Whats more important, religion or people?

[SalixIncendium]

To me this question is akin to asking, "What is more important, ice or water?"

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't agree with their ruling either, really, but if you think the church being more important than people is new, well.... it started about the 70's or so, actually.

The 1770s? Or earlier?

 

[metis]

IMO, it's people who are more important since at least we know they exist. With religion, that same thing is hard to say as beliefs are not necessarily facts.

 

[mangalavara]

If people are more important (which I personally assert that they are) then it is only logical that an empath should feel more empathy for the victims of religion (such as the LGBT community) than for the people who have their religions critiqued.

Victims of religion, or victims of Abrahamic conservatives and extremists?

Both are important, why the dichotomy? Religion only tells you your duties to people. At least Hinduism does, and nothing more than that. The rest all is your choice.

This is my perspective as well.

Buttheaded people do buttheaded things. They might say its part of their religion, but it seldom is. I know plenty of religious people for whom caring for people is the goal of their religious outlook. If a person is cruel, they will be so with or without their religion. If a person is kind, they will be so with or without their religion

I agree. That phenomenon probably explains why in Islam, you have people like Irshad Manji and people like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't agree with their ruling either, really, but if you think the church being more important than people is new, well.... it started about the 70's or so, actually.

It's been such a long standing thing that it's the reason America was established secular and the Constitution prohibits public tests of faith (some states have them anyways) and establishing preference or favor towards religion (but it's being eroded).

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Whats more important, religion or people?

If people are more important (which I personally assert that they are) then it is only logical that an empath should feel more empathy for the victims of religion (such as the LGBT community) than for the people who have their religions critiqued.

But if you feel that religions are important more than people are feel free to justify your position to do so (no I'm not forcing you to justify your position by asking you to).

In my opinion.

Religion is all about people, Loving and serving each other.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

Whats more important, religion or people?

If people are more important (which I personally assert that they are) then it is only logical that an empath should feel more empathy for the victims of religion (such as the LGBT community) than for the people who have their religions critiqued.

But if you feel that religions are important more than people are feel free to justify your position to do so (no I'm not forcing you to justify your position by asking you to).

In my opinion.

This is just an effort at building up a false dichotomy and a pinch of an escape trial of "other". It's like asking "whats more important? People or atheism" and building a whole back and forth around that false dichotomy.

What about the LGBT community and religious communities who were victims of atheism?

 

[danieldemol]

Religion is all about people, Loving and serving each other.

Regards Tony

It honestly seems to be more of a marketing slogan in most of the bigger Abrahamic religions.

In my opinion.

 

[ChristineM]

Religion is all about people, Loving and serving each other.

Regards Tony

Some, I'd agree but for the most part the message is lost

 

[danieldemol]

This is just an effort at building up a false dichotomy and a pinch of an escape trial of "other". It's like asking "whats more important? People or atheism" and building a whole back and forth around that false dichotomy.

What about the LGBT community and religious communities who were victims of atheism?

Not really, first of all there were victims of communism, but not atheism.

And since communism is pretty indistinguishable from religion it is a question, "Is Communism more important or people" that can easily be answered that people are more important.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Not really, first of all there were victims of communism, but not atheism.

Then second of all, they were all victims of power, not religion. Both apologetics good enough?

And since communism is pretty indistinguishable from religion it is a question, "Is Communism more important or people" that can easily be answered that people are more important.

Since communism promoted atheism left right and centre, and atheists murdered theists all over the place, is communism more important than people is similar to people vs atheism false dichotomy similar to yours. So that also can be answered with a "people" response.

This can go on.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It honestly seems to be more of a marketing slogan in most of the bigger Abrahamic religions.

In my opinion.

That is why Jesus advised us that to be truly born again, one must pick up that cross and sacrifice oneself to the service of humanity.

So your reply has confirmed this passage.

Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Some, I'd agree but for the most part the message is lost

There is no doubt about that ChristineM. A definite sign that change is required.

Regards Tony

 

[danieldemol]

Then second of all, they were all victims of power, not religion. Both apologetics good enough?

Now who is doing false dichotomies, since religion lends power to its leadership it is not only possible for it to be both power and religion, but I would argue in the case of Communism it was both.

Since communism promoted atheism left right and centre, and atheists murdered theists all over the place, is communism more important than people is similar to people vs atheism false dichotomy similar to yours. So that also can be answered with a "people" response.

This can go on.

People are more important than atheism, but it wasn't atheism that killed those people, it was the surrounding beliefs about the end justifying any means etc ie their philosophy or "religion".

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Now who is doing false dichotomies

Both.

but I would argue in the case of Communism it was both.

that's a usual anti religious apologetics of famous atheists, but it's a lack of knowledge and intentional anti religious preaching. Nothing more.

People are more important than atheism, but it wasn't atheism that killed those people, it was the surrounding beliefs about the end justifying any means etc ie their philosophy or "religion".

Oh. Just like you preaching murder on religion I am also making a bogus case to show you its the same thing to blame it on religion or atheism. There are some people who spread hatred by making bogus cases like that. So I am giving an example.

E.g. Atheism murdered 15-20 million in the Russian movement of Stalin alone.

 

[danieldemol]

Both.

In the original context I was essentially meaning to raise the question whether we should direct our empathies towards protecting the religion from criticism over protecting the victims of religion where there is a conflict between the two, but I can see I should have made that clearer.

that's a usual anti religious apologetics of famous atheists, but it's a lack of knowledge and intentional anti religious preaching. Nothing more.

That's your in built ad hominem feature going into overdrive.

Oh. Just like you preaching murder on religion I am also making a bogus case to show you its the same thing to blame it on religion or atheism. There are some people who spread hatred by making bogus cases like that. So I am giving an example.

E.g. Atheism murdered 15-20 million in the Russian movement of Stalin alone.

Whilst we have common ground that your example is bogus, in certain cases religion has demonstrably been the cause of murder, for example if hadith calling on you to kill someone who changes away from Islam are part of a person's religion they will kill people who convert away from Islam. Here a direct cause and effect scenario can be established between a person's religion and murder - nothing bogus about it.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

In the original context I was essentially meaning to raise the question whether we should direct our empathies towards protecting the religion from criticism over protecting the victims of religion where there is a conflict between the two, but I can see I should have made that clearer.

Okay. That I agree is a discussion point. Agree or disagree, that is a discussion in my opinion.

That's your in built ad hominem feature going into overdrive.

Thats your inbuilt anti religious preaching in overdrive. You see how this works?

Whilst we have common ground that your example is bogus,

Just like your whole anti religious preaching. Its both just bogus.

 

[danieldemol]

Thats your inbuilt anti religious preaching in overdrive. You see how this works?

Yeas i see how it works, you use ad-hominem until either someone reports you to the mods or I get bored - usually the latter.

Just like your whole anti religious preaching. Its both just bogus.

Saying its bogus without explaining why it is is just bogus.

You cannot establish cause and effect between atheism and murder, I already did give you an example of how a particular religious belief has a cause effect relationship with murder. You are failing to address the nature of my argument choosing to label it instead. Its utterly fallacious.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Yeas i see how it works, you use ad-hominem until either someone reports you to the mods or I get bored - usually the latter.

That is also ad hominem mate.

Saying its bogus without explaining why it is is just bogus.

Lets say someone says "atheism murdered 20 million in china" its just bogus because atheism was a tool, not the causation. The argument for that is there are very peaceful countries who are not murdering their subjects who are driven by liberal atheistic worldviews. There are atheist parents who are bringing up good children. Thus, its simple logic that atheism cannot be a causation of murdering millions of people. But there are some anti atheistic hate preachers who do that fallacy of association. There are anti religious elements who do the flip side.

 

[danieldemol]

Lets say someone says "atheism murdered 20 million in china" its just bogus because atheism was a tool, not the causation. The argument for that is there are very peaceful countries who are not murdering their subjects who are driven by liberal atheistic worldviews. There are atheist parents who are bringing up good children. Thus, its simple logic that atheism cannot be a causation of murdering millions of people. But there are some anti atheistic hate preachers who do that fallacy of association. There are anti religious elements who do the flip side.

Sure there are but I'm not one of them, because I demonstrated a causal link between a religious belief and the action of murder.

Also I'm not sure what you mean when you say atheism is a tool.

In my opinion.