The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Do the "Ends Justify the Means" in Ridding the World of Religion?

You read it right.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jacob Gladden on November 25, 2009 at 3:57pm

Trance,
I have to disagree. I think a good old fashioned no-holds-barred holy war is perfectly justifiable, if in the end I can step off the last dead moron and know that my kids need not go through what I just did. To know that I won't have to do it again.

For anyone who does not blame their ancestors (dead or living) for the problems in our current modern world the ends will never justify the means in reaching them. I for one would not prefer to have my descendants wondering why I never stood up and DID something about this crazy bullshit we call religion before it got out of hand.

Maybe I will write a letter to my great great grandchildren explaining that if they turn out to be religious nut jobs it wasn't because I didn't try to talk people into more action. That will make it ok. Shifting responsibility for current problems is why we are even having this discussion. Our ancestors either were totally fooled or afraid or too apathetical. Maybe I'm just pissed off because my job is slowly making my hands look like Germany in 1945. All fucked up.

Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on November 25, 2009 at 4:53pm

They say that history is written by the winners. Even with that said and presuming we'd be those winners, I STILL am not sanguine with getting preemptive on a physical level with the theists. However, if I see things threatening to get ugly, I have no problem arming myself.

From a philosophical standpoint, I would rather not be the one to take the first shot, though again, if necessary, I will. I have no problem whatsoever taking the LAST one.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacob Gladden on November 25, 2009 at 5:43pm

So would it be ok to prompt them into making the first move so everybody could feel good about it? Every fight I ever saw that started with some shoving ended with both people hurt. One guys shoves another and that guy shoves him back saying, "Don't shove me!" and they slowly rev each other up. I have seen a few ass-whoopings where no shoves were involved. The first guy simply started kicking the shit out of the second one and that was the beginning and the end of that.
The idea behind civilized conflict resolution is to avoid a fight. When that doesn't work...blood flows. There is no civilized method of conducting violence. That is just bullshit.

You did say it. If it is necessary you would take the first shot.

I have to agree with you, since I'm not a violent person, violence is not the tool I use to resolve conflicts. Hurting someone worse than they have hurt me seems wrong on a lot of levels.

Although, I might have a case for blaming Xtianity for that way of thinking in my westernized brain. I do however feel that it is ok morally and ethically to do whatever I have to to ensure the survival of myself and my family. We just need a good reason to go stark raving mad on the fundamentalists and show them how its done.

I give secular people better odds at maintaining their humanity after war. Does anyone know of any numbers showing the effects of PTSD on our troops based on religion? I have known several secular veterans who never had trouble dealing with killing their enemies. I even know a guy who got shot by a nine year old girl in the face (the bullet actually ricocheted off of the inside of his helmet). His squadmates blew her to little bits. I remember being surprised at his own admission that it should have bothered him still but it didn't. Kill or be killed is too sensible for secular people to get torn up over shoulda woulda coulda.

Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on November 25, 2009 at 6:02pm

As I said, I am not sanguine about being preemptive. I did not say I wouldn't be. As with just about everything else in this world, that would be purely situational ... and here I go, quoting Robert Heinlein again:

It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion. And usually easier.

Permalink Reply by Edward Teach on November 23, 2009 at 7:37am

The religicons are sheep. They are lead. How many would stay the course if the leaders of the Religious Right were taken out? How many would stick if religicons became the minority? How many would hold out in the face of real oppression?

I don't think the ends justify the means. I do think individuals should be held accountable for the consequences of their behavior.

If human beings operated as enlightened animals, they would critically evaluate issues. They would make rational decisions. Unfortunately, even the best of us make our daily decisions in life based on emotion, conditioning and instinctual drives. Otherwise, we'd all be eating healthy diets, exercising regularly, meditating, abstaining from drugs, tobacco and alcohol, behaving with empathetic understanding, treating each other with dignity and respect...

Humans learn in three ways: Operant conditioning (rewards and punishments), classical conditioning (pairing) and social learning (observation). By and large, humans require external structure to live in harmony with each other. I don't like this idea. It is not romantic... but it is true. A utopian world of empathetic, critical thinkers might be possible, but is certainly not likely.

The book "The Island of Dr. Morrow" was not a story about animals who couldn't maintain their humanity... It was about us.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jared Lardo on November 24, 2009 at 9:57pm

Um, what the fuck are the means, dude? That's the entirety of the ability of the reader to give a rational response to the goddamn question.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacob Gladden on November 25, 2009 at 3:46pm

The "means" are whatever you want them to be. The "ends" is the ridding of religion from our world. The question being, "Does the lofty goal of getting rid of religion justify using any method at our disposal?" From arguing in public forums to deadly viruses that target stupid gullible people to armageddon. In other words "Is it worth it to use any means?" I look forward to your rational response. =)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sonny Mobley on November 25, 2009 at 1:34pm

If you mean violence then absolutely not, unless it is in defense. Turning the other cheek never got me anything but a slap on the newly offered cheek.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on November 25, 2009 at 6:39pm

Actually, back in high school, the biggest bully hit me and I went down. I stood back up and called him a coward. He was pretty freaked out. The threat of violence had, until then, usually worked in his attempt to get his way. The use of violence had always taken care of the rest. Either he got his way or the other guy used the same technique to get his. I was the outlier that scared the crap out of him.

The next day he told me that he had never hit anyone harder. He actually treated me with deference from then on. He feared that I neither feared him nor felt the need for him to fear me.

I would suggest that, eventually, intelligence will win out no matter how dark things seem in the interim.

70,000 years ago there were 2,000 of us. Do you think those were the ones who relied on unimaginative violence to survive?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Showan khurshid on November 25, 2009 at 3:07pm

No,
However, I think religionists are morally guilty of distorting facts and misguiding people for various reasons including shear selfishness. They are also responsible for most of the miseries of our current world and for most of the destructions and carnages of the past. So they should be treated as morally objectionable lot.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Josh on November 25, 2009 at 5:04pm

Personally, I think the ends always justify the means in all contexts and situations. However most people fail to actually consider all of the ends. To the common criticism of this philosophy meaning it's acceptable to kill a child to achieve some good end, I say you're being narrow-minded. Sure, killing the child might result in some good thing. However it also results in a child being dead. That the child is dead is no less an end, than whatever other goal you had. So if it's acceptable to you that a child is dead, then the means are good. If it's not acceptable to you that a child is dead, then the means are not good without violating the idea that the ends justify the means.

Basically: act morally, and put more thought into it than just narrow-mindedly considering whether or not an action will help you achieve your goals.