Revisiting Steven Weinberg's assertion

[2Dbunk]

JAG television series (CBS’ “Judge Advocate Corps� by Donald P. Bellisario, Executive Producer – Ninth Season, Disc #5, entitled “Fighting Words,� (one hour)

IS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the BEST DRAMATIC PORTRAYAL OF STEVEN WEINBERG’S ASSERTION:
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it 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.�

Rarely are very good examples given in asserting an argument, but when presented they win the day. “Fighting Words� fits that description as the series’ protagonists Commander Harmon Rabb goes nose to nose with prosecuting attorney, USMC Colonel Sarah MacKenzie (the former defending an over-zealous two star Marine Corps general who, in military uniform, disparages Islam from the pulpit of his church’s congregation). The Colonel wins, and the general gets his hands slapped.

This is the best example that I’ve seen on screen of a good man inadvertently trying to destroy the notion that our Constitution is sincere in protecting all religious belief.

Yes, the “unmatched wisdom� of our current president has muddied the waters a bit
when he insinuates that there are “good Nazis� as well as bad; and that white supremacists might make for good neighbors. If that is the case, what was WW II all about?

Was the court decision wrong in this case? If so, can you put forward an example to counter Weinberg’s assertion? OR, another example that supports Weinberg’s assertion?

[1213]

Consider the idea that your neighbor is a homosexual or a Muslim.

It doesn’t matter, I still should love and not murder, lie or steal anything, even from them. And I have no problem with that. Even if person has done something wrong, I don’t want to do something wrong to them.

As a Christian, I could only claim to love them. It is an empty claim when you also believe that they deserve eternal torture for being who/what they are.

I think it is not love to deny the truth and lie so that other person is not offended. I think lying is bigger insult and offence, it tells the liar doesn’t appreciate the other person. The truth is that according to the Bible there are many things that are wrong, and that people would deserve death if they do them. And it is so, even if no one would believe it. But I think what Bible tells is not same as that belief of “eternal torture�.

[1213]

Of course I don't think it's ridiculous to love others. How in the world did you ever come up with such twisted nonsense?

Then why are you against Jesus? According to him the greatest commandment is that we love others. I really don’t see why anyone would be against Jesus and lie about him and try to make people to reject him and at the same time also that teaching. I actually can’t imagine thing more evil than trying to make people to reject love.

Christian theists must be so convinced that their theology is impossible to defend that they only tactic they can come up with in debates is to try to insult and belittle their debate opponents.

Sorry, if you feel that I am insulting you. I find it odd, when it seems you are insulting Jesus and all those who believe Jesus.

And besides, Jesus preached hatred too. You don't seem to be willing to acknowledge this. Jesus preached that people should hate their own parents. Are you going to condone that? If not, then why are you wasting your time defending a hateful Jesus?

But what do you think hate means in that? What do you think Jesus meant with hate? Why it is bad or wrong in that case?

I have understood love means in the Bible that person cares without conditions. And hate doesn’t mean that person doesn’t care. Person can’t hate, if he doesn’t care. That is why I think they are not opposites. But then, what it meant that Jesus spoke about hating own family and even own life? It didn’t mean that we should not care about the people, because we should still love even our enemies. So, what was it about? to understand that well, I think it would be good to look what Jesus actually said:

"If anyone comes to me, and doesn't hate his own father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he can't be my disciple. Whoever doesn't bear his own cross, and come after me, can't be my disciple… …So therefore whoever of you who doesn't renounce all that he has, he can't be my disciple.�
Luuk. 14:26-27,33

In practice it meant renouncing this life and its benefits. The job of disciples was to go and preach the message. It would not have been possible to do the job, without renouncing old life. Was it wrong or unloving for the people? I don’t think so. To not do the job would have been unloving for all people.

[1213]

...1213 post #17--

One reason why I believe what the Bible tells is that no one has been able to show real error or contradiction in it. If it would be purely from people, it would have many mistakes.

Many debaters, many times on these forums, have shown your above quoted two sentences to be untrue.....

Sorry, I think that is not true. But it is interesting things, how it is declared who is right and who is wrong and what is the truth. By what I see, atheist have failed, but on the other hand they have managed to confirm to me that Bible is great book.

[2Dbunk]

...1213 post #17--

One reason why I believe what the Bible tells is that no one has been able to show real error or contradiction in it. If it would be purely from people, it would have many mistakes.

Many debaters, many times on these forums, have shown your above quoted two sentences to be untrue.....

Sorry, I think that is not true. But it is interesting things, how it is declared who is right and who is wrong and what is the truth. By what I see, atheist have failed, but on the other hand they have managed to confirm to me that Bible is great book.

I refer you to Google. On Google's first page concerning 'Biblical Contradictions' there are eight direct references to contradictions, and only one reference to 'Explanation of Biblical Contradictions.' I didn't go any farther.

One of those eight that counter your claim is entertaining as well as enlightening: BibViz shows graphically where these contradictions occur.

IMO the most contradictory blather (among much, much blather) in the Bible is Psalm 14. This Psalm is contradictory to truth when it states "no atheist can do good -- no, not any!" In my experience, atheists have shown themselves to be remarkably good citizens, trustworthy to a fault. I would trust their word against many if not most Christians.

Case in point: All politicians in our legislators are religious (in America); a very high percentage of them Christian. But Americans, when asked what they think of politicians, say "they are all crooks!" Americans have come to accept the politico lies as everyday business, "everyone does it" exemplifies the White House's Mulvaney just yesterday.

No! Because of religious objection, clearheaded atheist view points are not invited to this corrupted table of fools.

[Zzyzx]

.

I refer you to Google.

It is hazardous to assume that everyone is capable of or willing to use internet searches for information -- that may well contradict their chosen belief system

Willful ignorance often prevails over information from multiple disconnected worldwide sources. Confirmation bias keeps them reading religious propaganda based on ancient tales.

However, we can trust that many readers are not so heavily emotionally invested and/or indoctrinated -- and will consider information available.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 29 by marco]

More fictions? Neither Abraham nor Lot were motivated by religion, in any case. The voices in Abraham's head supposedly became the grounds for a later religion, but he himself belonged to no religious community and so far as we know had no system of beliefs.

WHAT? Abraham, the first Patriarch of the Jewish Nation was not motivated by religion? It may have been from listening to voices in his head, but many a religion has been founded upon such imagination.

Lot, who would have sacrificed his offspring to God's request -- if that isn't religious motivation, what else could have possibly motivated his need to obey?

Mithrae replied to post 27 by Willum:

Personally I would say it's a bit of a non sequitur to talk about 'good people' to begin with: At most, we might talk about people inferred (by their behaviour or by statistical averages) to rate above some arbitrary threshold on a scale of some 'good' value such as empathy/compassion for others. But more importantly, given that arbitrary threshold, there's no reason whatsoever to suppose that religion is any more common as a motivator to do 'evil' for those people than things like nationalism, greed and so on. The likely Weinbergite response that "if their motivation is greed, they weren't good people" is seen to be obviously fallacious once we clarify the only meaningful sense in which someone can be categorized as a 'good person.' If anything, as others have already pointed out, most major religions teach as their primary values things which we generally consider good - love, compassion, don't kill, stop being greedy etc. - so even in cases where a religion is placed to the fore as a pretext for evil actions, that's often not the same thing as being the primary motivator. Though certainly there are cases of religion being a genuine motivator for evil.

Well then I see: 'we are all sinners' is your default. Of course you can extrapolate that the term 'good' as applied to all people is one of degree, but Weinberg's statement is one of generality: religious people are deemed by him to be of good moral character, but some of them may over-zealously (and ignorantly) hastily transcend their understanding of other's rights. I think this is the point you are missing.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 28 by Mithrae]

That’s the propaganda, but people kill for God.
Hitler prayed to God.
The Nazi swore an oath to God.

You don’t kill in the name of Connecticut, for Pete’s sake. The only power high enough to justify murder is God.

Christian apologists aside, ones that don’t have the strength of will to acknowledge the Nazi party killed in the name of God.
President Polk and his Manifest Destiny of genocide was empowered by God.
Moses and his genocide of the Egyptians and Amorites was empowered by God.

If you don’t like the God, or what people can do in His name, get out of the religion. Don’t apologize for it.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 28 by Mithrae]

That’s the propaganda, but people kill for God.
Hitler prayed to God.
The Nazi swore an oath to God.

You don’t kill in the name of Connecticut, for Pete’s sake. The only power high enough to justify murder is God.

That's absolute rubbish and you know it; millions of people have killed and died for their country. Many have done so for "God, king and country" or some equivalent... though nine times out of ten it seems to be president and country giving the orders and reaping the rewards, not God. But even ignoring those 'mixed' cases, the number of people killed solely for the glory of Greece or Rome or the USSR or 'freedom and American interests' exceeds the number killed solely in the name of God several hundred-fold, at least; Stalin alone is likely responsible for far more deaths than have been killed solely in the name of God.

You can deny that reality 'til you're blue in the face, but a more intelligent approach would be to instead try arguing "Oh well, those killers weren't really good people." In most cases I'd probably agree; and for the most part nor were the considerably smaller number of killers motivated by religion.

If you don’t like the God, or what people can do in His name, get out of the religion. Don’t apologize for it.

I'm not a Christian. See those usergroups under my avatar? They're a bit of a heavy hint, for those who aren't blinkered by some kind of 'us versus them' mentality. More objective thinkers are capable of assessing the merits (or otherwise) of a position without having their conclusions dictated by whether it fits some preconceived agenda of attacking religion/Christianity. There's plenty to be said against both the bible and the Christian religion, but Weinstein's fallacious and erroneous assertion is not one of them - it really doesn't even have the virtue of being funny or witty, as far as I can see

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 28 by Mithrae]

That’s the propaganda, but people kill for God.
Hitler prayed to God.
The Nazi swore an oath to God.

You don’t kill in the name of Connecticut, for Pete’s sake. The only power high enough to justify murder is God.

That's absolute rubbish and you know it;

I'm not so sure about that. This slogan isn't referring to hand warmers.

[marco]

By what I see, atheists have failed, but on the other hand they have managed to confirm to me that the Bible is a great book.

You are being modest, 1213. You should take the entire credit for that conviction yourself. I think the atheist had absolutely no input. Atheists might say that the best recruit for atheism is the Bible.

Perhaps all that matters is a search for truth and a desire to be nice to other people. If some find it in religion, good and well. If they find it in a book that tells us to stone our wayward daughters, then we truly have a miracle. Go well.