Religion is The Solution Not The Problem- A rebuttal to Hemant Mehta

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

I don’t write rebuttals to my blogger colleagues on Patheos, but this post from Hemant Mehta was impossible to resist. Hemant Mehta, the ‘Friendly Atheist’ blogger on the Nonreligious channel at Patheos published a post today titled, “What’s the Main Source of Global Conflict? Survey Says: “Religious Beliefs”.

To read more:


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/askamuslim/2018/01/religion-is-the-solution-not-the-problem-a-rebuttal-to-hemant-mehta/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Muslim&utm_content=49

[democratisphere]

1. Intolerance of one religion over another has and always will be a huge problem.

[SCantiGOP]

2. And it has and always will be the greatest catalyst for violence

[guillaumeb]

3. An assertion with no evidence.

But an assertion that is frequently made here.

[SCantiGOP]

5. I don't have time to summarize thousands of volumes of history

The assertion is self-evident. If your god tells you not to believe it that's fine.

[guillaumeb]

6. The asertion is "self-evident" to those who believe it.

And those who need to believe it.

[AZ8theist]

16. If it's not self evident to you...

Then you are completely ignorant of history.
Continue to live in your bubble of Glory to God...

[guillaumeb]

33. Which goes back to my original point.

You have carefully picked your facts and arrived at a conclusion.

[Lordquinton]

41. He said with no sense of irony

[democratisphere]

9. Absolutely true. Religious intolerance has caused more wars, throughout

all history, than anything else.

[guillaumeb]

4. Intolerance is a human condition.

Religion teaches the ideal of tolerance, but the teaching is often ignored.

[msongs]

7. yes the bible is loaded with examples of tolerance. ever read the walls of jericho story? nt

[MineralMan]

8. The Bible contradicts itself by example.

Saying one thing, while doing the opposite, is a commonplace thing.

[guillaumeb]

13. A universal condition.

Like the phrases "with liberty and justice for all", or "all men are created equal", which promise much and deliver little.

[trotsky]

28. No one seriously claims those phrases were dictated by a god.

Can't say that about your bible, g. Say, you still have never answered, how much of your bible do you take literally?

[guillaumeb]

37. Which demonstrates that the US is founded on a lie?

And if the US was founded on a lie, does that taint all that the US has done?

[trotsky]

40. What the fuck?

The US was founded on a document. At no point did anyone claim that the country would always and forever live up to the perfect ideals in that document. All we can do is try.

Your desperation to create a false equivalence really makes any kind of discussion here impossible. I can only assume that's your actual goal.

[guillaumeb]

51. Right.

So, by your words, humans are imperfect and can only try. I agree. Now, apply that same logic to religion and what conclusion do you arrive at?

[trotsky]

58. That religion is merely another human idea, and does not necessarily help us be better.

And in fact, often makes us worse.

[guillaumeb]

60. So if we could eliminate religion, and patriotism, and language,

and social divisions, we would have perfection?

Not really. Good luck in your search for the perfect universe.

[Voltaire2]

61. Has anyone made that claim?

[guillaumeb]

62. It is implied.

[Voltaire2]

64. Um no. You have once again provided a man of straw

put an idiotic argument in its mouth and demolished it.

[trotsky]

68. No it is not.

And if someone did this to you, you'd scream bloody murder.

Does Jesus say it's OK to be a hypocrite?

[guillaumeb]

69. Are you stalking me?

[trotsky]

71. You keep on making Jesus proud, g.

Your behavior here is so very Christian, isn't it?

[trotsky]

66. MISFRAMING!

Can you, just for once, argue HONESTLY? For fuck's sake. I never claimed that AT ALL.

I'll remind you for what must be the 9000th time, this is the RELIGION group. We discuss RELIGION and its role in the world. Your constant, desperate attempts to change the subject, to get religion off the hook from any blame, are pathetic and embarrassing.

Is this how Jesus wants you to behave?

[guillaumeb]

70. Misframing.

I understand.

[trotsky]

72. Does Jesus understand? n/t

[guillaumeb]

12. I have read the creation story also.

Both stories are metaphorical.

[Voltaire2]

22. You use the term metaphorical as if it means

“Without meaning”.

The stories of horrendous slaughter in the Bible, metaphorical or not, normalize horrendous slaughter.

[guillaumeb]

36. The history of the US normalizes horrendous slaughter.

Human history normalizes slaughter and war. The Bible is a reflection of that human history.

[Voltaire2]

56. So the Bible is just a really shitty history?

I didn’t know that. I thought it was supposed to provide all this moral guidance and everything.

You however continue to use “it’s a metaphor” to excuse everything awful in your holy book. As I said, that really is not an appropriate use of the word.

[guillaumeb]

57. All of history shows the same thing.

So what is your point, other than that people do bad things? Many of us understand that point, but most of us accept that humans actually do good and bad things.

[Voltaire2]

59. The point is that a lot of the stories in your

holy book appear to be teaching morally dubious lessons.

[trotsky]

77. And his point is just whataboutism.

It's really sad how transparent he is.

[Lordquinton]

43. The creation story is metaphorical

Yet you firmly believe there is a creator, how did it create?

[guillaumeb]

52. Ask the Creator.

I am not the Creator's designated spokesperson.

[Lordquinton]

81. Funny, you sure are speaking for it

You spend a lot of time telling others what your creator can/cannot do and be. You're also very absolute when you are talking about your Creator's words.

May as well be calling you metatron.

[guillaumeb]

82. Metatron thanks you.

I have no idea who/what Metatron is, but, as regular readers of my posts know, I express my personal opinions.

[Lordquinton]

83. ...

My work here is done.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Lolwut

[Act_of_Reparation]

85. ...

[Cuthbert Allgood]

86. You made my day. Thank you.

I also find it interesting that it is the atheists in the group who know what Metatron is and not the theists. Theists gotta watch more Kevin Smith movies, I guess.

[Alpeduez21]

10. Religion does NOT teach tolerance.

Certainly not Christianity. That teaches forgiveness for non believers. The God of that religion does the forgiving. It is up to its practitioners to convert people to follow the path given in the bible. It's perfectly acceptable and encouraged by the bible and preachers to condemn gays, nonchristians, people who don't follow 'the rules.' Christians do not tolerate others. Certainly not historically. One could argue that for the current batch of Christians and its march towards governance tolerance is far from the first priority. Those of us not being tolerated are very familiar with the attitude.

[guillaumeb]

11. I stand by my reply.

It teaches the ideal. When humans fail to live up to the ideal, that is a human failing.

[longship]

34. And they burn forever where?

That's right... HELL!

That would be one of the most odious creations by Christians. That, and the worship of a torture device.

You believe like I do, or be forever tortured. Plus, I am going to kill you to hurry you on the way. Yup! That's gonna work.

[trotsky]

75. "It teaches the ideal."

It does, huh?

Please state, clearly and for all humans to read and understand, exactly what the "ideal" is.

You can end millennia of disagreement, if you would just tell us.

Please proceed.

[Voltaire2]

79. but elsewhere in this thread you claimed the awful stuff in your holy book

was just a sad reflection of how shitty humans are.

Seems like your book is whatever you happen to want it to be at any moment.

[AZ8theist]

17. Religion teaches tolerance??

Guess you never read the old testament.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. Unsubstantiated assertions.

Say, didn't you just criticize someone for that upthread?

I think you did. Not cool.

[Alpeduez21]

14. Your claim that intolerance is a human condition

ignores the fact that religion is also a human condition. I stand by my reply that religion does NOT teach tolerance. It teaches intolerance, with the exception of Buddhism. That's a tolerant religion. Maybe your Buddhist, if you are my apologies.

[guillaumeb]

15. If the human condition is intolerance,

does it surprise you that humans are intolerant?

[Alpeduez21]

18. An assertion with no evidence.

But an assertion that is frequently made here.

You believe that I don't. Religious intolerance is taught by religions to quell other religions.

[trotsky]

20. And if the human condition is intolerance,

does that make religion completely worthless?

Apparently so. Thanks for making that clear, g.

[guillaumeb]

35. Apparent perhaps to you.

[trotsky]

38. Yet you can't rebut the point.

You never have.

How telling.

[guillaumeb]

49. There is nothing to rebut.

Thus, I cannot rebut nothing.

[trotsky]

50. How clever.

Not.

[Lordquinton]

46. I wouldn't exclude buddism

There are many examples, but the current ethnic cleansing in Myanmar (?) Is the closest at hand.

[yallerdawg]

19. The solution, not the problem!

How about showing the work of people such as Mother Teresa, Pope Francis, philanthropists such as Abdul Sattar Edhi of Pakistan?

How about showing the work of religious-based hospitals such as St. Francis, Mt.Zion, and Mt. Sinai?

How about showing the good work of the Roman Catholic Church - the provider of the largest non-government healthcare services in the world? It has 18,000 clinics, 16,000 homes for the elderly and those with special needs, and 5,500 hospitals, with 65 percent of them located in developing countries.

How about highlighting the fact that the non violence movement by Gandhi and Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, and the humanitarian work by Abdul Sattar Edhi of Pakistan was religiously motivated?

For example.

[guillaumeb]

39. All of these things must be denounced as less than perfect.

Thus making the perfect the absolute enemy of the good.

[yallerdawg]

42. And, of course...

the "exception proves the rule."

[Cuthbert Allgood]

78. Mother Teresa & Pope Francis can go fuck themselves.

She was a horrible human being that, while enjoying all of the best for herself, made others endure horrible suffering because it brought them closer to Jesus. And Pope Frank is a homophobic bigot that protects child rapists.

So, yeah, great examples.

[trotsky]

21. The author of this pathetic "rebuttal" is a liar.

He wrote:

Secondly, even though 30% of people thought religion was the basis for conflict, 70% did not feel so.

That is a dirty, deceitful trick. 30% of the respondents said religion was the PRIMARY basis for conflict.

The remaining 70% thought something else was the PRIMARY basis, but they did not say religion wasn't still *A* basis.

Dishonest and despicable.

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. Apologetics invariably descend into dishonesty.

It's not debate club, where you are expected to make a dispassionate case for premises you might not even personally agree with. The apologist has an emotional need to convince others of their correctness. Conversion is the very purpose of the discipline. When the word games and the mental leaps invariably fail they just start lying. It's all justified if people come to god in the end, yes?

[trotsky]

25. That's the problem when you set out to rebut FACTS.

That's all that Hemant did, report the FACTS of a survey. What a horrible thing to do!

The results of that survey are not palatable to those who need to believe religion is a wonderful thing and never responsible for anything bad, so they have to make shit up, not just to muddy the waters about what was said, but also to attack the person who said it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

26. We should probably count ourselves lucky.

They used to run us out of town, ostracize us, or burn us at the stake. Now they just make idiots of themselves on the internet.

[trotsky]

27. Someone even pointed out the same thing to him in the comment section.

And I can't figure out if he really doesn't understand what he did, or is just so emotionally wed to his position that he refuses to admit that he lied.

Much like a certain other someone who may or may not engage in the exact same behavior right here on DU.

[guillaumeb]

44. Now you mischaracterize to prove your own point.

I understand.

[trotsky]

47. Your claim.

Unsupported. Try actually arguing a point instead of smearing everyone who points out your errors.

[DetlefK]

29. The rebuttal is weak and ignores the finer points.

In short, it is not religion that goes to war.

That is correct. It is people using religion as an excuse for going to war.


Thirdly, and this is the fake news part: The survey, the report on US News and Hemant’s post fail to show all the good that religion has to offer and has offered- for centuries.

But that's not what we are debating. We are debating religion and war. Religion can at the same time be responsible for charity and for war.


Moreover, “India Today’ in April of 2015 published a piece on the 5 most deadly wars in history.

Learn to read statistics. That does not say anything about the number of people killed in total in (non-)religious strife.


I know you may quote some “violent” verses from the Scriptures, but the peaceful/peace-loving people of faith will show you these, and numerous other similar passages.

Jesus preached that you should donate your possessions and live in poverty. And yet we have Calvinism and the prosperity-gospel.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. India lost 1.3-3 million people in WWII. Religion was part of the impetus that led the

Japanese to see them as less than human, which is a sine qua non to slaughtering humans as casually as chickens.

The entire region was broken up along religious lines, group fighting group. That's not a coincidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arakan_massacres_in_1942

[guillaumeb]

45. Patriotism is used as an excuse.

Proving in the end that humans use many things as an excuse.

[DetlefK]

30. A simple philosophical argument why religion will always foster wars.

1. Wars happen between opposing groups.

2. Religion divides mankind into groups of different religions.

3. Religion regards empirical facts as inferior to beliefs. (Don't believe me? Try to use empirical facts to convince someone that their religion is wrong and that your's is correct.) => Religious arguments cannot be settled by peaceful discussion.

Combine 2. and 3. =>
4. Religious division will never go away because religions don't coalesce.

Combine 1. and 4. =>
5. Religion will always provide the "opposition" that is necessary for a conflict.

[guillaumeb]

48. Substitute the word patriotism and the premise holds. Like this:

1. Wars happen between opposing groups.

2. Patriotism divides mankind into groups of different countries.

3. Patriotism regards empirical facts as inferior to beliefs. (Don't believe me? Try to use empirical facts to convince someone that their country is wrong and that your's is correct.) => Patriotic arguments cannot be settled by peaceful discussion.

Combine 2. and 3. =>
4. Patriotic division will never go away because countries don't coalesce.

Combine 1. and 4. =>
5. Patriotism will always provide the "opposition" that is necessary for a conflict.

See how easy that was?

[Act_of_Reparation]

53. You've said this before. No one gives a fuck.

As this is not a patriotism forum, it is irrelevant. As two wrongs don't make a right, it is illogical. Maybe you should stop doing it.

[guillaumeb]

55. Does this logic bother you?

Why is that?

I understand the need of some to find the "one big reason" for the bad in the world, but the world is far more complicated than that.

[Act_of_Reparation]

65. I understand the need for straw men.

Because your argument doesn't work without them.

[DetlefK]

73. And that's why Germany's 16 states are still at war with each other.

Germany had forever been split into dozens of kingdoms, principalities and fiefdoms. Ever heard of the 30-year-war? That was the german civil-war 1618-1648 that was kicked off by Protestants and Catholics fighting each other.

And it wasn't religion that united Germany. It was politicians.



Patriotism is flexible and moldable.

[guillaumeb]

74. Patriotism is that concept which is most responsible for war.

It cannot be otherwise.

Politicians united Germany for power, nothing else. and those with power feel justified in using that power for their own purposes.

Patriotism is indeed flexible, able to justify dropping atomic weapons on 2 cities filled with civilians to demonstrate power and the willingness to use that power.

Patriotism is flexible. The same countries that were once mortal enemies can magically become allies when it suits their leaders.

[DetlefK]

76. "It cannot be otherwise?"

This discussion is growing stale for me. Just one last point:
Politics has caused war and peace between countries.
Religion has caused war between countries.
When has religion caused peace between countries?

[guillaumeb]

80. The discussion is not really a discussion.

You are wedded to your point. I understand that even as I reject it as far too reductionistic.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. It was an interesting counterpoint till he fell on his face holding up Mother Teresa as a good examp

le of religious 'help'.

Her brand of 'help' was a complete shitshow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa

[Mariana]

54. As Trotsky pointed out in post #21, it was based on a lie from the start. nt.

[Binkie The Clown]

63. The problem is not religion. The problem is those OTHER people who have the WRONG religion. nt

[guillaumeb]

67. "Hell is other people".

JP Sartre.