Post Any Evidence For God Here

[crispybits]

No, the whole point is that it's NOT OK for them to do it. But they genuinely believe they are doing good, and so I can empathise and forgive them for it. Just like if my housemate floods the flat and damages some of my stuff, if they say "Haha I did that deliberately in order to damage your stuff" then I would blame them for destroyying the stuff, but if they said "the flat downstairs was on fire so I had to flood this place to try and save all our stuff", and the flat downstairs had never been on fire, but I can see that they honestly and understandably believed it was, I would empathise and forgive them (I might still be annoyed at the result, but I wouldn't blame them for it)

This whole argument is predicated on the assumption that religious people do net harm to society. What is the harm that they collectively perpetrate? It's circular reasoning to say that just the fact that they try to convert people is harmful; that's only true if you can show that it's objectively bad to be a Christian. That's all I'm really asking you to show. What is it that Christians really do that make it, on balance, worse to be a Christian?* You haven't really given any concrete examples, you've just made vague insinuations that religion is evil. Only Neoteny really made any argument that describes something evil that some religious people do today; but as I pointed out, violence against innocent people is generally to be regarded as bad independent of the motive. You need to show that Christianity itself calls people to commit violence against others as a core tenet of its religion in order to make this point. I just don't think that's the case. Most of the official church doctrines deal with stuff like loving your neighbor and giving charity to the poor. I think it's fine to believe that the Christian theology is senseless; I don't see the basis for the belief that the Christian ethics is evil.

(*Note: I think that people who deny the teachings of science are bad for society, but that just has to do with being ignorant.)

No, it's predicated on the premise that religious people do harm to people. Not society.

A threat of eternal torment is harmful. Not physically harmful, but it is harmful, because you are causing someone mental distress if they believe you are credible in that threat. Every single person who is either a current adherent or a recipient of an attempt at Christian conversion is threatened with eternal pain and torment if they do not follow that particular idea. The credibility of the threat is built upon unproven and unfalsifiable appeals to authority. Without religion, this kind of threat could not be made, it would be impossible. And this is the form of violence that Christianity undeniably perpetrates as a core tenet.

What's worse is that anyone who believes the threat instantly becomes a slave to the ideology, and it is their religious duty to perpetrate that same violence on others too.

Yes it gives the way out too. Follow these simple rules and you'll go to heaven instead. But so do muggers. I will stab you, but give me your money and I will walk away and do you no personal harm. Does that make it alright?

On a personal level, how many people must find spiritual peace (and many believers don't, or we would never hear of crises of faith in individuals) before we balance out the mental distress of the conversion method? How many Christians are 100% confident they are definitely going to heaven, and how do you balance out the doubt that many have professed freely over the years that they, as fallible humans, may fall short of divine expectations?

Even societally how much charity work or good deeds does it take to balance a single death from religiously motivated violence? How do you balance one life taken in a suicide bombing (not referring the Christians here obviously but Islam is a religion too - I'm an equal opportunities anti-religionist) against a homeless person being sheltered or a truckload of food being sent to Africa? How do you balance one woman dying in Ireland because she was denied an abortion against an elderley person being given a hand around the house or a school being funded?

Finally, because I just went back to check I hadn't missed anything in your post. Christian ethics, as they relate to real life situations are pretty much OK by me for the most part (with predictable exceptions around abortion and homosexuality among other issues). The ethics are to a large extent reinterpretted by every generation to fit societal ethical values. They lag slightly behind on many issues, but they do move or Christians the world over would still be fighting the abolition of slavery and calling for removals of currently established women's rights and stuff like that. Strange as it may sound for an ideology that professes absolute moral authority based on their book, which is unchanging, the ethincs of the Christian majority is remarkably flexible. It is the theology that is not only senseless, but when taken seriously rather than simply dismissed is lom. (please correct my semantics if you don't want me to keep using that made up word by the way, if you don't want me using evil then there must be a word that means the same as I defined "lom" to mean - personally I still think evil is good enough)

[PLAYER57832]

A threat of eternal torment is harmful. Not physically harmful, but it is harmful, because you are causing someone mental distress if they believe you are credible in that threat.

Does a parent who punishes (not abuses, just punishes) a child do harm?

A threat of harm can be seen as inherent harm.. or it can be seen as a motivator to do good, to learn, to move beyond hardship to achieve greater things.

[jonesthecurl]

So would eternal torment be harmful?

[Metsfanmax]

consequentialism is the form of ethics that makes the least number of arbitrary assumptions about the way things should work

*snicker*

Only until someone starts asking questions about what constitutes a good life. You're very quickly left with unpalatable options that you have to call ethical or moral, or you have to introduce a fair number of arbitrary restrictions to make the theory work out.

I have no idea what you mean. The purpose of the categorical imperative has always been to provide an answer to the question of how you should act, and the idea of universalizability of (desires/preferences/pleasures/utility/you name it) is pretty much all you need to construct a reasonable ethical framework. An ethical life is one in which you act according to the prescriptions of that system of ethics, and since by construction the system of ethics works to maximize whatever good you've chosen to use as your metric, an ethical life maximizes good done. It's simple, and therefore the least restrictive.

crispybits: you've completely gone off the rails now. For me, the idea of death is instinctively terrifying, because I'm fairly confident that it will be the end of my existence. My emotions would be calmed significantly by the idea that as long as I didn't screw up by committing murder or rape, I could get into an eternal paradise. It sounds like a pretty sweet deal.

[crispybits]

A threat of eternal torment is harmful. Not physically harmful, but it is harmful, because you are causing someone mental distress if they believe you are credible in that threat.

Does a parent who punishes (not abuses, just punishes) a child do harm?

A threat of harm can be seen as inherent harm.. or it can be seen as a motivator to do good, to learn, to move beyond hardship to achieve greater things.

If the threat (or punishment) is proportional then it may be good. Eat your greens or you'll be sent to your room with no TV. Don't murder people or we'll throw you in jail. Once it gets disproportional it changes. Eat your greens or I break your arms.

If you threaten someone based on a finite testing period with infinite pain, terror and misery that's not proportional. Especially when failure to pass the test could be that you followed all of the rules and lived the most ethically Christian life possible except for saying "Hey God, thank you for Jesus, I worship your name and ask forgiveness for my sins."

Failure to bow down and worship is, in fact, the only sin that is truly unforgivable. So it is literally "believe in our idea, or eternal torment for you, no matter how morally you try and live." Does that sound proportional?

Edit

crispybits: you've completely gone off the rails now. For me, the idea of death is instinctively terrifying, because I'm fairly confident that it will be the end of my existence. My emotions would be calmed significantly by the idea that as long as I didn't screw up by committing murder or rape, I could get into an eternal paradise. It sounds like a pretty sweet deal.

As above, nothing to do with if you commit murder or rape, do that as much as you like as long as you genuinely repent and accept the big idea before you die you're fine.

Or because people are scared of death that gives them the right to threaten a fate much, much worse than simply ceasing to exist on anyone who disagrees with them? Is that what you're trying to say?

[MeDeFe]

consequentialism is the form of ethics that makes the least number of arbitrary assumptions about the way things should work

*snicker*

Only until someone starts asking questions about what constitutes a good life. You're very quickly left with unpalatable options that you have to call ethical or moral, or you have to introduce a fair number of arbitrary restrictions to make the theory work out.

I have no idea what you mean. The purpose of the categorical imperative has always been to provide an answer to the question of how you should act, and the idea of universalizability of (desires/preferences/pleasures/utility/you name it) is pretty much all you need to construct a reasonable ethical framework. An ethical life is one in which you act according to the prescriptions of that system of ethics, and since by construction the system of ethics works to maximize whatever good you've chosen to use as your metric, an ethical life maximizes good done. It's simple, and therefore the least restrictive.

Kant's categorical imperative is a prime exhibit of a system of virtue ethics and not at all consequentialist. In fact, you're supposed to disregard the consequences of any individual action. Following a strictly Kantian system of ethics, once you've determined that lying is bad, you're supposed to tell the nazi where the jews are hiding if he asks you.
(Possible solutions to this could be a hierarchy of maxims, or claiming that it is better to act against a maxim oneself than to cause another to act against a maxim.)

It also has nothing to do with "maximizing whatever good [one has] chosen to use". That's a utilitarian approach to ethics. As you surely know, utilitarian ethics can be, somewhat facetiously, summed up as "the ends justify the means". That is contrary to the categorical imperative which doesn't consider your ends at all, you might have the most noble of intentions and be able to save hundreds of lives, but if doing so requires you to act against a maxim it's still an unethical course of action.

[chang50]

A threat of eternal torment is harmful. Not physically harmful, but it is harmful, because you are causing someone mental distress if they believe you are credible in that threat.

Does a parent who punishes (not abuses, just punishes) a child do harm?

A threat of harm can be seen as inherent harm.. or it can be seen as a motivator to do good, to learn, to move beyond hardship to achieve greater things.

An infinite punishment for a finite crime is the worst form of abuse and utterly reprehensible and indefensible.

[Gillipig]

crispybits: when is the last time a Christian ever threatened to harm you because of their beliefs?

Gillipig: One of my parents is Christian and the other is Jewish, and I am neither...

Well you're hardly the norm in this case then. The vast majority (way over 90%) have the same religious belief as their parents. That's just a fact and not deniable! I like that fact because it shows that all the dreamish reasons given as to why you believe something is just bs. You believe in it because your parents did, to me that doesn't sound koherent with religious dogmas in general.
But all this is just semantics and should't really affect what you believe in, the main thing to keep in mind is that religion is unsupported by evidence, and when something is unsuported by evidence there's no reason to believe in it. Like the tooth fairy or santa claus. Just because more people seriously believe in Christianity for example doesn't make it true. The search for truth is not a popularity contest, and the number of believers says nothing of it's likelyhood of being true. You can't trust the vote of the majority on matters which people are ignorant of, and if you could that still wouldn't have been any help as nonbelief has more supporters worldwide than any single religion.

What religious debators often do to feel better about themselves is to add all religions together and unify them under the word "religious belief", as if they're in it together against none belief, but they clearly aren't. A muslim is a heathen in Christianity, and he will go to hell if the christian god exists. And vice versa with most other religions. An atheist will also go to hell, not a special "no believer at all hell", but the same hell as the muslim.

[PLAYER57832]

A threat of eternal torment is harmful. Not physically harmful, but it is harmful, because you are causing someone mental distress if they believe you are credible in that threat.

Does a parent who punishes (not abuses, just punishes) a child do harm?

A threat of harm can be seen as inherent harm.. or it can be seen as a motivator to do good, to learn, to move beyond hardship to achieve greater things.

An infinite punishment for a finite crime is the worst form of abuse and utterly reprehensible and indefensible.

Its not actually analagous to Christianity, except loosely. My point was you said that pain is evil, but i was showing that it all depends upon the context.

I understand that you dislike, disagree with Christianity. It certainly has been a tool used for great harm. However, its also been a tool that has spurred people on to do good. You cannot just pick one side.

And that, ultimately is the message of Christ. Hell is not so much a place of eternal punishment as a place where God is absent. To a Christian, to many faiths that represents the greatest harshness there is. However, it is a self-selected harshness. We believe God created us, gave us all we have... and to ask for worship in return, to allow ultimate forgiveness in return, is not a great deal.

Also, many Jews don't believe in Heaven or Hell.... so saying that its "believe in God or eternal damnation" is, again showing only a narrow understanding of the way some people, but not all view one religion, Christianity. It is hardly anything to do with all of Christianity, never mind all of all religious beliefs.

Besides, my basic point is that your beliefs, too are religion. Just because your belief is that everything is based in facts that can be proven doesn't make it less a belief once you get beyond those bounds.. and neither I nor most people here have said anything about dismissing scientific proof. We just look to where there are no scientific answers yet.

[PLAYER57832]

crispybits: when is the last time a Christian ever threatened to harm you because of their beliefs?

Gillipig: One of my parents is Christian and the other is Jewish, and I am neither...

Well you're hardly the norm in this case then. The vast majority (way over 90%) have the same religious belief as their parents. That's just a fact and not deniable! I like that fact because it shows that all the dreamish reasons given as to why you believe something is just bs. You believe in it because your parents did, to me that doesn't sound koherent with religious dogmas in general.

Actually most people believe something similar to, but not exactly like what their parents believe.
AND.. most teenagers question their beliefs. That holds true for ALL types of beliefs, not just those dealing with origins and other religious matters.

But all this is just semantics and should't really affect what you believe in, the main thing to keep in mind is that religion is unsupported by evidence, and when something is unsuported by evidence there's no reason to believe in it.

Religion has evidence,but when it comes to deep beliefs, it is just not evidence most people can trot out and display. Saying its not real is like saying that ou cannot trust what ANYONE says becuase you yourself have not seen it directly. Its arrogance, not truth or intelligence to make such statements.

Like the tooth fairy or santa claus. Just because more people seriously believe in Christianity for example doesn't make it true. The search for truth is not a popularity contest, and the number of believers says nothing of it's likelyhood of being true. You can't trust the vote of the majority on matters which people are ignorant of, and if you could that still wouldn't have been any help as nonbelief has more supporters worldwide than any single religion

What religious debators often do to feel better about themselves is to add all religions together and unify them under the word "religious belief", as if they're in it together against none belief, but they clearly aren't. A muslim is a heathen in Christianity, and he will go to hell if the christian god exists. And vice versa with most other religions. An atheist will also go to hell, not a special "no believer at all hell", but the same hell as the muslim.

While its true that majority rule has almost nothing to do with fact, that is not what religious people say. They say they believe, for their own reasons to many to list here. And, while some spout off pure idiocy, no doubt, so do people of any belief system. Many also speak sense. Yet, you seem to wish to claim only the idiots represent theological ideas and only intelligent people represent atheistic ideas., becuase the only ideas you counter are idiotic ones.

Just to begin with, Hell is not a universal religious concept.. at all. Even many Jews don't believe in the "afterllife", good or bad. The only real context in which unifying religious belief makes sense is when people try to proclaim, as you have, that their beliefs are special and not somehow a matter of belief like these others they disdain. But, the truth is that arrogance and bigotry are arrogance and bigotry whether they hold a religious "flag" or not.

[crispybits]

I don't know if you misquoted there Player but I suspect that was more to me than Chang

I never said pain is evil. I said religion is evil. I said threatening pain against people because they do not agree with your philosophy is evil.

As I said earlier, how many schools have to be funded, or how much food sent to Africa, or how many homeless people sheltered, before it balances the scales of the people that die, and still die every day even in the modern world, because of the teachings of one religion or another?

So you don't promise torment, but simply "the greatest harshness"? Is that meant to make it better? An eternal suffering of the greatest harshness sounds so much more inviting than an eternal suffering of pain, terror and misery right?

I accept the Jewish point. We've pretty much exclusively been having the debate along Christian lines, and I live in a Christian country, so that's the one I've been most exposed to. I accept that other religions may have different core tenets and may not be evil in the same way, but I stick to my point that any instance of men speaking for God is morally bankrupt.

My beliefs are religion? I'm having trouble understanding that paragraph there. Let me try and break it down

"Because your belief is that everything is based in facts that can be proven"

I never said that, I said we can never make claims to any authority that cannot be proven, or claim any authority over others based on that.

"doesn't make it less a belief once you get beyond those bounds"

I never claimed my own flavour of theological metaphysics was anything other than personal, and I've stated more than once that I do not try and inflict it on anyone else or claim any authority based on it.

"and neither I or most people here have said anything about dismissing scientific proof"

I never said you did. I said that many (not all - not you as far as I remember in this thread) religious people will claim scientific proof for things which cannot by definition ever have it (normally in order to exert authority over other people)

Unless you can prove I actually claimed any of these three then that entire last paragraph is basically meaningless waffle.

[AAFitz]

]Religion has evidence,but when it comes to deep beliefs, it is just not evidence most people can trot out and display.

Evidence that you can not "trot out and display" is not evidence.

And deep beliefs are never evidence of anything, except that a person has a deep belief. There is so much real evidence and examples that human beliefs can not be trusted, that all beliefs become meaningless, without actual evidence to support them.

One might even argue that the more deep a belief is, then the more corrupted it may be, especially if it lacks evidence. The human mind is so inclined to "believe" things, that for the most part, it is inclined to be delusional. It purposefully, and repeatedly creates delusions, and only reason and discipline can keep it on a logical path. And even then, that logical path is hardly paved with the brightest street lights, so the only real evidence concerning human beliefs, is that they are all incorrect in some way, and many completely wrong in all ways.

It may even seem like a pessimistic view of things, from someone who cherishes their beliefs above all things, but that is only because they have never experienced the freedom of a truly open mind, which is able to continue to question everything, and constantly seek out new information, and actually change their beliefs in response to new, actual evidence.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't know if you misquoted there Player but I suspect that was more to me than Chang

Sort of... I quoted his response, but yes ,most of what I said was to you. He has had the same debate, though, so it pretty much applies to both of you.

I never said pain is evil. I said religion is evil. I said threatening pain against people because they do not agree with your philosophy is evil.[/quote]Yes, but a true Christian does not do that, in my opinion. (nor do true followers of most other religions).

That said, the best parent cannot protect a child from real consequences, and in fact -- more to the point, trying creates even greater harm. That is, you can put a child in a padded box, make sure they have all the food they need, perhaps even plug them into some giant computer. BUT.. would that be real life?

That is the real issue. Love requires hatred becuase of how we are. It is a fundamental part of what it is to be human. You can say that upi think a God would have created a better system, but I say that is like a child wanting to eat only cake. As a young child, it seems great, but as adults we know better. God is the adult and we are the children in this context becuase his knowledge is so much greater.

I realize you disagree with that belief, but I am saying that you need to counter the actual belief.. not just what you think others think.

As I said earlier, how many schools have to be funded, or how much food sent to Africa, or how many homeless people sheltered, before it balances the scales of the people that die, and still die every day even in the modern world, because of the teachings of one religion or another?

No, I am talking about far, far more fundamental issues, things like the abolition of slavery.

Even so, see above. I have gotten into this debate more in several other threads, but am going to have to be short right now (can get into it more later, probably.. but have to go now). The short answer is that I believe God set up the world the way it is because if he did not we would not be human. So, fundamentally, either we have the current world including the evil or we have robots.

So you don't promise torment, but simply "the greatest harshness"? Is that meant to make it better? An eternal suffering of the greatest harshness sounds so much more inviting than an eternal suffering of pain, terror and misery right?

No. God made the world, gave us free choice. Part of true freedom is the ability to choose wrong.. sometimes very, very wrong.

I accept the Jewish point. We've pretty much exclusively been having the debate along Christian lines, and I live in a Christian country, so that's the one I've been most exposed to. I accept that other religions may have different core tenets and may not be evil in the same way, but I stick to my point that any instance of men speaking for God is morally bankrupt.

This requires more thought to answer, but I hope I have broached it above. Sorry I don't have more time right now.

My beliefs are religion? I'm having trouble understanding that paragraph there. Let me try and break it down

"Because your belief is that everything is based in facts that can be proven"

I never said that, I said we can never make claims to any authority that cannot be proven, or claim any authority over others based on that.

In a sense, neither do those with religion. You just don't like what we see as evidence. That's OK for science, but what about all the questions science cannot answer... yet.

"doesn't make it less a belief once you get beyond those bounds"

I never claimed my own flavour of theological metaphysics was anything other than personal, and I've stated more than once that I do not try and inflict it on anyone else or claim any authority based on it. .

Well, when you go on to declare that religion is evil.. you do. By what authority do you claim your belief system is better or even produces a better result?

Anyway, a tad short, but I gotta go to work right now.

[crispybits]

I don't know if you misquoted there Player but I suspect that was more to me than Chang

Sort of... I quoted his response, but yes ,most of what I said was to you. He has had the same debate, though, so it pretty much applies to both of you.

I never said pain is evil. I said religion is evil. I said threatening pain against people because they do not agree with your philosophy is evil.

Yes, but a true Christian does not do that, in my opinion. (nor do true followers of most other religions).

That said, the best parent cannot protect a child from real consequences, and in fact -- more to the point, trying creates even greater harm. That is, you can put a child in a padded box, make sure they have all the food they need, perhaps even plug them into some giant computer. BUT.. would that be real life?

That is the real issue. Love requires hatred becuase of how we are. It is a fundamental part of what it is to be human. You can say that upi think a God would have created a better system, but I say that is like a child wanting to eat only cake. As a young child, it seems great, but as adults we know better. God is the adult and we are the children in this context becuase his knowledge is so much greater.

I realize you disagree with that belief, but I am saying that you need to counter the actual belief.. not just what you think others think.

This is exactly what I am doing in a general sense. I am showing why any belief based on no evidence used as an authority claim is wrong.

You say a true Christian doesn't threaten people with Hell, but going to Hell if you do not ask forgiveness and worship God is probably one of two or three fundamental tenets of Christianity. Whenever I asked of Christian authority figures (such as priests or youth leaders or whatever) in the past "so what happens if I live a morally perfect life but I do not worship God or accept him as my saviour?" the answer I have received is "sorry, but you'll go to Hell. You HAVE to accept God into your life to go to Heaven." Not just from the odd one here and there but from every single Christian authority I have ever asked that question to. I have to accept their idea, based on no evidence, or I will suffer eternal nastiness.

On the love requires hatred thing, it's another unsupported claim. It's an extension of the problem of evil argument where Christians are forced to claim "maybe this is the best possible world" in order to justify their beliefs. And there is no evidence that this is the best possible world. This is simply another claim to knowing something it is not possible to know, which brings us back to the central point of my argument about claiming authority over others based on unknowables.

As I said earlier, how many schools have to be funded, or how much food sent to Africa, or how many homeless people sheltered, before it balances the scales of the people that die, and still die every day even in the modern world, because of the teachings of one religion or another?

No, I am talking about far, far more fundamental issues, things like the abolition of slavery.

Even so, see above. I have gotten into this debate more in several other threads, but am going to have to be short right now (can get into it more later, probably.. but have to go now). The short answer is that I believe God set up the world the way it is because if he did not we would not be human. So, fundamentally, either we have the current world including the evil or we have robots.

Dealt with above.

So you don't promise torment, but simply "the greatest harshness"? Is that meant to make it better? An eternal suffering of the greatest harshness sounds so much more inviting than an eternal suffering of pain, terror and misery right?

No. God made the world, gave us free choice. Part of true freedom is the ability to choose wrong.. sometimes very, very wrong.

How does free will have anything to do with the nature of the punishment we are threatened with if we don't toe the line? And is it really free will if we have two choices: "Do as I say or suffer eternal nastiness". Is that really a choice? Is there ANYONE who would ever choose the nastiness?

I accept the Jewish point. We've pretty much exclusively been having the debate along Christian lines, and I live in a Christian country, so that's the one I've been most exposed to. I accept that other religions may have different core tenets and may not be evil in the same way, but I stick to my point that any instance of men speaking for God is morally bankrupt.

This requires more thought to answer, but I hope I have broached it above. Sorry I don't have more time right now.

My beliefs are religion? I'm having trouble understanding that paragraph there. Let me try and break it down

"Because your belief is that everything is based in facts that can be proven"

I never said that, I said we can never make claims to any authority that cannot be proven, or claim any authority over others based on that.

In a sense, neither do those with religion. You just don't like what we see as evidence. That's OK for science, but what about all the questions science cannot answer... yet.

I don't accept that what you claim is evidence (personal revelation) IS evidence. That is true. And for reasons that got dealt with a cople of posts ago. How do we tell the difference between genuine divine revelation and simple delusion or hallucination? Until a way is found to reliably give correct credibility standards to various different people's subjective claims of inner experience based on supernatural concepts that differ wildly from culture to culture and even person to person, then it doesn't meet ANY evidential standard I've ever seen.

As for the things that science doesn't cover, that's personal choice. Believe whatever you want. But don't tell me or anyone else what we have to believe based on it.

"doesn't make it less a belief once you get beyond those bounds"

I never claimed my own flavour of theological metaphysics was anything other than personal, and I've stated more than once that I do not try and inflict it on anyone else or claim any authority based on it. .

Well, when you go on to declare that religion is evil.. you do. By what authority do you claim your belief system is better or even produces a better result?

Anyway, a tad short, but I gotta go to work right now.

I didn't claim anything about my metaphysical position on God with my claim that religion is evil. I even provided a real world example which follows the same steps as religion but revolves around sports, and then left it open for people to tell me why it is qualitatively different from religion. So far nobody has. My arguments on religion being evil are based on moral arguments, not metaphysical ones.

Also, I never claimed my metaphysical beliefs are better. I have said more than a few times in this thread that I do not wish to attack faith. Belief in a higher power is a subjective thing and many people place a lot of value on it, and my intention is not to strip them of it. I attack religion as a societal construct, not faith. So I have no need to claim that my metaphysics is better than anyone else's. I simply claim that nobody's metaphysics has the authority to impose itself on anyone else (subject to there remaining no evidence)

[Vid_FISO]

A few thoughts to chuck into the mix -

not all those that profess to be Christians believe in Heaven/ Hell

not all those that profess to be Christians actually know what the beliefs/ interpretations of their professed branch are as it actually involves a degree of studying/ indoctrination that they've never had/ sought

religion in itself is not evil, if all those that claim religious affiliation actually followed those teachings/ beliefs then the World would be a better place, evil comes from the zealots that follow their own interpretations rather than those of Christ and seek position within whichever Church to gain power for themselves and steer the followers of whichever religion to follow their interpretation/ direction to commit evil in the name of God or Christ

much like politics really

[Metsfanmax]

Kant's categorical imperative is a prime exhibit of a system of virtue ethics and not at all consequentialist.

The statement:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

is not at all an exposition of a particular system of ethics, it is simply a foundational concept of all reasonable systems of ethics. All it is, is the requirement that ethical beliefs need to be universalizable; they don't just apply to you, but mean something bigger about society. It does exclude pure egoist/hedonistic philosophies, but those are not really ethical systems of the same type. Even a utilitarian needs some way to measure what is good, so that they can go out and maximize it, and so to have some objective sense of what it means to be good, your ethical decisions need to be universalizable.

In fact, you're supposed to disregard the consequences of any individual action. Following a strictly Kantian system of ethics, once you've determined that lying is bad, you're supposed to tell the nazi where the jews are hiding if he asks you.
(Possible solutions to this could be a hierarchy of maxims, or claiming that it is better to act against a maxim oneself than to cause another to act against a maxim.)

This formulation of the categorical imperative does not require rule-based deontology, for exactly the reason you list in your solutions. Obviously a rule-based system that says "do not lie" suffers from the problem you state. So you amend the rule to "do not lie unless by lying you can save an innocent person's life." Eventually your hierarchy or set of rules gets so complex that it is indistinguishable from consequentialism. I'm not sure why you believe that the statement listed above requires rule-based ethics, but it doesn't.

[crispybits]

A few thoughts to chuck into the mix -

not all those that profess to be Christians believe in Heaven/ Hell

not all those that profess to be Christians actually know what the beliefs/ interpretations of their professed branch are as it actually involves a degree of studying/ indoctrination that they've never had/ sought

religion in itself is not evil, if all those that claim religious affiliation actually followed those teachings/ beliefs then the World would be a better place, evil comes from the zealots that follow their own interpretations rather than those of Christ and seek position within whichever Church to gain power for themselves and steer the followers of whichever religion to follow their interpretation/ direction to commit evil in the name of God or Christ

much like politics really

Bah Vid - I shall have to troll you in clan now!

Points 1 and 2, already covered by the repeated clarification that I am not calling religious people evil, just religion itself as an idea.

Point 3, well that pretty much makes my point. Man should never be allowed to speak with divine authority. There would still be bad people and good people, it wouldn't solve all of the world's problems. But at least it would make it harder for the zealots to gain power and control over otherwise innocent and good natured victims.

[crispybits]

To put this another way

If there is a God, and if he does take a personal interest in us, and if he did design and create the universe, what would be the way he would choose to communicate with us about what he thinks are right and wrong actions?

Would he:

(a) Get some people to write an unverifiable and unfalsifiable book, and then create an elaborate societal construct, open to all sorts of corruption and perversion, based on twin pillars of bribery and intimidation, and vulnerable to all sorts of re-interpretation and spin.

(b) Build into us, in our design, a feature that tells us instinctively if something is right or wrong. Give us an emotional capacity to feel good when we do the right thing, and crappy when we do the wrong thing, without needing to refer to an external reference book that we may or may not have any access to.

It seems to me that if God does take a personal interest in us, and if he did specifically design us, then the most effective and efficient way to ensure his teachings of absolute moral standards are adhered to by everyone regardless of when and where we are born is through our own consciences. It means that every human, from every culture and period in history, has access to his teachings.

Now I would personally reject that God specifically designed us specially, and so the above doesn't apply anyway. I'm merely pointing out that religion would be a pretty badly designed way to impart moral teachings if that was the intention, which from a God that (if you believe the premises) can design and create an entire universe is something I find pretty unlikely.

That's just personal opinion though, I don't claim it as fact (I reject the premises so I don't even claim it as a subjective truth), and I don't tell anyone else they have to believe it. Make your own minds up, and if we disagree then that's fine, that's your choice and I certainly won't threaten you with anything for doing so (I do reserve the right to disagree though).

[john9blue]

what if religions aren't made by any god? what if they still have value despite that?

[GreecePwns]

Where would that value come from? Making of morally "good" people? That could be done without deluding them into clinging irrational beliefs with complete and unquestioning certainty. Helping the poor? That could be done without deluding them into clinging irrational beliefs with complete and unquestioning certainty.

In both cases the value comes from the actual making of morally "good" people and helping the poor, the belief is irrelevant to the situation. That the belief inspired that person to do such things is also irrelevant, because that implies that no other purely emotional (yet worldly) appeal could have.

[Haggis_McMutton]

what if religions aren't made by any god? what if they still have value despite that?

The fundamental process by which religion functions and evolves is seriously flawed. Religion is to science/philosophy what absolutist hereditary monarchism is to a democratic republic.

Was absolutist hereditary monarchism useful 2000 years ago? Maybe.
Do we still need it now that we have a much better alternative? Hell no.

[john9blue]

Where would that value come from? Making of morally "good" people? That could be done without deluding them into clinging irrational beliefs with complete and unquestioning certainty. Helping the poor? That could be done without deluding them into clinging irrational beliefs with complete and unquestioning certainty.

without nearly as much effectiveness.

The fundamental process by which religion functions and evolves is seriously flawed. Religion is to science/philosophy what absolutist hereditary monarchism is to a democratic republic.

Was absolutist hereditary monarchism useful 2000 years ago? Maybe.
Do we still need it now that we have a much better alternative? Hell no.

what's the modern alternative to religion? obama worship?

[Phatscotty]

what's the modern alternative to religion?

Leftism

[Lootifer]

what's the modern alternative to religion?

rational acceptance (serious here, im ignoring PS bait)

[Phatscotty]

what's the modern alternative to religion?

rational acceptance (serious here, im ignoring PS bait)

oh no! Leftism as a religion is DEAD serious. The case has already been made, the evidence exists, there is no doubt.