"With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2014, 12:24 PM
RE: "With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?
(31-12-2014 08:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-12-2014 08:46 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Manipulating gullible people is not a unique power.
Those doing the manipulating are often ruled by greed and power. It's unlikely that these manipulators will also be altruistic .

So people only manipulate in such a way for greed and power, but never for altruistic reasons you're saying?

And in your view manipulation doesn't require the agent to pass off something they know is false, but applies to those passing on something to others which they hold as true, but is false nonetheless?

Often/Unlikely do not equal Never.

Seriously... How hard is it for you to openly engage people honestly?

And it's clear there isn't some unique power of religion. This same system occurs with cults, pyramid schemes, and bonus scenarios. The key of it working is you have to make the people believe there is some benefit and growing worth... That idea isn't as manageable for long term beneficial outcomes or "good" because it's mostly convincing people based on short term inputs.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2014, 12:41 PM
RE: "With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?
(31-12-2014 12:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(31-12-2014 08:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So people only manipulate in such a way for greed and power, but never for altruistic reasons you're saying?

And in your view manipulation doesn't require the agent to pass off something they know is false, but applies to those passing on something to others which they hold as true, but is false nonetheless?

Often/Unlikely do not equal Never.

So they often manipulate in such a way for greed and power, but rarely ever do it for altruistic reasons?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2014, 01:06 PM
RE: "With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?
(30-12-2014 04:12 PM)victormarte Wrote:  “With or without religion, 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.”

Just curious about this. I have had multiple arguments where I use this, although it is argued back that;

"Although not in the name of atheism, secular people can do wrong acts too" and "Good people do evil acts as well, so what's your point?"

What do people think about these counter arguments?

Sometimes people do good things, sometimes they do bad things.

Everybody wants to wear the white hat though. Nobody simply says, "We're a bunch of bastards and are going to kick your heads in because we feel like doing something horribly immoral today." Every tyrant in history has made an attempt to justify their actions.

Religion provides a convenient justification for nearly any atrocity you might wan to commit. It provides an Authority that you Shall Not Question. It enhances the mental partitioning that allows people to do wrong while believing that it is right. It suppresses critical thinking that might otherwise have revealed the justifications for baseless jingo.

Religion doesn't make good people do bad things but it does go a long way toward enabling it.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
01-01-2015, 01:55 AM
RE: "With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?
(30-12-2014 04:12 PM)victormarte Wrote:  “With or without religion, 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.”

Just curious about this. I have had multiple arguments where I use this, although it is argued back that;

"Although not in the name of atheism, secular people can do wrong acts too" and "Good people do evil acts as well, so what's your point?"

What do people think about these counter arguments?

I regard the original quote as being technically incorrect as phrased, but still making a very good point.

Technically incorrect, because the cause being pointed to is too narrow. "Religion" (which word here I interpret as meaning a popular supernatural-based belief with attached doctrines, not based on sound evidence) is certainly a prime culprit, but it is hardly the only one. It is just as possible for good people to do bad things due to, say, subscribing to inaccurate economic or political doctrines, or faulty medical or parenting advice. The problem is when an untested (and ultimately false, though we don't know it yet) belief is held to the exclusion of humanitarian principles, or to the point where we are blinded to the actual human consequences of our actions.

This can happen due to reasons other than religion. That said, religion is one of the most egregious offenders. What's important to hold to here in the face of counterargument is the intended point: That religion can and repeatedly has led good people do bad things, and that it is historically an untrustworthy guide to moral behavior.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
01-01-2015, 02:57 AM
RE: "With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?
(30-12-2014 05:30 PM)Gordon Wrote:  Everybody does good and bad. It's because we do bad that we need Christ. But we'd need Christ anyway, because doing good won't get us to heaven. This fixation atheists have with good and bad is ridiculous anyway. If there is no God, then good and bad don't matter--just the impulse to survive and reproduce.
[Image: dna1.gif]

Only atheists do good. Everything else is just what your god-douche told you to do, so doesn't count. All you have is the impulse to obey your god and slaughter your children and enemies at his command.

See how this works?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2015, 03:58 AM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2015 04:01 AM by gofish!.)
RE: "With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?
(31-12-2014 07:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-12-2014 05:36 PM)gofish! Wrote:  Secular people usually need to have a damn good reason to do bad (or a mental condition like schizophrenia or sociopathy).

Religious people don't, they just need the word of god.

Secular people don't need good damn reasons to be good?

Are they just good for goodness sake? But never really bad for badness sake?

Not sure what your point is here, other than taking us into a broader discussion of ethics. I'm pretty sure that discussion might end up concluding that in the absence of a higher authority handing out orders, thinking people will need to develop systems of living that make sense (i.e. ethics) which guide life.

Any variance from any such system will need to have good reason.

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes gofish!'s post
01-01-2015, 06:40 AM
RE: "With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?
I would replace it with "for good people to do evil, that takes an ideology."

Be it religious or secular, ideologies invariably ask that people sacrifice rational thought for the "greater good", or the ultimate objective. The Nazis genuinely believed they were in the right, and so did the Soviets.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Sam's post
01-01-2015, 06:49 AM
RE: "With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?
(01-01-2015 06:40 AM)Sam Wrote:  I would replace it with "for good people to do evil, that takes an ideology."

Be it religious or secular, ideologies invariably ask that people sacrifice rational thought for the "greater good", or the ultimate objective. The Nazis genuinely believed they were in the right, and so did the Soviets.

The the OP was in the context of religion only.

That said, sure I can agree with that. After all, religions are, in my opinion, fundamentally political organisations.

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2015, 07:26 AM
RE: "With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?
(30-12-2014 05:30 PM)Gordon Wrote:  Everybody does good and bad. It's because we do bad that we need Christ. But we'd need Christ anyway, because doing good won't get us to heaven. This fixation atheists have with good and bad is ridiculous anyway. If there is no God, then good and bad don't matter--just the impulse to survive and reproduce.
[Image: dna1.gif]

Why do you feel the need to believe? Animals don't just have the impulse to survive and reproduce. They play together also, they form groups so they all mutually benefit. We do the same.

I don't understand xtians fixation with heaven. Well I do, because if there is not heaven or hell, then there is no christianity. I don't understand the need for them to believe there is a heaven, when the cost of this belief has been shown to be extremely high in this world.

Remember, just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it true. Yes, even if you have faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2015, 08:35 AM
RE: "With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?
(30-12-2014 04:12 PM)victormarte Wrote:  “With or without religion, 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.”

Just curious about this. I have had multiple arguments where I use this, although it is argued back that;

"Although not in the name of atheism, secular people can do wrong acts too" and "Good people do evil acts as well, so what's your point?"

What do people think about these counter arguments?

This depends on your definition of good and evil. This is a hard topic to argue because it's based on opinions and ideas, not necessarily facts. I would avoid using it personally.




(30-12-2014 05:30 PM)Gordon Wrote:  Everybody does good and bad.
True, although a bit contradicting of your own beliefs. Did Jesus do bad too?

(30-12-2014 05:30 PM)Gordon Wrote:  It's because we do bad that we need Christ.
Citation needed.

(30-12-2014 05:30 PM)Gordon Wrote:  But we'd need Christ anyway, because doing good won't get us to heaven.
You sure about that?
Mathew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

John 5:28-29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Peter 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear

Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

(30-12-2014 05:30 PM)Gordon Wrote:  This fixation atheists have with good and bad is ridiculous anyway. If there is no God, then good and bad don't matter--just the impulse to survive and reproduce.
It's funny how even animals, with no concept of religion find a way to be moral. Could this mean that we do not need God for morals? Well, it's a good indicator if nothing else.

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: