Christians celebrate rape, torture, slavery and genocide.

[Kirbmarc]

I know a guy who used to get drunk every day and frequently abused his wife. He had a religious experience and is now sober for years and happily married. Seems like a formerly evil person who's now doing good to me.

I'd be very interested in knowing about this experience (because I find it highly unlikely), but it's better not to derail the thread too much. Would you mind to post more about this story (leaving out any sensitive details, of course) if I started a new thread about religion and morality?

Anyway, your example doesn't fully convince me. I'd say that what actually helped to become more empathic has much more to do with becoming sober than with having a religious experience. Of course the decision of becoming sober was inspired by this alleged religious experience, but I doubt that the effect would have been different if the same decision was inspired by something else.

The view I exposed in my previous post is of course a simplification of reality (as any philosophical view), but I think it still holds up when we're talking about societies in general.

People are rarely completely empathic or sociopathic (although most of us are more empathic than sociopathic). Specific individuals may develop more empathy during the course of their lives (or may overcome an addiction, thus improving control on their actions) and they might do it for religious reasons.

I highly doubt, however, that this is frequent enough to balance the harmful effects of religious morality towards minorities and non-believers in general. In layman's terms, I think that while it's possible that in some specific cases religion can help someone to improve their morality (or their self-control), overall it does more harm than good.

[John V]

I'd be very interested in knowing about this experience (because I find it highly unlikely), but it's better not to derail the thread too much. Would you mind to post more about this story (leaving out any sensitive details, of course) if I started a new thread about religion and morality?

From what follows I don't see the point.

Anyway, your example doesn't fully convince me. I'd say that what actually helped to become more empathic has much more to do with becoming sober than with having a religious experience. Of course the decision of becoming sober was inspired by this alleged religious experience, but I doubt that the effect would have been different if the same decision was inspired by something else.

Maybe. This is what I was talking about in my response to Ryantology. We can't even quantify the effect of religion in this one case, let alone quantify everything since the inception of Christianity. I personally don't argue that Christianity has been a net good for that reason.

People are rarely completely empathic or sociopathic (although most of us are more empathic than sociopathic).

Not necessarily. What if we employ seemingly empathic deeds for selfish motives? This seems very common to me, and I believe is backed up by research (observing what people do if they think no one's watching vs. if someone's standing there). And again, it's impossible to quantify. Poor Gooders thinks the world's pretty evil. Maybe he's right.

Specific individuals may develop more empathy during the course of their lives (or may overcome an addiction, thus improving control on their actions) and they might do it for religious reasons.

I highly doubt, however, that this is frequent enough to balance the harmful effects of religious morality towards minorities and non-believers in general. In layman's terms, I think that while it's possible that in some specific cases religion can hrlp someone to improve their morality (or their self-control), overall it does more harm than good.

Yes, I know you think that. I'm not sure I don't agree with you. It's not necessarily an un-Biblical position. But we just can't quantify it.

[Kirbmarc]

let alone quantify everything since the inception of Christianity.

Maybe not, but we can look at the historical evidence and take into account the extremely harmful potential of religions and dogmatic ideologies in general.

What if we employ seemingly empathic deeds for selfish motives? This seems very common to me, and I believe is backed up by research (observing what people do if they think no one's watching vs. if someone's standing there).

Empathy is not the exact opposite of selfishness, it's opposite of sociopathy. We need to acknowledge that someone is there to be empathic to them.

Even if we are highly empathic, we can easily fool ourselves into believing that no one is going to harmed by a really harmful action if we don't have direct evidence of a harm being done. Confirming your own bias is very simple.

For example, polluting is potentially very harmful. But since there's rarely an immediate, visible harm caused by pollution, it's not hard to pretend that nothing harmful is going on. People who pollute a lot, however, can't be reasonably called evil, or sociopaths. They're simply deluded (or uneducated).

Sociopaths harm people directly and acknowledge what they're doing. They simply think it's within their rights to do so.

And again, it's impossible to quantify.

True. However, we can quantify the social impact of religious morality as a whole. And the results don't look very good for religious morality.

It's not necessarily an un-Biblical position.

I'm surprised by this statement. The Bible promotes religious morality, why should a believer think that religious morality does more harm than good?

[John V]

Maybe not, but we can look at the historical evidence and take into account the extremely harmful potential of religions and dogmatic ideologies in general.

OK, apparently my discussion of confirmation bias and quantification was wasted on you.

I'm surprised by this statement. The Bible promotes religious morality, why should a believer think that religious morality does more harm than good?

The Bible promotes Biblical morality, and that can be twisted by men. Jesus' harshest words were for the Pharisees, who were the religious right of the time.

[Darkstar]

The Bible promotes Biblical morality, and that can be twisted by men. Jesus' harshest words were for the Pharisees, who were the religious right of the time.

Jesus also said:
[Ephesians 6:5]

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

[Kirbmarc]

OK, apparently my discussion of confirmation bias and quantification was wasted on you.

I acknowledge your conclusion, but the evidence from history tells us that dogmatic ideologies (religions included) tend to be very harmful.

Jesus' harshest words were for the Pharisees, who were the religious right of the time.

Jesus may have criticized his religious rivals, but he also said (Matthew , 5: 17-18):

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

and (Luke,16: 16-17):

The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped.

so he was approving the morality of the Old Testament (i.e. rape, torture, slavery and genocide are morally right if your god says so). So he obviously thought that religious morality was right.

[John V]

[The Grand Nudger]

Suppose, instead, we say that while "Jesus" clearly felt that religious morality was right, the specifics of a given religious morality are another issue entirely. There's the common assumption that the author of jesus words would have even known what the "religious morality" of the OT was in it's entirety (specifically when a comment like the one you just made is offered up Kirb). Why anyone assumes this is beyond me, but why an atheist would assume this specifically is just a tad further from explanation.

Do you agree with the old testament and the prophets?
-Uh, what was it they say again?
"mentions a few but by no means all moral issues expounded upon...excluding those things you mentioned specifically"
-Yeah, sure, sure. So back to what I was trying to tell you guys.....

[Kirbmarc]

Suppose, instead, we say that while Jesus clearly felt that religious morality was right, the specifics of a given religious morality are another issue entirely.

Of course. Jesus was peddling his own interpretation of religion, just like any religious leader in history. This doesn't change the dogmatic nature of his teachings and the potential harm that they can cause.

There's the common assumption that the author of jesus words would have even known what the "religious morality" of the OT was in it's entirety (specifically when a comment like the one you just made is offered up Kirb).

I think that it's likely that whoever wrote the Gospels had at least an idea of what the Old Testament was about. Including the "rape/murder/ genocide" part.

Why? Because the first authors of the Bible were educated as Jewish. Educated Jews of those times probably knew what the Bible was about.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course. Jesus was peddling his own interpretation of religion, just like any religious leader in history. This doesn't change the dogmatic nature of his teachings and the potential harm that they can cause.

No, I wouldn't say that this is altered in the least, agreed.

I think that it's likely that whoever wrote the Gospels had at least an idea of what the Old Testament was about. Including the "rape/murder/ genocide" part.

You'd think that was likely when we wonder if the authors of the gospels even knew wtf -they- were writing about...or what was contained in other portions of some parts of the gospels? Do we have any examples of references by this jesus character to those rapes/murders/genocides directly? "The Law" is fairly vague as a reference to any of these (vagueries are a convenient currency for a con after all ) .

Why? Because the first authors of the Bible were educated as Jewish. Educated Jews of those times probably knew what the Bible was about.

Yet they chose to spin a yarn about a character so drastically unlike the character of the OT that the two (judaism and christianity) could no longer be considered the same religion. A character so diverse from it's supposed source material that there was disagreement (and continues to be disagreement) that the two were, in fact, the same character. Perhaps the OT's value to the authors of the NT was little more than that of transference of authority. They seem to have been eager to assume the mantle of righteousness and continuity offered by the OT without actually being interested in advancing it's core narratives. Perhaps this was as inconvenient for them then as it is for some Christians today...but as foundational and necessary as it is for many christians today if they hope to even attempt a claim of authenticity?