Is the argument against religion/belief a moral argument, in part or in whole - please read.

[el_bryanto]

When I say moral I am not referring to the morality of the person making the argument or the morality of making such an argument, but whether or not the argument has a moral component to it.

Consider two arguments in favor of vegetarianism.

#1. You should stop eating meat because you'll feel better and be more healthy.

#2. You should stop eating meat because it's cruel to animals and livestock production causes long term damage to the planet.

Argument 1 is largely practical, argument 2 is based on moral principals. Argument 1 suggests that eating meat is a impractical choice or stupid, argument 2 suggests that eating meat is morally wrong.

Arguments can combine both moral and practical concerns of course, but in your mind does the argument against religion/belief have a moral component?

This poll is more practical for Atheists who have an argument against religion.

Bryant

3 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Definitely
	0 (0%)
	Somewhat
	0 (0%)
	A little bit
	0 (0%)
	Not at all
	2 (67%)
	Why would you post such a bullshit poll?
	1 (33%)
	I like to vote!
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[mike_c]

1. in science, we speak of a "culture of honesty" or a "culture of evidence..."

...with the clear and explicit acknowledgment that dishonesty or massaging evidence to bias it in support of a priori views is unethical. That implies a moral choice. I think I apply the same thinking to my atheism: without unambiguous evidence in support of religious beliefs, their propagation as "truth" is unethical in the same way that falsifying data or misreporting research results are unethical.

[el_bryanto]

2. Thank you for replying. nt

[upaloopa]

3. Concerning the vegetarian arguments

I don't think either one is a moral argument.
Morals are an invention of man. Like time it is useful but doesn't exist without us thinking about it.
You could look at things in a cause and effect way. Look at the effects and ask yourself what are the causes of that effect.
If the effect is harmful what caused the harmful effect. There is no moral judgment with this kind of thinking.
So if one effect of there being religion is harm why is that? It is because of things people do. Their actions are the cause. No moral judgment just a look at the effect and the cause.
So if your action causes harm stop doing it.
On edit:
I can never understand why if you are an atheist you spend so much time thinking about religion. I understand atheists are persecuted by religion believers but isn't it tit for tat to spend time finding fault with religion?

Why not feel confident in your belief or non belief and stop spending time in the negetive?

[el_bryanto]

4. I am a believer personally, which is why I'm not voting

I am just curious as to whether or not the argument against religion has a moral component to it to participants in this forum.

Bryant

[upaloopa]

5. Ok

I am looking at the question from a Buddhist perspective.
Atheist feel pain or suffering not because religion exists but because they are clinging to the idea that the existance of religion harms them.
It isn't the existence of religion that is the cause of their suffering but I doubt you could convince them of that. Having resentment toward religion is a cause of suffering or clinging to the need to feel resentment toward religion causes suffering.
Personally I don't see things in a moral vs immoral way.

[rexcat]

8. Please don't speak for atheists...

your comments concerning us is rather broad stroked, condescending and smug. We atheists have to deal with bigotry in our daily lives and seeing in this forum is not needed. I doubt many (if any) of us think that religion harms us. On the other hand religious people can harm us and there is plenty of evidence of that. To some extent we may believe it can harm society in one way or another but that is a different debate.

I have experienced religious bigotry first hand. One reason I don't normally bring up my atheism to religious people, be they conservative or liberal, is they have a difficult time dealing with the view point of the atheist. For most people religion is visceral rather then intellectual and there is no use in discussing the topic.

[upaloopa]

9. I am not speaking for you.

I said it was a Buddhist perspective. You can reject it if you want.
It's ok.

[trotsky]

24. So you speak for all Buddhists then? n/t

[upaloopa]

26. You figure it out

[trotsky]

27. I'm going to assume the answer is no, that you speak only for yourself.

Thanks!

[upaloopa]

28. Whatever

It really doesn't matter all that much.

[trotsky]

31. That is true.

Your opinion on what you assume atheists think does not matter.

[upaloopa]

32. Like I said whatever

[Iggo]

6. No.

[el_bryanto]

7. Thank you for that response - why didn't you vote? nt

[struggle4progress]

10. The lack of any generally-accepted definition of "religion" prevents a coherent answer

to your question

I happen to like Durkheim's definition -- A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- because I think it captures an essential aspect of people's use of religious ideas

Since I cannot speak of religions in general, I will discuss your question according to my view of Christianity -- which originated as a Jewish sect in Roman-occupied Palestine and probably incorporates ideals of certain Jewish schools of the time, such as that of Hillel

The Hebrew texts begin with the notion that humans (male and female) are G-d's image: this can only be understood (using Durkheim's definition) as asserting some "sacredness" to the human being. This can be understood as the basis of the commandments: You shall not make an image of anything in heaven above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth: you shall not bow down and worship them. Genesis has already told us how to find an image of G-d: we may seek other humans

The notion is reinforced in Genesis 18: The Lord appeared to Abraham at the oaks of Mamre as he sat in his tent opening in the heat of the day; he looked up and behold! three strangers. Abraham's response is offer them food and to water their animals. Such hospitality is ancient tradition, and it is remembered in later Christian texts, such as Hebrews 13: Do not neglect hospitality to strangers, for in this some have met angels unaware. What is remarkable about this Genesis text (which might be the origin of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity) is that kindness to strangers is here seen as meeting G-d. And the theme is again echoed in later Christian texts, such as 1 John 4: Whoever claims to love God, yet hates a brother or sister, is a liar: for if you do not love your brother and sister whom you have seen, how can you love G-d whom you have not seen?

It is reinforced elsewhere. Leviticus 19 says: you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord. In Matthew 22 , this is paired with a text from Deuteronomy, to make the same same point again: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind.” This is the greatest commandment. And the second is similar: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The whole of the Law and all the Prophets depend on these. The pairing indicates that the one may be understood from the other. The notion is already found in the story of the teacher Hillel who, when someone asked to be taught the whole Jewish Law in the time he could stand on one foot, replied: Whatever seems hateful to you, do not do that to others. That is the whole Torah; and the rest is commentary -- go, learn it!

Christianity continued this tradition, as John 1 says: The Word became flesh and came to dwell among us. The teaching here is not only that humans are made in the image of G-d, but that G-d can appear in human form, hungry or thirsty, bleeding or dying. And the point is made elsewhere, as in Matthew 25: Whatever you have done for the least of my brothers and sisters, that you have done to me

In this context, one can read the epigram with which Ernst Bloch begins his book Atheism in Christianity -- it combines a remark of Bloch's with the retort of theologian Jürgen Moltmann:

Only an atheist can be a good Christian; only a Christian can be a good atheist

Bloch's statement is excellent theology IMO, and is supported by such texts as James 2: Suppose a brother or a sister is naked and hungry; if you say, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but do nothing about their needs, what good is that?

Moltmann's response is also excellent. Smashing idols is a fine activity, so far as it goes, but it does not really go far enough: even after all idols are reduced to shards, we all still face the existential problem of choosing the basis on which we will live our lives

So IMO a certain style of atheism (though not every style of atheism) can follow from a moral argument

[LostOne4Ever]

11. I think it depends on the argument and the person making the argument

If a person believes that religion is primarily a force for evil/good then it is a moral position. The anti-theist (by which I mean a person who is against theism...not necessarily against theists themselves) sees religion as a force for evil and their opposition is a moral argument. Similarly, the believer who sees it for a force for good it is a moral argument.

Conversely I don't see the person who is arguing that religion makes claims that are not possible or factually incorrect and unbelievable as making a moral position. The same thing goes for someone who has some type of religious experience and believes because of that.

YMMV of course

[okasha]

13. Thank you.

That sorts it out very neatly with a minimum of fuss.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Well I disagree with your second paragraph.

Indoctrinations in bullshit is itself harmful. Take a look at American society today. How are we in such a sorry mess? I think religious institutions and their indoctrination activities, this making claims that are not factually correct, that *ought* to be unbelievable, and successfully getting huge numbers of people to believe them, is itself a great harm.

[LostOne4Ever]

18. But isn't that just re-presenting the argument from paragraph 1 again?

I guess what I was trying to say was that there can be arguments against religion that are, in and of themselves, not moral argument. I see no moral stance in saying:

"I find that stuff laughably unbelievable"

or

"That is factually incorrect"

Though I agree that it is possible to use these arguments to further expand on or build the first argument that religion harms society.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Sure one can make a non-moral argument.

But "religion mak(ing) claims that are not possible or factually incorrect and unbelievable" is, to me, immoral because of the effect it has on society.

[John1956PA]

21. And on the individuals whose minds are poisoned by religion nonsense.

Not many years ago, after having been a practicing Catholic all of my life and having done my undergraduate studies at a fundamentalist Presbyterian college, I abandoned that belief system. I am much happier now that I am a self-acknowledged atheist. I wish I had made the transition forty years earlier.

[el_bryanto]

23. I totally disagree with 99% of what you say but I appreciate your willingness to bluntly say it

Other atheists should follow your example (particularly when they clearly agree with you), and have the courage to come right and say it.

Bryant

[LostOne4Ever]

29. I can understand and respect that view

I was mainly trying, as you said, give a non-moral argument in my second paragraph. I should have been careful in how I constructed my post.

Thanks for helping clear that up

[MellowDem]

37. Anti-theists don't have to think religion is "evil"...

I'm an anti-theist that thinks the good/evil distinction is useless (and mostly used by religions for a reason).

I think spreading wrong ideas is bad for society. Religion is just one of them, which is why I'm against it.

[LostOne4Ever]

39. You are right

I myself have no belief in the concepts of good and evil; however, I do tend to use the words to relay basic ideas of ethics due to how ingrained they are into our society.

[el_bryanto]

12. 217 people viewed - 3 voted. interesting. nt

[struggle4progress]

14. none of your options reflected my views

[LostOne4Ever]

15. Title is not salacious enough

You need to add some risque pictures and some nice innuendo.

[okasha]

16. I picked "somewhat"

even though that doesn't exactly match my view. I'd recommend changing that to "sometimes" if you can.

[Feral Child]

33. Push poll.

I'd rather play the lottery.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Combining 'religion' and 'belief' in the question makes it hard to answer

I think the argument against belief is about evidence, reasoning, and so on. But when religions are brought into it, there can be a moral component - religion can be used to (arguably, religion exists to) reinforce power relations, whether inside a family, a small group, a nation or the whole world. Just as you could say there is a moral argument for democracy and against oligarchy, there could be a moral case for belief, if any, being an individual activity, and against religions that have doctrines or even dogmas - especially when these are taught to children.

[el_bryanto]

22. So if I had limited it to strictly religion

That would have gotten more of a response.

Bryant

[LeftishBrit]

25. No. The argument against religion/belief is that (at least in the view of atheists) it is not *true*

or there is insufficient evidence that it's true. In my case, one important reason is that there are so many conflicting religious beliefs, and no evidence IMO that any of them is more valid than the others.

I don't think that either religion or non-religion per se makes you a better or worse person, or makes the world a better or worse place. (Wars and oppression often use religion as a basis; but I honestly think if religion didn't exist, tyrants and warmongers would use some other excuse such as nationalism.) And even if it did, you cannot believe something that you don't believe, in order to achieve a moral purpose.

[Goblinmonger]

30. I'm just having a problem with this conceptually.

I really don't have a problem with belief. I think people can believe whatever they want. I'll be honest and say I find it hard to grasp that some people really do believe in the God of Abraham given what we know about the world and how there is no indication of a God or the need for one for all this to happen. But I'm still fine with people believing what they want. So that part of your question is problematic because I don't have an argument against belief.

As to religion, again, I'm generally not just opposed to religion. I'm not anti-theist per se. I do have a problem with religion when it is used as a tool, when it comes into our secular government, and when it is used to discriminate. By tool, I mean so many people even here come in and say "Hey, look at the wonderful things my religion has done" and point to Civil Rights movement in the US, as just one example. I find it problematic that people really argue that without religion, MLK would have been some giant asshole that would not have fought for Civil Rights. It is also problematic that the large number, and really essential, of atheists that worked for Civil Rights are just ignored in that statement. Believe what you want to believe, but stop trying to tell me that the world would be a worse place without your beliefs, because for every example you can provide (which, as I've stated, I don't really buy anyway), several more can be provided of crappy things that come out of religion. Oh, and the whole art/music thing pisses me off, too. The argument that religion was responsible for classical music and art. Like Mozart would have just sat around and never written music without religion. Please. He wrote religious music because that is who was paying the bills. Without religion, someone else would have commissioned the works.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. "a problem with religion when it is used as a tool"

It is in the nature of religion, or at least organized religion to be this tool. It is to me like saying I am only opposed to guns when they are used for shooting. Sure, one can contrive isolated examples of guns never used for shooting, but those examples are irrelevant, the purpose of a gun is to shoot.

[trotsky]

35. ...

"Hey, look at the wonderful things my religion has done" and point to Civil Rights movement in the US, as just one example.

And if you point out that "Hey, your religion also had a huge role in the institution of slavery, and in the motivations of those who fought dearly against Civil Rights" you're a nasty, rude, hostile atheist and therefore you deserve public callouts and personal attacks.

[el_bryanto]

36. Personal callouts? You say that sort of thing all the time - who has called you out? nt

[uriel1972]

38. I would say...

If the various religions are wrong, then it is immoral to continue marketing them. Wrong in the sense of incorrect, as in wrong in fact, as in, in error.

That is despite what argument you can make for the utility of religion, which is questionable. Telling lies on that scale is grossly immoral.

Oh and before you go on a crusade, I said if. I am an agnostic atheist, if you can manage to prove your God, I will believe.

[nil desperandum]

40. Moral Argument

We are animals ourselves, omnivores who are able to eat a variety of life on this planet from plant to animal. How we choose to consume those animals and plants that are beneath us in the food chain are of no consequence. Sharks don't consider the feelings of the seal anymore than most humans consider the feelings of the lamb or the cow or the pig.

Animals routinely kill their neighbors for resources, they routinely kill the offspring of a competitor, and they routinely kill for food.

Human behavior across the world is no different, humans exploit other humans every day for resources. They kill each other regularly over supposed "moral" arguments regarding whose idea of a magical sky man is more realistic.

I would argue that humans are almost incapable of making any real "moral" judgments because unlike animals we despoil everything we come in contact with. We humans might be the current apex predator but we are a disgusting species that murders for all the same reasons as animals do, but also murder for joy and sport.
I would suspect that taken in our totality most alien observers would come to the conclusion we are the most amoral of all the animal species found on this planet. Perhaps, like the dinosaur, the planet would be better served without us. The next apex predator might be everything that we are not...but based on how life develops on this planet I don't believe that can happen the as the apex predators of this planet are always the best killers.