Why are Creationists so afraid of Evolution?

[Amaris]

The problem, as I might understand it, is that people like Ryan define "good" and "evil" as their religion command them, instead of as their own morality tell them.

So they are incapable of understanding how religion can make people to do evil. If the Bible says it's good, it is good. If the Bible say it's evil, it is evil.

Slaying the Philistines and collecting their foreskins? Totally fine! Steve kissing Bob? Super-evil!

For some, I have no doubt it is exactly like that. In this case, though, I'm hoping to get across to Ryan that a good person who does evil, only does so because they believe that what they are doing is good, and when their religion presses on them that an act we consider evil is good, it makes that good person commit evil, and they don't even realize it.

Not quite accurate. They do not do so because God commanded them to. Well, most of them don't. They do so because they know failure to do so will have social consequences. "You are seen as a witch. Therefore if I do not burn you at the stake, I will be seen as pro-witch".

The same thing happens in militaries that have nothing to do with religion. Oh, I found an unarmed enemy soldier cowering in fear hiding in a ditch. If I don't execute him right now I will be seen as pro-enemy.

Oh, I agree, that does play a major part in it. Social pressure can be just as strong as any biblical edict.

The problem, if you care to really understand, is that saying in the situation of religion a good person will do good. Then saying that in a situation of religion a good person will do evil. How is that not contradictory?

You have already defined an environment will lead to an action in one statement then defined that same environment will lead to a different opposite action.

Or 1+1=2
and
1+1=0

No. Just No.

 

[iguana_tonante]

And religion is not the root cause of good people doing bad things. Groupthink is the cause, the religion is only one possible cause of groupthink. When you defer responsibility for your own actions to mob, that's when good people do bad things.

Totally agree. It's the adult version of a basically good teen doing something stupid because "everyone" is doing it. With adults, the group may be religion... or a political party or an employer ("all my coworkers do it") or...

This is a very good argument. Poisonous political environments (Nazism, Stalinism, just to make it obvious I am not talking about garden-variety political disagreements) have certainly brought good people to do evil things. One could argue that that kind of political indoctrination is akin to a religion, tho.

The problem, if you care to really understand, is that saying in the situation of religion a good person will do good. Then saying that in a situation of religion a good person will do evil. How is that not contradictory?

You have already defined an environment will lead to an action in one statement then defined that same environment will lead to a different opposite action.

Or 1+1=2
and
1+1=0

This, on the other hand, is not.

Good grief man. Let us rephrase it again.

Regardless of religion, nice people will do things thinking they are doing good (which is accurate), and bad people will do things thinking they are doing evil (again, accurately).

But because of religion (actually, quasi-religious groupthink, to accept the previous amendment), nice people can be fooled into doing evil things thinking they were doing good things.

Is that any clearer?

 

[RyanKCR]

And religion is not the root cause of good people doing bad things. Groupthink is the cause, the religion is only one possible cause of groupthink. When you defer responsibility for your own actions to mob, that's when good people do bad things.

Totally agree. It's the adult version of a basically good teen doing something stupid because "everyone" is doing it. With adults, the group may be religion... or a political party or an employer ("all my coworkers do it") or...

This is a very good argument. Poisonous political environments (Nazism, Stalinism, just to make it obvious I am not talking about garden-variety political disagreements) have certainly brought good people to do evil things. One could argue that that kind of political indoctrination is akin to a religion, tho.

The problem, if you care to really understand, is that saying in the situation of religion a good person will do good. Then saying that in a situation of religion a good person will do evil. How is that not contradictory?

You have already defined an environment will lead to an action in one statement then defined that same environment will lead to a different opposite action.

Or 1+1=2
and
1+1=0

This, on the other hand, is not.

Good grief man. Let us rephrase it again.

Regardless of religion, nice people will do things thinking they are doing good (which is accurate), and bad people will do things thinking they are doing evil (again, accurately).

But because of religion (actually, quasi-religious groupthink, to accept the previous amendment), nice people can be fooled into doing evil things thinking they were doing good things.

Is that any clearer?

You forgot in the first park that because of religion, good people will do good. And that is where the problem lies. You are saying that religion causes good people to do good then you are saying that religion causes good people to do bad. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Why not? It happens in real life.

 

[Darth Duck]

You forgot in the first park that because of religion, good people will do good. And that is where the problem lies. You are saying that religion causes good people to do good then you are saying that religion causes good people to do bad. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, you can have it both ways because people are weird contradictory creatures.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

A good religious person will generally do good things.
He may do so because his religion actually dictates the right moral course r simply because the religion has no opinion about the specific moral choice.
In the same situations a bad person will tend to do the bad thing with or without religion.

In other situations the same good person can be compelled to do bad things because his religion commands it. The good person would do the good thing, but the religious authority is a higher one than his own moral compass.

We are not talking about an either/or situation. People will make many choices throughout their life.

 

[JarodRussell]

A person is inherently good or bad. Religion is just one of many excuses for a person's actions.

 

[Deckerd]

A person is inherently good or bad.

That's rubbish. a) People are a lot more complicated than that and b) 'good' and 'bad' are subjective terms. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Good grief man. Let us rephrase it again.

Regardless of religion, nice people will do things thinking they are doing good (which is accurate), and bad people will do things thinking they are doing evil (again, accurately).

But because of religion (actually, quasi-religious groupthink, to accept the previous amendment), nice people can be fooled into doing evil things thinking they were doing good things.

Is that any clearer?

You forgot in the first park that because of religion, good people will do good. And that is where the problem lies. You are saying that religion causes good people to do good then you are saying that religion causes good people to do bad. You can't have it both ways.

Actually: yes, you can. The quote is saying that religion can make good people do good things... the same things they'll do without it (be kind, be generous, be selfless). But religion can also make good people do evil things, things they wouldn't normally do, because they think they have to follow the letter of some ancient collection of myths or they will be damned to an eternity of torment.

Now, do you realize that instead of trying to understand what's written, you are clinging to the wording so you don't have to think about the meaning?

Kinda like what you do with your Bible.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Good grief man. Let us rephrase it again.

Regardless of religion, nice people will do things thinking they are doing good (which is accurate), and bad people will do things thinking they are doing evil (again, accurately).

But because of religion (actually, quasi-religious groupthink, to accept the previous amendment), nice people can be fooled into doing evil things thinking they were doing good things.

Is that any clearer?

You forgot in the first park that because of religion, good people will do good. And that is where the problem lies. You are saying that religion causes good people to do good then you are saying that religion causes good people to do bad. You can't have it both ways.

Actually: yes, you can. The quote is saying that religion can make good people do good things... the same things they'll do without it (be kind, be generous, be selfless). But religion can also make good people do evil things, things they wouldn't normally do, because they think they have to follow the letter of some ancient collection of myths or they will be damned to an eternity of torment.

Now, do you realize that instead of trying to understand what's written, you are clinging to the wording so you don't have to think about the meaning?

Kinda like what you do with your Bible.

Like the Salem witch trials. All in the name of God. Ironically, those who confessed to being witches were not executed. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/salem.htm

 

[RJDiogenes]

Religion is a specific type of ideology, and ideology is simple obedience as a substitute for reason and empathy. Ideology can arbitrarily lead people to do good things or it can arbitrarily lead people to do bad things-- but the problem is that it is arbitrary and not the result of reason and empathy.

 

[Rincewiend]

You forgot in the first park that because of religion, good people will do good. And that is where the problem lies. You are saying that religion causes good people to do good then you are saying that religion causes good people to do bad. You can't have it both ways.

You can...
Plenty of good, religious people helped the poor and their neighbours but treated coloured people like shit because they where the descendants of Cain, the colour of their skin was the Mark Of Cain!!!
Religion has been used to justify plenty of evil, abhorrent things and people went with it because "the holy book said so, according to the religious leader"...

 

[Avon]

anyway everyone thats ever eaten meat on a friday is going to hell no matter how good a person they are. literalists have to believe this. it has as much weight in the bible as 'gays are going to hell' but they never talk about it, probably due to them loving a bit of meat in their mouths. mmm delicious symbolism.

i don't get why a person from 2000 years ago's opinion has any bearing on science that didn't exist then and they couldn't have comprehended. the bible is the morality of an ancient middle eastern tribe, taking it literally makes you an annoying relic.

 

[Gov Kodos]

anyway everyone thats ever eaten meat on a friday is going to hell no matter how good a person they are. literalists have to believe this. it has as much weight in the bible as 'gays are going to hell' but they never talk about it, probably due to them loving a bit of meat in their mouths. mmm delicious symbolism.

i don't get why a person from 2000 years ago's opinion has any bearing on science that didn't exist then and they couldn't have comprehended. the bible is the morality of an ancient middle eastern tribe, taking it literally makes you an annoying relic.

I've always felt 'A Piece of the Action' with its frequent references to 'The Book', which is what bible means, can be seen as a satire of how aliens might look at us placing so much of how to run a culture on the sayings and traditions of millenia long dead sheep headers and an itinerant carpenter.

 

[JarodRussell]

A person is inherently good or bad.

That's rubbish. a) People are a lot more complicated than that and b) 'good' and 'bad' are subjective terms. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

That's not the point. The point is religion doesn't make you a bad person unless you were already ready to do bad things to begin with. It's just another reason that you use to justify your actions. If you're ready to kill someone "in the name of God", then you would be ready to kill someone without that religion as well.

You describe the outside point of view on that person. If someone kills infidels in the name of God, he is a hero and martyr for one group of people, and a monster for the other group of people. That doesn't affect the main point, that he's ready to kill someone for some reason.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

A person is inherently good or bad.

That's rubbish. a) People are a lot more complicated than that and b) 'good' and 'bad' are subjective terms. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

That's not the point. The point is religion doesn't make you a bad person unless you were already ready to do bad things to begin with. It's just another reason that you use to justify your actions. If you're ready to kill someone "in the name of God", then you would be ready to kill someone without that religion as well.

You describe the outside point of view on that person. If someone kills infidels in the name of God, he is a hero and martyr for one group of people, and a monster for the other group of people. That doesn't affect the main point, that he's ready to kill someone for some reason.

But he wouldn't without a sound reason, like defending someone innocent for example.
Killing someone because an authority tells you so or else is not a good reason.

 

[JarodRussell]

That's rubbish. a) People are a lot more complicated than that and b) 'good' and 'bad' are subjective terms. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

That's not the point. The point is religion doesn't make you a bad person unless you were already ready to do bad things to begin with. It's just another reason that you use to justify your actions. If you're ready to kill someone "in the name of God", then you would be ready to kill someone without that religion as well.

You describe the outside point of view on that person. If someone kills infidels in the name of God, he is a hero and martyr for one group of people, and a monster for the other group of people. That doesn't affect the main point, that he's ready to kill someone for some reason.

But he wouldn't without a sound reason, like defending someone innocent for example.
Killing someone because an authority tells you so or else is not a good reason.

I didn't say anything about it being a good or bad reason. But it's a reason nonetheless.

 

[RyanKCR]

A person is inherently good or bad.

That's rubbish. a) People are a lot more complicated than that and b) 'good' and 'bad' are subjective terms. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

That's not the point. The point is religion doesn't make you a bad person unless you were already ready to do bad things to begin with. It's just another reason that you use to justify your actions. If you're ready to kill someone "in the name of God", then you would be ready to kill someone without that religion as well.

You describe the outside point of view on that person. If someone kills infidels in the name of God, he is a hero and martyr for one group of people, and a monster for the other group of people. That doesn't affect the main point, that he's ready to kill someone for some reason.

That's it. That's the issue. Religion cannot make a good person do bad. It can be an excuse for an evil person to do evil. A more accurate reading of the statement should be:

With or without religion good people can still do good and bad people can still do bad. However, religion can be used as an excuse for a bad person to do bad, but it can also make a bad person do good.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

That's rubbish. a) People are a lot more complicated than that and b) 'good' and 'bad' are subjective terms. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

That's not the point. The point is religion doesn't make you a bad person unless you were already ready to do bad things to begin with. It's just another reason that you use to justify your actions. If you're ready to kill someone "in the name of God", then you would be ready to kill someone without that religion as well.

You describe the outside point of view on that person. If someone kills infidels in the name of God, he is a hero and martyr for one group of people, and a monster for the other group of people. That doesn't affect the main point, that he's ready to kill someone for some reason.

That's it. That's the issue. Religion cannot make a good person do bad. It can be an excuse for an evil person to do evil. A more accurate reading of the statement should be:

With or without religion good people can still do good and bad people can still do bad. However, religion can be used as an excuse for a bad person to do bad, but it can also make a bad person do good.

No, you are saying that a good person can't do bad things influenced by his religion because justifying it by his religion makes the deed good in itself, which is not the case!

 

[JarodRussell]

That's not the point. The point is religion doesn't make you a bad person unless you were already ready to do bad things to begin with. It's just another reason that you use to justify your actions. If you're ready to kill someone "in the name of God", then you would be ready to kill someone without that religion as well.

You describe the outside point of view on that person. If someone kills infidels in the name of God, he is a hero and martyr for one group of people, and a monster for the other group of people. That doesn't affect the main point, that he's ready to kill someone for some reason.

That's it. That's the issue. Religion cannot make a good person do bad. It can be an excuse for an evil person to do evil. A more accurate reading of the statement should be:

With or without religion good people can still do good and bad people can still do bad. However, religion can be used as an excuse for a bad person to do bad, but it can also make a bad person do good.

No, you are saying that a good person can't do bad things influenced by his religion because justifying it by his religion makes the deed good in itself, which is not the case!

No, that's not what he is saying.