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.

0
1

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

This isn't religion taken to extremes, this is the definition of belief.

Yes, it is religion taken to extremes, and you know it. If all belief in religion was equally extreme, or blind, or whatever you'd like to call it, then there'd be no difference between Jainism and the Westboro Baptist Church. There'd also be no difference between Unitarians and Westboro Baptist, or between moderate Muslims and radical Muslims, etc. Surely you can see how absurd this is.

The people who are trying to establish laws and policies according to religions beliefs often are extremists

Sure, if they're advocating for extreme policies. And I agree, when religious extremists hide behind their holy book in order to justify advocating for/passing laws that hurt people, it's immoral, irrational and wrong. Of course, the same could be said for the anti-vax or anti-GMO extremists who point to their twisted version of science in order to justify denying people access to vital medicine and food, yet nobody ever points to them as evidence that science should not have any influence at all on society.

All I've been saying from the beginning, though, is that there are examples throughout history where we've looked to religion as the inspiration for policies that aren't extreme and have had a positive impact on society. For instance, the very Constitution and republican form of government that allow us to even have this debate about American politics were directly inspired by religion and likely wouldn't exist without religion, at least not in this present form. I'll grant you that these types of policies have become fewer and farther between in today's world, but it's still unfair to discount the fact that many of our most important institutions didn't come from scientists or militant atheists, they came from the church.

Frankly, if a law works and has a positive impact on society, I don't care whether it was inspired by religion, atheism, science, or a fucking acid trip, as long as it delivers results. Judging public policy primarily on its intentions and the process as opposed to the results is what got us a towering national debt and an unsustainable welfare-warfare state. It's time to get back to reals over feels.

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.