Are we better off with or without belief in "God"?

[Caladan]

About five years ago, I would have considered it a toss up. But my ideas have changed over that time. I've come to the opinion there are some deities we'd be better off not believing in, and the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity is one of them.

I cant help but get the sense of "The Jewish God is the worst type of deity.. with the exception of all the other gods".

in other words, it only make sense, if you live in a society with fundamentalist elements who happen to be of Christianity, for example.

 

[Sunstone]

Since you don't believe in your concept of this deity could it possibly be otherwise?

I don't believe in the Greek gods but I think they were better for people than the Levantine deities.

 

[Sunstone]

I cant help but get the sense of "The Jewish God is the worst type of deity.. with the exception of all the other gods".

in other words, it only make sense, if you live in a society with fundamentalist elements who happen to be of Christianity, for example.

The Aztec deities were worse, in my book, than the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity. But just because there have been worse deities than the JCI deity doesn't mean the JCI shines.

 

[sandandfoam]

I don't believe in the Greek gods but I think they were better for people than the Levantine deities.

Only because you're not Prometheus

 

[sandandfoam]

The Aztec deities were worse, in my book, than the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity. But just because there have been worse deities than the JCI deity doesn't mean the JCI shines.

On a more serious note than my last - The God that I believe in is beyond my capacity for knowing, as such I imagine any factor about my God which would be offensive would be a factor of mine rather than of my God's, wouldn't it?

 

[Caladan]

I don't believe in the Greek gods but I think they were better for people than the Levantine deities.

By whos account? Homer's description of the Olympian band is not very flattering.

 

[Clover]

The Aztec deities were worse, in my book, than the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity. But just because there have been worse deities than the JCI deity doesn't mean the JCI shines.

I wouldn't say the Aztec's dieties were worse, I would say the hierarchy of their civilization were. They believed the Gods, needed hundreds to die a month (and thousands on special months, such as harvest/plant) to make the Gods appeased that they were sacrificing the few, to save the many. The Gods, in themselves, didn't tell them to do this, but the people of religious leadership, said "do this, cause they told us, to tell you".

 

[Alceste]

I cant help but get the sense of "The Jewish God is the worst type of deity.. with the exception of all the other gods".

in other words, it only make sense, if you live in a society with fundamentalist elements who happen to be of Christianity, for example.

Let me put it this way: We'd all be better off if nobody beleived in the Jewish God except the Jews.

 

[Caladan]

Let me put it this way: We'd all be better off if nobody beleived in the Jewish God except the Jews.

I still think this notion is meaningless. personally I believe we would all be better off without religious dogma in general.
the Jews did not convert billions of people through out the world to their idea or philosophy of monotheism, its simply the course of history, and perhaps it was the default choice over paganism.

 

[Alceste]

Perhaps, we should leave it for a future thread, because I have much to say about it, and it involves many things which are unrelated to the OP.

I pointed Chomsky, because I was puzzled as to why you used the word secular in brackets.

Ah, yeah the quotes are for states. A person can be secular, a state with a powerful religious faction forming part of the government can not. That goes for my country as well as yours - the PM of Canada is a young earth creationist, which has ripple effects throughout the country in the form of dropping education standards and science funding. Alberta just passed a law to make it a human right for parents to opt out of any material in the curriculum that conflicts with their religious beliefs. A teacher can now be dragged before a human rights commission for bringing up evolution without advising parents in advance, or discussing homosexuality without condemning it as a sin. As I see it, a secular government doesn't pass that type of law, or construct foreign policy based on the idea that God gave them a particular territory that happens to be occupied by somebody else.

 

[Alceste]

I still think this notion is meaningless. personally I believe we would all be better off without religious dogma in general.

Apart from Islam and Christianity, which religions do you think have particularly destructive and dogmatic views, and why?

the Jews did not convert billions of people through out the world to their idea or philosophy of monotheism, its simply the course of history, and perhaps it was the default choice over paganism.

Yeah, here's the "choice" presented by Christian colonialists: Convert to my culture and religion and live, or keep your own culture and religion and die.

 

[sandandfoam]

personally I believe we would all be better off without religious dogma in general.

Dogma seems such a loaded word but I disagree. If you believe that you would be better off without religious dogma then I accept your position. I might feel that accepting core principles makes me better off. I think tolerance would make us all better off.

 

[Caladan]

Ah, yeah the quotes are for states. A person can be secular, a state with a powerful religious faction forming part of the government can not. That goes for my country as well as yours - the PM of Canada is a young earth creationist, which has ripple effects throughout the country in the form of dropping education standards and science funding. Alberta just passed a law to make it a human right for parents to opt out of any material in the curriculum that conflicts with their religious beliefs. A teacher can now be dragged before a human rights commission for bringing up evolution without advising parents in advance, or discussing homosexuality without condemning it as a sin. As I see it, a secular government doesn't pass that type of law, or construct foreign policy based on the idea that God gave them a particular territory that happens to be occupied by somebody else.

Right. but that part of my post wasnt referring to a government but to a public.

 

[Caladan]

Apart from Islam and Christianity, which religions do you think have particularly destructive and dogmatic views, and why?

All historical religions have certain bad marks on their record. personally, I dont see it as necessarily meaning that the religions are anti social, its simply that they have been part of history, for the positive and for the negative.

Yeah, here's the "choice" presented by Christian colonialists: Convert to my culture and religion and live, or keep your own culture and religion and die.

This is an example of the course of history. again for the good or bad.

 

[Caladan]

Dogma seems such a loaded word but I disagree. If you believe that you would be better off without religious dogma then I accept your position. I might feel that accepting core principles makes me better off. I think tolerance would make us all better off.

Fair enough. I did specifically choose the word dogma to capture my meaning. as an individual you may have embraced certain trends or ideas from a religious structure who may sit well with you or do you good, or fit well with the way you wish to construct your life.
Like I said in the beginning of the thread, it all depends on the nature of a person's personal beliefs. not all people of faith are 'dogmatic'.

 

[Alceste]

All historical religions have certain bad marks on their record. personally, I dont see it as necessarily meaning that the religions are anti social, its simply that they have been part of history, for the positive and for the negative.

What bad marks does Jainism have on its record, in your view?

This is an example of the course of history. again for the good or bad.

I disagree. This is an example of a horrifically destructive religious doctrine shaping human history for the worse, and inflicting immense pain and suffering on millions of people all over the world. Colonialism isn't something that just anybody would have gotten up to. Certain core values needed to be in place for that to happen in the way that it did, one of which is the idea that the whole of the earth was given to mankind specifically for his benefit, and also the idea that converting people to your religion, whether by persuasion or force, was the best thing you could do for them. The idea of sin and evil needed to be ingrained in order for the colonialists to be repulsed and feel superior (rather than be fascinated and feel respectful) to indigenous people and cultures, resulting in genocides or forced conversions such as the abduction and indoctrination of indigenous children. Sexuality had to be repressed in order for these same children to end up enduring brutal torture, rape and abuse at the hands of their Christian schoolmasters.

Of course the Christians aren't the only culture to attempt colonialization - the Japanese had their day in China, but the character of this era in China's history was very different from that of the Christian colonies.

 

[Alceste]

Right. but that part of my post wasnt referring to a government but to a public.

There are powerful religious factions in the public in Israel too, of course. To the extent that they influence your government, that government is not secular except, as you say, "on paper".

 

[Caladan]

What bad marks does Jainism have on its record, in your view?

What can I say, exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis .

I disagree. This is an example of a horrifically destructive religious doctrine shaping human history for the worse, and inflicting immense pain and suffering on millions of people all over the world. Colonialism isn't something that just anybody would have gotten up to. Certain core values needed to be in place for that to happen in the way that it did, one of which is the idea that the whole of the earth was given to mankind specifically for his benefit, and also the idea that converting people to your religion, whether by persuasion or force, was the best thing you could do for them. The idea of sin and evil needed to be ingrained in order for the colonialists to be repulsed and feel superior (rather than be fascinated and feel respectful) to indigenous people and cultures, resulting in genocides or forced conversions such as the abduction and indoctrination of indigenous children. Sexuality had to be repressed in order for these same children to end up enduring brutal torture, rape and abuse at the hands of their Christian schoolmasters.

Of course the Christians aren't the only culture to attempt colonialization - the Japanese had their day in China, but the character of this era in China's history was very different from that of the Christian colonies.

Again, this is only scratches certain layers of a phenomenon. colonialism did have a motive of conversion (because the focus of conversion was to the religion of the colonial powers), but colonialism was motivated among other factors by profits to be made, and by expansion of power. we can also see that with the spread of the theory of evolution in academic circles, it was used in the imperialist world view to justify colonialism and some kind of hierarchy among different societies and cultures.

 

[Caladan]

There are powerful religious factions in the public in Israel too, of course. To the extent that they influence your government, that government is not secular except, as you say, "on paper".

The two largest parties who have been competing for leading the government in the last Israeli elections are both secular parties. sure like many other governments around the world, in order to form a coalition, deals are forged with religious parties as well. this is the nature of politics.

 

[Autodidact]

(Haven't read thread.)

I've read that religious people are happier than non-religious, but then George Bernard Shaw said, "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

I value the truth above all things, possibly even happiness, so believe I am better off not believing.