God, it is easily done. War is never fought over beliefs.

:laugh: Sure it is - the war in Iraq is fought over the belief that we, the US, need the oil supplies of Iraq...



It is appallingly naive to think it is. If religion vanished tomorrow the world would not change one iota.

Double :laugh: - you can't possibly be serious. If religion vanished tomorrow, that is a change and hence the world would have already changed. Do you even read what you write?

- August

[Demogorgon]

:laugh: Sure it is - the war in Iraq is fought over the belief that we, the US, need the oil supplies of Iraq...

Double :laugh: - you can't possibly be serious. If religion vanished tomorrow, that is a change and hence the world would have already changed. Do you even read what you write?

- August
In both cases, you know precisely what I meant. Indeed if we want to be pedantic, the second point makes perfect sense. I did not say the world would not have changed but rather it would not change [further]. That is of course religion going would be a change, but as we have already talked about that and are now discussing further change, it makes sense to say there would be none.

Two can play at that game.

[Decolonize The Left]

In both cases, you know precisely what I meant. Indeed if we want to be pedantic, the second point makes perfect sense. I did not say the world would not have changed but rather it would not change [further]. That is of course religion going would be a change, but as we have already talked about that and are now discussing further change, it makes sense to say there would be none.

Two can play at that game.

Quite the contrary, you are playing a game because there is nothing to say. Allow me some explanation:
There is a system X.
System X has within it system Y.
System Y ceases to exist.
How is system X the same? It is impossible for it to remain the same, as the lack of system Y has already changed it.

Now, for clarity, system X is the 'world' and system Y is 'religion.' It is completely analogous to your claim - yet it makes no sense what-so-ever.

You see now how what you claim is impossible and illogical?

- August

[Dean]

My own thoughts on the issue:
http://dean.roushimsx.com/essays/religion_2.htm

[Decolonize The Left]

My own thoughts on the issue:
http://dean.roushimsx.com/essays/religion_2.htm

I have many comments, I hope it is acceptable to write them here (I assume it is as you posted the essay).


Furthermore, I recognize two different kinds of ‘faith:’ that is, rational and dogmatic. Rational faith comes from a realistic analysis of nature, whereas irrational faith is a way of thinking that is self – supporting, as in the statement “I shall believe in God to make mother happy.”

What can you possible mean by "rational faith?" And furthermore, what is "faith which comes from a realistic analysis of nature?"

Not only do you fail to articulate this bold claim, but it also appears to be self-contradictory. For faith is to "believe without evidence" and hence cannot be based upon "a realistic analysis of nature," and cannot be "rational."


I propose that the energy behind it comes in fact from a naturally benign human faculty. That faculty is our inherent desire to relate to as many other humans as possible. The evidence for this drive is clear: people go so far as to subsume their entire way of life into that of another person’s or an exterior entity in order to achieve this end. I propose that this is an intrinsic human drive because it reflects the way that pre-historical society was set up: concerns were social, and we see similar trends in other primate societies, as well.

I disagree completely. In the first place, many people do not have a desire to "relate to as many other humans as possible." In fact, reactionary politics revolve around limiting the diversity of interactions among individuals. How do you explain discrimination, cultural imperialism, ethnocentricism, nationalism, etc... by "our inherent desire to relate to as many other humans as possible?"

In the second place, where do you get this "intrinsic drive?" How is this justified? It seems as though you have merely posited this...

In the third place, you later (in the following paragraph) claim that this 'drive' is often misguided, and can be used to limit the interactions with as many humans as possible while trying to 'internally' become 'one with his/her group.' But this is incoherent. For your original posited drive was to "relate to as many other humans as possible," not 'solidify bonds with those you already know.' These are different things - both posited without justification.


The presence of dogmatism in and of itself must mot be taken as a sign of reactionary spirit; it is the institutional church that must be destroyed, and those malignant dogmas that must wither away before people can see the world in a realistic sense.

The institutional church exists solely due to the beliefs of the many... after all, if no one believed in Jesus, there couldn't be a Church dedicated to his worship could there....


The individual's beliefs are his and ought to remain his, but the sources which violently instill dogmas into the human heart must be destroyed.

You can't be serious. So if person X believes that all black people are inferior to white people and ought to be killed, this person ought to be allowed to hold these beliefs?!?

You're probably going to argue that this person was conditioned/trained to believe these things, but who trained the person who trained that person, etc... your logic runs to infinite regress and therefore becomes worthless as an argument. For you cannot identify the source, only the present 'manifestation' (institutions, etc...) - and this is because the source is the belief itself.

- August

[Demogorgon]

Quite the contrary, you are playing a game because there is nothing to say. Allow me some explanation:
There is a system X.
System X has within it system Y.
System Y ceases to exist.
How is system X the same? It is impossible for it to remain the same, as the lack of system Y has already changed it.

Now, for clarity, system X is the 'world' and system Y is 'religion.' It is completely analogous to your claim - yet it makes no sense what-so-ever.

You see now how what you claim is impossible and illogical?

- August
But I don't say that system x will be the same rather that it will not change [further]. That is to say that X-Y will equal X in all respects except the absence of Y. The elimination of Y will have no impact on X beyond its own removal.

In an effort to avoid my point you are trying to nitpick at my logic in a manner only exposing your own lack thereof.

[Dean]

I have many comments, I hope it is acceptable to write them here (I assume it is as you posted the essay).



What can you possible mean by "rational faith?" And furthermore, what is "faith which comes from a realistic analysis of nature?"

Not only do you fail to articulate this bold claim, but it also appears to be self-contradictory. For faith is to "believe without evidence" and hence cannot be based upon "a realistic analysis of nature," and cannot be "rational."
Faith is the final act of idea-creation. Everything from basic physics to evolution to God requires a trust in some unknown or uncertain condition, which is faith. Here is why:

God: the trust in god, depending on the creativity of this idea, can be a trust in the parent's or society's word. Since trust is God almost always stipulates extra-worldly entities, it follows that there must be a faith in this unknown condition.

Evolution: We must trust that existence is responsive - after all, all of this experience we have could have blinked into existence just moments ago. In that case, we must trust that our world has existed dynamically for at least a certain period of time - without that fact, evolution would be impotent.

Physics: Depending on the theory, we have to have faith in the instriments used to gather the data, the constitution of the equations, &c. - the point is that the actual ideation of the idea relies on some basic premises, which are never quite certain.

Faith is the willingness to forego some uncertainties for the use of acheiving an idea. It can be rational - as with the faith in our fellow man for social reasons, or irrational - as with faith in god which is usually given no real rationalization, except that faith is indeed necessary.


I disagree completely. In the first place, many people do not have a desire to "relate to as many other humans as possible." In fact, reactionary politics revolve around limiting the diversity of interactions among individuals. How do you explain discrimination, cultural imperialism, ethnocentricism, nationalism, etc... by "our inherent desire to relate to as many other humans as possible?"

In the second place, where do you get this "intrinsic drive?" How is this justified? It seems as though you have merely posited this...

In the third place, you later (in the following paragraph) claim that this 'drive' is often misguided, and can be used to limit the interactions with as many humans as possible while trying to 'internally' become 'one with his/her group.' But this is incoherent. For your original posited drive was to "relate to as many other humans as possible," not 'solidify bonds with those you already know.' These are different things - both posited without justification.

Well, at the time that idea was not very advanced. As you can see from my language and the cumbersome way in which it is described, I have lost track of the point and force myself to reconclie two apparent opposites.I think I can break down one of the points for you though.

On the issue of racism, or nationalism in general, there exists one basic drive in question - that is to feel close morally (which means a coincidence of the "interests" of man and society) to our fellow man. It seems obvious that human beings have a drive for this relatedness, but I don't want to argue that point in any case.

When it becomes a social good to exclude certain human beings based on a sense of interest (what is clearly seen with the anti-Arab and anti-Hispanic attitudes in the U.S.) then racist ideology becomes an irrational drive for social integration. By standing by the apparent aims and interests of the Beast Humanity, the ideology splits it.



The institutional church exists solely due to the beliefs of the many... after all, if no one believed in Jesus, there couldn't be a Church dedicated to his worship could there....
That's kinda like saying that Capitalism only exists because people trust it. Well, maybe that's true, but don't we still want to target the capitalist institutions in any case?




You can't be serious. So if person X believes that all black people are inferior to white people and ought to be killed, this person ought to be allowed to hold these beliefs?!?

You're probably going to argue that this person was conditioned/trained to believe these things, but who trained the person who trained that person, etc... your logic runs to infinite regress and therefore becomes worthless as an argument. For you cannot identify the source, only the present 'manifestation' (institutions, etc...) - and this is because the source is the belief itself.

Of course I would always make that point about conditioning... you cannot look at a human being and ignore their conditions. A racialist in a communist society is much more of an intruder than a racialist in an ethnically divided society. But that isn't the point.

The point here is that human beings must freely make the decision not to be racist or not to believe in God - this is absolutely critical. This is why conservative propaganda systems must be harshly suppressed, while the individual humans which experience these ideas must be nurtured away from that prejudice.

There is an intrinsic problem with your statement to - not only is it bad policy to try to suppress freedom of conscience, but it is simply impossible to "disallow" someone from having racist ideas. I don't believe in attacking the human response to a toxic society - I believe in purifying that social system and atmosphere.

[Decolonize The Left]

But I don't say that system x will be the same rather that it will not change [further]. That is to say that X-Y will equal X in all respects except the absence of Y. The elimination of Y will have no impact on X beyond its own removal.

In an effort to avoid my point you are trying to nitpick at my logic in a manner only exposing your own lack thereof.

Your logic is your point, and it's faulty - very faulty. That's why I'm nitpicking.

1) As far as we human beings can tell, all things are constantly in change. Therefore X is never X, but always becoming a new X.
2) A system in constant change (X) is dependent upon all factors within that system to form the system as a whole. Remove a factor (Y) and the system changes - simple logic.
You are assuming a static system, which is impossible - there is no such thing as far as we know. If you think there is, name one.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Faith is the final act of idea-creation. Everything from basic physics to evolution to God requires a trust in some unknown or uncertain condition, which is faith. Here is why:

God: the trust in god, depending on the creativity of this idea, can be a trust in the parent's or society's word. Since trust is God almost always stipulates extra-worldly entities, it follows that there must be a faith in this unknown condition.

Your logic is faulty. God is (as you mentioned) a supernatural entity. Your parents are not, they are physical beings. These are not compatible.


Evolution: We must trust that existence is responsive - after all, all of this experience we have could have blinked into existence just moments ago. In that case, we must trust that our world has existed dynamically for at least a certain period of time - without that fact, evolution would be impotent.

You are incorrect that "all of this experience we have could have blinked into existence just moments ago." This sort of Cartesian skepticism is not only entirely worthless, but also blatantly ignorant of numerous factors:
- other people know me, my name, who I am, my history
- I have memories
- I have a continuum of consciousness which spreads back beyond the past moment
- I have documents and records of the past, etc...

You most certainly could argue that all of these could have been placed there by some all-powerful thing as a huge joke or whatever, but such hypothesizing is absolutely pointless. So what? So what if it all fake? It's all I know, unlike God - for I know much more than God, namely, existence. God is posited on top of existence.

So you see that I don't "trust" that this is real - I live it. For even if I didn't trust it... I'd still be living...


Physics: Depending on the theory, we have to have faith in the instriments used to gather the data, the constitution of the equations, &c. - the point is that the actual ideation of the idea relies on some basic premises, which are never quite certain.

We do not have "faith in the instruments used to gather the data." We experience this and witness these instruments gathering data - it is tangible, reality. Also, what is an "ideation?"


Faith is the willingness to forego some uncertainties for the use of acheiving an idea. It can be rational - as with the faith in our fellow man for social reasons, or irrational - as with faith in god which is usually given no real rationalization, except that faith is indeed necessary.

You are highly incorrect in your use of faith. You have expanded the term far beyond it's actual meaning which is: belief without evidence. Physics, evolution, materialism, are all belief with evidence/justification.


On the issue of racism, or nationalism in general, there exists one basic drive in question - that is to feel close morally (which means a coincidence of the "interests" of man and society) to our fellow man. It seems obvious that human beings have a drive for this relatedness, but I don't want to argue that point in any case.

I do not wish to stray from the main topic either, it's enough to say I agree with your characterization of racism and nationalism in the above quote.

I would like to point out, however, that this is not what you originally said. You originally said:

I propose that the energy behind it comes in fact from a naturally benign human faculty. That faculty is our inherent desire to relate to as many other humans as possible.
This is false as racism and nationalism do not strive to do this in any fashion. I agree with you that they strive to feel close morally to certain human beings, but this is not synonymous, or even related, to what you originally said.

Please recall that I do not wish to discuss racism and nationalism, I was merely using them as a counter-argument to your posited idea of "inherent desire..."


That's kinda like saying that Capitalism only exists because people trust it. Well, maybe that's true, but don't we still want to target the capitalist institutions in any case?

This is not analogous. Let's review:
You said:

The presence of dogmatism in and of itself must mot be taken as a sign of reactionary spirit; it is the institutional church that must be destroyed, and those malignant dogmas that must wither away before people can see the world in a realistic sense.
To which I responded:

The institutional church exists solely due to the beliefs of the many... after all, if no one believed in Jesus, there couldn't be a Church dedicated to his worship could there..
You can see that this is a logical counter-argument. For you were placing the root of 'malignant dogma' upon the church, but as I argued, the church is merely an institution which is dependent upon a following.

In other words: Without belief in a God/savior, there is no Church. On the other hand, there can be plenty of belief in a God/savior without a church.... You can see how one is dependent upon the other (namely: the church upon belief).

Now, as for your faulty analogy to capitalism, capitalism is not an institution like the church. It is an economic system. You are correct that if people lost trust, and didn't engage in the capitalist system, that it would be harder for it to function - but what you fail to note is that capitalism deals with material reality. It produces material, tangible, reactions and results.

In other words: capitalism is not dependent upon belief.For one could not believe in capitalism, not trust capitalism, but still engage in it...



The point here is that human beings must freely make the decision not to be racist or not to believe in God - this is absolutely critical. This is why conservative propaganda systems must be harshly suppressed, while the individual humans which experience these ideas must be nurtured away from that prejudice.

I am in full agreement, why do you think I made this thread?


There is an intrinsic problem with your statement to - not only is it bad policy to try to suppress freedom of conscience, but it is simply impossible to "disallow" someone from having racist ideas. I don't believe in attacking the human response to a toxic society - I believe in purifying that social system and atmosphere.

I do not intend to suppress any sort of "freedom of consciousness." What you fail to realize is that an individual forfeits their "rights" when they consciously take them away from others. Religion indoctrinates individuals into believing things before they can rationally understand the world. You claim to believe in "purifying that social system," but as I have argued, that would entail "purifying" the belief in religion...

I do not wish to purify the belief in religion. I wish to construct rational, logical, arguments which make it philosophically incoherent to hold leftist values and be religious. Then one must choose: material reality and reason, or unjustified, unverified, immaterial faith.

It is a choice between life and belief.

- August

[Invader Zim]

As an atheist, but a critical, rather than dogmatic atheist, I find many of the arguments raised in this thread to be somewhat misleading.


All monotheistic religions posit that one must submit to this ultimate authority or suffer the eternal consequences. Hence, monotheistic religions are authoritative.

This is a non-sequitur. If anything your logic implies that monotheistic religion, and those who are religious, are inherently submissive. After all they choose to submit to a non-temporal entity. Religion becomes authoritarian when the religion demands that those, who are not within its congregation, also submit to their God. And certainly historical examples of such authoritarian behaviour on the part of religious bodies are legion. However that does not imply that all religious bodies and institutions will behave in that manner, just that many have.


There is no material evidence for the existence of said deity what-so-ever.

No argument. However, every human has irrational beliefs and to claim otherwise is, without doubt, to lie. Being irrational is not 'reactionary'.


Now, some may argue that religion has produced positive outcomes as well, including many progressive movements. But this ignores that these movements occurred only within one religious sect – one which is inevitably opposed to all others (for if one is correct, the others are by definition wrong). Religion is highly divisive in this sense, and hence any progressive outcomes are contextualized within said sect. On the other hand, religion as a whole has brought untold destruction of human lives and societies and this reality reaches beyond sects.



This is utterly illogical. Firstly, on the one hand you claim, without justification I might add, that all religious action when positive is the result of individual sects and not representative of religion as a whole, yet conversely argue the exact opposite of destructive action. Make your mind up. Can religious 'action' be considered limited to individual sects/denominations or not?

Secondly, the idea that positive action is limited to individual sects is of course erroneous. It implies that religion, and the religious, can not work together to be progressive. That individuals can not draw upon their own unique religious philosophies, yet strive, in solidarity with those with opposed religious philosophies to a progressive goal. This is of course false. Unitarians, Anglicans, Catholics, Quakers, Evangelicals, etc, etc, etc, all worked together, all drawing from their own individual religious philosophies to oppose slavery.


The first, and easiest, is to note how religious language is discriminatory, and used as a tool for the blatant oppression of women, homosexuals, and even entire peoples.

The assumption you make here is that all monotheistic religions invariably have such oppressive passages, however you provide no evidence to substantiate this. Furthermore, you also assume that monotheistic religion is not contradictory. You may be able to provide passages, from say the Bible, to imply that it is racist, by the same token one can also find passages which imply the exact opposite. This of course leaves a great deal of room for interpretation on the part of the reader.


The first point is that religion devalues the body by positing a soul. For in reality, the body (and the mind/brain) is all we know and hence ultimately valuable. But in religion, the body is merely a vessel for the soul, which is eternal. Hence the soul becomes eternally valuable, while the body is only temporally valuable. This is a blatant devaluation of the body, and hence this belief is oppressive.

I have three major problems with this:

Firstrly it is another leap of logic. You claim that viewing the body as a vessel for the soul devalues the worth of the vessel itself. This is of course a huge leap in logic, and one which you do not explain. You simply state it is, and expect your-readership to be convinced.

Secondly, if we are going to examine this in terms of value, and continue to use your idea of the body being a vessel, then you simply assume that the cargo is of greater value than the vessel. However, I doubt you have meaningfully surveyed the religious to establish the validity of this. If you had, you would discover that many place a great deal of spiritual stock on the body. For Christian, their body is a physical manifestation of God. They are, after all, made in God's image.

Thirdly, you assume that your body actually has an inherent worth. Sorry, but it doesn't. You are born, you live, you die. Your body decomposes. The end. By assuming that the body has a value, and to devalue it one is being oppressive, you are falling into the exact same trap of irrationality as the religious. Any value you, or society, assigns to the body is a construct of your, and society's, invention; not nature's.


The second point is that religion devalues life itself by positing an afterlife.

Again, you are taking an irrational position. No power, be it Godly or temporal, has assigned 'life' a value. The value we humans place upon our own lives is purely of our invention; and largely one of collective self defence. We enjoy it, enforce it (or try to), but it does not actually exist; it is merely a concept.


The third point is that religion devalues human judgment by positing God as the ultimate judge.

Hardly, if anything it does the exact opposite. Take Armenian Christianity, Armenians believe that if people make poor judgements they will end up in hell. Thus they massively emphasise the importance of human judgement: the concept of free-will.

[synthesis]

I thought this was going to be an argument for polytheistic religion. You don't really specify why you single out monotheism.

[Decolonize The Left]

I thought this was going to be an argument for polytheistic religion. You don't really specify why you single out monotheism.

I 'single out' monotheistic religions because they are the most prevalent and powerful today. They also all share fundamental characteristics which make them easy to address as a whole.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Invader Zim, thanks for your patience - I apologize for the lengthy time between your post and my response. I shall address your comments now.


This is a non-sequitur. If anything your logic implies that monotheistic religion, and those who are religious, are inherently submissive. After all they choose to submit to a non-temporal entity.

Yes. Monotheistic religions (that is the organized belief in a single all-powerful deity) demand submission to that God.


Religion becomes authoritarian when the religion demands that those, who are not within its congregation, also submit to their God. And certainly historical examples of such authoritarian behaviour on the part of religious bodies are legion. However that does not imply that all religious bodies and institutions will behave in that manner, just that many have.

Your definition of authoritarian is faulty. Here (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian)is the definition of authoritarian:
"1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people"

You can see how this applies directly to all monotheistic religions.


No argument. However, every human has irrational beliefs and to claim otherwise is, without doubt, to lie. Being irrational is not 'reactionary'.

You are correct that 'being irrational is not reactionary.' I have never claimed it was - rather, I claimed that being authoritarian, irrational, and oppressive was being reactionary.


The assumption you make here is that all monotheistic religions invariably have such oppressive passages, however you provide no evidence to substantiate this. Furthermore, you also assume that monotheistic religion is not contradictory. You may be able to provide passages, from say the Bible, to imply that it is racist, by the same token one can also find passages which imply the exact opposite. This of course leaves a great deal of room for interpretation on the part of the reader.

Wait, your argument that monotheistic religion is not oppressive is that the Bible contradicts itself? Really?

Furthermore, I have not bothered quoting texts in this entire paper - if you want I could do so, but it's very time consuming.


I have three major problems with this:

Firstrly it is another leap of logic. You claim that viewing the body as a vessel for the soul devalues the worth of the vessel itself. This is of course a huge leap in logic, and one which you do not explain. You simply state it is, and expect your-readership to be convinced.

It's quite simple, I didn't feel it needed further explanation. But since you ask:

The soul is eternal.
The body is temporal.
Which is more valuable? No question - the soul. But there is no justification for the soul - it is posited. Hence unjustified belief in the soul, by extension, devalues the body .


Secondly, if we are going to examine this in terms of value, and continue to use your idea of the body being a vessel, then you simply assume that the cargo is of greater value than the vessel. However, I doubt you have meaningfully surveyed the religious to establish the validity of this. If you had, you would discover that many place a great deal of spiritual stock on the body. For Christian, their body is a physical manifestation of God. They are, after all, made in God's image.

This has nothing to do with cargo/vessel analogies. It has everything to do with the positing of an eternal soul. The value-emphasis comes from the temporality of the body as opposed to the eternality of the soul (note: I'm aware that 'temporality' and 'eternality' aren't words - I like them and think they describe what I want to say).


Thirdly, you assume that your body actually has an inherent worth. Sorry, but it doesn't. You are born, you live, you die. Your body decomposes. The end. By assuming that the body has a value, and to devalue it one is being oppressive, you are falling into the exact same trap of irrationality as the religious. Any value you, or society, assigns to the body is a construct of your, and society's, invention; not nature's.

Your nihilism is not an argument. The body does have worth - namely, experience. It is all you know: life. Your body is life. Your body is all you know, all you value, everything.

Even religion is dependent upon the body - the brain. Even religious positing of God and souls is dependent upon the body and brain to sustain it's ability to believe irrationally. You can see how the body is inherently valuable as it allows you to value in the first place.


Again, you are taking an irrational position. No power, be it Godly or temporal, has assigned 'life' a value. The value we humans place upon our own lives is purely of our invention; and largely one of collective self defence. We enjoy it, enforce it (or try to), but it does not actually exist; it is merely a concept.

Your nihilism is irrelevant. This life is all we know.


Hardly, if anything it does the exact opposite. Take Armenian Christianity, Armenians believe that if people make poor judgements they will end up in hell. Thus they massively emphasise the importance of human judgement: the concept of free-will.

This is laughable.
1) Who defines 'poor judgment?' Humans? Then why posit going to hell? In order for a soul to go to hell, there must be some eternal judge to define what is 'good' judgment and what is 'poor' judgment...
2) The concept of free-will is determined, in this case, by the existence of a heaven and hell to which the freely-determining individual will be sent. It is undermined by the conditions in which it is placed!

- August

Note: I have not responded to your counter-arguments in regards to the 'destructive' section of the paper. These arguments have been addressed repeatedly by myself and TAT in another thread and are very tiring. If this bothers you, you may consider me to have dropped the destructive section from my argument - it is still equally as potent.

[Invader Zim]

Firstly, before I get into to task of responding, thank you for finding the time to respond in such detail.


Yes. Monotheistic religions (that is the organized belief in a single all-powerful deity) demand submission to that God.

I fail to see how the religion it self demands it. Individuals offer submission to their God making it a choice; how can an entity which does not exist demand anything?


Your definition of authoritarian is faulty. Here (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian)is the definition of authoritarian:
"1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people"

It depends on which dictionary you use which definition you shall recieve.

To quote Oxford: -

• adjective favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority.

A God which does not exist cannot favour obedience to authority and nor can it enforce it. Furthermore, you seemed were perfectly happy to employ the definition, in my terms, when you stated "Monotheistic religions [...] demand submission to that God."


You are correct that 'being irrational is not reactionary.' I have never claimed it was - rather, I claimed that being authoritarian, irrational, and oppressive was being reactionary.

So, you argue that irrationality is a necessary tenet of reactionary ideology, but irrationality itself is not reactionary?


Wait, your argument that monotheistic religion is not oppressive is that the Bible contradicts itself?

Certainly. If the only way to make it oppressive is to place stock by its most vitriolic passages, then presumably by the logic you employed, religion can be liberating and progressive if you cherry pick its positive passages. Your logic, not mine.


The soul is eternal.
The body is temporal.
Which is more valuable?

Neither, because one doesn't exist and the other is simply organic tissue.


The value-emphasis comes from the temporality of the body as opposed to the eternality of the soul

So basically, your argument is that because the soul is considered eternal it must be worth more than the temporal body? Beyond your own bizarre view of 'worth', what evidence do you have to support that? Most religions suggest that the two must be of equal value. After all, the most heneous of sins in Christian theology is to deliberately and mortally damage the body.


Your nihilism is not an argument.

Firstly, it isn't nihilism, it is simply reality. Secondly, it is just as much an 'argument', and a far stronger one, than your self deluding and utterly irrational theory that organic matter is inherently 'worth' something (beyond the entirely temporal trade of flogging organs).

If of course you want to try and argue with that, you must deny that the value placed upon the body, and indeed life, is not a social construct. In other words, you have to prove that the body, and your life, has some kind of objective intrinisic value. And I'm sorry to say, it doesn't. The logical extension of your argument, being that the body has worth, is that those who have attempted, but failed, to committ suicide are in some way reactionary and oppressive because they do not value either their life or their body.


This is laughable.

I'm sure Arminian methodists everywhere will be devistated.


1) Who defines 'poor judgment?' Humans? Then why posit going to hell? In order for a soul to go to hell, there must be some eternal judge to define what is 'good' judgment and what is 'poor' judgment...
2) The concept of free-will is determined, in this case, by the existence of a heaven and hell to which the freely-determining individual will be sent. It is undermined by the conditions in which it is placed!

Fair enough, but what if we go in the opposite direction and examine the ideas of destiny held by hyper-calvinists? Then the issue of judgement is thrown entirely out the window. They do not believe they are being judged, because they do not believe that they have any control over their own actions and it has all been pre-destined.


it is still equally as potent.


I disagree, it was based upon a double standard, and as such wasn't very potent at all; as was shown in the CC thread.

[Decolonize The Left]

Firstly, before I get into to task of responding, thank you for finding the time to respond in such detail.

But of course, this is what the forum is all about after all... I truly appreciate your comments and arguments, despite the fact that I may disagree with them.


I fail to see how the religion it self demands it. Individuals offer submission to their God making it a choice; how can an entity which does not exist demand anything?

This is not a logical counter-argument to my claims. I claim that religion (that is the belief in an all-powerful deity) is authoritative. The fact that God does not exist is completely irrelevant to the belief which is authoritative.


It depends on which dictionary you use which definition you shall recieve.

To quote Oxford: -

• adjective favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority.

A God which does not exist cannot favour obedience to authority and nor can it enforce it. Furthermore, you seemed were perfectly happy to employ the definition, in my terms, when you stated "Monotheistic religions [...] demand submission to that God."

Once again, the fact that God does not exist is irrelevant to those who believe despite evidence - those who have faith. I am dealing with this faith.


So, you argue that irrationality is a necessary tenet of reactionary ideology, but irrationality itself is not reactionary?

Correct, for irrationality need not be reactionary or progressive. Unfortunately, irrationality is a primary characteristic of reactionary ideology as this irrationality is supported and encouraged.


Certainly. If the only way to make it oppressive is to place stock by its most vitriolic passages, then presumably by the logic you employed, religion can be liberating and progressive if you cherry pick its positive passages. Your logic, not mine.

My argument that religion is oppressive centers around it's construction of the soul and positing of the afterlife.


Neither, because one doesn't exist and the other is simply organic tissue.

Once again, the fact that the soul doesn't exist is irrelevant.


So basically, your argument is that because the soul is considered eternal it must be worth more than the temporal body? Beyond your own bizarre view of 'worth', what evidence do you have to support that? Most religions suggest that the two must be of equal value. After all, the most heneous of sins in Christian theology is to deliberately and mortally damage the body.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. For if the two were of 'equal value,' then there would be no need to legislate the 'eternal laws' onto the body.


Firstly, it isn't nihilism, it is simply reality. Secondly, it is just as much an 'argument', and a far stronger one, than your self deluding and utterly irrational theory that organic matter is inherently 'worth' something (beyond the entirely temporal trade of flogging organs).

Worth is the value of something - value which is determined by the qualities of said thing. Hence, all things which can be qualified (namely, everything) has worth in one context or another.


If of course you want to try and argue with that, you must deny that the value placed upon the body, and indeed life, is not a social construct. In other words, you have to prove that the body, and your life, has some kind of objective intrinisic value. And I'm sorry to say, it doesn't. The logical extension of your argument, being that the body has worth, is that those who have attempted, but failed, to committ suicide are in some way reactionary and oppressive because they do not value either their life or their body.

The worth of one's life and body is subjective, I do not deny this. But all lives and bodies have worth as they all have value in some form or another for they all have qualities.

This is the logical argument:
A body/life can be qualified by any person.
This qualification is a valuing of said body/life - a determining of worth.
All people are qualified in some form or another, hence all lives/bodies have some form of value or worth.



Fair enough, but what if we go in the opposite direction and examine the ideas of destiny held by hyper-calvinists? Then the issue of judgement is thrown entirely out the window. They do not believe they are being judged, because they do not believe that they have any control over their own actions and it has all been pre-destined.

"Pre-destined" is another term for "pre-judged by God." For God laid out the destiny and hence judged the whole situation.

- August

[Led Zeppelin]

The original post is probably the worst "arguments" against religion that I have ever heard or read.

You might as well just throw up your hands and shout; "I give up!"

Here are some good criticisms of religion actually worth reading:

Marx and Engels on Religion (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/religion/index.htm)
Socialism and Religion (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm)
Lectures on the Essence of Religion (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/lectures/index.htm)
The Essence of Christianity (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/index.htm)