How does organized religion/faith benefit the world? Can we get rid of it? Should we?

[schaef2k 0]

My contention is that the morals of society are largely based in religion. These morals are represented by not only society's norms but also through the laws passed. While some of these morals and values can be construed as common sense in this day and age, the basis for most systems of law is religion.

 

I believe that elimination of religion would take away that baseline of right and wrong and would slowly tear away at the moral fabric.

 

Are you not saying with this statement that the morals of a religious person are greater or better than an athiest?

 

If not please explain that statement.

 

My point is that regardless of ones religious background or lack of does not determine the degree of their morality. Priests have murdered people but supposedly this person should be of higher moral fiber that others. Atheists volunteer at homeless shelters. The opposite is true also.

 

So how does elimination of religion take away that baseline of right and wrong?

[Spring 0]

Are you not saying with this statement that the morals of a religious person are greater or better than an athiest?

 

If not please explain that statement.

 

My point is that regardless of ones religious background or lack of does not determine the degree of their morality. Priests have murdered people but supposedly this person should be of higher moral fiber that others. Atheists volunteer at homeless shelters. The opposite is true also.

 

So how does elimination of religion take away that baseline of right and wrong?

 

Because then it becomes subjective and based on your opinion.

 

Let's take a hypothetical. I think we should kill rapists. Not only kill them, but brutally torture them. Am I wrong? You will say that I am because of everything you have been taught and the fact that a very large majority of society says it is. But if we changed the scenario and you grew up in a society where killing and brutal torture of rapists was not only normal, but considered a very great thing, you would more than likely agree with me. So now, am I right or wrong? It's all subjective.

 

Religious texts give us a baseline that doesn't change. Stealing is wrong. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. These are documented in these religious texts and backed up with divine authority (whether it's perceived or not). So when it comes down to a society without a baseline of right and wrong rooted in some sort of supreme authority (perceived or otherwise), all I have to do is get a majority of people to vote for something, make it legal, and then it will slowly become the norm. What is an atheists baseline other than the values that are taught to them or societal norms?

 

I am not saying one is better than the other and ones religious background or lack of does not determine the degree of their morality. I am saying the morals rooted in religious ideology have less of a chance of being distorted from generation to generation.

 

The examples you give of an atheist working in a shelter vs. murdering priests does not apply to the level in which I am talking. It is obvious that the priest was not following religious based morality when he committed murder so drawing the conclusion that all people of religion don't hold a higher set of moral values because of the actions of one is not plausible. It is true that each individual picks and chooses how they live their life and each case could go right along with the stereotypes or could completely shatter them.

 

The long and short of it: No one really knows for sure who is right and who is wrong.

 

Ok, here is my question: If a person truly believed that there is absolutely no afterlife repercussions to their actions, would they be more apt to have a higher or stricter moral code than someone that did?

[dbergan 0]

Religion sure kept all them Priests from diddling those 14 year old boys. great point by you.

 

 

There is only one belief system that was founded on the principle that humans are morally corrupt and need redemption... guess which one it is?

 

So pointing out that priests, Pat Robertson, George Bush, and Aaron Brooks are all screw-ups only strengthens the Christian theology.

 

On the other hand, if you ditch the idea that there is a definitive moral standard, then you are pretty much declaring that everything is fair game and there is no reason for the ruthless, cheating, and hypocritical to take as much as they can get their hands on. Only one belief system says that the poor and meek are blessed and that we can never trust the rich... leave things to nature (and no true ethical standard) and there is no possible reproach of the rich, mighty, and corrupt.

 

 

 

To answer the original question "How does organized religion/faith benefit the world?" one could point out local church groups that organize soup kitchens, hopeline counseling for troubled teens, alcoholic's annonymous, and other programs that help families with abuse issues. Other churches sponsor missionaries in places like Africa and Haiti who try to assist with medical treatment. These seem to be benefits to the world... unless you argue that there is no definitive standard of "benefits"...

[Electric Mayhem 35]

To answer the original question "How does organized religion/faith benefit the world?" one could point out local church groups that organize soup kitchens, hopeline counseling for troubled teens, alcoholic's annonymous, and other programs that help families with abuse issues. Other churches sponsor missionaries in places like Africa and Haiti who try to assist with medical treatment. These seem to be benefits to the world... unless you argue that there is no definitive standard of "benefits"...

 

So does the Red Cross. I see no need to fly a banner of 'God' in order to do good things for the world. You can be a humanitarian without religious alignment.

[dbergan 0]

The long and short of it: No one really knows for sure who is right and who is wrong.

 

So, if I open up my lunchbox and you steal my orange... we can't say for sure that that is right or wrong? I think that some of these situations are so self-evident that it demands that we acknowledge that there is a definitive omnipresent unchangeable standard...

 

And recognizing that such a standard exists, leads straight into the evidence that God exists... without God there is no standard... and yet who can argue against the self-evident case that the standard does?

 

 

Ok, here is my question: If a person truly believed that there is absolutely no afterlife repercussions to their actions, would they be more apt to have a higher or stricter moral code than someone that did?

 

What's interesting about this statement is that your words "higher or stricter moral code" imply exactly what I've been saying... that you are recognizing some universal standard of morality (even though the first quote suggest you don't believe in one).

 

So does the Red Cross. I see no need to fly a banner of 'God' in order to do good things for the world. You can be a humanitarian without religious alignment.

 

 

That's true. But think of it this way: Z represents all the humanitarian efforts, Y represents all the humanitarian efforts done by churches, and X represents humanitarian efforts not done by churches. Z = X + Y

 

If we get rid of organized faith/religion, we also remove all of Y from Z... left only with humanitarian efforts X.

 

(And for my money, I'll bet that Y is substantially greater than X.)

[Electric Mayhem 35]

Let's take a hypothetical. I think we should kill rapists. Not only kill them, but brutally torture them. Am I wrong? You will say that I am because of everything you have been taught and the fact that a very large majority of society says it is. But if we changed the scenario and you grew up in a society where killing and brutal torture of rapists was not only normal, but considered a very great thing, you would more than likely agree with me. So now, am I right or wrong? It's all subjective.

 

Religious texts give us a baseline that doesn't change. Stealing is wrong. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. These are documented in these religious texts and backed up with divine authority (whether it's perceived or not). So when it comes down to a society without a baseline of right and wrong rooted in some sort of supreme authority (perceived or otherwise), all I have to do is get a majority of people to vote for something, make it legal, and then it will slowly become the norm. What is an atheists baseline other than the values that are taught to them or societal norms?

 

At one time the Greeks would molest young boys and it was accepted. We haved moved beyond that thanks to education, the Constitution, religion, etc etc etc. As we move forward in time, there should be constant discussions and thought towards what is right and wrong for the human race and our future. Religion was a good starting point, and now i feel we should move on. I'm not saying throw the teachings and stories of Jesus, Buddah, etc out the window - simply that we take the MORALITY issues from those texts and separate the FAITH portion for those that wish to believe in the afterlife. The rules of our society should not be held to one book from eons past. Let's base the laws of our society on something greater through careful, intelligent discussion rather than an old outdated misinterpreted book.

 

Ok, here is my question: If a person truly believed that there is absolutely no afterlife repercussions to their actions, would they be more apt to have a higher or stricter moral code than someone that did?

 

I say yes. If you percive your actions as your own free will and that your destiny is what YOU make of it rather than the whim of an almighty being, and that when you die that's it -so enjoy life while you can... I think that in the long run people would try to enjoy what they have and try to make the choices that improve the time they have here.

 

I bet the main reasons people don't commot crimes are 1) the laws of the country/fear of the police 2) they wouldn't want someone to do it to them, and 3) they know i's wrong because that's what their parents and peers have taught them. If they answer 'because I don't want to go against God', then these are the people that I want to educate.

[naomi 360]

The reason why I want thigns to change and voice my opinoin is that I see the state of the world today and I think to myself how we are just running in circles and somethign has to change in the core view of humankind before everyone can let go of their personal agendas and work towards a better society. I see religion as the primary obstacle in that goal.

 

I probably shouldn't even put this out there, but fock it. It took long enough to type.

 

 

Religion is a great construct for control...appealing to an authority. But without religion in the traditional sense, we'll have other man made movements that oppress. It's human nature. I understand what you're saying, and why you would target religion because of how prolific it is. I do believe in the christian bible, so obviously I don't believe all religions are solely from men. Prophetically speaking we'll probably never get to that point cleanly, some religions will still dominate, but hypothetically I think what we would have in the beggining stages is supernatural-authority-aside oppressive movements that gradually build up. This is not a fear that in turns leads to stronger embracement of my christian beliefs. It's honest impression. It's not born out of a fatalist perspective, because we're all inantely evil we need to appeal to a make believe God and keep ourselves in check. Maybe people have that view and look to a God, maybe at the same time there is a God and it's right. It sounds like a human tragedy of the intellect, counter-progressive. But if so many religions are false....look at mankind. So eager to capitalize on this BS and oppress each other. If no God exists, we happily do this on our own. What's to say we don't ###### up some other way? Again, it's easy to draw the conclusion it's fear based so we look beyond ourselves. There's no convincing someone faith is more than that outside of them having faith.

[Electric Mayhem 35]

That's true. But think of it this way: Z represents all the humanitarian efforts, Y represents all the humanitarian efforts done by churches, and X represents humanitarian efforts not done by churches. Z = X + Y

 

If we get rid of organized faith/religion, we also remove all of Y from Z... left only with humanitarian efforts X.

 

(And for my money, I'll bet that Y is substantially greater than X.)

 

If we got rid of religion, I would think that Z = X (inclusive of Y). You are saying that good, religious, generous people are only giving because they can do so in the name if their Church. I think they would still give - in the name of humanity. If they wouldn't... then there were actually not good people to begin with and would have been hypocritical to their respective faiths anyway. People give because it makes them feel good. Because they know it's the right thing to do to help you fellow man - HOPEFULLTY not just because the Eye in the Sky is watching them. That would be horrible - like that part of the Twilight Zone movie where the kid can make anytihg happen.

[schaef2k 0]

If a person truly believed that there is absolutely no afterlife repercussions to their actions, would they be more apt to have a higher or stricter moral code than someone that did?

 

I think it all depends on the specific person.

 

Someone might decide, since there is no afterlife, that they should take advantage of everone they can since there will only be held accountable if caught. Someone may decide to devote theire ife to help people less fortunate than themselves.

[Electric Mayhem 35]

Religion is a great construct for control...appealing to an authority. But without religion in the traditional sense, we'll have other man made movements that oppress. It's human nature. I understand what you're saying, and why you would target religion because of how prolific it is. I do believe in the christian bible, so obviously I don't believe all religions are solely from men. Prophetically speaking we'll probably never get to that point cleanly, some religions will still dominate, but hypothetically I think what we would have in the beggining stages is supernatural-authority-aside oppressive movements that gradually build up. This is not a fear that in turns leads to stronger embracement of my christian beliefs. It's honest impression. It's not born out of a fatalist perspective, because we're all inantely evil we need to appeal to a make believe God and keep ourselves in check. Maybe people have that view and look to a God, maybe at the same time there is a God and it's right. It sounds like a human tragedy of the intellect, counter-progressive. But if so many religions are false....look at mankind. So eager to capitalize on this BS and oppress each other. If no God exists, we happily do this on our own. What's to say we don't ###### up some other way? Again, it's easy to draw the conclusion it's fear based so we look beyond ourselves. There's no convincing someone faith is more than that outside of them having faith.

 

I guess then that it boild down to the baseness of humankind. Are we inherently evil as you say or are we inherently good? If the former - than only a being greater than ourselves can keep us in check (even if that greater being is nothing more than a figment of our imaginations). if the latter... we need to release that omnicient bind from our minds in order to flourish.

 

I need to think about that one. No one is pure good or pure evil. Without a supernatural 'parent'.. what happens? Does eveil triumph because of they are not bound by personal morality? Do people find evil to be inherently easier and go that route regardless of corporal punishment and consequences?

 

hmmmm.....

[dbergan 0]

I guess then that it boild down to the baseness of humankind. Are we inherently evil as you say or are we inherently good?

 

What is inherently evil/inherently good? If you admit there is a definitive standard of right and wrong, you essentially lay the groundwork for all religion.

 

There is no good without God. Without one objective eternal definitive standard of good and evil, each man can decide for himself what is good and what isn't... and there's nothing to say to this person that hypocracy and selfishness is evil and charity is good.

 

 

Further reading

[schaef2k 0]

No one is pure good or pure evil. Without a supernatural 'parent'.. what happens? Does eveil triumph because of they are not bound by personal morality? Do people find evil to be inherently easier and go that route regardless of corporal punishment and consequences?

 

That's quite a deep thought.

 

I would think if pure evil prevailed, that would be complete anarchy. However society would not tolerate anarchy and there would need to be rules and thus societal norms or morals if you will.

 

Even if you are pure evil there are still morals you will adhere to. If you happen to be a serial killer, having someone break in your house and steal your stuff several nights a week would get old.

 

Without one objective eternal definitive standard of good and evil, each man can decide for himself what is good and what isn't... and there's nothing to say to this person that hypocracy and selfishness is evil and charity is good.

 

Only if you take each individual by himself, in a vacuum if you will. Society has to have morals to function. Society will determine what is considered good or evil.

[dbergan 0]

If we got rid of religion, I would think that Z = X (inclusive of Y). You are saying that good, religious, generous people are only giving because they can do so in the name if their Church. I think they would still give - in the name of humanity. If they wouldn't... then there were actually not good people to begin with and would have been hypocritical to their respective faiths anyway. People give because it makes them feel good. Because they know it's the right thing to do to help you fellow man - HOPEFULLTY not just because the Eye in the Sky is watching them. That would be horrible - like that part of the Twilight Zone movie where the kid can make anytihg happen.

 

 

But I don't see why people shouldn't be able to do good deeds to honor someone else? What if a group of people want to build homes for the homeless to give glory to Tiki Barber? No problem... so what's any different if they want to build homes and give the glory to Jesus?

 

Jesus impacts many people's lives... these people get together in a place they call the church and come up with things to do to bring His message to more people. Is there something in His message you really object to?

 

Now that I think about it, the thread title you chose probably isn't quite accurate of the position you seem to be taking now... which is more like "How do religious scare tactics benefit the world?" Make that the subject of discussion, and I'll probably be standing right next to you... like I said, there isn't much in the book of Revelations that I think is worth keeping. And perhaps some small (loud) denominations are all about preaching the gloom and doom, but I haven't heard a sermon like that in 26 years at any of the couple dozen churches I have gone to. I've never heard anything in these churches that was harmful to society... and plenty that was socially beneficial and some that was personally beneficial, as well.

[Electric Mayhem 35]

What is inherently evil/inherently good? If you admit there is a definitive standard of right and wrong, you essentially lay the groundwork for all religion.

 

There is no good without God. Without one objective eternal definitive standard of good and evil, each man can decide for himself what is good and what isn't... and there's nothing to say to this person that hypocracy and selfishness is evil and charity is good.

Further reading

 

I enjoyed teh further reading portion.

 

The 'no good without God' I find to be a stament of arrogance in personal beliefs. If tribe 'A' uses poison darts to kill food because it is an efficient means of hunting, and tribe 'B' won't use poison because it goes against their own personal bonds and feelings towards the animals they hunt... which is 'good'? Where is God in this discussion? I haven't seen that one addressed in any scripture.

 

What if these tribes had to merge due to a disease and population decrease? How would they hunt?

 

How about this: The elders would get together and talk about it. They would weigh the pros and cons and determine whether or not it would be best for the future of the tribe - taking into account the effect on the animals - to use poison when hunting. All without a book to tell them what to do or a sign from above.

[Spring 0]

So, if I open up my lunchbox and you steal my orange... we can't say for sure that that is right or wrong? I think that some of these situations are so self-evident that it demands that we acknowledge that there is a definitive omnipresent unchangeable standard...

 

If I stole your orange because I needed it to survive, then in my mind, it's justified. The standard, unless coming from an absolute authority, is subjective.

 

And recognizing that such a standard exists, leads straight into the evidence that God exists... without God there is no standard... and yet who can argue against the self-evident case that the standard does?

What's interesting about this statement is that your words "higher or stricter moral code" imply exactly what I've been saying... that you are recognizing some universal standard of morality (even though the first quote suggest you don't believe in one).

 

You misunderstood (or I said it wrong). I mean higher and stricter in the sense of having a larger and more in-depth set or morals that they feel obligated to abide by. Wouldn't you say that someone who believed in repercussions for their actions in the afterlife would be more concerned and mindful of their actions than someone who thinks that everything is for nothing after we are dead?

[dbergan 0]

Only if you take each individual by himself, in a vacuum if you will. Society has to have morals to function. Society will determine what is considered good or evil.

 

That only removes the issue by one step. Was Nazi Germany right to kill innocent Jewish children by the trainload? Was Carthage right to sacrifice infants to Moloch? Were the Huns right to conquer villages and burn civilian homes? The Vikings right to plunder monastaries?

 

A society can endorse selfishness and corruption just as easily as an individual... and you yourself are permitting those kinds of actions, unless you're willing to invoke a definitive moral law and say that they are wrong.

[Spring 0]

How about this: The elders would get together and talk about it. They would weigh the pros and cons and determine whether or not it would be best for the future of the tribe - taking into account the effect on the animals - to use poison when hunting. All without a book to tell them what to do or a sign from above.

 

What happens if the elders believed that a higher authority or supreme being wanted them to use darts?

[Electric Mayhem 35]

But I don't see why people shouldn't be able to do good deeds to honor someone else? What if a group of people want to build homes for the homeless to give glory to Tiki Barber? No problem... so what's any different if they want to build homes and give the glory to Jesus?

 

Jesus impacts many people's lives... these people get together in a place they call the church and come up with things to do to bring His message to more people. Is there something in His message you really object to?

 

Now that I think about it, the thread title you chose probably isn't quite accurate of the position you seem to be taking now... which is more like "How do religious scare tactics benefit the world?" Make that the subject of discussion, and I'll probably be standing right next to you... like I said, there isn't much in the book of Revelations that I think is worth keeping. And perhaps some small (loud) denominations are all about preaching the gloom and doom, but I haven't heard a sermon like that in 26 years at any of the couple dozen churches I have gone to. I've never heard anything in these churches that was harmful to society... and plenty that was socially beneficial and some that was personally beneficial, as well.

 

The problem is still this:

 

Religious good points like charity and good will toward men can still flourish WITHOUT meeting in a holy sacred place in the name of an Almighty. But if you take away the CONSTRAINTS of the organized religion, you open yourself up to the teachings or other wise prophets, other views, other ways to think and act and define what is good and how we should act. When you align yourself with a specific religion, you vow to follow their rules - EVERY RULE - or be cast away until you basically apologize for doing so and promising to try to not stray again less you be shunned by God himself on your deathbed.

 

It's the religious constraints and refusal to be allowed to think and grow for yourself that I want to go away.

[dbergan 0]

The 'no good without God' I find to be a stament of arrogance in personal beliefs. If tribe 'A' uses poison darts to kill food because it is an efficient means of hunting, and tribe 'B' won't use poison because it goes against their own personal bonds and feelings towards the animals they hunt... which is 'good'? Where is God in this discussion? I haven't seen that one addressed in any scripture.

 

What if these tribes had to merge due to a disease and population decrease? How would they hunt?

 

How about this: The elders would get together and talk about it. They would weigh the pros and cons and determine whether or not it would be best for the future of the tribe - taking into account the effect on the animals - to use poison when hunting. All without a book to tell them what to do or a sign from above.

 

Ok, you're totally misunderstanding me... sorry I couldn't write more clearly. By "no good without God" I was not making a statement that the Bible (or anything like it) tells us all our morality. What I meant is that unless there is some objective, definitive, omnipresent, universal standard for morality, it is all subjective... and if it's all subjective, there is no "good" because my "good" could be helping an old lady, and your "good" could be raping her.

 

I'm not sure what poison darts have to do with anything... there are some customs that don't necessarily have anything to do with morality. ie In Jamaica woman can run around topless. That's not the custom in South Dakota (although I wish it was).

[Electric Mayhem 35]

What happens if the elders believed that a higher authority or supreme being wanted them to use darts?

 

Then I would post on their Fantasy Football board that they should renounce their religions and think for themseslves to come up with a solution.

[Spring 0]

Then I would post on their Fantasy Football board that they should renounce their religions and think for themseslves to come up with a solution.

 

What if they don't want to take advice from a Godless heathen?

 

[dbergan 0]

If I stole your orange because I needed it to survive, then in my mind, it's justified. The standard, unless coming from an absolute authority, is subjective.

 

Just because an exception is justified doesn't mean that morality is therefore subjective. Stealing my orange because you just want an orange is objectively wrong. Stealing my orange because I'm an orange monopolist and starving the country of food is objectively justifiable.

 

 

You misunderstood (or I said it wrong). I mean higher and stricter in the sense of having a larger and more in-depth set or morals that they feel obligated to abide by.

 

"Larger and more in-depth" doesn't mean better. Stalin and Mao had a large set of rules, but that didn't mean their laws were moral. In fact, it only takes a small set of rules to live a good life, so long as they are the right ones. And that's exactly the issue, I believe there is an objective set of rules for right living... and I know that if we don't believe in such a set of rules, that means anything goes.

 

 

Wouldn't you say that someone who believed in repercussions for their actions in the afterlife would be more concerned and mindful of their actions than someone who thinks that everything is for nothing after we are dead?

 

 

Can't conclusively say either way... I know too many Christians who brag about their own salvation and then go cheat on their wives...

[Electric Mayhem 35]

What I meant is that unless there is some objective, definitive, omnipresent, universal standard for morality, it is all subjective... and if it's all subjective, there is no "good" because my "good" could be helping an old lady, and your "good" could be raping her.

 

Which is why the definition of 'good' should be subject to intelligent, educated conversations among the peers of a society to determine their own moral fabric.

 

Good is subjective. That's 100% true. What's good for me may not be good for you. What's good in one house may not be good in another. What's good in one country may not be good in another. What's good on Earth may not be good on another planet. That doesn't mean good doesn't exist, it means that good is defined differently depending on the scope in which you ask to define it.

 

Earth 'good' > America 'good' > CT > my family > me. Not all of what is good for me is good for everone on Earth, but the morl laws of Earth would apply to every individual.

[schaef2k 0]

Was Nazi Germany right to kill innocent Jewish children by the trainload?

 

Society prevailed and the Nazis were defeated. Total evil will not be tolerated and society will find a middle ground.

 

Was Carthage right to sacrifice infants to Moloch? Were the Huns right to conquer villages and burn civilian homes? The Vikings right to plunder monastaries?

 

According to their morals I suppose so. Violence has been committed in the name of all different cultures and religions. Religious morals have not stopped this and in some cases are the direct result of.

 

Muslim extremists are killing in the name of Allah. Is this moral? It is to them. Were the Christian crusades moral. To them yes.

[dbergan 0]

The problem is still this:

 

Religious good points like charity and good will toward men can still flourish WITHOUT meeting in a holy sacred place in the name of an Almighty. But if you take away the CONSTRAINTS of the organized religion, you open yourself up to the teachings or other wise prophets, other views, other ways to think and act and define what is good and how we should act. When you align yourself with a specific religion, you vow to follow their rules - EVERY RULE - or be cast away until you basically apologize for doing so and promising to try to not stray again less you be shunned by God himself on your deathbed.

 

It's the religious constraints and refusal to be allowed to think and grow for yourself that I want to go away.

 

 

I disagree. I am a Christian (a Wesleyan to be precise), but on my bookshelf I have the Koran, the Analycts (Confucius), the Upanishads (Hindu), Buddist Scripture, the Book of Mormon, Swedenborg's Heaven and Hell, The Case Against Christianity, Why I am not a Christian (Bertrand Russell), the Bhagavad-Gita (also Hindu), The Imitation of Christ, the complete works of Plato and Aristotle, God is a Verb (Kabbalah), and 2 copies of the Tao Te Ching (Lao Tzu).

 

They ALL have wisdom, and they ALL have things I disagree with. Yet there is nothing that makes me feel constrained to certain books just because I go to a certain church on Sundays. Christianity is NOT a constraining thing... unless it is a perverted form of it (like what you see from most televangelists on late at night).

[dbergan 0]

Good is subjective. That's 100% true. What's good for me may not be good for you. What's good in one house may not be good in another.

 

This is exactly where we disagree. But I think you are confusing morality and custom. In your house it might be bad to eat red meat, but we have steak every day at mine... that isn't morality, that's custom.

 

And there are also personality traits... in New York it's ok to talk tough and flip off a cabby... in South Dakota people are generally really offended by that kind of thing. Some couples fight and have great sex... others never fight (and never have sex). Those kinds of things depend on the chemistry of the individuals.

 

But when you say good is subjective, that to me means that the Holocaust wasn't bad, the crusades weren't bad, Genghis Kahn's conquering was peachy keen, and David Bergan spouting off about absolutist objective principles is a great thing (or at least not in any way bad). Once you say that good is 100% subjective, you have no claim in telling Christians not to be hypocrites, or Republicans not to be a$$holes. They are right in their own eyes, and that is ALL that matters.

[Electric Mayhem 35]

I disagree. I am a Christian (a Wesleyan to be precise), but on my bookshelf I have the Koran, the Analycts (Confucius), the Upanishads (Hindu), Buddist Scripture, the Book of Mormon, Swedenborg's Heaven and Hell, The Case Against Christianity, Why I am not a Christian (Bertrand Russell), the Bhagavad-Gita (also Hindu), The Imitation of Christ, the complete works of Plato and Aristotle, God is a Verb (Kabbalah), and 2 copies of the Tao Te Ching (Lao Tzu).

 

They ALL have wisdom, and they ALL have things I disagree with. Yet there is nothing that makes me feel constrained to certain books just because I go to a certain church on Sundays. Christianity is NOT a constraining thing... unless it is a perverted form of it (like what you see from most televangelists on late at night).

 

I do not know my Wesleyan scripture. But the simple fact that you follow many teachings and many different views leads me to believe that you don't believe in the organization of religion yourself. If John Wesley never lived, would you align yourself with the 'next best thing' offered in the religious rolodex of recognized fiaths, or would you be without a Church?

 

Ever since the Prodestants and Methodists and Fundamentalists broke from Catholics and Jews to form their own views, people have been basically trying to break free from the tunnel visions of organized religion. When one religion's rules becamse too much for a group - they just formed a new gruop and changed the rules to what they wanted. Think of how many offshoots exist now - simply because people wanted to cherry pick their vows to what they felt was right.

 

Why not do away with the walls of organized religion completely? Why do you call yourself a Wesleyan? Why do you feel the need to label your faith when you adhere to the writings of so many different people and seem to use your own thoughts when drawing conclusions on how to live? Would your life be different or your moral foundation and way of life change if you simply had your own individual view on faith and used you time in 'church' to ask question and discuss amonst your peers how to be a better person using ALL of the information available to you and not just the Bible?

[Electric Mayhem 35]

This is exactly where we disagree. But I think you are confusing morality and custom. In your house it might be bad to eat red meat, but we have steak every day at mine... that isn't morality, that's custom.

 

And there are also personality traits... in New York it's ok to talk tough and flip off a cabby... in South Dakota people are generally really offended by that kind of thing. Some couples fight and have great sex... others never fight (and never have sex). Those kinds of things depend on the chemistry of the individuals.

 

But when you say good is subjective, that to me means that the Holocaust wasn't bad, the crusades weren't bad, Genghis Kahn's conquering was peachy keen, and David Bergan spouting off about absolutist objective principles is a great thing (or at least not in any way bad). Once you say that good is 100% subjective, you have no claim in telling Christians not to be hypocrites, or Republicans not to be a$$holes. They are right in their own eyes, and that is ALL that matters.

 

To take each point:

What's good in one house may be to spank you child when he does something wrong, and not in another. Is that good for Earth? I guess there could be a summit meeting to decide on smacking your kids fanny, but i think that in some households where the parents are not as good with alternatinve forms of punishment a spank is acceptable, but in other cases there can be other effective means.

 

State to State - think of the death penalty. What is good? Shoudl a 100% guilty cold blooded murderer get the chair or be locked up for life? People talk about it all the time.

 

The 'Earth level rules' seem to include that genocide is bad. Hitler broke that Earth rule and paid for it. If the Nazis won the war and they spread their seed to the corners of the Earth until everyone was a Nazi, what would happen to that Earth rule of morality? Good question. But I bet that all the world's religions would change their tunes to conform to the Nazi way of thinking and God would suddenly be all for the Third Reich. Guar-an-teed.

[Rybo5 0]

But when you say good is subjective, that to me means that the Holocaust wasn't bad, the crusades weren't bad, Genghis Kahn's conquering was peachy keen, and David Bergan spouting off about absolutist objective principles is a great thing (or at least not in any way bad).

 

I disagree. It's not that these things in a vacuum "aren't bad", it's that they aren't anything except the act itself. It takes people and their perceptions to take in an event or action and make a personal judgment about it. Just because there isn't some universal law about something like the holocaust doesn't mean that the majority of the population can't come to an agreement and frown upon that sort of thing. Of course beings may not share the same viewpoint on a planet a bajillion light years away. Who knows. To each his own.

[dbergan 0]

I do not know my Wesleyan scripture. But the simple fact that you follow many teachings and many different views leads me to believe that you don't believe in the organization of religion yourself. If John Wesley never lived, would you align yourself with the 'next best thing' offered in the religious rolodex of recognized fiaths, or would you be without a Church?

 

Ever since the Prodestants and Methodists and Fundamentalists broke from Catholics and Jews to form their own views, people have been basically trying to break free from the tunnel visions of organized religion. When one religion's rules becamse too much for a group - they just formed a new gruop and changed the rules to what they wanted. Think of how many offshoots exist now - simply because people wanted to cherry pick their vows to what they felt was right.

 

Why not do away with the walls of organized religion completely? Why do you call yourself a Wesleyan? Why do you feel the need to label your faith when you adhere to the writings of so many different people and seem to use your own thoughts when drawing conclusions on how to live? Would your life be different or your moral foundation and way of life change if you simply had your own individual view on faith and used you time in 'church' to ask question and discuss amonst your peers how to be a better person using ALL of the information available to you and not just the Bible?

 

You have a good point. I go to the Wesleyan church, mostly because I think it's the best church in town. (I guess I haven't tried them all, but I like this one enough to keep going.) I admire John Wesley a lot... and I'm guessing you would too. But I actually come from a Lutheran heritage (Lutheran pastors hanging off of all kinds of limbs in my family tree), and could be a Lutheran if John Wesley never existed. I admire Martin Luther a lot, too... and you probably would also. (Before getting too far, I have to say that I know that neither man was perfect... John had his fundamentalist streaks and Martin was a crank to the Jews.)

 

I'm not even a member of my own Wesleyan church, because that would mean giving up my beer. Theologically I agree with a lot of John Wesley, and somewhat with Martin Luther. But either way, I don't feel that my calling myself a Wesleyan "confines" me in any way. It's just a statement of which church I attend or which beliefs I associate most closely with. It's not that I got thrown into a Wesleyan church and then started telling myself that I have to believe what these people believe... rather I studied up on the points of difference between the denominations, and found that I am a Wesleyan because I believe in a social gospel, non-predestination, and other things of that nature.

 

It's not a "wall", just a label... a describer term to help categorize my beliefs/worldview. It doesn't mean that I only read John Wesley and not Buddha or Lao Tzu... I read the others, too, and find some truth in their sayings, but it doesn't impact my life as greatly as Wesley's example (to a small degree) and Christ's teachings (to a larger degree). Actually, Blaise Pascal, GK Chesterton, and even Bertrand Russell have had a greater impact on my thinking than John Wesley... but they don't have churches, so I can't really call myself a Pascalian or Chestertonian.

 

I also could call myself a Platonist, though, because that's a philosophical term that accurately describes most of my metaphysical beliefs.

 

Anyway, labels (to me) are mere describers. They aren't confiners... they are just terms that I apply to myself because after studying the issues from all sides, I come to basically the same beliefs as other people associated with these terms. If you want to do away with all labels, that seems a tad dramatic... labels are good time-savers. In the word Wesleyan I can sum up my beliefs on infant baptism, predestination, the trinity, etc.

[Spring 0]

"Larger and more in-depth" doesn't mean better. Stalin and Mao had a large set of rules, but that didn't mean their laws were moral. In fact, it only takes a small set of rules to live a good life, so long as they are the right ones. And that's exactly the issue, I believe there is an objective set of rules for right living... and I know that if we don't believe in such a set of rules, that means anything goes.

Can't conclusively say either way... I know too many Christians who brag about their own salvation and then go cheat on their wives...

 

I never said better. So we seem to agree...

 

Hypocracy knows no religious bounds.

 

BTW, I liked your reading list. Got any specific atheist books worth reading for the POV? Also, have you read Easterbrook's book?

[dbergan 0]

Got any specific atheist books worth reading for the POV? Also, have you read Easterbrook's book?

 

 

The specifically atheist books in my collection are:

God and Philosophy by Antony Flew (the 2005 version with celebrated introduction)

The Case Against Christianity by Michael Martin

and

Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell

 

Other than that, I have some other odds and ends by Voltaire and such that have an anti-Christian bias but aren't a concerted attack on it. For example, I'm reading The Fountainhead right now... which I don't recommend...

 

Of course, I don't agree with the conclusions of the books hitherto mentioned... and could give you a detailed argument where and why I part company with them... but that seems like a bit much for a Fantasy Football forum.

 

If you're interested in the greatest books I have ever read (outside the Bible) they are:

The Great Divorce by CS Lewis (fiction)

Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton (crappy title, but deep and hilarious)

The Man Who Was Thursday by GK Chesterton (awesome title, fiction/hilarious, metaphysical thriller)

and, uh, Fantasy Football Index 2006

 

 

Sorry, I haven't heard of Easterbrook...

[edjr 6,898]

What is inherently evil/inherently good? If you admit there is a definitive standard of right and wrong, you essentially lay the groundwork for all religion.

 

I can only speak for myself. I am inherently evil (surprise), BUT I still do a lot of nice things for people. Why? Because sometimes it just "feels" like the right thing to do.

[frank 2,346]

I haven't read any of this thread.

 

Of course we should get rid of it. Of course we can't. At least not any time soon.

 

 

 

Religion is very likely to disappear eventually. The problem now is that so many people don't know any more about science or have any more advanced reasoning skills than people centuries ago.

 

Zeus is dead, Jeebus will follow.

[Isotopes 1]

I haven't read any of this thread.

 

Of course we should get rid of it. Of course we can't. At least not any time soon.

Religion is very likely to disappear eventually. The problem now is that so many people don't know any more about science or have any more advanced reasoning skills than people centuries ago.

 

Zeus is dead, Jeebus will follow.

 

FSM will never die!!!!!!!!!

[dbergan 0]

Zeus is dead, Jeebus will follow.

 

Willing to wager? The issue is only whether or not the story of Jesus touches people's lives. And considering that He lived over 2000 years ago and people are still coming to know Him at the rate of a couple hundred per year (in our podunk little church)... and making a decision to live a life for Him... I just don't see any signs of the story of Jesus slowing down.

 

As noted in post 44, not only did Jesus die, and then rise again... but Christianity effectively died, and rose again. And historically, Christianity does best when it's most persecuted.

 

All Christian denominations are are efforts at trying to systematically understand the story of Jesus. And the denominations will flux, misinterpret things, appoint corrupt leaders, etc. But from a detached historical unbiased perspective, the essential story seems invincible.

 

And to answer the thread title: it benefits the world one person at a time. The story may not benefit you, and that's fine... but then again you may not have approached it with an unbiased heart.

[Greedo 13]

A mostly flame-free religious thread - I love it.

 

We should not think in terms of good vs. evil were religion not around. Instead, I'd say this: every human being's act is selfish, even if the only benefit is the "good feeling" you get by doing charity. As long as that selfish act does not infringe on the societal rights of others, so be it.

 

The problem so many of us have with religion is the pushing of beliefs (anti-abortion, restricting gay marriage, among others) onto the whole of society. Blaming Jesus, Allah, or whomever, for your bigotry is the problem.

 

If people need to believe in something to make it through the day, great! I have no agenda to change their mind. Just don't impose your views onto me socially.

 

But that is the great challenge - we as a society trying to determine where the line of rights ought to be drawn. Religion may be used as an excuse, but if it didn't exist, I agree with Naomi - something else would take its place.

[frank 2,346]

Willing to wager? The issue is only whether or not the story of Jesus touches people's lives. And considering that He lived over 2000 years ago and people are still coming to know Him at the rate of a couple hundred per year (in our podunk little church)... and making a decision to live a life for Him... I just don't see any signs of the story of Jesus slowing down.

 

As noted in post 44, not only did Jesus die, and then rise again... but Christianity effectively died, and rose again. And historically, Christianity does best when it's most persecuted.

 

All Christian denominations are are efforts at trying to systematically understand the story of Jesus. And the denominations will flux, misinterpret things, appoint corrupt leaders, etc. But from a detached historical unbiased perspective, the essential story seems invincible.

 

And to answer the thread title: it benefits the world one person at a time. The story may not benefit you, and that's fine... but then again you may not have approached it with an unbiased heart.

 

 

Sure, I'll wager any amount you want. The issue will likely not be decided in the next few hundred years, but how about a million bucks?

 

2000 years of Christianity does not ensure that it will continue forever. Dinosaurs were around a lot longer that that. So were many other religions.

 

Jeeses did not die and come back to life, only little kids and morons believe that.

 

Do you REALLY believe that when you die you will go either to an eternal paradise or to a pit of fire? REALLY?

 

How I approach the story shouldn't matter. Thinking so is an instance of childish thinking. Fact are not true or false depending on how they are approached. You can say you don't believe in gravity, or approach it a certain way. That doesn't affect anything.

 

I'm all for people living as Jesus instructed. By all accounts he was a great man. I bet you are too.

[Hoos 0]

Ok, you're totally misunderstanding me... sorry I couldn't write more clearly. By "no good without God" I was not making a statement that the Bible (or anything like it) tells us all our morality. What I meant is that unless there is some objective, definitive, omnipresent, universal standard for morality, it is all subjective... and if it's all subjective, there is no "good" because my "good" could be helping an old lady, and your "good" could be raping her.

 

...

 

So you're saying that without religion, humanity would never have made it very far from the ooze because they wold never have been able to overcome the moral chaos resulting from the lack of a religious, objective standard?

 

Sorry, not buying it. It's not hard to see a society coming to grips with some basic, morality-based laws based on observing the detrimental effects of behavior. There is definitive wrong and right without religion. Saying tha humanity would be unable to recognize without religion was the part that seemd arrogant to me.

[dbergan 0]

2000 years of Christianity does not ensure that it will continue forever. Dinosaurs were around a lot longer that that. So were many other religions.

 

True, dinosaurs were around a lot longer than 2000 years... and I suppose Judiasm, Hinduism, etc pre-date Christianity... but how exactly is that evidence that the Christian message is currently on the way out? All I was saying is that since the story of Jesus has lasted 2000 years, survived many attempts to be sufficated, and still has a profound impact on many people's lives, that suggests it's not a fad.

 

 

Jeeses did not die and come back to life, only little kids and morons believe that.

 

Many brilliant people (like Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal) believed in the resurrection. And I as far as I know, there isn't any historical evidence countering the claim. If Jesus wasn't resurrected, I'm pretty sure his disciples would have gone back to their lives as fisherman, rather than martyrdom. There's no point in their going out and dying for a lie.

 

 

Do you REALLY believe that when you die you will go either to an eternal paradise or to a pit of fire? REALLY?

 

No. The pit of fire stuff comes mostly from Islamic beliefs, that got mixed into Catholic tradition... there is hardly any reference to it in the New Testament, save the specious book of Revelations (that I would prefer to cut out of the Bible after chapter 3).

 

 

How I approach the story shouldn't matter. Thinking so is an instance of childish thinking. Fact are not true or false depending on how they are approached. You can say you don't believe in gravity, or approach it a certain way. That doesn't affect anything.

 

On the contrary, how you approach the story is usually ALL that matters. If I approach evolution thinking it's a web of lies spun by atheists... I'm not likely going to believe that horses evolved from 5-toed species into the 1-toed hooves they have today. If I think a person is creepy and a jerk (rather than a good friend and helper to those in need), I probably would be much more willing to believe that he stole from the jewelry store if he's put on trial. Just like how the bias of a fundamentalist clouds his mind against the evidence in favor of evolution... prejudice against the story of Jesus is going to suck all the meaning out of it.

 

Dude, you're totally free to ignore Jesus for as long as you want. I'm not saying that anyone has to (or even should) read it. Just saying that it does have a great effect on some people's lives... and it only does so when it's read with an open mind.

 

 

I'm all for people living as Jesus instructed. By all accounts he was a great man. I bet you are too.

 

Well, I certainly need to correct you on the second part... I'm not at all a great man. I'm just a fantasy football geek that goes to church (hopes the sermon doesn't go long, because I don't want to miss kickoff) and likes to talk/read about religion/philosophy.

 

Do you really think Jesus was a great man? Alongside all his moral teaching, he also repeatedly told his audience he was the son of God. From (presumably) your point of view, that's a pretty bald lie... and it would be hard for me to consider him anything but evil if his sales pitch rested on blatant deception... Believe what you want, but it seems more logical to consider him a bad man than a lying great man, since the latter is a contradiction in terms.