How can religion be evil?

731 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
Yes. He was the same last

Yes. He was the same last time he came here. Thankfully he won't last.

Algebe's picture
@Cognostic:

@Cognostic:

I find Mr Spurgeon very entertaining.

Cognostic's picture
I'll take rat spit over him

I'll take rat spit over him any day. The Overlord is much more entertaining. IMO
It would actually be better if he came up with something interesting and authentic that forced me to go and look shit up. Perhaps I have just been doing this too long. "The Cosmological Argument" really? Still, you can't be off target by much. I have been posting on the thread quite a bit. Something is getting my attention.

David Killens's picture
I own stock in Orville

I own stock in Orville Redenbacher. Every time AJ77 shows up, sales in popcorn spike, and I make more money. If one is going to be surrounded by idiots, then one may as well make money off it.

if AJ77 starts another thread I can make a down payment on a Ferrari.

Cognostic's picture
There is light at the end of

There is light at the end of the tunnel.

AJ777's picture
Sheldon, I’m still confused

Sheldon, I’m still confused how you can believe morality is relative, and still complain about the morality of a book you believe is untrue. At best you can only say you personally disagree with it. Sheldon you’re not appearing to be very tolerant.

Sheldon's picture
The root of your confusion is

The root of your confusion is partly down to your remedial grasp of English no doubt, and your inability to understand fairly simple concepts, and arguments.

Sadly I see no remedy, even your own bible has a cautionary adage about educating people who lack the intellect to absorb and understand that education.

I mean to say you have yet again repeated the same fallacious straw man fallacy you've been using from the start, despite the nature of your error being amply elucidated. Yet you've not addressed a single point in my post, yet again.

Maybe if I dumb it down with bullet points in one last attempt at simplifying it enough for you to grasp the basics?

1. The bible is maintained by many theists to be divinely inspired.
2. Those same theists hold it up as a moral guide.
3. They claim their deity is "perfectly moral".
4. They cite their claim that it's origins are divine mean it's "morality" must therefore also be perfectly moral.

This poses some obvious flaws / questions.

1. If the claim is correct why do the "morals" of the bible mirror so exactly the human bigotries and prejudices of the cultures and epoch from which they're derived? Also why are there so many subjective opinions from theists about what it all means, and how we should behave?
2. If they can't reason what is moral without being told (divine diktat) then how can they claim to know it is moral at all? If they can reason what is moral then the second question would be why do they need divine diktat anywsy?

I can't dumb this down anymore for you I'm afraid. So if you don't understand the dichotomy in your claims now, then it's likely you never will.

A clue to your error is that for humans to recognise objective truth it can't come from absolute claims, but relies instead on objective evidence, and you not only can't demonstrate any, but I have grave doubts you even understand the concept of objective evidence. Epistemology doesn't seem to be a subject you have any grasp of or interest in. Or you'd not have dodged everyone's questions on moral dichotomies so relentlessly.

Sheldon's picture
"how you can believe morality

"how you can believe morality is relative, and still complain about the morality of a book you believe is untrue."

Can you really not grasp that a fictional tale can be assessed for it's morality? What is it you think biblical parables are meant to achieve? A fictional story to portray the authors opinion on what is moral.

AJ777's picture
1. The Bible does not mirror

1. The Bible does not mirror the cultures morality, that’s why you and so many others are offended by it. Why are there different interpretations? Because one interpretation is correct, all others all incorrect.
2. The point is not that we can’t know what is moral, but that we can’t justify absolute truth in morality without a moral law giver.
3. Why do you have to insult?

David Killens's picture
@AJ777

@AJ777

"The point is not that we can’t know what is moral, but that we can’t justify absolute truth in morality without a moral law giver."

One does not require a moral law giver. Instead, terms of reference are used, and then carefully applied. One valid term of reference is "well being". It is not in the interests of anyone's well-being if they are victim to being robbed, raped, murdered, or taken into slavery.

You are also making the error in using the label "absolute truth in morality". Everything is relative, and all moral questions need to be carefully examined on their own. Morality is every-changing, and influenced by society's norms.

We can know what is moral, but it does not come at the cost of us saying "please god, tell us what is wrong and what is right". We are very capable of independently making moral judgement.

Many of us have patiently explained how we can arrive at correct moral decisions without divine intervention, and even more have pointed out that many moral commands in the bible are pure evil and do harm to others.

I am attempting to bridge the gap in our understandings. If you steadfastly maintain that morals can only come from divine command, then there is no reason to continue this thread.

Algebe's picture
@AJ777: Why are there

@AJ777: Why are there different interpretations? Because one interpretation is correct, all others all incorrect.

That reminds me of the broken clock that tells the correct time twice a day. Humanity has fought, suffered, and died in absolute horror for two millennia over interpretations of your bloody book. The tragedy is that we have known all along how to live in peace with each other.

Was it beyond the abilities your omniscient moral law giver to create a clear, concise set of rules for living? Hammurabi did a better job. Even the Australian singer John Farnham offers a better code in "You're the Voice".
"We're all someone's daughter
We're all someone's son
How long can we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun?"

Sheldon's picture
"The Bible does not mirror

"The Bible does not mirror the cultures morality,"

Do most christian countries still stone people to death for adultery?

"that’s why you and so many others are offended by it. "

I'm offended by the idiocy of claiming it is a perfect moral guide when it is filled with bigotry, prejudice, misogyny, murder, infanticide, torture, rapine, genocide , ethnic cleansing, sex trafficking children and women etc etc etc..

"The point is not that we can’t know what is moral, but that we can’t justify absolute truth in morality without a moral law giver."

I agree, but since I don't make this claim why are you telling me? You're the one making the claim for absolute morality and "moral law giver" you can't demonstrate any objective evidence for, not me.

" Why do you have to insult?"

I don't have to, what an odd question.

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

AJ777: “arakish, where and when did hawking land Einstein disprove the Kalam argument? Quantum particles appearing and disappearing does not mean that this occurs without a cause. It only means you don’t know what the cause is. The steady state model of the universe is not a theory that is supported by the evidence. A first principal is common sense.

Ever read the Theaory of General Relativity and Theory of Special Relativity? Ever read anything written by Hawking? Oh I'd say the Kalam Argument has been disproven for a hundred years. Ever watch the debate between your revered William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll? Sean Carroll made William lane Craig look like the idiotic buffoon he is. Off the top of your head, can you tell when the Kalam Argument as first proposed? I cannot remember an exact year, but it is traced to the late 11th-century, written by the philosopher Al-Ghazali (1058-1119 CE). In actuality, from all the readings I have done, the Kalam Argument has been disproven since the mid 19th-century. Do some reading. Do some research. When are you going to realize that that obsolete, irrelevant, barbaric, savage, offensive, and unsubstantiated, immoral Bronze and Iron Age religious text is nothing more than a collection of lies stemming from the plagiarization of far older myths and legends, some thousands of years older than the Bible.

Just for one example: The Noahacian Flood Myth was written circa 450 BCE (oldest copy of the Bible in the Dead Sea Scrolls); which was plagiarized from The Epic of Gilgamesh was written 1600 BCE (1150 years before); which was plagiarized from The Epic of Atra-Hasis was written 1700 BCE (1250 years before); which was plagiarized from The Epic of Ziusudra was written 1900 BCE (1450 years before); which was plagiarized from The Genesis Myth of Eridu was written 2000 BCE (1550 years before).

Hell, even the Greek Flood Myth of Deucalion is 250 years older than the Noah Myth written in 700 BCE.

So who are liars? Who are the plagiarizers? Ever notice the similarity of the Myths of Herakles and the bilical story of Samson? Herakles myths are about 100 to 150 years older (circa 600 BCE) than the oldest copy of the Hebrew version of the Old Testament (circa 450 BCE). I could go on and on and on, but I doubt the Admins/Mods would appreciate me writing a 2000 page book of how ALL Bible stories were plagiarized from far older myths and legends.

AJ777:
1. The Bible does not mirror the cultures morality, that’s why you and so many others are offended by it. Why are there different interpretations? Because one interpretation is correct, all others all incorrect.
2. The point is not that we can’t know what is moral, but that we can’t justify absolute truth in morality without a moral law giver.
3. Why do you have to insult?

Let's go over this individually.

AJ777: “1. The Bible does not mirror the cultures morality, that’s why you and so many others are offended by it. Why are there different interpretations? Because one interpretation is correct, all others all incorrect.

The Bible DOES MIRROR cultural morality of where it was written. Why do you think I can rename the Bible to The Barbarian Goat Herders Guide to the Universe, Life, and Everything? That is what everyone who is capable of critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought, mental capabilities no theist is capable of, finds offensive about the Bible. It was written by barbaric goat herders for barbaric goat herders. NOT for a more advanced society capable of true morality.

Why are there different interpretations? Because one interpretation is correct, all others all incorrect.

DAMN! A theist actually spoke the truth? Sheldon you are responsible for science teams. We need one right now to investigate this miracle.

That is the root of all evil in all religion. How it is interpreted. My interpretation is that is a collection of lies plagiarized from far older myths and legends. If you cannot interpret the Bible the same way, then you follow my 30+ years of research in the attempt to prove the Bible correct. That is an exercise I tell others when researching. Do not try to prove it is false. Instead, do your research trying to prove it right. Then you can suffer through the let down when you realize the Bible is more false than >The First Chronicles of Thomas Convenant the Unbeliever.

AJ777: “2. The point is not that we can’t know what is moral, but that we can’t justify absolute truth in morality without a moral law giver.

There is no absolute truth. Truth, just like morality, is completely subjective. There is no moral law giver, except that each and every person is their own moral law giver. How do you think the laws of the land are created? It is because a unanimous majority of the people agree to a law. It then becomes law. Not because of any deity or ancient and obsolete text. Just because that ancient and obsolete text has some of the same laws as we create today does not mean it is from any deity. It just proves the people back then were in agreement to what we create today.

The Bible cannot be used as any form of evidence for the Bible is the claim. Now, “Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat,” the burden of proof is yours. And until you can give any OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, anything you can say shall be forever viewed as preposterous and summarily dismissed.

AJ777: “3. Why do you have to insult?

Why do you? You come here and insult us with your FAITH — Falsehoods Assumptions Innuendos Treachery Hogwash and Stupefaction.

And you accuse us of insult?

I am still waiting patiently for that OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE you promised.

rmfr

AJ777's picture
arakish, you wrote “There is

arakish, you wrote “There is no absolute truth. Truth, just like morality, is completely subjective.” You are claiming it is true, that there is no absolute truth, which is a self defeating statement. If it is true there is no absolute truth, then at least that statement is true, which means there is absolute truth.

David Killeens, whose definition of harm is correct. If “everything is relative”, then so is your claim that everything is relative making this statement at best relatively true, but not absolutely true.

CyberLN's picture
https://youtu.be/wlMegqgGORY
arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

arakish, you wrote “There is no absolute truth. Truth, just like morality, is completely subjective.” You are claiming it is true, that there is no absolute truth, which is a self defeating statement. If it is true there is no absolute truth, then at least that statement is true, which means there is absolute truth.

Wow! Just wow! I have never seen more fallacies in two sentences that the two you just wrote. Wow!

Remember my listing of The Nine Razors?

  1. Sagan's Razor: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  2. Hitchens's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
  3. Arakish's Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.
  4. Xenoview's Razor: Objective claims requires objective evidence.
  5. Randomhero1982's Razor: If it's not evidenced, it's bollocks.
  6. Cognostic's Razor: Any dweeb can make an assertion.
  7. LogicFTW's Razor: You MUST first prove your religion/claim is not a con.
  8. CyberLN's Razor: A nice vinaigrette must be served with any word salad.
  9. Tin-Man's Butter Knife: Any ridiculous nonsense presented will be countered with opposing ridiculous nonsense of an equal or greater amount.
  • Cognostic's Shovel: When someone starts slinging bullshit at you, get a shovel and sling it back.

You have violated everyone last Razor, and the Shovel, with just two sentences. Usually I list the Razors when I ask for OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, which you still have not even come close to presenting. I am still waiting patiently with baited breath. I refuse to hold my breath waiting because there is a 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance I would die of oxygen deprivation before you ever supply anything other than FAITH — Falsehoods Assumptions Innuendos Treachery Hogwash and Stupefaction.

Do you understand English enough to understand what the difference between facts and faith?

FACTS — Formulated Accurately Codified Truth in Science

FAITH — Falsehoods Assumptions Innuendos Treachery Hogwash and Stupefaction

There is no ABSOLUTE anything except the lies held by Religious Absolutists: “I either believe as YOU tell me to believe, or I am condemned to an eternity of torment.

Can you not see the inherent evil in your absolutist beliefs system? Can you not see how closed-minded and ignorant (ig•nor•unt) and ignorant (ig•nur•unt) your beliefs system is and inherent evil in such thinking? Can you not see the inherent evil of giving religion the privilege of being implicitly and explicitly protected from any and all criticism from both within and without. Why should any ideology, especially religion, be so privileged? Can you not see how disastrous and inherently evil this way of thinking can be, and is?

And your circularity fallacy above made me fall out of my chair LMAOWF. Usually only Tin-Man and Old Man can make me laugh like that. You definitely need to download this Presentation document converted into a PDF and study it well. Rhetological Fallacies.

As said, study it well. I shall be giving you a test on it later. Provided you ain't run home to mommy with your tail tween your legs after all the spankings we given you.

So basically what you are saying is: Absolute Truth ≠ true but ≡ false ≡ Absolute Truth = true? Hmm... Yep makes as much sense as me mounting that last brown log I dropped in the toilet since it was so big and long it qualified as a True Lincoln Log Poopoo.

Here are two quotes I made at a debate in the Q&A session afterwards.

Audience Member: “What religion do you believe to be true?”
I refuse to believe in any human-made religion because ALL of them rely on the concept of faith. And, FAITH is a lie in that any human-made religion keeps the promise of eternal damnation and eternal salvation. Not just in this life we currently live, but also in some so-called afterlife. Do you honestly expect me to believe that any human created religion can hold such truths? No human is perfect. Thus, all religions are false by their very nature. Any person in this room could create a religion based upon a single god. There is no proof any religion is from any god. — Arakish, transcribed from a live debate, Q&A session

Audience Member: “So, what do you believe the Bible is then?”
If you are to truly interpret the Bible, you will find that the Bible tells us only one thing: We are to obey and believe as we are told. This is not objective morality; rather, it is tyrannical totalitarian dictated edicts. The Bible creates the illusion that Christians are better than others, allowing them to justify all their crimes and be just as criminal as those they say are immoral. What crock of shit… — Arakish, transcribed from a live debate, Q&A session

Keep believing your beliefs system is the Absolute Answer. Remember, the only thing Absolute in this entire universe is the stupidity of all Religious Absolutists. I have yet to meet even one who is actually intelligent.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
Why are you theists so

Why are you theists so petrified of living in a morally relative universe? It is what it is, get over it.

David Killens's picture
You are no longer making

You are no longer making sense.

Sheldon's picture
Arakish meant absolute truth

Arakish meant absolute truth in the sense 100% certainty is anathema to human reality. This is a basic principle of epistemology.

"I think, therefore I am"

Isn't a pithy observation of a fact. It's the reasoning of a philosophical genius who was forced to strip back every assertion to the one thing he felt was an objective basis for all reasoning.

Here's a clue, Descartes couldn't be 100% sure of even that claim. Thus as arakish said, absolute truth doesn't exist, it simply can't for human consciousness.

It would however be absurd without evidence to believe I did not exist. Objectivity is a scale of evidence a tipping point reached by stripping away all assumption and unevidenced bias.

The fact you don't know any of this just shows how woefully out of your depth you are in any rational debate.

AJ777's picture
arakish, what is false

arakish, what is false exactly in my last statements? You seem to be changing the definitions of words to fit your view,and changing the subject when your error is pointed out. If you’re saying that my last statement is untrue, then you must believe in absolute truth. If truth is relative how can my view be wrong?

“‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.”

Sheldon's picture
"You seem to be changing the

AJ777 "You seem to be changing the definitions of words to fit your view,"

Hahahhahahhahahhha, uh, oh no....irony overload.

I'm going to need a bigger gloat.

arakish's picture
You want to know what is

You want to know what is false? Here...

Here is a list of how one can spot a Religious Absolutist and they only need match just ONE:

  1. They LIE without ever thinking about the veracity of their statement.
  2. They LIE without ever providing any evidence of their statement.
  3. They LIE by believing inexorably everything they state.
  4. They LIE by being absolute in their statements (either I believe you or I am worthless scum).
  5. They LIE by using beguiling dialectical semantics.
  6. They LIE by using distorted and perveted data.
  7. They LIE by creating irrational excuses.
  8. They LIE by utilizing whiney-ass pleas.
  9. They LIE by not realizing why they need to defend their beliefs.
  10. They LIE by utilizing presupposed conclusions with no evidence.
  11. They LIE by making accusations they never apologize for even when they are proven wrong.
  12. They LIE by changing the subject.
  13. They LIE by taking text out of context and twisting and perverting said text to fit their presupposed confirmation bias.
  14. They LIE by shifting the burden of proof.

I even highlighted the specific item.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
Not bad. For me it boils to

Not bad. For me it boils to two things.

1. They can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity.
2. They set a different standard of validation for their belief from all else. A priori bias is the very definition of closed minded.

I remember an interview on television a while ago with the maker of one of these vapid ghost hunter programmes.

He ranted how much he hated it when people denied ghosts were real, and wished they'd be open minded. Then in the next sentence when asked how sure he was that ghosts existed he said "I'm 100% certain"! I don't think he saw the irony.

arakish's picture
AJ777: "arakish, what is

AJ777: "arakish, what is false exactly in my last statements?"

You still cannot see what you said?

AJ777: “You are claiming it is true, that there is no absolute truth, which is a self defeating statement. If it is true there is no absolute truth, then at least that statement is true, which means there is absolute truth.

Now I repeat...

Arakish: “What you are saying is: Absolute Truth ≠ true but ≡ false ≡ Absolute Truth = true? Hmm...

You mean to tell me you cannot determine and comprehend the error?

rmfr

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

If you’re saying that my last statement is untrue, then you must believe in absolute truth. If truth is relative how can my view be wrong?

Talk about twisted and perverted logic... Anyone else see the fallacy?

AJ, quit. You are killing me. The laughter is now hurting beyond my pain meds capabilities to manage my pain. Someone call God and tell him I need a hand to give AJ a DiNozzo Smack...

rmfr

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

"Empty your cup. How can you except to fill it when your cup is already full."

rmfr

Diotrephes's picture
AJ777,

AJ777,

"How can religion be evil?"

The religion practiced by the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews in the Bible is completely evil. I can say that without a doubt because I ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and therefore know just as much as Jealous does about this issue. And remember, even he said that he gave the idiots bad laws to see if they were stupid enough to follow them. And guess what? They were that stupid. So if you read something in the Bible and think that it is moral the reality is that it might be highly immoral.

AJ777's picture
Diotrephes, my point in

Diotrephes, my point in starting this thread is that in order to call anything evil, an objective moral law giver must exist. Otherwise good and evil are mere opinion.

Diotrephes's picture
AJ777,

AJ777,

"my point in starting this thread is that in order to call anything evil, an objective moral law giver must exist."

That is your opinion. Humans of average intelligence who are not crazy know the difference between good and evil. And although they may know the difference they may still willfully do evil acts. There is no celestial deity of any kind in this solar system that tells humans what is good and what is evil. We make that judgment ourselves.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.