I think you're glorifying the human mind far too much. Good and evil is a human construct, first and foremost, which is seemingly why no other animal exhibits it. Humans don't exhibit the pack mentality of wolves (disregarding kinship), nor the formations of migrating birds. It's nothing more than a causailty of human evolution.
Now, to state that animals have no morals and then draw the conclusion that they, by extension, have no will, is a leap of faith.
"Good and evil" is a concept bred into us by evolution. Men who kill other men is generally not a favourable trait due to the penalty it inflicts on a populace's ability to reproduce. Naturally, if a population is made up of 10% murderers, that tribe will fair far worse than a tribe with 0% murderers. Note that I'm not suggesting that there's a "murder gene", more that evolution favours "good" morals because "bad" morals tend to be self-defeating.
There is a lot of literature on the evolution of morality and if you are going to attempt to refute this, you're going to need some very strong evidence.
Now, compare this to wolf pack mentality. Both morality and pack mentality are both outcomes of successful natural selection. A wolf in a pack will fair better than a lone wolf. A tribe of humans with "good morals" will be less self-defeating than one with "bad morals".
Finally, my point is that morality is a product of evolution, and not a product of will. Your human brain might be bigger than a dog's, but the fundamental basis behind it is identical.
This relies entirely on the subject having a fear of his/her own mortality. If you accept that you are finite, then why would that fear play on your mind?
I mean really, you've not existed for billions of years already, so you know exactly what it feels like.
I wouldn't say that I'm glorifying the human mind, but rather pointing out one of its unique capabilities. I disagree that good and evil is a human construct, though I have no way of verifying one way or the other. I also disagree that concepts can be the products of evolution. There are no concepts as complex as good and evil hard-wired into our brains from birth. In terms of social evolution, it's true that good morals help a civilization survive in the long run, but we are talking about a macro scale in terms of hundreds of years - beyond the interest of a single individual, which by his nature prefers to survive by whatever means possible. It seems a "leap of faith," as you say, to conclude that because people in society agree on certain moral issues now that those moral issues evolved from the beginning of human history. I don't think society itself is capable of producing conceptual evolution.
Now, when you have a very influential religion existing for thousands of years, it seems plausible that society may model many of its moral agreements after many of the tenets of said religion... especially if the majority of the society's members practice said religion.
To be clear, it seems we simply disagree on terms. By will, I mean the ability to act based on reason. By reason, I mean the ability to distinguish between good and evil actions. Murder requires malicious (evil) intent. An aggressor cannot have malicious intent if it cannot distinguish between good and evil. Animals lack reason (they cannot distinguish between good and evil,) therefore even disregarding whether animals have a will (they don't because they lack reason) animals cannot have malicious intent, and therefore animals cannot commit murder.
Now, I suppose you can make a case that animals in fact DO have reason, but you have a lot of convincing to do to make me think it's not simply animal instinct. Reason cannot be based on instinct... it requires mental complexity beyond the capacity of any instinctual animal.
As far as accepting you are finite, I'm not entirely sure we can really comprehend what that means, so I don't really understand how someone could "accept" that they are finite. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Simply going back to the point where my memory gives out is not enough... I know intellectually that I existed before that point, though I have no way of actually demonstrating that to myself. As far as I know, I could have existed before birth, even before my conception became evident in my mother's womb.
By the way Eiviyn, thank you for not being the typical internet ass by actually coming up with reasonable arguments. I tip my hat to you :)
Besides, I'd love to see you spin "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" into something positive.
You keep bringing up historical examples, but you keep missing the point of pretty much all of them: history is a game of power. Pretty much every war, ever, was one of rich person/people A vs rich person/people B. Religion was used simply as a tool of control in these wars. Even the well-known crusades weren't as much of the "religious people A putting a jihad on religious people B because they have different beliefs" as you seemed to be making it out with your older post. The biggest cause for the whole thing was the fact that people in Europe were murdering eachother (tying into your moral compass discussion). The pope didn't like this (because all people in Europe are supposed to be Christian brothers) and simply found a way to direct the agression outwards. You give religion too much credit.
In regards to the actual quote; the real causes of the fervous witch hunts are currently actually still unclear. Obvious examples would point to 'religion', yes, but the fact of the matter is that these witch hunts gained popularity and activity at EXACTLY the same time when religion and religious dogma were rapidly dropping in it - which makes no sense. My own bet is that the whole thing was more of a 'mass hysteria' thing where people just went crazy on the idea of witches, without really thinking straight.
I am sorry to break it to you, but either there is no such thing as a soul, or it does literally nothing. Your conscience is what you may perceive as a soul, though at the heart of the matter, it is just the current state of the sentient part of the brain. It isn't retained after death. You can't think after death. You can't feel after death.
As for animals, they feel and think differently from humans, with social creatures, such as canines and apes and monkeys think and feel quite similarly to humans. They have just about the same exact emotions as humans, which were, as Eiviyn said, a product of evolution. Those creatures who felt bad against doing something harmful would contribute the most to their society and thus that society would have a greater chance of surviving and passing on the genes which would make the offspring feel. Now obviously, I'm not talking about there being a society of pure savages and then suddenly one baby has a sense of morality, this would be a slow process, dictated by natural selection. This process would grant social creatures, like us and dogs etc. Effectively a sense of morality.
Now, I just realized that you were talking about animals having will, not morality, so what I just said was somewhat useless. Never mind that, there is still no reason why humans would have will, but animals wouldn't. Pretty much all animals with brains would have will; that's pretty much the point of having a brain (other than regulating bodily systems). I'd suggest you do some research on the brain before you make comments about how animal brains (humans are animals too) can't use will.
I find your condescending attitude insulting. I'm pretty sure you can find a way to be a little more respectful with your replies. "Sorry to break it to you."
I suppose we will simply have to disagree as to the nature of the soul and whether it exists.
Don't confuse emotions with rational thought. I'm also not convinced that morality (discerning between good and evil) is instinctive or behavioral. While it may seem that way, I think there's a lot more at play in our environment to create moral dispositions in a person. Ultimately though, when a person acts, he must decide that the action is morally good, morally evil, or morally neutral (or immaterial.) Animals, by contrast, don't go through this step. I strongly disagree with the notion that moral consciousness is genetic and/or hereditary.
Again, there is a disagreement on terms. I don't mean "will" in the basic sense that the brain tells the limbs what to do. Here, I'm going to be nice and just quote myself from an earlier post in case you somehow missed it:
A will, or at least the will which I am talking about, requires reason to choose between different courses of action (simplified as a good choice and an evil choice, although in reality there are varying degrees.)
By will, I mean the ability to act based on reason. By reason, I mean the ability to distinguish between good and evil actions. Murder requires malicious (evil) intent. An aggressor cannot have malicious intent if it cannot distinguish between good and evil. Animals lack reason (they cannot distinguish between good and evil,) therefore even disregarding whether animals have a will (they don't because they lack reason) animals cannot have malicious intent, and therefore animals cannot commit murder.
Animals, by contrast, don't go through this step. I strongly disagree with the notion that moral consciousness is genetic and/or hereditary.
You continue to not provide any evidence or reason as for why this is. I explained it to you in my last post. Until you can rationalize your idea, it won't be taken seriously, thus my condescending attitude.
No Soul / no God - Live a live as best you can and die, you will feel nothing you will not even know anything because you no longer exist. You have nothing to really look forward to so life is either easy and you enjoy it or it is hard and you go commit suicide to escape the pain. and sure you can do some interesting things but in the grand scheme it doesn't really matter ( :( )
Soul / God - Live the best you can and love your neighbor as God commanded, live life to the fullest with service to the Lord with acknowledgement of how messed up you are and even through pain and suffering you have the gift of heaven to look forward to even if life gets difficult and how guilty you become because you have been forgiven and willingly serve. ( :) )
Immortal / no God? / Deism - id get bored and haunt some houses for entertainment awaiting the end of the black universe of nothingness ( :( )
What sounds like the nicest option isn't always the nicest option. It'd be nice if I had a million dollars. Does that mean that I do have a million dollars? No, it doesn't.
Animals don't write philosophical papers about morality or communicate about morals to us or each other. I don't have any inclination to suspect that they do, in fact, have morals.
You don't have to be condescending, you can simply ask me to support my points.
@Eiviyn: Go
Even the well-known crusades weren't as much of the "religious people A putting a jihad on religious people B because they have different beliefs" as you seemed to be making it out with your older post. The biggest cause for the whole thing was the fact that people in Europe were murdering eachother (tying into your moral compass discussion). The pope didn't like this (because all people in Europe are supposed to be Christian brothers) and simply found a way to direct the agression outwards. You give religion too much credit.
Omfg, you do actually believe the shit you saying?
The Pope and his friends got actually fucking rich from the crusades, while the army actually pillaged and raped half Europe by the time they reached the holy land. And Europe had war and killing under crusades...
Omfg, you do actually believe the shit you saying?
The Pope and his friends got actually fucking rich from the crusades, while the army actually pillaged and raped half Europe by the time they reached the holy land. And Europe had war and killing under crusades...
Nowhere did I say the pope didn't profit, neither did I that the crusades succeeded entirely in their aim. I'm saying the primary cause was finding a way to transfer existing aggressions outwards. The primary cause was NOT a "we believe X, those guys believe Y, we need to kill those guys", that was a mere excuse for the whole ordeal. If this really were the cause, I'd like someone to explain to me why the crusades didn't happen anywhere from 100 to 500 year earlier then they did.
THAT was my point. So yes, I actually believe the 'shit' I'm saying. In regards to my actual point, you only just strenghtened it by stating that A) another cause for the crusades was to fill the treasures of Christian countries (aka the pope) and B) there was still war in Europe and the crusading army didn't exactly direct all of their aggression towards the muslims.
You keep bringing up historical examples, but you keep missing the point of pretty much all of them: history is a game of power. Pretty much every war, ever, was one of rich person/people A vs rich person/people B. Religion was used simply as a tool of control in these wars. Even the well-known crusades weren't as much of the "religious people A putting a jihad on religious people B because they have different beliefs" as you seemed to be making it out with your older post. The biggest cause for the whole thing was the fact that people in Europe were murdering eachother (tying into your moral compass discussion). The pope didn't like this (because all people in Europe are supposed to be Christian brothers) and simply found a way to direct the agression outwards. You give religion too much credit.
In regards to the actual quote; the real causes of the fervous witch hunts are currently actually still unclear. Obvious examples would point to 'religion', yes, but the fact of the matter is that these witch hunts gained popularity and activity at EXACTLY the same time when religion and religious dogma were rapidly dropping in it - which makes no sense. My own bet is that the whole thing was more of a 'mass hysteria' thing where people just went crazy on the idea of witches, without really thinking straight.
Ayatollah Khamenei's quest for a nuclear weapon to use against the "Great Satan" (his term for US)
Corrective rape
"Aids may be wicked, but not as wicked as condoms." - Pope
Believe me, I have more, these are just TODAY'S problems caused by religion that I threw together in 5 minutes.
Now really, are you going to claim that the Pope himself is "misusing" religion? Because please, if you are, head your post with it so I can skip over the remainder.
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion." Steven Weinberg
Don't be insulting. Many of the things you listed are still hot-button issues over which there is no clear moral delineation for society at large.
Your response also betrays a severe lack of understanding about what religion actually is. It is not some powerful man dictating a series of orders to zombie followers. It is a relationship between a worshiper and the Divine.
The Catholic church has had good popes and bad popes throughout history. A pope is merely a man with a very special responsibility. He is not the sum total of all Christian attitudes and beliefs. The pope can commit sins and is not exempt from Divine punishment.
Your "witch trials" link is a joke. Some crazy people kill a kid and claim it was religiously motivated, so you use that as an example of all religious people. That's about as narrow-minded as racism. You might as well call all black people stupid because those involved in the drowning were black and couldn't tell that what they were doing was wrong.
You take aim at a pope for calling condoms more wicked than AIDS. The reason he said this is one of morality: The use of a condom is a deliberate sinful act, while the contraction of AIDS (a disease) is not a sin.
Your response suggests that you have an almost superstitious cynicism with regards to religion and religious people.
What if religion wouldn't be created at the first place? :p You wouldn't even think about believing in stuff and focus more on your surrounding than some ghost stories.
"Aids may be wicked, but not as wicked as condoms." - Pope
Now really, are you going to claim that the Pope himself is "misusing" religion? Because please, if you are, head your post with it so I can skip over the remainder.
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion." Steven Weinberg
What the pope's quote is, is a stupid claim by a stupid man. People should recognize it as such. If they don't, the cause of that is their own stupidity, not the fact that they also believe in a deity. The only way I could possibly call religion as a whole 'bad' is in that it is a method that can be used for evil. That said, Weinberg's quote makes no sense.
Don't be insulting. Many of the things you listed are still hot-button issues over which there is no clear moral delineation for society at large.
Your response also betrays a severe lack of understanding about what religion actually is. It is not some powerful man dictating a series of orders to zombie followers. It is a relationship between a worshiper and the Divine.
And therein lies the problem. There are many "divines", and all are mutually exclusive. Ireland is the prime credence to this, with kinsmen quite willing to slaughter their neighbour's children because of what brand of Christianity they believe in.
Looking further afield, Islam has it's fair share of complications down to disagreements over Muhammad's rightful heir (which tends to resort to brutalization rather than discussion), and the Palestine issue over the Jewish "divine" having promised Jerusalem to them, while the Islamic "divine" quite clearly lays claim to the same place.
These are today's examples. This is in today's world, and there are today's people suffering and paying the ultimate price for what deity they subscribe to.
As for not understanding religion, I don't think you really believe that.
The Catholic church has had good popes and bad popes throughout history. A pope is merely a man with a very special responsibility. He is not the sum total of all Christian attitudes and beliefs. The pope can commit sins and is not exempt from Divine punishment.
Unfortunately, regardless of your opinion, his word has real power. The cure for poverty has always been empowerment of women, and this is something the Pope is very much against. Women's rights, specifically choosing when and how often to give birth, have been shown in study after study to drastically reduce poverty. I can source this a thousand times over if you wish.
Subjugation of women and denial of contraception are the pope's "gift" to Africa, and frankly, I'm disgusted. You can claim he is a sinner all you like, but his word resonates throughout the whole Christian world, and it is actions that count here, not words.
Your "witch trials" link is a joke. Some crazy people kill a kid and claim it was religiously motivated, so you use that as an example of all religious people. That's about as narrow-minded as racism. You might as well call all black people stupid because those involved in the drowning were black and couldn't tell that what they were doing was wrong.
Not just a kid; their own flesh and blood. And not just any witch trial, but one that happened here in the first world; this year.
It's commonplace far more in 3rd world countries, where ritualistic slaughter of a "witch" daughter should a family's precious son die is regarded as saving family honour.
You take aim at a pope for calling condoms more wicked than AIDS. The reason he said this is one of morality: The use of a condom is a deliberate sinful act, while the contraction of AIDS (a disease) is not a sin.
I'm... more than a little dumbfounded as to how condoms are "sinful", and rather question who's side "morality" is really on when you deny a tool to control birth rates; a proven tool in the arsenal to counter poverty.
Your response suggests that you have an almost superstitious cynicism with regards to religion and religious people.
I just oppose any ideology that brandishes truths to a point where man is willing to brutalize man over who's truth is divine.
That's even ignoring recent events like religion's role in preserving Polio, the cause of 56mil deaths per year, since Polio is Yahweh's creation and all.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 2370:
"Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, 'every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible' is intrinsically evil: 'Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of the husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving one-self totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.'"
It goes on to say, in article 2371:
"'Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understod only in reference to man's eternal destiny.'"
Also I wouldn't call the pope stupid... at least not Benedict. Conservative is not the same thing as stupid, thank you very much.
"Women's rights" may have an effect on poverty (in the short run) but it could never be a cure for it. Poverty is an insurmountable fact of human society. Marxism sought the elimination of poverty, but merely resulted in class-based favoritism. Another proven "cure" for poverty is philanthropy. Imagine that. Actually taking care of the poor.
An evil act can never accomplish a good end... the end will always be tied to the evil means by which it was achieved.
What the pope's quote is, is a stupid claim by a stupid man. People should recognize it as such. If they don't, the cause of that is their own stupidity, not the fact that they also believe in a deity. The only way I could possibly call religion as a whole 'bad' is in that it is a method that can be used for evil. That said, Weinberg's quote makes no sense.
I gave you quite a nice list of current evil acts perpetuated by today's religion, and all you did was apologise for the Pope.
I'm curious, have you actually read the bible? I recommend starting with Leviticus.
While I'm sure you're already typing "But they're metaphors!"; just go ahead and read it. All of it. I'd be entertained if you retained this "bible neutrality" attitude after actually reading the holy book of the faith you're defending.
I wouldn't say that I'm glorifying the human mind, but rather pointing out one of its unique capabilities. I disagree that good and evil is a human construct, though I have no way of verifying one way or the other. I also disagree that concepts can be the products of evolution. There are no concepts as complex as good and evil hard-wired into our brains from birth. In terms of social evolution, it's true that good morals help a civilization survive in the long run, but we are talking about a macro scale in terms of hundreds of years - beyond the interest of a single individual, which by his nature prefers to survive by whatever means possible. It seems a "leap of faith," as you say, to conclude that because people in society agree on certain moral issues now that those moral issues evolved from the beginning of human history. I don't think society itself is capable of producing conceptual evolution.
Now, when you have a very influential religion existing for thousands of years, it seems plausible that society may model many of its moral agreements after many of the tenets of said religion... especially if the majority of the society's members practice said religion.
To be clear, it seems we simply disagree on terms. By will, I mean the ability to act based on reason. By reason, I mean the ability to distinguish between good and evil actions. Murder requires malicious (evil) intent. An aggressor cannot have malicious intent if it cannot distinguish between good and evil. Animals lack reason (they cannot distinguish between good and evil,) therefore even disregarding whether animals have a will (they don't because they lack reason) animals cannot have malicious intent, and therefore animals cannot commit murder.
Now, I suppose you can make a case that animals in fact DO have reason, but you have a lot of convincing to do to make me think it's not simply animal instinct. Reason cannot be based on instinct... it requires mental complexity beyond the capacity of any instinctual animal.
As far as accepting you are finite, I'm not entirely sure we can really comprehend what that means, so I don't really understand how someone could "accept" that they are finite. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Simply going back to the point where my memory gives out is not enough... I know intellectually that I existed before that point, though I have no way of actually demonstrating that to myself. As far as I know, I could have existed before birth, even before my conception became evident in my mother's womb.
By the way Eiviyn, thank you for not being the typical internet ass by actually coming up with reasonable arguments. I tip my hat to you :)
@BasharTeg: Go
Best round of debates ever.
And to stay on topic-
Free will is an illusion.
So has religion. Just saying.
You keep bringing up historical examples, but you keep missing the point of pretty much all of them: history is a game of power. Pretty much every war, ever, was one of rich person/people A vs rich person/people B. Religion was used simply as a tool of control in these wars. Even the well-known crusades weren't as much of the "religious people A putting a jihad on religious people B because they have different beliefs" as you seemed to be making it out with your older post. The biggest cause for the whole thing was the fact that people in Europe were murdering eachother (tying into your moral compass discussion). The pope didn't like this (because all people in Europe are supposed to be Christian brothers) and simply found a way to direct the agression outwards. You give religion too much credit.
In regards to the actual quote; the real causes of the fervous witch hunts are currently actually still unclear. Obvious examples would point to 'religion', yes, but the fact of the matter is that these witch hunts gained popularity and activity at EXACTLY the same time when religion and religious dogma were rapidly dropping in it - which makes no sense. My own bet is that the whole thing was more of a 'mass hysteria' thing where people just went crazy on the idea of witches, without really thinking straight.
@SkrowFunk: Go
Are you getting at that thing where if you had two identical universes, everything would play out the same in the future in those two universes?
@BasharTeg: Go
I am sorry to break it to you, but either there is no such thing as a soul, or it does literally nothing. Your conscience is what you may perceive as a soul, though at the heart of the matter, it is just the current state of the sentient part of the brain. It isn't retained after death. You can't think after death. You can't feel after death.
As for animals, they feel and think differently from humans, with social creatures, such as canines and apes and monkeys think and feel quite similarly to humans. They have just about the same exact emotions as humans, which were, as Eiviyn said, a product of evolution. Those creatures who felt bad against doing something harmful would contribute the most to their society and thus that society would have a greater chance of surviving and passing on the genes which would make the offspring feel. Now obviously, I'm not talking about there being a society of pure savages and then suddenly one baby has a sense of morality, this would be a slow process, dictated by natural selection. This process would grant social creatures, like us and dogs etc. Effectively a sense of morality.
Now, I just realized that you were talking about animals having will, not morality, so what I just said was somewhat useless. Never mind that, there is still no reason why humans would have will, but animals wouldn't. Pretty much all animals with brains would have will; that's pretty much the point of having a brain (other than regulating bodily systems). I'd suggest you do some research on the brain before you make comments about how animal brains (humans are animals too) can't use will.
@Nebuli2: Go
I find your condescending attitude insulting. I'm pretty sure you can find a way to be a little more respectful with your replies. "Sorry to break it to you."
I suppose we will simply have to disagree as to the nature of the soul and whether it exists.
Don't confuse emotions with rational thought. I'm also not convinced that morality (discerning between good and evil) is instinctive or behavioral. While it may seem that way, I think there's a lot more at play in our environment to create moral dispositions in a person. Ultimately though, when a person acts, he must decide that the action is morally good, morally evil, or morally neutral (or immaterial.) Animals, by contrast, don't go through this step. I strongly disagree with the notion that moral consciousness is genetic and/or hereditary.
Again, there is a disagreement on terms. I don't mean "will" in the basic sense that the brain tells the limbs what to do. Here, I'm going to be nice and just quote myself from an earlier post in case you somehow missed it:
You continue to not provide any evidence or reason as for why this is. I explained it to you in my last post. Until you can rationalize your idea, it won't be taken seriously, thus my condescending attitude.
What sounds like the nicest option isn't always the nicest option. It'd be nice if I had a million dollars. Does that mean that I do have a million dollars? No, it doesn't.
@Nebuli2: Go
Animals don't write philosophical papers about morality or communicate about morals to us or each other. I don't have any inclination to suspect that they do, in fact, have morals.
You don't have to be condescending, you can simply ask me to support my points.
@BasharTeg: Go
You have only shown that they lack good skills for communicating WITH HUMANS. Please, provide some genuine evidence for your argument.
Omfg, you do actually believe the shit you saying?
The Pope and his friends got actually fucking rich from the crusades, while the army actually pillaged and raped half Europe by the time they reached the holy land. And Europe had war and killing under crusades...
Nowhere did I say the pope didn't profit, neither did I that the crusades succeeded entirely in their aim. I'm saying the primary cause was finding a way to transfer existing aggressions outwards. The primary cause was NOT a "we believe X, those guys believe Y, we need to kill those guys", that was a mere excuse for the whole ordeal. If this really were the cause, I'd like someone to explain to me why the crusades didn't happen anywhere from 100 to 500 year earlier then they did.
THAT was my point. So yes, I actually believe the 'shit' I'm saying. In regards to my actual point, you only just strenghtened it by stating that A) another cause for the crusades was to fill the treasures of Christian countries (aka the pope) and B) there was still war in Europe and the crusading army didn't exactly direct all of their aggression towards the muslims.
Who mentioned history?
I dislike your stance. You seem to think religion starts and ends at the commandments, and anything beyond that as "misuse of power".
No.
Stem cell research
Cloning
Gay rights
Equality for women
The whole of palestine
Slavery
Witch trials
Deaths over "holy book" burnings
Ayatollah Khamenei's quest for a nuclear weapon to use against the "Great Satan" (his term for US)
Corrective rape
"Aids may be wicked, but not as wicked as condoms." - Pope
Believe me, I have more, these are just TODAY'S problems caused by religion that I threw together in 5 minutes.
Now really, are you going to claim that the Pope himself is "misusing" religion? Because please, if you are, head your post with it so I can skip over the remainder.
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion." Steven Weinberg
@Eiviyn: Go
Don't be insulting. Many of the things you listed are still hot-button issues over which there is no clear moral delineation for society at large.
Your response also betrays a severe lack of understanding about what religion actually is. It is not some powerful man dictating a series of orders to zombie followers. It is a relationship between a worshiper and the Divine.
The Catholic church has had good popes and bad popes throughout history. A pope is merely a man with a very special responsibility. He is not the sum total of all Christian attitudes and beliefs. The pope can commit sins and is not exempt from Divine punishment.
Your "witch trials" link is a joke. Some crazy people kill a kid and claim it was religiously motivated, so you use that as an example of all religious people. That's about as narrow-minded as racism. You might as well call all black people stupid because those involved in the drowning were black and couldn't tell that what they were doing was wrong.
You take aim at a pope for calling condoms more wicked than AIDS. The reason he said this is one of morality: The use of a condom is a deliberate sinful act, while the contraction of AIDS (a disease) is not a sin.
Your response suggests that you have an almost superstitious cynicism with regards to religion and religious people.
What if religion wouldn't be created at the first place? :p You wouldn't even think about believing in stuff and focus more on your surrounding than some ghost stories.
So guys, how many of you believe in Zeus?
I like the guy but he talks too much (Titan Quest)
No, I'm just trying to point out that religion is what you make of it. It's not inherently evil or good.
What the pope's quote is, is a stupid claim by a stupid man. People should recognize it as such. If they don't, the cause of that is their own stupidity, not the fact that they also believe in a deity. The only way I could possibly call religion as a whole 'bad' is in that it is a method that can be used for evil. That said, Weinberg's quote makes no sense.
Also, what Bashar said.
@BasharTeg: Go
Please explain to me how using a condom is sinful.
And also, I wasn't kidding about the Zeus question.
And therein lies the problem. There are many "divines", and all are mutually exclusive. Ireland is the prime credence to this, with kinsmen quite willing to slaughter their neighbour's children because of what brand of Christianity they believe in.
Looking further afield, Islam has it's fair share of complications down to disagreements over Muhammad's rightful heir (which tends to resort to brutalization rather than discussion), and the Palestine issue over the Jewish "divine" having promised Jerusalem to them, while the Islamic "divine" quite clearly lays claim to the same place.
These are today's examples. This is in today's world, and there are today's people suffering and paying the ultimate price for what deity they subscribe to.
As for not understanding religion, I don't think you really believe that.
Unfortunately, regardless of your opinion, his word has real power. The cure for poverty has always been empowerment of women, and this is something the Pope is very much against. Women's rights, specifically choosing when and how often to give birth, have been shown in study after study to drastically reduce poverty. I can source this a thousand times over if you wish.
Subjugation of women and denial of contraception are the pope's "gift" to Africa, and frankly, I'm disgusted. You can claim he is a sinner all you like, but his word resonates throughout the whole Christian world, and it is actions that count here, not words.
Not just a kid; their own flesh and blood. And not just any witch trial, but one that happened here in the first world; this year.
It's commonplace far more in 3rd world countries, where ritualistic slaughter of a "witch" daughter should a family's precious son die is regarded as saving family honour.
I'm... more than a little dumbfounded as to how condoms are "sinful", and rather question who's side "morality" is really on when you deny a tool to control birth rates; a proven tool in the arsenal to counter poverty.
I just oppose any ideology that brandishes truths to a point where man is willing to brutalize man over who's truth is divine.
That's even ignoring recent events like religion's role in preserving Polio, the cause of 56mil deaths per year, since Polio is Yahweh's creation and all.
@Nebuli2: Go
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 2370:
"Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, 'every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible' is intrinsically evil: 'Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of the husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving one-self totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.'"
It goes on to say, in article 2371:
"'Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understod only in reference to man's eternal destiny.'"
Also I wouldn't call the pope stupid... at least not Benedict. Conservative is not the same thing as stupid, thank you very much.
"Women's rights" may have an effect on poverty (in the short run) but it could never be a cure for it. Poverty is an insurmountable fact of human society. Marxism sought the elimination of poverty, but merely resulted in class-based favoritism. Another proven "cure" for poverty is philanthropy. Imagine that. Actually taking care of the poor.
An evil act can never accomplish a good end... the end will always be tied to the evil means by which it was achieved.
I gave you quite a nice list of current evil acts perpetuated by today's religion, and all you did was apologise for the Pope.
I'm curious, have you actually read the bible? I recommend starting with Leviticus.
While I'm sure you're already typing "But they're metaphors!"; just go ahead and read it. All of it. I'd be entertained if you retained this "bible neutrality" attitude after actually reading the holy book of the faith you're defending.