Assume Nothing

First of all, "cherry-picking" is actually interpretation. Calling it that is like saying that if you don't understand a poem in its literal sense, you're being disingenuous. In fact, because of this freedom of interpretation, scripture is not rigid at all. Second, the question is not whether they are representative of the group or not. The question is "how can religion be to blame if some religious people are not nutjobs". What is to blame is parents teaching their kinds to be close-minded; if it wasn't for that, religion and rationality could coexist. This response will look a little disjointed, I’ve read through the entire response before composing this in a chronological order so I’ll make references to random bits of text. I call it cherry-picking because I have yet to be presented with sound reason as to why specific parts of religious scripture are omitted, whereas other parts are espoused. It would seem inconsistent to assert that some parts of the scripture should be taken as a literal truth, whereas others are parables. If there’s such apparent ambiguity, who’s to say which denomination is correct? I don’t think it was written to be like a poem in the first place. It was quite evident that some of the immoral principles were written as literal instructions with no ambiguity at all (I don’t really want to pull up the bits about slavery and such, but I can if you insist. It’s pretty clear that there is no ‘interpretation’ as such that may justify such actions.) If you’re asking why I blame religion for immoral actions, if some religious persons aren’t fanatical – the answer is simply because I believe that they only do it because they were instructed to, i.e. the belief in the religious scripture (or its interpretation) caused it. I believe a lot of genuinely pure-hearted people are misled by poor teachings, and I attribute responsibility to its scripture because I feel it’s the root cause. Religion is based on superstition and faith as it lacks the strong rational arguments it requires to be convincing (evidenced by arguing until ad-nauseum here). Not necessarily, look at Kant and Randox again. I don’t follow. They may act as exceptions to the rule, but in principle – a lot still do. I’ve asked them before with affirmation, and they act as though there is a god. They don't have to follow them to the letter (again, interpretation). For example, halal meat needs to be prepared by a qualified butcher, but during Eid al-Kbir, since so many sheeps are getting killed, a temporary license is distributed. Again, scripture is actually not rigid at all; you can make of it whatever you want to. As Ginger pointed out, a lot of Muslims place an emphasis on integration within cultures that aren't theirs. Of course, there are some who don't. But those people were taught to act in this way, and as such people are responsible for this, not ideologies. I don’t really believe that you can make scripture whatever you want, unless you’re being intentionally disingenuous or dishonest about whether the scriptural texts are true. If they’re not meant to be taken to the letter, why take them seriously at all? The people were only taught to act in the way because their religion dictates so – unless you can show me otherwise. Again, not religion's fault. It's the fault of close-minded people who happen to be religious. Yes, there is a tendency to perpetuate the issue amongst these groups but eradicating religion won't solve the issue. I don’t think there’s much room to be open-minded in theistic worldviews. Let’s see, what’s the typical punishment for making the proposition that the god the religion believes in may not be true? It entails eternal damnation, loss of ‘god’, execution, social exclusion – depending on how fundamental the denomination is. I’m relatively certain that the lattermost applies to even moderate religions, though they’re unlikely to admit it. The best we can do is say people are not allowed to impose principles upon others, encourage open-mindedness, etc. Anti-religious discourse goes against this very notion. I’d say that it depends how you’re defining anti-religion/anti-theism in the first place. I’m opposed to the ideas as a result of subjecting them to scrutiny and coming to an understanding that it is a cause of destruction throughout history. I am open minded enough to consider the ideas (not its principles, but the idea of the existence of deities), but I won’t accept them by simply considering them for that is not persuasion. Confused, can't reply. Neither can I since you’ve pulled it out of its original context. I don’t think it’s much of a point to disagree over though. Oh yeah, for sure. People can have whatever faith they want though, they just shouldn't use it to justify immorality. Here’s the problem: if we let them believe whatever faith they want, a lot of them would still try to use it to justify immoral behaviour as by their definition, it is moral behaviour. I could expand on this if you want, I don’t want to make this too exhaustive. Nope, they're very supple. Nope, that's a characteristic of certain people (and not just those who believe in a deity), not of religion. Historically it has been the case because it's been used to justify political action. I’ve addressed the supple/rigid issue in the first quote of yours. There’s simply not enough room for disagreement where there’s an interpretation that allows for justification. Let’s take the slavery example again: is there an interpretation that could justify it? If it’s the parable excuse, why must it apply arbitrarily in scriptural texts rather than equally throughout? In general this doesn't have to be the case. It doesn’t have to be, no. In the reality of it, it happens to be the case too much – and I’ll still argue that religion is its cause. Not necessarily. Again this has more to do with the way religion is taught than religion itself. If religion in itself is neither god nor evil, why has religion been taught so poorly? Same thing... See above. We're essentially disagreeing on this: you think religion is harmful because it changes the way you act according to irrelevant principles, whereas I think this modification is not a characteristic of religion, and that it is rather caused by the way it is taught. Indeed – it seems that it’s our main point of contention. I think there’s a reason why it is taught in such a way – because it’s an effective way of keeping the religion sustainable (i.e. the more people joining than leaving equation). If it was taught in a way that had no adverse effects of religion to speak of, then there would be little point in believing that a god exists in the first place since its existence would hold no significance in one’s life anymore – which brings us back to the point of why believe in a god in the first place?

I'll rephrase. If her Christianity has next to nothing to do with a God to worship, but more about accepting others (which is actually inconsistent with some of the other principles she mentions) - then what's the point of accepting the conviction that 'a god exists'? If it's to bring false hope, great - but it still has adverse effects of believing what's effectively a lie (which I'll argue outweighs the benefits of believing said comforting lie)

If adherence to your religion is more about its values than its beliefs, then why call it religion?

But that's the entire point--there is no characteristic of religion which applies to every religious person! Some Christians are very rational (again, Kant). Your misconception is that because a number of referents (an infinite amount of different beliefs and ethical systems) are tied to a single word (religion), then there must be a shared essence to all these referents. This is not necessarily true: I’m not sure if you really understand my point. Religion can be characterized by a universal belief that there exists a deity – its individual sects (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism) determines what they believe. It is an all-encompassing ideology which dictates what to believe, what to think, how to act, and how to behave. If they don’t meet these standards, which the three most popular religions do, then I’m not referencing those religions (e.g. Buddhism). Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but the assertion that they are representative of the group is simply misleading. I’m not too concerned with moderate faith, as long as it doesn’t lean towards fundamentalism – but why follow the religion if you’re going to cherry-pick in the first place? It would seem to be a poor move for maximizing the happiness in one’s life, unless they’re mislead by promises of eternal salvation. ‘Not all religions work the same way’ <- that’s a little meaningless until you clarify how religions do work, and I’m primarily unconcerned with the people you’re currently referencing. I think a lot of people do use their belief as a foundation – or at least a significant determinant of their actions or lack thereof, as reflected by their behaviour. I maintain the belief that the truth value of beliefs – especially those pertaining to the existence/non-existence of ideas, is relevant and significant. If actions are influenced by belief – and that religious beliefs promise eternal salvation by adherence to its moral principles, then its followers must act in accordance to their religion to attain its promised benefits – thus establishing its relevance to human behaviour and therefore society. It sounds fine until you realize that due to the structure of the hierarchies’ common in religious groups that it could and would be easily abused for unsavoury/questionable practices. It wouldn’t be far-fetched to say that even moderate religious groups may influence political decisions, as clearly illustrated by the recent gay-marriage vote where its opposition was largely comprised of religious adherents who believed that homosexuality is ‘wrong’ based on biblical scripture. Its typically uncritical nature is a major point of contention where I firmly hold that it causes damage to our societies in ways we may not even be aware of. Religious ideals and its principles in its entirety is contingent on whether a deity exists, so if we believe that these religious principles (thou shall never lie/steal/whatever) are inconsistent with those that are morally good, then it should be argued that it’s our duty to show religious followers that their faith has mislead them. You've missed the point. You have first established that it's human nature to impose values/ethics/judgements upon others, so I'm suggesting that if its an intrinsic part of human nature that we cannot control with any ease, then the first step towards progression is determining which values is worthwhile to impose before imposing them. I never said it was "human nature" to impose values upon others; calling upon human nature is something people do to justify actions they don't want to feel responsible for. In fact, if I thought it was impossible to stop, I wouldn't have told you to do so. Oh, my bad. I’d say the point I was trying to convey was that if we are predisposed of imposing values upon others anyway, then it would be better if we had an impartial method of determining which values we may impose. I agree with you – imposing any values is unnecessary, but that’s not what I am really arguing. All you need to do is say that religion and irreligion belong in the private sphere and that it cannot be used to justify imposition of something on another person; this is what I would say to someone who would want to impose or ban halal meat in any country. People are free to have whatever religious belief they may want (if at all), but if the question isn't private and individual, then it has nothing to do wih it. I won’t disagree that they can’t be used to justify imposition of something – just don’t expect religious freedoms to be equivalent to freedom from criticism. People may do immoral actions, but we are allowed to judge them. So can values which are not based on religion (which I understand is not the same thing as values based on atheism). Kant's ethics are based on reason and Eichmann used them to defend himself after WW2. Atheism isn't to blame, of course; but if the people twisting religious ethics to fit their actions hadn't been disrespectful of others, then religion wouldn't have been an issue. Disrespect is the problem. Yes, values based on irreligious principles can also be twisted too. There are two problems with religious principles in particular – they’re predisposed to be destructive, because they’re too rigid and its principles are inconsistent with the objective of promoting social progression (or whichever social objective there should be for meta-ethics) as its contingent on what a deity says. In addition, the scrutiny of its ethical stance is also typically discouraged, so it’s difficult to determine from an adherent’s perspective whether these are truly principles that are good. There’s been a lot of previous discussion about whether questioning the faith and its moral principles are acceptable within a religious body. I would maintain that whilst they encourage some questioning to promote the idea that they’re freethinking, critical analysis that involves the rejection of poor arguments is generally discouraged as they consider it ‘questioning God’. Again, Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." This is an ethical imperative which: a) isn't based on religion b) is based on the effect of action on yourself and others Kant is religious, but the Bible is not where he gets his morals; in fact, later in his reasoning, his morals justify his religion (I'm sure you've sensed the resemblance). It's a purely rational system. I was not going to argue Christian values are useful for ethics. Just because they are unnecessary in ethics and science doesn't mean religions are altogether useless, and it doesn't mean they are bad. Again, religion is fine in the private sphere. Ah, that’s not religious principles at all. As I’ve previously explained, whilst there are exceptions to the rule. A lot of religious followers do act with some consistency to religious principles from biblical scripture. If we could establish that religious scripture is of no moral authority then we should argue that adherence to the religion itself is harmful, because it’s likely to encourage immoral behaviour. I’m glad that a lot of religious followers, including Kant, don't actually follow the moral principles of Christianity, and especially Islam – it’s just a shame that there are people who do where religion is to blame (remember that picture I’ve shown? It’s especially prevalent in the Bible belt of the USA) I’m not actually certain if we’re disagreeing at all, since we seem to echo each other here – but you must realize that religion is not in a private sphere; we’re not living in a vacuum. As a society, we share space that we live in. It could be easily established that religious beliefs affects others – oftentimes in an adverse way, hence my apparent contempt for religion in itself. I’ll close with a quote: Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg.

Banned for continually sending me intimate details of your life in private message for the past few months.

@the above discussion: I was thinking the same thing, in all honesty. My_Eggs is yearning for someone who no longer exists in reality - what you see in those letters are feelings of the past. You've lived in the moment, and you should be grateful for that - but change is a law, and no amount of pretending will alter that reality. If you can't accept the changes that had occurred before your relationship ended, then you should no longer yearn for her now - for it would be too painful to endure with the regret which ultimately follows. It's an inconvenient truth, but you've really got to let it all go before you regret your decision later. Oh, as a further point - you really need to find inner-happiness (I think r/seduction calls this inner-game) before you can truly succeed in an intimate relationship. You'll also find that the drama which ultimately ensues to be much easier to deal with too. You need be able to be happy whilst independent - the reliance on women to make you happy would ultimately hurt you - this is what I refer to as the 'void' in one's life.

... I see arguments against capitalism, which seems to imply that its removal would improve their situation. I'm not sure how - surely that would mean you're withdrawing opportunities (albeit rather mediocre ones) from them as opposed to giving them more?

Banned for showering with clothes on.

Banned for being such a lawless devil.

Banned for inaccurately inferring that the remark was that you're evil.

I'd probably sound naive here, but what changes need to take place before the Third World countries can progress towards becoming First World countries?

You're missing my point, this discussion won't go anywhere. It's an idea to ask them though.

I've never claimed to know, it was speculation after-all. Is my point valid though, that if they were extremely religious they'd be less likely to be accepting of homosexuality (for that they have 'failed' to impart their religious ideals, thus the idea of 'failing' one's upbringing)?

There wasn't anything religious about my post? It was the direction of the discussion, since it was about the acceptance of homosexuality by the religious ('ultra-conservative Catholics').

Do we need to have a religious/meta-ethics discussion here? It could be cross-posted into the other threads if you wish.

@thediscussionabove: I'd say it depends on how devoutly Christian they/their social networks are. They may be there for you on everything else, like relationship issues and such - but as a religiously sensitive issue, it's not unlikely that they'd still disown you for dishonoring their religious codes, thus it's the equivalent of committing 'social suicide' by outing yourself as homosexual (its like turning yourself in to the cops if you're in a very religious area like the Bible belts in the States). On the remarks of my display name: it's funny you criticize me for the lack of 'religious interpretation' in the religion threads, to then hypocritically do the same when interpreting my display name. Assumptions are quite often necessary to make any progress in discussion, for to truly make no assumptions would be captious. On a more random, yet on topic note: my sleeping habits are messed up, but it's half-term! I'm a bit slow on revising for my subjects though :/, too much coursework to do this week.

You're telling me Al-Qaida's terrorists and my dad have the same ideology? We've already been through this--religious texts require interpretation, and as such there is no unifying characteristic to beliefs tied to these texts other than the fact that they are bound to them. Spinoza was a pantheist, and he got this idea out of Abrahamic texts (Christian or Jewish, I'm not sure). In response to the Al-Qaida terrorists thing: the answer is 'yes and no'. I have no understanding that your father is practicing an Islamic faith, so I'll operate on the idea that he's in fact a Christian or a moderate Muslim (I don't know anything of your background). I'd answer yes because it's the fundamental difference between unbiased scrutiny of ideas and the acceptance of supernaturalism, where from inference your father falls under the second category. In other words - if your father was religious to any significant extent, he would follow the same pattern/school of thought as they, but not to the same degree whereby rationality is diminished. I'd answer no because as you've said, it's reliant on interpretation - but that's individual religious alignment as opposed to criticism on religion on the whole. We agree; all I'm saying is philosophy and ethics are not worthless. And what is religion if not metaphysics, epistemology and ethics? If that's the case, then religion ought not be taught as a literal truth - rather, as a philosophical idea. If that's what you're valuing, then we have no disagreement, because I value it as an idea - the point of contention is accepting it (the idea of the existence of a deity) as true. This "if at all" allows you to ask a question you shouldn't be asking... let people do what they want. It's none of your business. You've missed the point. You have first established that it's human nature to impose values/ethics/judgements upon others, so I'm suggesting that if its an intrinsic part of human nature that we cannot control with any ease, then the first step towards progression is determining which values is worthwhile to impose before imposing them. One of the problems we have is the idea of religious freedom, but lack of irreligious freedom to critique - the idea that it's politically incorrect to scrutinize religion gives it a free pass to do whatever it likes, and that too often involves coercion, imposing values through social pressure, and other means of propagating itself to maintain the people who join >= people who leave status quo. So can values which are not based on religion (which I understand is not the same thing as values based on atheism). Kant's ethics are based on reason and Eichmann used them to defend himself after WW2. Atheism isn't to blame, of course; but if the people twisting religious ethics to fit their actions hadn't been disrespectful of others, then religion wouldn't have been an issue. Disrespect is the problem. Of course it can be true on both sides. Religious values are just so much more prone to it, because morality by divine command is reliant on the word of scripture. It is not based on whether the actions/decisions of others affects others (which I'd argue is the objective of morality, to reap what society deems to be the most benefit, whatever that may entail), so in terms of whether they are of any use - I'd argue that religious values have none. I anticipate the counter-argument that a lot of 'religious' values do have its merits, and has even been consistent with our laws and social convention. It's true, some commandments e.g. 'Do not murder', and the general principle of 'Do not lie' is accepted to be generally social principles - but that disregards the fact that morality predates scripture. I'd argue that it's most likely to be inherited as part of evolution, as murderous societies tend not to last very long (an unbalanced equation of rate of death > rate of birth) - and to lie persistently would make it very difficult to have any trust within communities thus again, causing social breakdown. Meta-ethically speaking, religion is unnecessary and quite often harmful to morality - it's a shame that it receives so much credit as the religious have a tendency to falsely attribute these morals to a 'god' (which is not unlikely, since they have a strong emotional connection to what's perceived to be a 'god', thus they're predisposed to committing the special pleading fallacy.)

You worry too much.

I know this is less of a pet peeve than a solution to a pet peeve, but I thought it was useful:

Today, I've discovered 'r/tipofmytongue'. I'd say this would probably be a suitable cross-post for 'Things that annoy the HELL out of you', since one of the biggest pet peeves is the inability to recall things. ... ever had a tune in your head that you just couldn't quite recall the name to? This site lets you sing/hum the song you want to recall. Ah, the wonders of the internets.

I could only speak for myself here, but I would say that these terms are used in language despite my position on religion (anti-theistic/anti-religious unbeliever). I'll admit that I do make a conscious effort in limiting its usage to avoid confusion, especially in religious debate - but you have to note that our language has evolved with religious roots so it's unreasonable and practically impossible to completely boycott its usage in language. I would say that the terms itself, despite having religious origins, have no religious association in its modern colloquial interpretation. An example could be the term 'good-bye', which originates from the term 'god be with ye'. In modern usage, it means the approximate of 'I shall wish you well, now that we must depart,' despite its origins. I'll have to respond to this a little later, I'm a little too preoccupied to provide an extensive, well explained list at this moment.

... this point comes up quite a lot about 'I used to be a believer, but I don't anymore.' I find it particularly interesting. I think, for most people, it's almost intrinsic that there's some deeply rooted desire for authority and thus the idea of a creator. I'm curious - what do other atheists feel are responsible for the emergence and growth of religions, if religious scripture was inaccurate?

If you're playing the raising the goalposts game, then I can equally assert that nothing is knowable except our own existence and death. Does it logically follow that therefore because we can't know with any certainty, that we shouldn't believe things anyway? No. Gnosis is the Greek term for knowledge, which belief isn't contingent upon (which you've quite expectantly, and rather conveniently skipped as usual).

Banned for being the God of Gluttony.

Banned for being a moral monster, that is 'God'.