lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
God
Apr 18, 2006 9:08:39 GMT -4
Post by lonewulf on Apr 18, 2006 9:08:39 GMT -4
I had a responce planned, but I don't have the heart.
I don't think some of what I said registered in the way I was trying to explain it, and I don't think I can explain myself accurately. Plus, I'm still a little pissed on someone telling me what they think I have a "right" to say and don't.
I'm just going to exit this while my anger's minor.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
God
Apr 18, 2006 18:16:19 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 18, 2006 18:16:19 GMT -4
You're pretty easily offended for someone who has basically spent the last couple days arguing that religion makes people stupid. I elaborated on my "no right" argument and even changed it to suit your complaints. What more could you ask?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
May 2, 2006 13:05:19 GMT -4
Post by Jason on May 2, 2006 13:05:19 GMT -4
Religion is important for several reasons I can think of off the top of my head: 1) One of them may in fact be true. If so, then a person's eternal existence and happiness is goverened by their relation to that religion. I can't think of anything more important to an individual. 2) Even if you do not accept the possibility that any of them are true, they provide strong encouragement to behave morally and also provide charitable services for those in need. While it is true that secular organizations can perform similar functions, religious groups are performing them efficiently and well. 3) They provide people with answers to questions that cannot be answered by other means. What is my purpose in life? Will I continue to exist after this life? What will make me happy? 4) They provide excellent topics for debate on internet forums.
|
|
|
God
May 3, 2006 3:57:57 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on May 3, 2006 3:57:57 GMT -4
Even if you do not accept the possibility that any of them are true, they provide strong encouragement to behave morally and also provide charitable services for those in need. While it is true that secular organizations can perform similar functions, religious groups are performing them efficiently and well. They also provide an excuse to perform evil acts while simultaneously believing you are doing right, look no further than the witch burners or Al Quaeda.
|
|
|
God
May 3, 2006 5:38:36 GMT -4
Post by Data Cable on May 3, 2006 5:38:36 GMT -4
One [religeon] may in fact be true. But which one? "Morally" defined solely as what those writing or interpreting the holy books declare to be moral. But are they the correct answers? Perhaps "Do I have a purpose in life?" should come first. Your question presupposes this question has already been answered in the affermative.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
May 3, 2006 11:52:30 GMT -4
Post by Jason on May 3, 2006 11:52:30 GMT -4
Even if you do not accept the possibility that any of them are true, they provide strong encouragement to behave morally and also provide charitable services for those in need. While it is true that secular organizations can perform similar functions, religious groups are performing them efficiently and well. They also provide an excuse to perform evil acts while simultaneously believing you are doing right, look no further than the witch burners or Al Quaeda. I admit that religion has served as an excuse for performing essentially evil acts. That raises several questions then: 1) Should you judge the value of a religion by what it professes, or by the actions of those who declare themselves its followers? 2) Should all religions be lumped together in your judgment of whether they serve a useful purpose, or is it valid to judge some as being beneficial and others as being harmful? 2) If you do keep all religions lumped together, does the aggregate harm done by some outweigh the total good done by others? How could this be measured accurately?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
May 3, 2006 12:09:20 GMT -4
Post by Jason on May 3, 2006 12:09:20 GMT -4
One [religeon] may in fact be true. But which one? Why mine of course. Not at all. The majority of behavior encouraged by religion - things like "it's wrong to steal, it's wrong to murder, and it's wrong to lie" or "it's good to be nice to everyone" are perfectly acceptable to the irreligious as examples of moral behavior. Which would you prefer - answers that may be correct (and which can in some cases be tested) or no answers at all? "Do I have a purpose in life?" works fine too. I didn't attempt to list all the questions religion provides answers for.
|
|
|
God
May 3, 2006 12:35:34 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on May 3, 2006 12:35:34 GMT -4
They also provide an excuse to perform evil acts while simultaneously believing you are doing right, look no further than the witch burners or Al Quaeda. I admit that religion has served as an excuse for performing essentially evil acts. That raises several questions then: 1) Should you judge the value of a religion by what it professes, or by the actions of those who declare themselves its followers? 2) Should all religions be lumped together in your judgment of whether they serve a useful purpose, or is it valid to judge some as being beneficial and others as being harmful? 2) If you do keep all religions lumped together, does the aggregate harm done by some outweigh the total good done by others? How could this be measured accurately? I agree that there is a vast gap between, for example, Christ's moral teaching and many of the actions of his followers. I would judge a religion by the way its current leaders act, not by either its founder or the followers, though even if the leaders are moderate, they often seem over reluctant to rein in the zealots. On this basis I could certainly find some religions more harmful than others. I have no idea how you could get an accurate measure of relative harm. For a start, you cannot tell if a crime is religiously motivated if you don't know who committed it, and likewise someone may give to charity without stating either their motivation or their religion.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
May 3, 2006 13:37:24 GMT -4
Post by Jason on May 3, 2006 13:37:24 GMT -4
I would judge a religion by the way its current leaders act, not by either its founder or the followers, though even if the leaders are moderate, they often seem over reluctant to rein in the zealots. Interesting. Why the leaders? At first glance I would think judging the value of a religion by the majority of its members would give you a better determination of whether the religion is beneficial or harmful. Exactly my point. Arguments along the line of "more evil has been done by religion than anything else" tend to be dogmatic rather than fact-based.
|
|
|
God
May 4, 2006 4:41:48 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on May 4, 2006 4:41:48 GMT -4
I would judge a religion by the way its current leaders act, not by either its founder or the followers, though even if the leaders are moderate, they often seem over reluctant to rein in the zealots. Interesting. Why the leaders? At first glance I would think judging the value of a religion by the majority of its members would give you a better determination of whether the religion is beneficial or harmful. Basically, because the leaders are the ones who set the rules. An organisation can't be held responsible for the conduct of any of its members who are not abiding by the rules of that organisation. This was also my point about leaders who fail to restrain their members who stretch the rules. For example, the Catholic church does not condone paedophilia, so is only responsible for paedophile priests if it turns a blind eye when informed of the situation.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
May 4, 2006 13:57:45 GMT -4
Post by Jason on May 4, 2006 13:57:45 GMT -4
Basically, because the leaders are the ones who set the rules. An organisation can't be held responsible for the conduct of any of its members who are not abiding by the rules of that organisation. This was also my point about leaders who fail to restrain their members who stretch the rules. Hmmm. I think I see your point. You seem to be approaching the question from the side of assigning blame - if the followers do wrong then the leaders are responsible for not having stopped them. But this seems to take the approach of judging a religion strictly as an organization, whereas each religion also represents a philosophy. Can you accurately judge the value of a philosophy by the actions of the leaders of any organizations who claim to be carrying it out? For example, do Stalin's actions prove that Communism is a bad idea, even though it seems very likely that he was only borrowing the trappings of Communism to further his own megalomania?
|
|
|
God
May 5, 2006 6:26:04 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on May 5, 2006 6:26:04 GMT -4
But this seems to take the approach of judging a religion strictly as an organization, whereas each religion also represents a philosophy. Can you accurately judge the value of a philosophy by the actions of the leaders of any organizations who claim to be carrying it out? If a philosophy is followed without leaders, it's a personal thing rather than an organised religion. It's also something that the leaders of a religion generally do not take kindly to, they like to be the ones who interpret the philosophy and followers who prefer to do their own interpretation get accused of heresy. How much of Christianity is based on Christ's philosophy and how much on St Paul and the other leaders of the early church? They, after all, were the ones who decided which texts were holy writ and which were apocryphal. This is an ongoing process, with leaders continuing to adjust the approved philosophy to suit themselves, Papal infallibility being a comparatively recent example.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
May 5, 2006 13:20:21 GMT -4
Post by Jason on May 5, 2006 13:20:21 GMT -4
If a philosophy is followed without leaders, it's a personal thing rather than an organised religion. So what if a large body of people follow the professed philosophy of a religion and find it beneficial but the leaders are hypocrites and do not follow their own doctrines? In such a case can you judge whether the religion has beneficial value based on the lives of its practitioners, or is your judgment of it still dependent on the actions of the leaders? You are painting with a rather broad brush there. A discussion of Christianity's origins may be a subject for another thread, since this thread is about the existence of God (not necessarily the Christian God) but if you're interested I would say that Christianity as practiced by the majority of its adherents at present (and through much of the past) varies quite a bit form Christ's original doctrine and principles. The canon of holy scripture, as you mention, was not set by Christ or even Paul. In fact it wasn't really set until late in the fourth century AD - plenty of time for any number of important writings to be lost or changed.
|
|
|
God
May 8, 2006 3:58:26 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on May 8, 2006 3:58:26 GMT -4
So what if a large body of people follow the professed philosophy of a religion and find it beneficial but the leaders are hypocrites and do not follow their own doctrines? In such a case can you judge whether the religion has beneficial value based on the lives of its practitioners, or is your judgment of it still dependent on the actions of the leaders? You are painting with a rather broad brush there. Rather depends on what the leaders are doing about the followers going their own way. No problem if they turn a blind eye, major problem if they start burning heretics. If you want a specific example of my point about religious leaders disapproving of anyone questioning their interpretation, look at Martin Luther. He only wanted to clean up some abuses, but ended up fleeing for his life.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
May 8, 2006 20:58:54 GMT -4
Post by Jason on May 8, 2006 20:58:54 GMT -4
Oh I'm well aware of any number of historical cases of religious persecution.
I still don't think the value of a religion rises and falls with its leaders, however. Certainly they can contribute or detract from a religion's success, but I think a religion's true value is to be determined in its philosophical principles and the value its practicioners perceive in them.
|
|