Reza Aslan: It’s not God’s fault if you use religion to justify hate — you’re just a bigot

[cbayer]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/reza-aslan-its-not-gods-fault-if-you-use-religion-to-justify-hate-youre-just-a-bigot/

ERIC W. DOLAN
14 MAY 2015 AT 14:32 ET



People don’t learn their values from religious teachings, according to Reza Aslan. During an appearance Wednesday night on The Daily Show, the religious scholar argued the situation was reversed — people infused scripture with their own personal values.

“There is obviously a serious problem with religious violence, and particularly with Islam and in the Middle East,” he remarked. “But if you’re going to blame religion for violence in the name of religion, then you have to credit religion for every act of compassion in the name of religion, you have to credit religion for every act of love in the name of religion, and that’s not what people usually think. They focus very much on the negative.”

“Part of the problem is that there is this misconception that people derive their values from their scriptures,” Aslan added. “The truth is it is more often the case that people insert their values into their scriptures. I mean, otherwise, every Christian who read the Bible would read it exactly the same way. In this country, not 200 years ago, both slave owners and abolitionists not only used the same Bible to justify their viewpoints, they used the same verses to do so. That’s the thing about scripture, it’s power comes from its malleability. You can read it in any way you want to.”

“If you are a violent misogynist, you will find plenty in the Koran or in the Bible to justify your viewpoint. If you’re a peaceful feminist, you will find just as much in those scriptures to justify your viewpoint.”

more at link

[skepticscott]

1. Which still fails to address

If scripture is so "malleable" and if "god" is so bad at communicating what he wants from his little minions, why are either even necessary? If there is nothing useful in scripture except what humans inject into it, if "god" is such a lamewad that he can't provide a shred more wisdom and insight about the world than us poor, imperfect Homo sapiens, why not just leave him out of the picture, and go it alone?

Oh yeah, right...identity!

[Major Nikon]

10. That's the great thing about the bible. You get to pick and choose which parts to believe

You just conveniently ignore the part about selling your children into slavery while you hold it up as proof that gay marriage is wrong.

[Mariana]

20. To be fair, the Bible never says

that you have to sell your children into slavery. It just tells you how to go about it if you decide that you want to sell them into slavery.

[Major Nikon]

21. Sure, your children are optional. Other people, not so much.

The bible is a virtual how-to guide when it comes to slavery. It tells you who is OK to enslave, who you must enslave, and how to go about it including how to beat and kill them. I can't think of very many things which are more immoral, and even if you can the bible fully covers rape and murder as well.

The point being this is the book Christians are using as a moral compass to tell them homosexuality is wrong.

[Mariana]

28. The only moral thing to say about slavery

is "Thou shalt not enslave anyone, ever." Of course, as you say, this doesn't appear anywhere in that book.

[LTX]

46. So why is religion such a persistent phenomenon?

[skepticscott]

48. Are you going to answer any of my questions?

Or are you going to continue to ask me to provide rational explanations for irrational behavior?

[LTX]

49. The obvious answer to all of your leading questions is that religion is completely unnecessary.

As is scripture. I'm fine with that. But then, you're left with the question -- why is religion such a persistent phenomenon? From your laughter, I take it you don't believe it has anything to do with "identity." Do you have any alternative suggestions?

[skepticscott]

50. Try fear and guilt for starters

Is fear of death not a cultural universal?

[LTX]

51. Certainly. And I think fear of death plays a large role as one ages.

Which corresponds with survey results showing that religious convictions increase with age.

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2012/04/18/belief-god-rises-age-even-atheist-nations

But that seems like only part of the equation. After all, religion isn't exclusively an after-58 phenomenon, and fear of death is notoriously lacking in youth. I tend to think that identity indeed has a significant role to play.

[skepticscott]

66. Children can be indoctrinated into fear at a very young age

Last edited Sun May 17, 2015, 09:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Fear of going to hell, fear of the punishment of the "god" their parents or their preacher hold over their head. And guilt by the same channels. If you want to call that "identity", go ahead, but it seems like a pretty poor excuse for it.

[skepticscott]

72. Case in point

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123042117

[rug]

73. Here's another.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/dundee/reverend-brands-atheist-book-introduced-to-schools-attempt-to-indoctrinate-children-1.875669

[nruthie]

2. Exactly!!

That's why it's all open to interpretation and can be used to justify our actions. God did not write the Bible...man did. For his own reasons. I don't read dead scripture to figure how to live my life: I follow my inner moral compass, and it doesn't lead me wrong.

[cbayer]

4. I think many share your view.

Cherry picking is a good skill to develop. It helps you avoid the rotten cherries.

[calimary]

6. Welcome to DU, nruthie!

Glad you're here! I don't think enough people realize what you pointed out - that God did not write the Bible - MAN DID. As in MEN. It was a bunch of dudes. Many of whom were loners, misanthropes, nomads, and sheep herders. It was mostly verbal because I doubt a lot of these early dudes had gone to any sort of school or knew how to read and write. Later on, it was written down - again, mainly by more dudes. The few gospels that were written by women were mostly and arbitrarily thrown out by another bunch of dudes many centuries later. And the messages therein are elastic and vague enough to be applicable to any situation and often to both sides of the same situation. For some it is indeed the Holy Bible. For others, it's the Buy-Bull.

[cbayer]

11. Yep, and the misogyny found in the bible can be accounted for by the cultural

misogyny of the time. The stories include those where jesus pushed back against this misogyny, but there is no doubt that it was deeply ingrained.

[skepticscott]

9. So if "god" didn't write the Bible

if he didn't say one thing that the Bible credits him with saying, then why does anyone even need him?

[skepticscott]

25. Anti-theists don't need god

We're forced to address the consequences of people believing in him and basing their behavior on what they think he wants, like all decent people are, but we'd be happier if we didn't need to.

See how simple that was?

[skepticscott]

39. Poor Tack

You have a 50 foot yacht on the Pacific coast of Mexico and a home in the Italian countryside that you spend your summers at, and yet you apparently have nothing better to do with your life than to try to provoke me.

Unlike some, I don't post here every 15 minutes on average. DU takes only a tiny fraction of my life, the rest of which you know fuck-all about, so don't presume to tell me what I'm "obsessed" with.

[skepticscott]

55. Poor Tack

But since you've seen fit to level the accusation, I could just as easily ask why you would make up shit about me and other posters here, for example, that we "blame religion for everything'. And then dodge and divert like crazy when asked to back up that bullshit claim. You could have retracted it, or supported it with evidence, but you were incapable of doing either, as I'm sure you remember. If you want to see obsession, if you want to see "petty", look in the mirror, dude.

And feel free to correct anything I've said. If you feel the need to nitpick about size or semantics, go right ahead. If you're just living in a little hovel in Italy, feel free to clarify. I'm sure many people who live in McMansions with 3 car garages just consider it an ordinary house, and people with boats far bigger than 99% of the population could even dream of affording still consider themselves to be "middle class". Or even basically homeless. Or living near the poverty line. It's quite a common phenomenon, and one that's commented on here on DU all the time. Don't you hate when the poor folk in Congress whine that they can't be expected to get by on 250K a year while at the same time fighting to keep the minimum wage from going up by so much as a dime?

[skepticscott]

63. Poor Tack..Did you really spend all that time

crafting a post that carefully avoided the issue of making shit up about other posters? Something you accused me of falsely, while doing it in fact yourself. As I said, feel free to back up your latest claim with any actual evidence. How big is that teeny weeny little boat of yours again?

And for someone who has little interest in getting in the middle of the bickering between believers and non-believers, you sure do seem to do it a lot, and with extreme hostility and, one might say pettiness, in many cases, as has been well documented here. Did my post #9 seriously meet your (admitted low) standard for "nastiness and bullying", or did you feel some other compulsion to jump into a discussion that you have, by your own claim "little interest in"? Obsessed, are we? Or just disingenuous?

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Greater than 40ft? Rent the house in Italy?

[skepticscott]

67. And gone....

What a shock...the questions were so simple, too...

[Warren Stupidity]

69. Well that was quite the meltdown.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. And if that is the case, what's the point of religion?

What he is saying is that religion does not really exist, it's just window dressing on personal choices. This does not fit with his insistence that religion is an inborn immutable characteristic.

[Thor_MN]

5. Diffusion of responsiblity

It's not me, my religious beliefs say the I have to _________.

I think that is why conservatives find religion so appealing, they don't have to be responsible for anything. That "party of personal responsibility" crap was was utter bullshit.

[Maedhros]

101. The point of religion is spiritual growth and awareness.

Part of that awareness is realizing the limitations of the source material.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

7. without an utmost focus on compassion, respect for difference,

honing wisdom, and the joy of individual growth, religion is merely self-serving ritual.

The crucial thing to understand is that there is no power, no being outside of your self that gives you your struggles or solves them for you, or "GIVES" you the courage.
There is no power outside of our own selves. It is up to us to fight our weaknesses, polish our own behaviors, seek wisdom, and generate our own life force....again and again, resolving not to give up.

The courage and the means to change, the art of happiness lies within and in supporting others to do the same.

Without that constant recognition, religion is just tribal huddling in the dark night that is full of terrors.

[cbayer]

13. Do you think that for some, religion provides them with the

strength or guidance or structure to identity one's weaknesses, polish one's behaviors, seek wisdom and generate one's own life force?

I agree with you that without this, religion is just tribal huddling and that serves no positive purpose.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

14. in religions where the fundamental doctrines are so contradictory,

other worldly focused, and fear based, I think that SOME people can pick out the life affirming aspects and use them. Also too, some groups are fortunate enough to choose a good role model to strive for/with.

For many, however, it serves lower impulses...self-protection, magical thinking, socialising on Sundays, belonging in the tribe, ramparts against The Enemies, power trips ( i.e. Christian pastors, youth group ministers, Muslim Modesty Police, anyone who buys into a power hierarchy--I'm thinking of many real life examples when I say this)

I practice Buddhism, Nichiren Buddhism specifically, whose philosophy is not malleable to suit hate based agendas. It focuses on personal action, (rather than abstracted thinking games, which some Buddhist and non Buddhist religions encourage.... in my not very humble opinion, that encourages self obsession and elitism.).

Also, it stresses understanding of the core characteristics of a Buddha, which all people possess. No one is above the rest, granted special powers, unattainably super-human. We practice the dedication and actions to observe cause and effect in ourselves and environment.

The intent is to use your desires for a better life to improve yourself, and understand that your improvement and happiness affects the rest of your Environment positively. That's a great motivator, knowing that life is full of struggle, that's a fact, and that by seeking and working on your own courage and growth you help and encourage others.

It takes hard work to change your weaknesses, but that's the good part, actually. Anyone can practice that, regardless of anything else you do, love, dress, eat, work at, etc.

"Come as you are, be your true, unique, individual self.", you know?

Hope that answers your questions, a little bit, anyway.

[cbayer]

15. Your description of Nichiren Buddhism is really interesting.

I hope you get to tread the article about the rise in Buddhism in China that is posted here.

Everything is corruptible at some level, but I believe that if you approach it in good faith and your quest is true, then you can draw out the best from any religion.

As you say, it's hard work.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

16. thanks! I edited...added a paragraph while you were reading.

Yes, anyone can miss the mark....Anyone can make a new determination too...at any time!

Do you have a link to the article you mentioned?

Here are some links I like:
http://www.sgi.org/
http://www.sgi-usa.org/engaged-buddhism/

Just one post from a couple of good blogs----http://chantforhappiness.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-power-of-prayer-by-daisaku-ikeda.html?m=1

http://thankingthespoon.com/2013/09/29/nam-myoho-renge-kyo-because-it-takes-prayer-to-transform-a-heart/

[cbayer]

17. Here is the link - rug just posted this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218198909

At one point in my life I found a great deal of solace and direction from exploring Buddhism. I still turn to it at times.

Thanks for the links.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

18. thanks, that was an interesting article!

Yes, there are different schools of Buddhism, that's for sure.

I hope you like the links. Feel free to ask questions, I'll always try my best to answer.

[rug]

34. Is that the branch that chants "nam myoho renge kyo" before a gohonzon?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

37. yep, that's the core practice.

It's kind of like meditation, but the perspective is different...it's not about reaching some kind of nirvana or blissful void removed from real life.

[rug]

41. I sat with a few of them when it first became popular in the U.S.

Lovely people but they were also wrapped up in the Komeito Party in Japan. From what I can tell, the U.S. branch is scarcely involved with it.

[haikugal]

82. I was told that if you left the religion/practice you'd be cursed for life.

I knew a few in the Bay Area years ago.

[mr blur]

19. I think you mean "identify",

but I'm sure you won't mind being corrected.

[skepticscott]

27. People are fooled into thinking that they need "god" for all of that

Last edited Sat May 16, 2015, 05:35 PM - Edit history (1)

when in fact they have the capacity for it all within themselves (except for "generating one's own life force"-not sure wtf that even means). It's very sad that religion leads them to believe otherwise, that it leads them to believe that they are weak and helpless without "god" to turn to. Don't you think so?

[MellowDem]

8. "If you're a violent misogynist, you will find plenty....

in the Bible or Koran to justify your viewpoint". Kinda says it all, doesn't it? It might be a hint that it's a shitty belief system.

I'm willing to give religion credit for the good people do as a result of it, but that doesn't stop it being a bad idea overall. And I already know that religion isn't required to do good. So religion is useless in that way, but quite harmful in the bigoted bullshit it peddles.

If you're willing to identify with a belief system that explicitly justifies violent misogyny, maybe you should check your reasoning as to why. If it's that there are some good parts on the texts, so what? You don't need texts to know what's good, that's why you're already cherry picking the texts based in your own preferences.

[cbayer]

12. "If you’re a peaceful feminist, you will find just as much in those scriptures to justify your

viewpoint.”

Cherry picking on your part at it's absolute finest, but you go only for the rotten cherries. Might be a hint that your blinders are, well, blinding you.

You, MD, don't need texts to know what bad, that's why you're already cherry picking the texts based on your own preferences (and prejudices).

[Leontius]

23. It's not blindness

it's ignorance.

[skepticscott]

26. And yet you argue all the time that people need texts

to know what's good. Otherwise, why would they need them at all?

[MellowDem]

40. I honestly don't know what point you're making?

I'm not the one cherry picking the text, since I don't believe in it, that's what Reza has to do, because, as he says, there is terrible shit in there.

So why identify with it at all? Heritage, privilege, benefits? Fine, but then you have to answer for the terrible shit your religion spreads. You can't have it both ways.

[cbayer]

42. But you do cherry pick, just like you accuse others of doing.

You go and find the worst you can in order to support your POV.

You even cherry picked what Reza Aslan said, pulling out the first line and ignoring the second, which made his entire point.

It's not my religion, as I have told you probably a dozen times and I can clearly see both the good and the bad.

You, on the other hand, can only see the bad.

[MellowDem]

43. I'm not cherry picking...

I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter how much "good" there is if you admit violent misogyny is part of a belief system. That should be non-negotiable for any consistent liberal.

It's really quite possible to not identify with a bigoted religion and still believe all the good parts of whatever religion you want.

By identifying with a belief system that promotes violent misogyny, Reza is only hurting others.

[cbayer]

44. But it does matter how much good there is.

Everything is relative.

Everyone, including you and me, have our good parts and our bad parts.

Our bad parts merit criticism. Our good parts merit praise. Just because you have bad parts, that doesn't make you all bad, even if I find those parts seriously objectionable. I might even choose to still be your friend or have dinner at your house.

It's really quite possible for me to identity with you and still believe that parts of you are pretty bad.

When you refuse to see the whole picture and only focus on the parts that support your position (religion is bad), that's cherry picking.

Reza has the right to identify with any belief system he wants. You have the same right. He is trying to change things from within, while you are only throwing rocks from the outside.

Perhaps it is you that is only hurting others.

[MellowDem]

45. In what situation...

would somebody identify with a belief system that explicitly promotes violent misogyny, among other things, while claiming to be a progressive, and not be seen as a hypocrite at the least? Only religion, and only because of the privileged position it has in society.

We get to choose what beliefs we identify with, and when we choose to identify with beliefs that contradict our own values, this is hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance. When you listen to why people choose to identify with belief systems they don't believe in, you get answers like community, heritage, culture, etc.

Understandable, but then they must admit they are making a trade of identifying with and indirectly supporting beliefs that go against their own values, as well as many of their friends and family, in order to have access to these other benefits. I find that to be a disgusting trade, but society tries to make it an easy one. People don't like having it pointed out that they are indirectly supporting things they don't like, and that it's their choice, for their own comfort.

Religions aren't people. They're belief systems. I don't think they're a good comparison when it comes to how people identify. But if you want to try to look at it that way, consider the difference between someone who can tolerate Rush Limbaugh, be cordial in his presence, appreciate he has good and bad parts, that he's human, and someone who makes Rush part of their identity, it's a big difference.

There's a difference between tolerating the bad parts of belief systems and choosing to identify with a belief system. I can appreciate religion has parts I agree with and parts I don't, but find the belief system as a whole to be very negative and unnecessary, and this isn't cherry picking, compare it to conservatism. It's not like all we do on this site is cherry pick conservatism.

[cbayer]

47. This is where the cherry picking comes in.

What you see a "explicit promotion" is not necessarily that at all. If you look specifically for that, you will find it. On the other hand if you look for peaceful equality, you will find that. That is the point of the article.

You refuse to see any of the good, while others only see the good.

You don't have to identify with anything but your condemnation of those that do identify and see something quite different is the problem.

You see these religions as Rush Limbaugh. Since from our POV, Rush has no redeeming value at all, that's a very bad comparison. I don't see any good parts at all.

OTOH, there are many people who I both admire, identify with and find serious fault with. Religion is like that to me. I'm going to support it when it's good and criticize it when it's bad. I'm going to push back against the black and white thinkers who see it as all good or all bad.

Your condemnation of those that identify with belief systems reminds me of the bad aspects of the belief systems themselves - intolerant, judgmental and prejudiced.

[MellowDem]

53. Yes, where the cherry picking comes in for believers...

Reza admits Islam promotes terrible things.

I don't refuse to see the good, I just don't see how it's an excuse for all the shit. In what other belief system would it be? Can you answer that?

My criticism of people that identify with a belief system they themselves say promotes violent misogyny is the problem? Really? That makes no sense.

From my POV I think all humans have redeeming value, even Rush. I don't see religions like Rush, because religions are belief systems, not people.

Saying you are a member of a belief system is very different than saying you can "identify with" a person. You're not identifying literally as the person, or saying you share all his beliefs. Generally, that means you understand where a person is coming from. Which is why the comparison to people makes little sense, but since you brought it up, I'd thought I'd try to explain why I can tolerate religion without identifying with it, just like anyone can.

My criticism is intolerant and prejudiced? How so? I mean, if you're going to say they are, the least you could do is provide reasons. You certainly create a lot of strawmen and put enough words in my mouth to try and make me seem like whatever boogie man you want, which is why you can't seem to actually articulate your reasoning.

[cbayer]

54. The good is not an excuse, it's just a part of it.

There are platforms in the democratic party that I don't agree with. I have been a member of professional organizations that had policies I thought were terrible. I'm a citizen of a country that has done and continues to do some pretty heinous things.

In my world it makes no sense to only associate yourself with something which you can support 100%. First of all, that's never going to happen. Secondly, the whole point of associating at times is to change from within.

I see the parts of some religions that promote peaceful equality. You are unable to see that part so condemn everyone who does. You think it's not there just because you can't see it. That's not correct.

The fact that they can also see the parts that promote violent misogyny means they can fight back against that. You seem to see the only solution as abandoning the whole system, but others see it quite differently.

My experience of your POV is that you are extremely intolerant of religious believers and condemn them for merely identifying with a religion that you find objectionable. I think that's prejudice.

And now you resort to the personal, which is what you accused me of. I don't create straw men or put words in your mouth or try to make you seem like whatever boogie man I want. Nor am I unable to actually articulate my reasoning.

I am reflecting back to you how I experience you and if I am incorrect, just tell me. Saying I can't actually articulate my reasoning is unfair. If you don't understand it, just ask me to rephrase.

[MellowDem]

65. Being a citizen of a country...

or a member of a political party aren't the same as choosing to identify with a belief system, because they're not belief systems. They're not defined by dogma. Citizenship is given at birth most often, and doesn't demand that you agree with everything the U.S. does. Political parties are just that, and their platforms and views change with the wind, and membership doesn't require belief in their platform. The Democratic Party isn't a belief system.

So when someone identifies with a belief system based on unchangeable objective truths, that's very very different.

Associating is different from identifying.

I see parts of religion that promote progressive things, I don't know why you keep assuming otherwise, but many of those same religions promote heinous things, and given its quite possible to identify with belief systems that a person thinks only promotes good, I don't understand the excuses given for identifying with values that are fundamentally opposed to what a person believes.

It's not prejudice to criticize someone for their stated position.

You do create straw men, you constantly tell me how I feel about religion with no proof, trying to make me out to be something I'm not.

If you think my opinions are intolerant and prejudiced, you have to explain how my views fit the definition of those words, and you don't. You do try to paint me as intolerant by saying I have views I've never stated, but that's really dishonest.

[snagglepuss]

56. That people can cherry pick is evidence that no text exists that is the direct word of any god.

How is it that a god can create a world where scientific facts can not be cherry picked but dictated books which contain laws/rules/edict that can be cherry picked? How can the Islamic deity make it perfectly clear that pork is forbidden with no exceptions but doesn't make it crystal clear that cruel punishment like stoning is wrong in any context?

The fact that cherry picking exists is proof positive that no deity is involved in their creation.

[cbayer]

57. Agree and I would take issue with anyone who claims that the texts

are the direct word of their god. There are contradictions and clear cultural references.

The books should be cherry picked and literalists who insist that they have to be swallowed whole show themselves to be fools.

But the fact that cherry picking exists is not proof positive that no deity is involved. While I do not believe in a deity, I can not provide proof positive of the lack of existence, and particularly not proof positive based on some books.

Are you a literalist?

[Warren Stupidity]

59. There is next to nothing in the patriarchal abrahamic religious texts that can honestly

be interpreted to justify a peaceful feminist viewpoint. Your assertion is astoundingly wrong.

[phil89]

89. Why would

a God inspired book have "rotten cherries" at all?

[cbayer]

90. Because it was written down by greatly flawed humans.

[trotsky]

93. It's so easy to explain away the parts you don't like!

Of course that also justifies everybody else explaining away the parts THEY don't like, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. Too inconvenient for the agenda.

[phil89]

94. So God didn't inspire

them correctly, or they misunderstood God when they wrote about slavery?

[cbayer]

97. I don't really know anything about any god, but I don't

think the bible is some inerrant document. Do you?

It is a silly position to take because it is full of contradictions and so much is wide open to interpretation.

Various parts clearly reflect the cultures and places where it was written.

I was just doing some very interesting reading about slavery in the bible. Slavery was very common at the time much of the bible was written, but was very different than it was later in history.

Now, I don't condone slavery at all, but I think this is an example of how the book(s) reflect the cultures and places where they were written.

But, if you are a literalist, then I guess none of this is going to make much sense to you.

[trotsky]

98. Why tack on such a b.s. insult, cbayer?

I mean really, "But if you are a literalist..."??

I doubt there is ANYONE on DU who is a "literalist" in the true sense of the term, someone who claims to take all of a holy text literally. Instead, you are using it as an insult, directing it anyone who asks why certain parts of the text are OK to take literally but others not. Why not just admit that there really is no way to justify why a book purporting to come from the supreme being of the universe contains such horrible, despicable material? Why get so nasty and dismissive just because you can't address the point?

[hrmjustin]

24. He makes some very good points here.

Thank you for posting.

[cbayer]

29. Glad you liked it.

I like the concept of being a cultural (fill in the blank) and agree that many individuals bring much more to their religions than they swallow whole from the religions.

[hrmjustin]

30. Agreed and i like his point about crediting religion for its good moments.

[cbayer]

31. Yes, you can't have it both ways.

If you are going to hold religion responsible for the bad things, then you have to give it credit for the good things.

This is a point that seems to go right over the heads of some.

[hrmjustin]

32. Agreed! In more ways then one.

[Yorktown]

35. It's not God's fault if Reza Aslan is dishonest.

Reza Aslan and Tariq Ramadan are very cunning practitioners of double speak.
This one is a gem:

It’s not God’s fault if you use religion to justify hate

First, the sentence assumes there is a god, but let's let it slide.
Second, if there was a god, violence would not be its fault IF that god was good.
Which in Islam is a very debatable point.
Because, assuming the Quran is a direct revelation of god to muhamad, god IS violent.
And nasty. And a believer in hate between the in-group and the out-group.

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Quran (9: 73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination."

Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

[Major Nikon]

36. The Christian bible is worse. Not only must you kill other believers, but their livestock as well.

and that whosoever would not seek Jehovah, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
2 Chronicles 15:13

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the Lord your God must die. In this way you will purge the evil from Israel.
Deuteronomy 17:12

Oh, George, not the livestock!
13 some evil people have departed from among you to entice the inhabitants of their cities, saying, “Let’s go and serve other gods” (whom you have not known before). 14 You must investigate thoroughly and inquire carefully. If it is indeed true that such a disgraceful thing is being done among you, 15 you must by all means slaughter the inhabitants of that city with the sword; annihilate with the sword everyone in it, as well as the livestock. 16 You must gather all of its plunder into the middle of the plaza and burn the city and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It will be an abandoned ruin forever—it must never be rebuilt again. 17 You must not take for yourself anything that has been placed under judgment. Then the Lord will relent from his intense anger, show you compassion, have mercy on you, and multiply you as he promised your ancestors. 18 Thus you must obey the Lord your God, keeping all his commandments that I am giving you today and doing what is right before him.
Deuteronomy 13:13-18

[Yorktown]

38. Yes, the Torah is one source of the violence of the Quran

And yes, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers are abysmally violent.

Only the in-group changes. Hebrews -> believers in the muhamedan cult.

Yeshua/Jesus offered much less violent teachings, even if they are problematic too.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. yeah but that is just your interpretation of those passages

as I have learned right here in this thread, it is equally valid to understand those passages as expressing a "peaceful feminist" worldview.

[Yorktown]

68. Yes, it stumps me all the time

1- Why try to peacefully interpret verses which are explicitly violent?
2- Why pretend books with so much violence can be chosen as books of guidance.

Just doesn't add up.

[trotsky]

95. Because it's perfectly fine to cherry-pick!

Just as long as you pick the cherries that cbayer thinks are good ones.

There are many other people who reject the ones she picks, they think hers are moldy and bad, but theirs are much better.

But since cherry-picking is great, and no one can agree on just what a good cherry is, EVERYONE'S cherries are good to pick! Ain't religion great?

[Yorktown]

99. And for those who don't like cherries?

I mean, what if I'm allergic to cherries?

Where do I get strawberries instead?

[phil89]

91. I have also

received the wisdom, in another thread, that believing in fairies is as valid as not believing in fairies. Some people can't be taken seriously, unfortunately.

[Yorktown]

100. Are you an afairyist?

That's bad, you know.

Antisocial behavior, I fear.

[gcomeau]

70. The quote that seems to most apply here...

"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."
- Steven Weinberg

[rug]

71. Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride do the job just as well, if not better.

[Humanist_Activist]

74. I never understood the 7 deadly sins thing...

It just doesn't make sense.

Lust, in particular, without it, we wouldn't exist, and even in excess, if you are honest with your partners and they can all legally consent, and you take all necessary precautions, there's nothing wrong with indulging in it. I wouldn't even label it a sin.

Gluttony is excess, and generally a bad idea(with a few exceptions, such as above).

Greed is another type of desire for excess of material goods. It actually sounds like hoarding, which is a sign of mental illness, again, not necessarily a sin.

Sloth, in moderation, I would say there's nothing wrong with it, we all enjoy days off, after all. But I would say being excessively slothful could be indicative of a psychological problem, not a sin.

Wrath, particularly since its supposedly uncontrollable rage, is something someone suffers from, not something someone commits. Its emotion taken to extremes, and hence a medical or psychological issue, not a sin.

Envy, again, related to jealously, and you may not have total control over your emotions here. Particularly since it takes on a form of obsessiveness.

Pride, here's the worst sin, and according to the Wikipedia article I'm referencing for this post, the source for the others, I don't see that connection, indeed, it makes no sense, but whatever.

Actually, reading the article on Wikipedia is enlightening. Pretty much every "deadly sin" is a primitive label and attempt at shaming behaviors that today are linked to mental illnesses. Now, 1500 years ago or so, such things were simply unknown, but today we have a lot more information about how the brain works, what behaviors we can expect from what conditions, and more importantly, the culpability of the suffers of such illnesses and behaviors. This is why its important to not put too much stock in tradition, for while there is some wisdom to be learned, its best to filter it through current knowledge.

[rug]

75. Remove the word "sin" and they are still far from human ideals.

[Humanist_Activist]

87. When they interfere with healthy functioning, both for the person who has...

it and others, I would agree. But that's the point, as described, these "sins" are normal human behaviors, indeed, in moderation, healthy human behaviors, taken to extremes, they can be destructive, but those who would take them to such extremes are ill, not equipped to control their obsessions and most likely lack impulse control.

[Sobax]

78. The reasoning behind it

Is that it's the human ego and our animal instincts which chain the soul to the material world.

If you're overly preoccupied with sex and food, or you allow your ego to get the better of you, and you give in to wrath, envy and pride, your soul is blinded by the temptations of the material world. When you view the material world as a prison that souls need to escape from, then it all makes perfect sense.

[phil89]

92. Except there's no evidence for a "soul"

It's made up and there's no supporting evidence for it. How you think biological urges "chain" the "soul" to the physical world, is beyond me. What are you even talking about? Judgmental, guilt inducing garbage.

[Sobax]

96. I'm just explaining their worldview

Not necessarily mine. It wasn't just the case that they just didn't want us to have any fun, as some atheists would have us believe.

[Sobax]

79. I should also add

While indulging in sex and food can be satisfying in the short-term, ultimately it's unfulfilling and you always need more. That can be applied to life more generally. You'll always be chasing something new to satisfy you until you finally realize that true happiness can only be found within. Live long enough, and eventually you'll get bored of everything. Then what's left?

[Humanist_Activist]

85. Reading about how these sins are described by medieval scholars is illuminating...

its not mere indulging, but becoming extremely obsessive with them, to the point of pathology. And you are right, nymphomaniacs cannot find satisfaction through sex, gluttons through food, but they can't help it, and its not realization that will help them, nor turning themselves over to Jesus or what have you, it would be therapy and/or drugs.

The problem is people still think free will exists, it doesn't, we are, more or less, complete slaves to our minds, and if the mind is sick, we will behave accordingly.

[Sobax]

86. If free will exists, its scope is very narrow

We're creatures driven by instinct.

[Humanist_Activist]

88. Yes, but those instincts aren't bad, nor necessarily to be avoided...

Its actually quite easy to be a good person, most people are, day to day, without thinking about it. If we were to break it down, the "7 deadly sins" are actually 7 anti-social behaviors when taken to extremes, and that's the point, none of these, in moderation, is bad. Its OK to get angry at someone, or be envious of something someone has, or to take some pride in your accomplishments, or to lust after people you find attractive, or to indulge in some good food occasionally, to enjoy doing nothing occasionally, or even to want to acquire something. I would argue that without such impulses, we wouldn't be able to accomplish much, but restraint is also quite natural, so that we don't fall into the trap of overdoing it.

[nil desperandum]

76. Right

“There is obviously a serious problem with religious violence, and particularly with Islam and in the Middle East,” he remarked. “But if you’re going to blame religion for violence in the name of religion, then you have to credit religion for every act of compassion in the name of religion, you have to credit religion for every act of love in the name of religion, and that’s not what people usually think. They focus very much on the negative.”

Except the credit for evil trumps good every time, we don't avoid charging murderers because they also coach little league. We don't free arsonists because they secured a grant for a playground, and we don't excuse terrorists because some others feed the poor.

That’s the thing about scripture, it’s power comes from its malleability. You can read it in any way you want to.

Any way you want to? If one can make any interpretation they want to what he's really saying is that scripture is without meaning until someone assigns their own meaning to the words. If that is so why does anyone need scripture? After all it can be whatever you want it to be, so you should just make up what you like and forget the rest.

Interesting approach to the defense of belief.

[cbayer]

77. Why does credit for evil trump good every time?

Why would you give evil acts more credit than good acts? Is there some kind of score sheet we should all be following? Are the rules explicit and can I get a copy?

We don't abandon political leaders we like because they cheated on their spouse. We don't condemn those who spend their lives helping others because they steal a loaf of bread.

Yes, you can read scripture any way you want to. That doesn't mean it is without meaning at all. In fact, it may mean that it's real power is in it's malleability. You personally may not need it at all, but you can't make that decision for others who may use it for guidance, insight, comfort.

[nil desperandum]

80. Indeed

We don't abandon political leaders we like because they cheated on their spouse. We don't condemn those who spend their lives helping others because they steal a loaf of bread.

That's exactly the problem, we don't hold anyone accountable for their actions anymore. As long as we like their politics their lies are acceptable and many rush to defend those liars because they like the politics of the liar. What does that make those defending liars if not hypocrites because they will turn around and complain oh so loudly about the liars on the other side....

We do indeed condemn thievery regardless of past history. It might mitigate the punishment but it doesn't mitigate the crime and the call for some form of justice. If you devote your life to a youth sports organization and benefit hundreds of children but are caught stealing from that organization do you think you are going to get a free pass for your crimes? You would be sadly mistaken. You might not get jail time, but you'll have to pay the money back and be a convicted felon from that day forward as is appropriate for your thieving ways.

I'm not giving evil more credit, I am acknowledging that justice must recognize a crime regardless of who commits that crime or justice is pointless. You appear to be advocating some other approach.

[cbayer]

81. You are twisting the words. I didn't say we don't hold them accountable.

I think we absolutely hold people accountable. But your suggestion that the bad trumps the evil every time is what I object to.

This is consistent with your absolutist views on the death penalty. It seems that in your world there is no room for forgiveness, redemption, a second chance. Once you have done something bad, that's it.

Be careful where you tread because this is a trap you might not want to personally get caught up in. Are you that pure?

[nil desperandum]

83. Accountability

I am glad to hear you hold them accountable, those leaders who cheat on their spouses or tell lies.

I am also involved with people who expose those who lie about their military service and claim awards and recognition they didn't earn.

Perhaps my ideas come across as absolutist because I could do a better job expressing them than I am currently. I am not suggesting we chop off a hand for a loaf of bread, I am not suggesting life imprisonment for someone who embezzles a few thousand dollars.

But this concept of the more good outweighs the lesser evil isn't accurate and doesn't reflect any of our nation's laws. You can forgive those who cheat you certainly, but the law cannot. The law must look at the crime and address it. Discretion in punishment can be mitigated by that concept of more good than evil in a lifetime but it doesn't, and nor should it, mitigate entirely the criminality.

I always liked a quote that went like this, " I am not upset that you lied to me, I am upset that I can never again trust you." A great career if often ruined with one lie, a legacy of generosity and decent acts marred forever by a single act of corruption. You have certainly seen that if you have looked at the evening news. General Petraeus will always be the man who failed to secure national secrets and shared them with his biographer. His career will forever be marred by that act of corruption.

Absolutism is difficult and there are degrees of wrongdoing, but this quote reminds me of the value expecting that people tell the truth when it matters and to be honest when no one is looking: "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

[cbayer]

84. The military service awards project sounds like it would be very challenging.

I don't think it's a contest between good and bad. I think each individual needs to be assessed based on their actions, and everyone should be held accountable for their bad behavior. On the other hand, I think everyone should be given credit for their good behavior. There are no absolutes here and it is all very subjective.

Each individual deserves the opportunity to be evaluated based on the entirety of their actions. For some, the bad will outweigh the good. For others, the opposite it true.

In the end, one should be very cognizant of the "people in glass houses" lesson. Who among us is without fault? I value honesty and try my best to exemplify it, but I don't always succeed.