we have something called freedom of belief, it is an important right - this right does not require that we prove that all religion is inherently bad though a case could certainly be made.
Now its a rights issue? Then why all the stuff about how religion is harmful? You're going in circles.
Rights and informed consent require the free-will clause. Would you like to be brainwashed into being a muslim suicide bomber? Why or why not?[/b]
No. I wouldn't. For obvious reasons. Now please make the case that all religion is brainwashing. Or are you simply saying children shouldn't be brainwashed? If you are, once again, why single out religious brainwashing?
Lol. Yes, and fire is used only for acts of arson - not to cook meals and warm homes.
AB : ok, prove that religion is a solution for anything... - will it make you immortal or eliminate your suffering? what does it do?
Will it make me immortal? What an odd question. Why would it need to do that to be of benefit? ...At its worst religion is a justification for acts of evil. At its best it is the inspiration and affirmation for acts of charity, kindness, mercy and love, bringing communities together with a common purpose to do good in the world and provide for their neighbors both materially and spiritually. You seem to think of religion as being defined only by how it is at its worst. ...Why? Do you judge all political systems on the basis of fascism? Or spurn the piano because some folk don't know how to play it?
Then why can you disqualify it on the grounds that it has negative outcomes? Do you not consider that a contradiction? ...I do.
AB : I'm not using a greater good rationale, that's impossible to measure. I'm using rights to justify my position.
But you are, and have been repeatedly. You have been stating that religion is harmful and oppressive. Like I said, going in circles. My above comment was in response to the fact that you have stated the opinion that religion is harmful to support your claims. When I challenge you, and say what about when its NOT harmful, you say its not about harm: It's about rights. A classic dodge.
What is the 'nature of faith' you refer to? Why do you place this in opposition with reason and the scientific method. If religion were also empowering, might we infer that this would qualify it as 'good'? Why/why not?
AB : faith is belief in something that is not proven and being closed minded towards competing theories - while the scientific method is remaining skeptical.
That is a particularly odd statement. Faith is belief? Dubious. Faith is closed mindedness to other options? Says who? If you genuinely have issues with religion (and why shouldn't you?) I advise you study something of what religion is. You clearly know very little about it. That's not me trying to insult you either. That's real advice.
In a battle of ideas, there is no substitute for accurate, specific knowledge. Ignorance is evil and paralytic.
If religion were empowering, we wouldn't need science.
Another doozy. I find Millsian Liberalism pretty darn empowering. Is that an affront to science too? Not to mention that obviously religion IS empowering to so many people. How can you even say something like 'if' religion were empowering? It clearly
is. Religion and science are nowhere close to being at odds.
Then why single out religion at all? If your grievance is with doctrines in general, say as much.
AB : because no post is all emcompassing, obviously I'm putting forward the idea that we should protect the rights of those we create - and focusing on the specific right to be free of involuntary religious programming.
Yes, but why? I would argue its because of your belief that religion is intrinsically harmful. See where I'm going? You're not hung up on doctrine. You're hung up on religion.
Edited by ben, 10 February 2009 - 08:09 AM.