Is religion evil?

[Graham Kennedy]

You're right - I'll never interpret "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live" as meaning "Live in harmony with witches." However, it's very apparent to me that this doesn't actually refer to practicing Wiccans.

I wasn't referring to Wiccans; wiccans and witches are two different things, and I've known both.

It's also very apparent to me that this was written during a time when human sacrifice, sexual slavery, and other practices which we consider abhorrent were commonplace.

So?

I'll repeat my earlier question - if religion is inherently evil, then I must be as well. I don't think I've done anything too evil in my lifetime, so isn't condemning me as such based simply on my belief just as evil?

No, because what I am essentially saying is that if we define a christian as being one who follows the teachings of the bible, then you aren't really a christian. You look at the bible and you use your moral sense to decide which rules to follow and which to ignore, as most people do. And that moral sense does not come from the bible; it stems from your society, your upbringing, your evolved evolved social instincts, etc.

For most people the bible is the literary equivalent of a Rorschach ink blot test. They take from it what they choose to see in it. My assertion is that you, Mikey, are a fundamentally good person; you could be given ANY sufficiently long list of hazy, contradictory rules and guidelines, and you'd still come up with an interpretation that let you behave as the good person you are.

The danger comes when people refuse to do that and say "this book is the Truth and must be followed in its entirety regardless of the consequences". That way lies crazy consequences, ranging from people pushing creationism in the schools through to people flying airliners into buildings, precisely because so many of those rules and guidelines and examples are, for want of a better world, evil.

[Mikey]

This is an interesting question. Lets go with a guy who was raised by a hardliner Evangelical (just a random choice) family and thoroughly indoctrinated into the faith. He then goes and blows up an abortion clinic. At what point does he become at fault? Or his parents, his preacher, the guy who revised his faiths texts?

In this case, fault becomes a very relative thing. Does he think he's at fault? No, he thinks he's done the world a favor. Is he at fault in my eyes? Yes, along with his parents and whoever filled their heads with fundie crap.

I wasn't referring to Wiccans; wiccans and witches are two different things, and I've known both.

Fair enough. What that line was intended to indicate is that since I don't believe in fundamentalism, I don't believe that passage could or should be attributed to the witches to which you refer. Since we all know that the Bible was mistranslated (possibly intentionally) into Latin and thence to English, it can never be safe to assume that "witches" in the King James Bible actually means what our word "witches" does.

So?

So? So, the Bible needs to be taken as a work in context, from a time in which it was necessary to tell people how wrong such practices are. If we no longer need that reminder, then there is no need to apply anything about "suffering a witch to live." Yet another instance of my distaste for, and the untenability of, Biblical fundamentalism.

No, because what I am essentially saying is that if we define a christian as being one who follows the teachings of the bible, then you aren't really a christian. You look at the bible and you use your moral sense to decide which rules to follow and which to ignore, as most people do. And that moral sense does not come from the bible; it stems from your society, your upbringing, your evolved evolved social instincts, etc.

For most people the bible is the literary equivalent of a Rorschach ink blot test. They take from it what they choose to see in it. My assertion is that you, Mikey, are a fundamentally good person; you could be given ANY sufficiently long list of hazy, contradictory rules and guidelines, and you'd still come up with an interpretation that let you behave as the good person you are.

The danger comes when people refuse to do that and say "this book is the Truth and must be followed in its entirety regardless of the consequences". That way lies crazy consequences, ranging from people pushing creationism in the schools through to people flying airliners into buildings, precisely because so many of those rules and guidelines and examples are, for want of a better world, evil.

Very well said. I think I've stressed enough that Scripture doesn't TRULY lend itself in any common-sense way to fundamentalism (yes, I used "common sense" in a religious discussion, and I believe that's the only way to go.) However, I would say without trying to be cyclical that part of the moral framework I use to interpret and validate my faith is, in turn, rooted in that same faith.

[Graham Kennedy]

You are saying that you choose which parts of the bible are good and worthy with a moral sense that stems from the bible. That can't really be true, it's a circular argument.

Person A may say Jesus preached forgiveness, and therefore I disregard the old testament passage in which god has a pack of bears rip children to shreds for the crime of teasing a man about his hair (it's true. Look it up.)

Person B may say that Jesus IS god, and therefore it was Jesus who sent the bears, and therefore I disregard what he had to say about forgiveness.

Both of those two arguments are exactly the same in principle; both are drawing moral lessons from the bible and judging other parts of the bible based on that morality. My assertion is that if you draw moral lessons from the bible you can justify more or less anything - and that's simple fact, since the bible HAS been used to justify more or less anything in the past.

I believe that most people use a secular morality to judge which parts of the bible to follow. But given that we do have this secular morality, I have to ask what do we need the bible for at all? Why not simply use our secular morality to determine what is right and wrong independent of the book?

[IanKennedy]

My views on it is that it has cuased more chaos on the planet then most other things combined.

A common misstatement on the part of the irreligious. People who claim a religion as their credo may cause such chaos; not the religion itself.

Ah, a common false claim by those who are religious. The catholic church used it's religion in vast regions of the world to cause harm to people who didn't believe in there version of god. This in part was called the Inquisition, it lasted for a very very long time. OK, in Europe it stopped after a hundred years or so but in South America it continued well into the 20th century. This was ordered by the pope, who supposedly has a direct line to god, and thus it is directly because of the religion, not some fanatical group (unless you wish to cast the pope as a fanatic, which I could live with, given some of the things they have done). Add to this the crusades, which were again a product of the catholic church.

[IanKennedy]

It is true that religion inspires some very peculiar idiocy - but only in those predisposed toward idiocy. I'll give some examples of what I mean:

The Crusades - Catholicism was certainly the excuse; but the original aims were secular, being those of territoriality, and later included sheer bigotry, perhaps religious in nature but they wouldn't have changed a bit if replaced with skin-color or cultural bigotry.

While territoriality was involved it was because of the religious significance of the area involved. If there wasn't a relegious nature to the area then I don't think the crusades would have started in the first place.

The Inquisition - surely based on religious fundamentalism, in the teachings of the original Dominican order. However, I defy anyone to argue that Torquemada wouldn't have found an excuse to persecute minorities if Catholicism hadn't existed.

Torquemada was only one small part of the event, and yes, I do say that without the catholic church he would not have done the things he did. He would not of had the power or authority to do these things. He would have been one man, also without the belief that he was just in his actions I don't even thing that he would have been a murderer.

Stalin - conducted perhaps the greatest attempted genocide of his own countrymen the world has seen, and did so as the staunchest anti-religion secularist ever.

Pol Pot - shared a common cultural and religious upbringing with the people he slaughtered.

I'm sorry but that's a bad argument, you cannot say that religion is not evil because there are people who are evil and not religious. Nobody ever claimed that everything evil in the world was caused by religion, simply that a lot of evil things have been done by religion, NOT just those who use it as an excuse.

Etc., etc. I never argued that religion hasn't been used as a common excuse for all sorts of horrors; but to say religion is evil has a twofold, perhaps unintended, message: 1) that all people who subscribe to religion are evil, which is personally offensive and ties in to, 2) this is as much of a prejudicial blanket statement as saying "All Romanians are a bunch of dirty, thieving Gypsys."

That is simply not true, clearly there are people who are religious and not evil, but there are also religious people who are evil. This includes the catholic church and it's teachings, as someone else pointed out the AIDS epidemic in Africa is not helped by the current and previous Pope saying that contraception is evil. This direct issue is killing millions of people, OK these people are not without guilt in the issue themselves, but you cannot blame them for not doing something that the head of their church says is going to cause them to go to hell.

Equally, the Muslim faith would have more of a leg to stand on, in terms of condemning those it says are not following the faith correctly by performing terrorism, if it didn't have as one of it's beliefs an item called a fatwā, which in it's self isn't an issue, however, they have been used to issue a death sentence on various people. The most famous example of this I can think of is that of Salman Rushdie who for the simple expedient of writing a book, had Ayatollah Khomeini issue a fatwā that said it would be fine for any Muslim to kill him on site. Khomeini is head of the Muslim faith in Iran. Khomeini also backed the people who held the American hostages in the famous Iranian hostage crisis (back in the Jimmy Carter days).

[Teaos]

From what I can see most people opinions here seem to be along the lines of:

With out religion good people would do good things and bad people would do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

[Graham Kennedy]

I beat you to that quote a few posts back

[Teaos]

Pfft details.

[IanKennedy]

You're right - I'll never interpret "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live" as meaning "Live in harmony with witches." However, it's very apparent to me that this doesn't actually refer to practicing Wiccans. It's also very apparent to me that this was written during a time when human sacrifice, sexual slavery, and other practices which we consider abhorrent were commonplace.

I cannot see why you think it's obvious that this should not apply to Wiccans, is it simply that some of them don't call them selves witches? There are some who do you know, what are your feelings towards them? Ah, are you saying that religion may have been evil in the past but it's not now, but that's alright as it was a time when being evil was OK. So, is evil OK if others are doing it also? Murder is commonplace now, does that make it OK to murder?

I'll repeat my earlier question - if religion is inherently evil, then I must be as well. I don't think I've done anything too evil in my lifetime, so isn't condemning me as such based simply on my belief just as evil?

You seem to have a problem separating out yourself and your religion. I'm pretty sure you do not follow every single tenant of your religion. You don't, presumably, kill your children if they are cheeky to you.ref I'm also assuming that you have been known to go shopping or to sports events on a Sunday, despite the order to keep it holly. You and your religion are different things. You like most religious people today only follow the parts of your religion that make sense to you, which is fine by me. However, it does not mean that the religion in it's self cannot possibly not have elements of evil within it simply because you are not evil. If, however, you followed every single instruction in the bible then I would say that yes you are evil.

[Mikey]

You are saying that you choose which parts of the bible are good and worthy with a moral sense that stems from the bible. That can't really be true, it's a circular argument.

It would be a circular argument - you said that I use an inherent morality to apply to my acceptance of dogma - I said that my religio-cultural basis helps shape my inherent morality.

But given that we do have this secular morality, I have to ask what do we need the bible for at all? Why not simply use our secular morality to determine what is right and wrong independent of the book?

#1 - it's not a given. There are plenty of evil yet non-religious people in the world.

#2 - I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I don't think the need for religion is entirely based on the need for moral lessons. People need a higher power, an uncaused cause, a prime mover. For some of us, this is the supernatural element of religion. For some, it is a less supernatural but nearly as religious belief in the spirit of Gaia. For some of us, it is the purely scientific, mechanical explanation of the workings of the universe and the microcosm of the human mind. The quest for the GUT is no less a quest as Percivale's search for the Grail.

The catholic church used it's religion in vast regions of the world to cause harm to people who didn't believe in there version of god. This in part was called the Inquisition, it lasted for a very very long time. OK, in Europe it stopped after a hundred years or so but in South America it continued well into the 20th century. This was ordered by the pope, who supposedly has a direct line to god, and thus it is directly because of the religion, not some fanatical group (unless you wish to cast the pope as a fanatic, which I could live with, given some of the things they have done). Add to this the crusades, which were again a product of the catholic church.

The Inquisition was rubber-stamped by the contemporary pope, though truly began by the Domincan order which at the time most definitely was a new, fundie-nut body within the Church. However that may have been, it seems like you're saying that it would have happened had the pope been a completely different man or had there been no Spengler - and I can't accepot that this is unequivocably true.

While territoriality was involved it was because of the religious significance of the area involved. If there wasn't a relegious nature to the area then I don't think the crusades would have started in the first place.

Part of the original but unheralded aim of the Crusades was to secularly unify Christendom, as well as raise money for the Church. If the pope (based on his individual motives) didn't have Jerusalem, he would have called Timbuktu a holy land.

Torquemada was only one small part of the event, and yes, I do say that without the catholic church he would not have done the things he did. He would not of had the power or authority to do these things. He would have been one man, also without the belief that he was just in his actions I don't even thing that he would have been a murderer.

So, he wouldn't have had the logistics to carry out his acts to the same extent. Hardly germane to the point.

I'm sorry but that's a bad argument, you cannot say that religion is not evil because there are people who are evil and not religious. Nobody ever claimed that everything evil in the world was caused by religion, simply that a lot of evil things have been done by religion, NOT just those who use it as an excuse.

I'm not saying that - I'm using these examples to refute the claim that was made that all religion is inherently evil, all the time.

That is simply not true, clearly there are people who are religious and not evil, but there are also religious people who are evil...

EXACTLY! Thank you - you have expressed succinctly exactly what I'm trying to say. While there are people who are religious and evil (arguably, you may say evil because they are religious,) it is incorrect to say that all religion is always evil, no matter what.

I cannot see why you think it's obvious that this should not apply to Wiccans, is it simply that some of them don't call them selves witches? There are some who do you know, what are your feelings towards them? Ah, are you saying that religion may have been evil in the past but it's not now, but that's alright as it was a time when being evil was OK. So, is evil OK if others are doing it also? Murder is commonplace now, does that make it OK to murder?

Huh? You need to read further along the thread, I addressed this from a few different angles.

You seem to have a problem separating out yourself and your religion. I'm pretty sure you do not follow every single tenant of your religion. You don't, presumably, kill your children if they are cheeky to you.ref I'm also assuming that you have been known to go shopping or to sports events on a Sunday, despite the order to keep it holly. You and your religion are different things. You like most religious people today only follow the parts of your religion that make sense to you, which is fine by me. However, it does not mean that the religion in it's self cannot possibly not have elements of evil within it simply because you are not evil. If, however, you followed every single instruction in the bible then I would say that yes you are evil.

I actually have less of a problem separating myself from my religion than many people of faith. I use myself as an example because I'm the example I know best. And you are reading my point, just not my methodology of making it. I don't believe that I'm evil. I'm using this to show the paradox; I'm not evil (as hopefully the people I addressed this to agree,) but I am a supporter of a religion which by those earlier claims makes me evil, or at least a proponent of evil.

As I read more and more of the responses in this thread, I think I see a pattern emerging, which the last bit of Ian's quoted above makes clear: the arguments for religion being evil, or faith being bad, seem to be backed somehow by the idea that all religious people are fundamentalists. I am a man of faith, but I detest fundamentalism more than most atheists. Ian wrote, "If, however, you followed every single instruction in the bible then I would say that yes you are evil." I would say rather that not only was that evil of itself, but in fact contrary to the basic tenets of my faith.

[Graham Kennedy]

You are saying that you choose which parts of the bible are good and worthy with a moral sense that stems from the bible. That can't really be true, it's a circular argument.

It would be a circular argument - you said that I use an inherent morality to apply to my acceptance of dogma - I said that my religio-cultural basis helps shape my inherent morality.

There's no difference between the two that I see.

#1 - it's not a given. There are plenty of evil yet non-religious people in the world.

Well I actually doubt that - I don't really believe in evil people as such. But granting it for the sake of the argument, I certainly don't believe that there is anybody in the world who is without any moral code. They may differ in what their morals are or how they apply them, but everyone has SOME sort of moral code.

#2 - I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I don't think the need for religion is entirely based on the need for moral lessons. People need a higher power, an uncaused cause, a prime mover. For some of us, this is the supernatural element of religion. For some, it is a less supernatural but nearly as religious belief in the spirit of Gaia. For some of us, it is the purely scientific, mechanical explanation of the workings of the universe and the microcosm of the human mind. The quest for the GUT is no less a quest as Percivale's search for the Grail.

I personally don't need any higher power beyond Humanity and its institutions, and I think it's an unfortunate thing that anybody does. I'd far rather help and encourage them away from such a need than try to fulfil it with religion.

As for an uncaused cause, it's only logical that SOMETHING had to be the first thing to exist. Whilst it's possible that that something is some kind of being with a mind, there's absolutely no reason to suppose it. Personally I see no problem at all with saying that the universe itself is the uncaused thing.

[IanKennedy]

You are saying that you choose which parts of the bible are good and worthy with a moral sense that stems from the bible. That can't really be true, it's a circular argument.

It would be a circular argument - you said that I use an inherent morality to apply to my acceptance of dogma - I said that my religio-cultural basis helps shape my inherent morality.

But surely you were moral before you were indoctrinated, you were not for example an evil baby that was saved by coming to religion. A bit of chicken and egg, which comes first?

But given that we do have this secular morality, I have to ask what do we need the bible for at all? Why not simply use our secular morality to determine what is right and wrong independent of the book?

#1 - it's not a given. There are plenty of evil yet non-religious people in the world.

#2 - I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I don't think the need for religion is entirely based on the need for moral lessons. People need a higher power, an uncaused cause, a prime mover. For some of us, this is the supernatural element of religion. For some, it is a less supernatural but nearly as religious belief in the spirit of Gaia. For some of us, it is the purely scientific, mechanical explanation of the workings of the universe and the microcosm of the human mind. The quest for the GUT is no less a quest as Percivale's search for the Grail.

I for one do not need some higher beeing to make sense of the world. There is no way you can compare science to a religion. When science finds something it has got wrong it simply changes it's self to repair the issue. It does not steadfastly hold one to the thought that it is correct and the world must be mistaken. It uses evidence and logic to see how things may work and then tests those assumptions to see if the world matches up with the theory, if it doesn't then a new theory is found. The fact that there are very few 'laws', in physics for example, and an awful lot of theories holds out the somewhat temporary nature of science. This is something some religious people, and I'm not counting you in that, seem to find a problem. They say that if it's only a theory you cannot argue that it is right, after all god said it wasn't that way thus we have proof against it so you must be wrong. You find this a lot in arguments against evolution. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of a theory, and what constitutes evidence.

The catholic church used it's religion in vast regions of the world to cause harm to people who didn't believe in there version of god. This in part was called the Inquisition, it lasted for a very very long time. OK, in Europe it stopped after a hundred years or so but in South America it continued well into the 20th century. This was ordered by the pope, who supposedly has a direct line to god, and thus it is directly because of the religion, not some fanatical group (unless you wish to cast the pope as a fanatic, which I could live with, given some of the things they have done). Add to this the crusades, which were again a product of the catholic church.

The Inquisition was rubber-stamped by the contemporary pope, though truly began by the Domincan order which at the time most definitely was a new, fundie-nut body within the Church. However that may have been, it seems like you're saying that it would have happened had the pope been a completely different man or had there been no Spengler - and I can't accepot that this is unequivocably true.

If the pope had thought it was bad he could have said no, very simply. Yet he and a lot of his followers did not. As I say there are remote parts of Colombia where despite people saying it ended in the 1834 (started in 1480) it continued into the 1900s. There's a museum in Colombia about it. That's a lot of popes not cave in to the wishes of one small order. What I am saying is if the pope (the man with the direct line to god) had not been evil then it would not have been allowed to happen. The acts that took place as part of the inquisition were evil and he/they (for the were many popes in that time) supported them. The pope only recently apologized for their involvement of with the Nazis. Again not exactly the act of a body with good moral standing.

While territoriality was involved it was because of the religious significance of the area involved. If there wasn't a relegious nature to the area then I don't think the crusades would have started in the first place.

Part of the original but unheralded aim of the Crusades was to secularly unify Christendom, as well as raise money for the Church. If the pope (based on his individual motives) didn't have Jerusalem, he would have called Timbuktu a holy land.

It's the holy land because it's in the Bible not because the pope suddenly thought it was a good place to steal things from. What I am saying is if there wasn't a religion there wouldn't have been a cause to start the war over.

Torquemada was only one small part of the event, and yes, I do say that without the catholic church he would not have done the things he did. He would not of had the power or authority to do these things. He would have been one man, also without the belief that he was just in his actions I don't even thing that he would have been a murderer.

So, he wouldn't have had the logistics to carry out his acts to the same extent. Hardly germane to the point.

No, you miss my point. If there wasn't a religion he would have no need to do the things he did. Hunting poeple down because the follow a different religion doesn't really work if there is not religion in the first place. Also, it's entirely germane that is it more evil to torture 150,000 people killing well over 5,000, than say killing a few people before the police (or the watch or whatever was in place before that) catch you.

I'm sorry but that's a bad argument, you cannot say that religion is not evil because there are people who are evil and not religious. Nobody ever claimed that everything evil in the world was caused by religion, simply that a lot of evil things have been done by religion, NOT just those who use it as an excuse.

I'm not saying that - I'm using these examples to refute the claim that was made that all religion is inherently evil, all the time.

Then you are arguing against someone else. For I am saying that it's very possible for religion to be evil and for it to make the people in it evil, but it doesn't require every person in it to be evil for that to be the case. Clearly you are not evil, but, if you followed the full ordered laid out in the old testament then I would say that you are.

That is simply not true, clearly there are people who are religious and not evil, but there are also religious people who are evil...

EXACTLY! Thank you - you have expressed succinctly exactly what I'm trying to say. While there are people who are religious and evil (arguably, you may say evil because they are religious,) it is incorrect to say that all religion is always evil, no matter what.

But it is also the case that if you follow the rules prescribed then you are evil, the fact that you are bad at being religious lets you escape from the evil nature of it. By only picking and choosing the things that you follow you are being a bad religious person, in that you are not doing what god tells you to do (at least not all of it). The example I gave is you do not have your son stoned to death because he doesn't do what you say and he drinks etc. Because you do not follow this and the other idiotic things the bible tells you to do then you are not evil, however, you are not a good religious person either. Now you are going to say that following the bible to that level makes you a fundamentalist and you don't like them, but that is what religion is all about. It is not about picking and choosing what you want to be right and going with that, it's about doing what you are told by god. Although I'm thankful for religious people that pick and choose it's a very secular thing to do, it's not exactly living by the rules god provided.

I cannot see why you think it's obvious that this should not apply to Wiccans, is it simply that some of them don't call them selves witches? There are some who do you know, what are your feelings towards them? Ah, are you saying that religion may have been evil in the past but it's not now, but that's alright as it was a time when being evil was OK. So, is evil OK if others are doing it also? Murder is commonplace now, does that make it OK to murder?

Huh? You need to read further along the thread, I addressed this from a few different angles.

I saw all of them after I posted. I'm off sick at the moment so I'm not in here that often. However, looking at what you said, you basically dodged the issue by claiming that the work witch didn't mean witch. In your view it could mean anything. That is frankly silly. You cannot say I have no problem sticking to the order to 'kill the witch' and then choose to have an alternative meaning to the word witch so you don't have to kill anyone. It reminds me of a line from The Life of Brian, 'blessed are the cheesemakers', 'Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products'. Choosing what to listen to while very laudable in not killing anyone who claims to be a witch, is not exactly playing fair.

You seem to have a problem separating out yourself and your religion. I'm pretty sure you do not follow every single tenant of your religion. You don't, presumably, kill your children if they are cheeky to you.ref I'm also assuming that you have been known to go shopping or to sports events on a Sunday, despite the order to keep it holly. You and your religion are different things. You like most religious people today only follow the parts of your religion that make sense to you, which is fine by me. However, it does not mean that the religion in it's self cannot possibly not have elements of evil within it simply because you are not evil. If, however, you followed every single instruction in the bible then I would say that yes you are evil.

I actually have less of a problem separating myself from my religion than many people of faith. I use myself as an example because I'm the example I know best. And you are reading my point, just not my methodology of making it. I don't believe that I'm evil. I'm using this to show the paradox; I'm not evil (as hopefully the people I addressed this to agree,) but I am a supporter of a religion which by those earlier claims makes me evil, or at least a proponent of evil.

I've said before, as have others, that we don't think you are evil. However, I've also pointed out that the religion can be evil without ever member being evil, it's a simple matter of you ignoring the instructions and doing what's right DESPITE the religion rather then because of it.

As I read more and more of the responses in this thread, I think I see a pattern emerging, which the last bit of Ian's quoted above makes clear: the arguments for religion being evil, or faith being bad, seem to be backed somehow by the idea that all religious people are fundamentalists. I am a man of faith, but I detest fundamentalism more than most atheists. Ian wrote, "If, however, you followed every single instruction in the bible then I would say that yes you are evil." I would say rather that not only was that evil of itself, but in fact contrary to the basic tenets of my faith.

Then I think we are starting to agree. You are saying that if you stick to the rules then you are evil. Now the difference between us is in what you want to call a religion and what is not. I for example follow the rule from the bible that says 'Thou shalt not kill', however, that does not make me a Jew or Christian. The question for me is now many rules do you ignore before you stop being religious and start becoming a simple humanist. Also, can I ask when you say the 'tenets of my faith' are you talking about your tenets or those of a group you belong to?

[Mikey]

Whew! *cracks knuckles*

There's no difference between the two that I see.

No difference? One is A->B; the other is B->A.

Well I actually doubt that - I don't really believe in evil people as such. But granting it for the sake of the argument, I certainly don't believe that there is anybody in the world who is without any moral code. They may differ in what their morals are or how they apply them, but everyone has SOME sort of moral code.

You may doubt it, but I do not. I gave examples of evil people who were not driven by any religious motivation whatsoever. I also do not doubt for a second the existence of both immoral people and amoral ones.

I personally don't need any higher power beyond Humanity and its institutions, and I think it's an unfortunate thing that anybody does. I'd far rather help and encourage them away from such a need than try to fulfil it with religion.

As for an uncaused cause, it's only logical that SOMETHING had to be the first thing to exist. Whilst it's possible that that something is some kind of being with a mind, there's absolutely no reason to suppose it. Personally I see no problem at all with saying that the universe itself is the uncaused thing.

I never said that your higher power had to be an anthropomorphic G-d, or anything like that. If yours is "merely" (I quote that because there is nothing "mere" about it) Humanity and its institutions, so be it. I said "being" earlier, and that was a poor choice of term on my part. But I am fully aware that Man invented G-d (or gods) as much as, if not more so, the other way around.

But surely you were moral before you were indoctrinated, you were not for example an evil baby that was saved by coming to religion. A bit of chicken and egg, which comes first?

I was? Of course not. As an infant I was completely amoral, as was every other human infant in the history of ever. Our morality, or lack thereof, is learned, not innate. Whether that comes from religion (in the case of religious households) and infuses our culture, or vice verse, is a question for smarter people than me. I'd guess a little of both.

I for one do not need some higher beeing to make sense of the world. There is no way you can compare science to a religion.

The point is that you believe in something to make sense of the world. Religion or not, I don't care.

When science finds something it has got wrong it simply changes it's self to repair the issue. It does not steadfastly hold one to the thought that it is correct and the world must be mistaken.

Using my own personal example, this is one of the credos of Conservative Judaism, which is the faith in which I was raised. It is why we in general, and I even more vehemently, have come to detest fundamentalism, and also why I have the ability to separate "truth" from "fact" in interpreting the Bible. In fact, all of Judaic history comes with a millenia-long tradition of interpreting Scripture, and applying to it contemporary contexts.

This is something some religious people, and I'm not counting you in that, seem to find a problem.

We are able to have this very discussion because you are not religious and I am - yet you don't see a problem with saying "I'm not counting you in that?"

Anyway, you need to count me in that, and the majority of religious people like me who don't hold to fundamentalism - otherwise you're basing your analysis of religious people on a scientifically invalid sample size.

If the pope had thought it was bad he could have said no, very simply. Yet he and a lot of his followers did not. As I say there are remote parts of Colombia where despite people saying it ended in the 1834 (started in 1480) it continued into the 1900s. There's a museum in Colombia about it. That's a lot of popes not cave in to the wishes of one small order. What I am saying is if the pope (the man with the direct line to god) had not been evil then it would not have been allowed to happen. The acts that took place as part of the inquisition were evil and he/they (for the were many popes in that time) supported them. The pope only recently apologized for their involvement of with the Nazis. Again not exactly the act of a body with good moral standing.

All true. In this very expression you mention the pope being an evil man. My point exactly - that the prosecution of such heinous acts was dependent on the immorality of individuals, not of a philosophy.

It's the holy land because it's in the Bible not because the pope suddenly thought it was a good place to steal things from. What I am saying is if there wasn't a religion there wouldn't have been a cause to start the war over.

True, in the sense that there wouldn't be a Catholic Church without religion. The point was that even though the Church is a religious institution, the reasons behind the Crusades were generally secular ones.

No, you miss my point. If there wasn't a religion he would have no need to do the things he did. Hunting poeple down because the follow a different religion doesn't really work if there is not religion in the first place.

Yes, of course. But the fact is that somebody else would have started killing people for a different reason.

Also, it's entirely germane that is it more evil to torture 150,000 people killing well over 5,000, than say killing a few people before the police (or the watch or whatever was in place before that) catch you.

Sorry, I don't buy that for a second. Evil is based on intention, not prowess. If I tried to shoot 100 innocent people with an assault rifle and only hit three, I'd be just as evil for it as if I was a better shot and hit fifty.

Then you are arguing against someone else. For I am saying that it's very possible for religion to be evil and for it to make the people in it evil, but it doesn't require every person in it to be evil for that to be the case. Clearly you are not evil, but, if you followed the full ordered laid out in the old testament then I would say that you are.

You are the first person on your side of this debate to say that it is "possible" for religion to be evil, as opposed to saying that it is inherent in religion to be evil. Thank you - and I agree. I'll even admit that certain religions - and certain fundamentalist views of them - can in fact cause evil behavior. What I have been arguing against is the idea that religon is inherently evil simply due to the fact of it being religion. And what you seem to be on the verge of realizing in the last sentence above is that fundamentalism is generally the root of religious-based evil; what needs to follow is the idea that the majority of religious people in the world are not fundamentalists.

But it is also the case that if you follow the rules prescribed then you are evil, the fact that you are bad at being religious lets you escape from the evil nature of it. By only picking and choosing the things that you follow you are being a bad religious person, in that you are not doing what god tells you to do (at least not all of it). The example I gave is you do not have your son stoned to death because he doesn't do what you say and he drinks etc. Because you do not follow this and the other idiotic things the bible tells you to do then you are not evil, however, you are not a good religious person either. Now you are going to say that following the bible to that level makes you a fundamentalist and you don't like them, but that is what religion is all about. It is not about picking and choosing what you want to be right and going with that, it's about doing what you are told by god. Although I'm thankful for religious people that pick and choose it's a very secular thing to do, it's not exactly living by the rules god provided.

If this were the true case with religion the world over, I would staunchly stand by your side in this discussion. I don't know what ever made you believe that the only way to be true to one's faith is to be a Biblical fundamentalist, but it's simply not true. I gave you the example of my own sect of Judaism, which makes it a central point to extol flexibility and practical application of the meanings of the Bible - not the letter of the Biblical commandments. There are certainly more radical, yet mainstream, sects of Judaism. Even better - Catholicism is known as a bastion of orthodoxy, yet my wife's church - the Byzantine Catholic Church - applies that same sort of flexibility and interpretation. If fundamentalism were the rule rather than the exception, why would Hamas have been voted down so often, to only be able to rule by terrorizing their own people? Fundamentalism is loud, and shiny, and obnoxious, and speaks with a voice greater than its actual part of the whole.

I saw all of them after I posted. I'm off sick at the moment so I'm not in here that often. However, looking at what you said, you basically dodged the issue by claiming that the work witch didn't mean witch. In your view it could mean anything. That is frankly silly. You cannot say I have no problem sticking to the order to 'kill the witch' and then choose to have an alternative meaning to the word witch so you don't have to kill anyone. It reminds me of a line from The Life of Brian, 'blessed are the cheesemakers', 'Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products'. Choosing what to listen to while very laudable in not killing anyone who claims to be a witch, is not exactly playing fair.

I do hope you recuperate quickly. It's not a dodge - the mistranslation of the Bible is well-known, especially the issues that occurred with the anti-Semitic work of Jerome in composing the Vulgate. However, the overarching issue is that you once again assume that to be a good Jew I would have to live my life by the rule of "thou shall not suffer a witch to live," even in the 21st century. This is, as I pointed out above in saying that my faith does NOT include fundamentalism as a requirement (or even as desirable,) a fallacy. Choosing how to interpret the Bible, based on contemporary culture among other things, isn't "not playing fair;" it's a vital part of being a conscientiou man of a 3000-year-old faith in the 21st century.

I've said before, as have others, that we don't think you are evil. However, I've also pointed out that the religion can be evil without ever member being evil, it's a simple matter of you ignoring the instructions and doing what's right DESPITE the religion rather then because of it.

Again, let me say thank you for the simple words "can be" instead of "always is." As to the second part - I have to reiterate that this would be true only if fundamentalism and hatred were the price of admission for every sect of every faith in the world. It isn't.

Then I think we are starting to agree. You are saying that if you stick to the rules then you are evil.

Only if those rules are evil, whether by design or by outdated application. I stick to some rules of my faith, but as I mentioned my faith incloudes flexibility and contemporary application. Killing witches, to continue my prior example, is NOT one of the rules of modern Conservative Jewry, be it in the Bible or not.

Now the difference between us is in what you want to call a religion and what is not. I for example follow the rule from the bible that says 'Thou shalt not kill', however, that does not make me a Jew or Christian.

No, it simply makes you a man whose personal morality duplicates that of Judeo-Christian theology in that one particular point. (BTW, the commandment is correctly read as "Thou shall not murder." It's an important distinction - otherwise, soldiers would all be guilty of breaking the Ten Commandments.)

The question for me is now many rules do you ignore before you stop being religious and start becoming a simple humanist.

TBH, since I've explained too many times that fundamentalism is the antithesis of practical religion, to me it's not a question of "how many rules." The simple fact is that I'm religious because I believe in G-d; you're not, because you don't.

Also, can I ask when you say the 'tenets of my faith' are you talking about your tenets or those of a group you belong to?

Both, in this case. This is an instance in which my personal beliefs jibe perfectly with those of my sect of Judaism.

[Captain Seafort]

Debate split from here.

[Sionnach Glic]

Does this really belong in Politics?