Why I've started to believe that religion is actively dangerous

[Barrister]

You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?

The communists seemed to believe it though.  They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.

Yes. But it was pure rhetoric.  There was nothing scientific about it.  The belief that something is scientific (or for that matter faith that something exists) does not make it so 

Sounds like a "No True Scotsman" argument.

They said communism was based on science.  If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.

[DGuller]

And the various Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants that were murdered by the Communists, what was their crime?

I don't know, you'll have to look up the archives to get that information.

[Eddie Teach]

If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.

That sounds rather harsh. He's just mistaken.

[frunk]

Sounds like a "No True Scotsman" argument.

They said communism was based on science.  If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.

If we state that science is the result of using the scientific method it's pretty clear that communism isn't remotely a science.  It wasn't a matter of testing ideas to determine their validity, just the outright declaration of the truth of Marxist thought with no evidence.  In that sense it was much closer to a religion.  Just because something claims it is a science doesn't mean it is one.

[Barrister]

Sounds like a "No True Scotsman" argument.

They said communism was based on science.  If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.

If we state that science is the result of using the scientific method it's pretty clear that communism isn't remotely a science.  It wasn't a matter of testing ideas to determine their validity, just the outright declaration of the truth of Marxist thought with no evidence.  In that sense it was much closer to a religion.  Just because something claims it is a science doesn't mean it is one.

If we state that Christianity is the result of reading the Bible it's pretty clear that Inhofe isn't remotely Christian.  It wasn't a matter of looking at what the entire gospel says, just an outright declaration of the truth of Christian thought with no evidence.  Just because someone claims their belief is based on Christianity doesn't mean it is.



Look - Inhofe's claim is stupid.  But lots of people have believed in stupid ideas for lots of stupid reasons.  Just because someone has believed in a stupid idea, it doesn't invalidate the entirety of whatever their justification.  The idea of the division of powers isn't invalidated just because some racists used "state rights" to justify racism.  Science isn't invalidated just because some people used it as a justification for eugenics.  And religion isn't invalidated because some people try to use it as justification for ignoring global warming.

[Martinus]

And it's the same about sexual orientation.  You're free to bang whomever you want to bang.  We don't have to see it in public for you to be free.

You know that sexual orientation goes beyond "whomever you bang", right?

[Martinus]

Can't speak for Confucianism, and nobody can speak for Druidic faiths, but lumping "Greek rationalism", with Roman polytheism is a mistake.  In fact, Grumbler's question to his students is misguided.  It's not a "reward after death" religion vs "reward in life" religion but striving for cosmic justice vs simply subservience to a powerful other.  Polytheistic Gods are portrayed by and large as unjust.   They reflect tribal chieftains and cultural stereotypes of a pre-civilized world.  People lived in a world where tyranny and petty corruption were rampant.  In an urban society such as classical Greece, People didn't want bandit gods who robbed, murdered, raped, and ate people. They wanted just laws, laws that all men must obey.  Greek Philosophy is in large part an attempt to solve this deficiency. When Christianity came along it fit nicely into the groove that the philosophers had made.  "Reward after death", is only one side of the coin.  The other is side is that wicked are punished for their crimes.  In a world where criminal justice was extremely lacking, the knowledge that a corrupt magistrate or cruel master would be eventually held accountable for their crimes was comforting.  The question should be "why did Orthodoxy replace Orthopraxy in Europe and the Near East".

I don't think this analysis is correct. What you are describing is the development of theology and ethics from ancient to classic times that just occurred generally and does not differentiate Christianity from other contemporary faiths. The Christian god, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is just as unjust, arbitrary and brutal as Zeus - and it's not like the Hellenic philosophy was waiting for Christianity to come along before it could feed its ethical teachings into religion - there were many other religions and religious or mystery movements during the classical period that made the same leap as Christianity did - Mithraism, the Eleusian and the Orphic mysteries, Neopythagoreans etc. So your argument does not explain why Christianity was the one to succeed and not the others.

[Eddie Teach]

the Christian god, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is just as unjust, arbitrary and brutal as Zeus.

As portrayed in the New Testament as well.

[Martinus]

Btw, Raz, let's compare oranges with oranges - can you show any examples of science or atheism in the today's Western world advocating anything that is evidently dangerous or harmful, in the same way religion does in Berkut's example?

[Josquius]

"Do you have any evidence for this god thing?"
"Yes. TEH.BIBOL"

[Razgovory]

Can't speak for Confucianism, and nobody can speak for Druidic faiths, but lumping "Greek rationalism", with Roman polytheism is a mistake.  In fact, Grumbler's question to his students is misguided.  It's not a "reward after death" religion vs "reward in life" religion but striving for cosmic justice vs simply subservience to a powerful other.  Polytheistic Gods are portrayed by and large as unjust.   They reflect tribal chieftains and cultural stereotypes of a pre-civilized world.  People lived in a world where tyranny and petty corruption were rampant.  In an urban society such as classical Greece, People didn't want bandit gods who robbed, murdered, raped, and ate people. They wanted just laws, laws that all men must obey.  Greek Philosophy is in large part an attempt to solve this deficiency. When Christianity came along it fit nicely into the groove that the philosophers had made.  "Reward after death", is only one side of the coin.  The other is side is that wicked are punished for their crimes.  In a world where criminal justice was extremely lacking, the knowledge that a corrupt magistrate or cruel master would be eventually held accountable for their crimes was comforting.  The question should be "why did Orthodoxy replace Orthopraxy in Europe and the Near East".

I don't think this analysis is correct. What you are describing is the development of theology and ethics from ancient to classic times that just occurred generally and does not differentiate Christianity from other contemporary faiths. The Christian god, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is just as unjust, arbitrary and brutal as Zeus - and it's not like the Hellenic philosophy was waiting for Christianity to come along before it could feed its ethical teachings into religion - there were many other religions and religious or mystery movements during the classical period that made the same leap as Christianity did - Mithraism, the Eleusian and the Orphic mysteries, Neopythagoreans etc. So your argument does not explain why Christianity was the one to succeed and not the others.

Judaism is more ritual centered then Christianity but less so then traditional Greek paganism.  The Israelites likely started out polytheistic, shifted towards henotheistic and eventually monotheistic.  The books in the Bible seem to allude to it.  I disagree with the notion that Old Testament God is a cruel as Zeus, there is no stories of Yahweh raping women, eating people, turning people into bugs or whatever.  I think you miss the most salient point about Judaism, that it is a religion of law.  There is a whole bunch of laws regarding what is good and bad, what pleases God and what displeases him.  Figures in the Bible are often described as "Righteous" and are praised for adherence to the law.  This is uncommon amongst the Greeks.  Their heroes are heroes not because of innate goodness, but they can kill things.  While Zeus has a few general rules such as being hospitable, not boasting that you are better then the gods, avoiding eating peoples brains and few others, that's not his primary vocation.  He's much more whimsical and unpredictable.  If Yahweh is like working for a hard task master working for Zeus is like working psychotic meth head carrying a pistol.

The Greeks wanted Zeus to be just and fair.  You can find the desire in a lot of Greek writing such as Hesiod.  He just never filled that role.

I'm not certain that these other religious cults were "making the same leap" as Christianity at the same time.  This uncertainty is in no small part due to lack of knowledge of these cults.  A major element of the mystery cults was the fact they kept their secrets well.  It doesn't help they were often persecuted.  I'm not convinced that Mithraism was realistic competitor of Christianity.  The early Christians were often out in the open preaching and happily being martyred.  The Initiates of Mithras hid in caves.  Again, it's hard to know what they actually believed and how their religion was practiced.

I would say that Neoplatonism was something of a competitor, that was partly absorbed by Christianity and Manichean may have been as well (but again not much is know of that religion).  Neoplatonism presumed a single all powerful God and Platonism and Aristotle were similar.  In this sense they paved the way for a monotheistic religion like Christianity.

[Razgovory]

Btw, Raz, let's compare oranges with oranges - can you show any examples of science or atheism in the today's Western world advocating anything that is evidently dangerous or harmful, in the same way religion does in Berkut's example?

Yeah, I did on page one with my article.  Sam Harris argues that it may very well be okay to murder people for thinking the wrong things.  That sounds rather dangerous and harmful.  Science isn't really an ideology, it is a methodology.  It doesn't "advocate" anything.  It can be used understand and make things, but there is nothing in it that has a moral character.  You can make vaccines and nerve gas using scientific data.  You can abuse the scientific method by say testing on human beings, but I'm not sure if that's dig against science.  There may even be avenues of science best left alone, due to how the information would be used.

[Razgovory]

Sounds like a "No True Scotsman" argument.

They said communism was based on science.  If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.

If we state that science is the result of using the scientific method it's pretty clear that communism isn't remotely a science.  It wasn't a matter of testing ideas to determine their validity, just the outright declaration of the truth of Marxist thought with no evidence.  In that sense it was much closer to a religion.  Just because something claims it is a science doesn't mean it is one.

Sociology and economics are regarded as science.  Marxist theory falls in both categories.  It is a softer science then say physics, but it still makes use of the scientific method

[The Brain]

Science is an amoral tool, not a guiding philosophy.

Well I still think it should be used to build roads.

To hell.

[The Brain]

And it's the same about sexual orientation.  You're free to bang whomever you want to bang.  We don't have to see it in public for you to be free.

You know that sexual orientation goes beyond "whomever you bang", right?

Objectophiles are a pretty marginal group.