If you believe a redneck you might be full of bullshit.

all religions are bullshit, period!

I fear a shinyblurry rant is imminent.

I think he's trying to make a point here but I can't tell what it is!

There is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it. Yet, there is so much negative gained by the brainwashing that what positives are possible can't even be fully realized. You can examine yourself but your examination must always pass through the lens of indoctrination.

Jesus (the example with which I am most familiar) basically tells us not to be dicks. We already knew it was a good idea not to be a dick, even if we are dicks to people sometimes. Here's the thing to notice: the religion helps us forget how not to be a dick. Most of the people who hate on gays have been told by Jesus not to be dicks and not to hate, yet somehow they forgot. They forgot because they have a "moral code" that is "superior" to "sinners." Once you're "superior," it's easy to forget how not to be a dick.

A real follower of Jesus would not pass those judgements, would respect and love all people, and would be a homeless wanderer giving everything to lift up the downtrodden. Just remember that whenever a "Christian" is judging someone else... when what he really needs is to judge himself. I realize the last bit is a really high bar, but the rest of the teachings would improve the world if only they were understood with clarity instead of shoved aside for the sake of finger-wagging at people who are different.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

There is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it.

I agree with much of your comment, but that opening statement is so broad and overreaching that I had to downvote it (and I almost never vote on comments).

Unless I am mistaken, I think you are referring to a very narrow definition of religion in making that claim. It is absurd otherwise. Religion, in the most general sense, is a collectively accepted doctrine of moral, philosophical, and spiritual belief. There is nothing inherently detrimental to such systems of belief, except perhaps the tendency towards tribalism. But it's worth noting that some religious doctrines explicitly warn against tribalism.

I think what you may be arguing against is demagoguery and tribalism, both of which are often attached to religion, but are not synonymous with it.

It is important to make this distinction because only by being careful with such words can we ever move those enthralled by the negative aspects of religious social control.

So you downvoted a comment that I put some thought into, snipped out the majority of it in your quoting, disagreed with the one line you quoted, and then failed to explain how it was wrong.

All you'd have to do is show one positive to be gained from religion that is exclusive to religion, and you did not do so. After labeling me absurd, you then veer completely off that point. Religion is a combination of philosophy and dogma, and it is my contention that all the positives inherent in religion come from the philosophy and not the dogma, thus rendering them available even to those who do not buy into the dogma. I singled out Christianity (which I am most familiar with) but you could apply these statements equally to Buddhism (with their dogma being reincarnation and karma), and most likely to any other religion.

Those who are moral because of heaven or hell, or because they want to be reincarnated well, or for whatever other dogmatic reason fail to appreciate morality for what it is. If this is such an absurd comment, then by all means please tear it apart. Just calling it names does nothing constructive whatsoever.

I don't know what to do with the knowledge that you rarely vote on comments, considering your failure makes your vote seem rather petty to me. On the plus side, I have no idea what effect your vote has, so it's hard to be affected by it.

@PostalBlowfish - easy friend ... I wasn't labeling you absurd, just one interpretation of the opening remark of your comment. Surely there is a distinction. You don't need to do anything with the fact that I don't often vote on comments. That fact and this specific exception to it have no real effect, except apparently to have upset you.

To your specific points, though ...

I don't think I veered off topic at all. I was trying to figure out to what exactly you were referring by "religion". I tried to make a guess based on the rest of your comment. I didn't offer an example of the benefits of religion because 1) I wasn't sure my guess about your meaning was correct, and 2) if you were referring to religion in its broadest terms, the claim seemed patently false. Your response suggests a broad definition of religion and that what I think is obvious is not at all obvious to you.

You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.

Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.


The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)

Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).

For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.

I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".

>> ^jonny:

[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.

The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

*hugs akwardly*
>> ^hpqp:

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)
Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).
For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.
I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".
>> ^jonny:
[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.
The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

@hpqp: The first problem here is that you are extrapolating my response into something it's not. PostalBlowfish commented that "There is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it." My response to that has multiple points which apparently I haven't articulated very well. To add another though, it seems pretty clear that religious inspiration in art and music would be hard to duplicate without it, i.e., it is often the very nature of the supernatural belief that is inspirational. But to your point, that does not at all imply that I am "divorc[ing] the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined".

I'm not being naive or disingenuous - I've literally thought about this stuff for decades. In no way do I excuse any organized religion from its sanctioned evils (e.g., harboring pedophiles). For a long time I viewed religion as the source of many of the evils in society. But I've since come to realize that the evils directly attributable to religion are not intrinsic to religion, but to more fundamental aspects of human nature. And it is those fundamentally human traits that I think we, as a society, should be focused on rising above. Tribalism is one that I tend to focus on, and my point here is that religion is an expression of it, rather than a source of it.

Human's basic need to be tribal is kind of a big topic, so let me offer a more targeted, if tangential, example of what I mean. Consider the teaching of creationism in science classes. The most effective argument against it is that creationism is not science. Arguments against religious interference, separation of church and state, etc., only serve to muddy the waters and alienate the very people we would want to convince that creationism doesn't belong in science classes. There is no need to appeal to larger arguments against religion and doing so only weakens the most important one.

You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.

As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.

Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.
>> ^jonny:

@hpqp: The first problem here is that you are extrapolating my response into something it's not. PostalBlowfish commented that "There is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it." My response to that has multiple points which apparently I haven't articulated very well. To add another though, it seems pretty clear that religious inspiration in art and music would be hard to duplicate without it, i.e., it is often the very nature of the supernatural belief that is inspirational. But to your point, that does not at all imply that I am "divorc[ing] the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined".
I'm not being naive or disingenuous - I've literally thought about this stuff for decades. In no way do I excuse any organized religion from its sanctioned evils (e.g., harboring pedophiles). For a long time I viewed religion as the source of many of the evils in society. But I've since come to realize that the evils directly attributable to religion are not intrinsic to religion, but to more fundamental aspects of human nature. And it is those fundamentally human traits that I think we, as a society, should be focused on rising above. Tribalism is one that I tend to focus on, and my point here is that religion is an expression of it, rather than a source of it.
Human's basic need to be tribal is kind of a big topic, so let me offer a more targeted, if tangential, example of what I mean. Consider the teaching of creationism in science classes. The most effective argument against it is that creationism is not science. Arguments against religious interference, separation of church and state, etc., only serve to muddy the waters and alienate the very people we would want to convince that creationism doesn't belong in science classes. There is no need to appeal to larger arguments against religion.

Nice straw men. I didn't write anything close to "without religion there can be no inspired art", nor have I ever heard or read anyone seriously suggest such a thing. Using that phrasing, my comment would be "without religion there can be no religiously inspired art," which should be self-evident.

And again you have assigned a position to me that does not follow from my comments. I am not apologizing for religion, nor do I think it doesn't deserve criticism and scrutiny. (On a side note, I think we may be using the word "religion" differently. I always make a distinction between faith (an individual belief) and religion (a collective belief). The distinction is analogous to the personal/public distinction in language.)

I haven't reduced religion to the sociocultural evils you mention. That is what you seem to have done, with only a dismissive acknowledgement of any good that may arise from it. I have repeatedly tried to show that religion is not the source of the evils you mention, but an expression of them. Even the teaching of nonsense and propagation of willful ignorance, which to me is one of the greatest sins, is hardly unique to religion or even inherent to it. Counterexamples - birthers and Taoism.

Again, let me point out that my comments arose from PostalBlowfish's comment that "there is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it," and his and your attempts to equate religion with certain fundamental human traits. This is really the basis of our disagreement - namely whether traits such tribalism and demagoguery are intrinsic to religion. To say that they are intrinsic implies that no religion can exist without those traits, and that is patently false. On the other hand, you don't need to look very hard to find those traits in just about any other social organization (politics, sports, business, etc.). This is what I keep trying to get across. None of the evils you attribute to religion are unique to it. Even if religion somehow magically disappeared tomorrow, all of those unpleasant traits would still be with humans. And this is the most important point I've been trying to make - don't let arguments over religion distract from the vastly more important task of helping humanity overcome these terrible tendencies inherent in all of us.

>> ^hpqp:

You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.
As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.
Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.

My apologies for missing your point, I sometimes tend towards the contentious. I think we have been arguing diagonally; of course religion (and faith) are the result of human traits, as is everything about human society. What I argue is that the unpleasant traits you rightly observe in other social institutions and widespread beliefs find a special form of propagation and protection from scrutiny in the supernatural aspect provided only by religious/supernatural belief. I still believe society would be better without religion, just as it would be without conspiracy theorists (often religious as well), state religion, and more generally the lack of critical thought. The reason religion is a worthy target when trying to effect social reform/progress is that, as I argue above, it ossifies and protects the negative traits you speak of, elevating them out of the sphere of human scrutiny/criticism by means of the supernatural argument.

>> ^jonny:

Nice straw men. I didn't write anything close to "without religion there can be no inspired art", nor have I ever heard or read anyone seriously suggest such a thing. Using that phrasing, my comment would be "without religion there can be no religiously inspired art," which should be self-evident.
And again you have assigned a position to me that does not follow from my comments. I am not apologizing for religion, nor do I think it doesn't deserve criticism and scrutiny. (On a side note, I think we may be using the word "religion" differently. I always make a distinction between faith (an individual belief) and religion (a collective belief). The distinction is analogous to the personal/public distinction in language.)
I haven't reduced religion to the sociocultural evils you mention. That is what you seem to have done, with only a dismissive acknowledgement of any good that may arise from it. I have repeatedly tried to show that religion is not the source of the evils you mention, but an expression of them. Even the teaching of nonsense and propagation of willful ignorance, which to me is one of the greatest sins, is hardly unique to religion or even inherent to it. Counterexamples - birthers and Taoism.
Again, let me point out that my comments arose from PostalBlowfish's comment that "there is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it," and his and your attempts to equate religion with certain fundamental human traits. This is really the basis of our disagreement - namely whether traits such tribalism and demagoguery are intrinsic to religion. To say that they are intrinsic implies that no religion can exist without those traits, and that is patently false. On the other hand, you don't need to look very hard to find those traits in just about any other social organization (politics, sports, business, etc.). This is what I keep trying to get across. None of the evils you attribute to religion are unique to it. Even if religion somehow magically disappeared tomorrow, all of those unpleasant traits would still be with humans. And this is the most important point I've been trying to make - don't let arguments over religion distract from the vastly more important task of helping humanity overcome these terrible tendencies inherent in all of us.
>> ^hpqp:
You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.
As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.
Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.