1
0

[–] Kurplow 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

But I am, nothing you said offers any valid reason to think that religion should play any role whatsoever today. Religion is not the source of moral intuition, religion is kept in check by moral intuition. Religion is not the source of education, and certainly not of real, applicable knowledge of the world, instead religion is kept in check by science. Religion is not the source of charitability, it merely occupies a place of unjustified lack of scrutiny among charitable organizations. None of the good done by religion requires religion.

However, religion does motivate others to do considerable harm, and never for logical or rational reasons. From stem cell research bans, to abstinence mandates in anti-aids aid money being sent to Africa, to the opposition of the HPV vaccine that occurred under the the Bush administration--all religiously motivated, and all resulting in unnecessary loss of life to preventable and treatable diseases--there are numerous and well argued downsides to letting people's irrational beliefs dictate public policy. I have only scratched the surface here.

I need to take a moment in retrospect to address your abolitionism argument: while it is true that abolitionists tried to use scripture to justify abolition, they were on the losing side of a theological argument and they knew it, if you go back to rhetoric from the time, the Bible was likewise mustered into service by anti-abolitionists, who had far more pro-slavery verses to draw from than there were anti-slavery verses (only one I know of) for abolitionists to choose from.

Edit: one last thought--you're essentially arguing that it is not rational (appealing to reason) to argue that faith-based religion (by definition, belief without reason) is not a valid way of asking and answering questions of supreme importance in society. Think about that.

1
0

[–] BoiseNTheHood [S] 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Edit: one last thought--you're essentially arguing that it is not rational (appealing to reason) to argue that faith-based religion (by definition, belief without reason) is not a valid way of asking and answering questions of supreme importance in society. Think about that.

Again, not what I'm saying. I pointed out at the start that religion, when taken to extremes, is a bad influence. I didn't think I'd have to point out to you that blind faith and the intolerance and ignorance that come with it qualify as religion taken to extremes.

That being said, not every religious person is an [insert holy book here]-thumping bigot. There are plenty of people who see religion as an uplifting, positive community and a way to give back, and I guess I don't see that as a negative influence on society. You can feel free to bitch and moan every time the Salvation Army provides disaster relief in the third world or Habitat for Humanity puts a roof over someone's head, but don't expect most people to agree with you.

1
0

[–] Kurplow 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

I didn't think I'd have to point out to you that blind faith and the intolerance and ignorance that come with it qualify as religion taken to extremes.

This isn't religion taken to extremes, this is the definition of belief. All faith is blind faith. You are saying that everyone who believes in a personal God, everyone who believes in the divine nature of the Bible, anyone who believes in an afterlife is a religious extremist. That just isn't the case. That is just religion.

The people who are trying to establish laws and policies according to religions beliefs often are extremists, but they garner support from the type of nominal religiosity you are (I think) attempting to appeal to. An [insert holy book here]-thumping bigot cannot oppose the HPV vaccine (or whatever) without using religion to garner popular support for the morally corrupt endeavor.

You can feel free to bitch and moan every time the Salvation Army provides disaster relief in the third world or Habitat for Humanity puts a roof over someone's head, but don't expect most people to agree with you.

Again with the strawman. I don't care what private organizations do, for the most part. I care when politicians, donors, judges, etc fail to reason in a secular, reality-based way. "Because zygotes have souls" is not a valid anti-abortion argument, no matter what you think about whether abortion should be legal or not. "Because God spoke to me and told me to invade Iraq" is not a valid reason to invade Iraq, no matter what you think about the geopolitical environment.

Have I made myself clear yet? Good, secular reasons for public policy--keep faith out of the discourse regarding government. This is nothing but an appeal to reason, and any assertion to the contrary must logically be eschewing rationality in favor of some irrational belief.

1
0

[–] BoiseNTheHood [S] 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

But I am, nothing you said offers any valid reason to think that religion should play any role whatsoever today.

So, we should scrap the Constitution, abandon our republican form of government, and beg Britain to let us move back in with them, then? We don't want any of that religious influence anymore, right?

Religion is not the source of moral intuition, religion is kept in check by moral intuition. Religion is not the source of education, and certainly not of real, applicable knowledge of the world, instead religion is kept in check by science. Religion is not the source of charitably, it merely occupies a place of unjustified lack of scrutiny among charitable organizations.

You are now putting words in my mouth that I never said. Your criticisms have merit, but it's also worth pointing out that its influence has been used for good throughout history. Dismissing religion altogether for its flaws is like dismissing science because it's often been used for evil.

I'm an atheist. Organized religion just isn't for me. I don't deny that there are drawbacks that come with religion. But I'm not going to begrudge people who do take part in it, nor am I going to deny the good things that religion has done.

None of the good done by religion requires religion.

No, religion is not required to do good, but I don't see what the harm is when they do influence society in a positive way.

1
0

[–] Kurplow 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

So, we should scrap the Constitution, abandon our republican form of government, and beg Britain to let us move back in with them, then? We don't want any of that religious influence anymore, right?

Where did you get that from my assertion that we should be a secular nation? Strawman much?

But I'm not going to begrudge people who do take part in it, nor am I going to deny the good things that religion has done.

Neither do I, just keep it out of government. Religion has done good things, but those are good things that just happen to be done by religion.

No, religion is not required to do good, but I don't see what the harm is when they do influence society in a positive way.

When the influence is positive, religion is still not necessary. I have laid out several instances of when religion in government has been harmful, on just one topic (health) in just one country (the U.S.), and just recently--and I only gave a few examples. To see the problem here, just imagine the religion trying to infiltrate and dominate social policy is Islam instead of Christianity.

I want one simple thing here Boise, I want people to have good reasons, grounded in reality, for their beliefs. Failing that, I will settle for good reasons, grounded in reality, for public policy positions.

I will reiterate, I am simply appealing to reason.