Why NOT Religion

[Maximilian]

Heres the key and crucial difference: Stalin was an atheist but he didnt act on atheism (rather he acted on his own lust for power), the Catholic Church is Christian and did act on Christianity when they carried out the Crusades, Inquisition, witch hunts, and other atrocities.

You seem to be misinformed since not only was Christ apolitical but also opposed war. Since the RCC has a long, bloody on enmeshing itself in political conflicts and waging war, among other acts of evil, it is incorrect to call it Christian.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Only because people attached them to religion. But plenty of animals clearly have mating rituals, habits, dances, and other features you claim they don't.

And many mate for life. And if you don't think there's any intensity, try watching lions or tigers. A lioness in oestrus may mate up to 100 times a day, at an average interval of about 17 minutes...usually with the same male.

 

[Quintessence]

Simple curiosity, or an intellectual desire to know and understand new things can lead to those very same questions, and in fact, do far more often than religion, which always assumes it already knows the answers.

Well, you're just wrong. Religion does NOT assume it already knows the answers because religion is NOT some monolithic entity. The entire problem with your opening post comes down to this problem. None of your criticisms actually apply to religion, they apply to some specific thing or idea that is attributed to some specific religious tradition. That makes it trivially easy to dismiss the opening post in its entirety. It's why I didn't do a point-by-point on the OP, and why I'm not going to do one here either. I've little patience for anti-religious cynics most days. Religious diversity doesn't exist in their reality, and by extension, neither do I.

 

[Maximilian]

Well, you're just wrong. Religion does NOT assume it already knows the answers because religion is NOT some monolithic entity.

How does this relate, for instance, to the answers Christ offers to life's most compelling questions?

 

[Mock Turtle]

You seem to be confused. How does Atheism compel morality?

Try not to be so slippery. You implied that atheists believe that morals don't exist (for them at least), when this is not true. Surely you know this? If so, you were presenting a falsehood, if not then you are rather ignorant. Look for some better evidence if the latter.

There is a thread concerning how we might perceive where morality might come from, and there is good evidence that it almost certainly predates religion. In another thread you tried to compare the lack of supposed morality in predator birds and then to question how this then passed to humans when of course you should have used our primate cousins as examples (being much more like us) - and where there is evidence for the beginnings of morality - and for other characteristics that we share with them. Social groups seems to be the mechanism for this to happen - why not do some research?

Atheists can be just as moral as the religious, it's just that many atheists or even most will have thought more about their morality than simply accepting such from one particular religion or another.

Never seen any religious people committing crimes?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is your interpretation.

He had no problem killing because he was an atheist. And the inquisition was about power

The Inquisitirs had no problem killing because they believed they were doing gods work. Like it or not, Stalin did not act kn atheism.

 

[Kenny]

The Inquisitirs had no problem killing because they believed they were doing gods work. Like it or not, Stalin did not act kn atheism.

Again, that is your interpretation.

Inquisition proponents saw a threat to their powerful position. Stalin did it because he believed in atheism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, you're just wrong. Religion does NOT assume it already knows the answers because religion is NOT some monolithic entity. The entire problem with your opening post comes down to this problem. None of your criticisms actually apply to religion, they apply to some specific thing or idea that is attributed to some specific religious tradition. That makes it trivially easy to dismiss the opening post in its entirety. It's why I didn't do a point-by-point on the OP, and why I'm not going to do one here either. I've little patience for anti-religious cynics most days. Religious diversity doesn't exist in their reality, and by extension, neither do I.

Religions are known for feigning knowledge and insisting they have answers where they only gave ignorance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, that is your interpretation.

Inquisition proponents saw a threat to their powerful position. Stalin did it because he believed in atheism.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live is not Marxism or atheism. Its the Bible.

 

[Kenny]

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live is not Marxism or atheism. Its the Bible.

Hmmmmm.... wrong faith.

We are talking about Jesus Christ and not the Law of Moses. Do you know the difference between the two?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hmmmmm.... wrong faith.

We are talking about Jesus Christ and not the Law of Moses. Do you know the difference between the two?

Alot of Christians dont really care because Jesus said he did not come to do away with the Prophets and that nothing of the Law has changed. Dont even suggest or imply it has because that will have you counted among the least in the Kingdom.

 

[Kenny]

Alot of Christians dont really care because Jesus said he did not come to do away with the Prophets and that nothing of the Law has changed. Dont even suggest or imply it has because that will have you counted among the least in the Kingdom.

I haven't met those because the commandment from Jesus was "preach the Gospel to all creatures" and not "kill them all". Also, the law is no longer applicable to Christians once we accept Him that fulfilled it.

Of course, there you can always find someone who doesn't agree with the tenets of Jesus Christ. Religious people do that and Jesus didn't like religious people.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

QUOTE="Quintessence, post: 6156042, member: 32163"]Well, you're just wrong. Religion does NOT assume it already knows the answers because religion is NOT some monolithic entity. The entire problem with your opening post comes down to this problem. None of your criticisms actually apply to religion, they apply to some specific thing or idea that is attributed to some specific religious tradition. That makes it trivially easy to dismiss the opening post in its entirety. It's why I didn't do a point-by-point on the OP, and why I'm not going to do one here either. I've little patience for anti-religious cynics most days. Religious diversity doesn't exist in their reality, and by extension, neither do I. [/QUOTE]
Well, then, we are in disagreement. I think, actually, the disagreement may be over something quite fundamental: the meaning of the word "religion," which is not, as you seem to be some generalized quest of spiritual truth. Religion comes from the Latin religare, which means "to bind (oneself)." And you cannot bind yourself to something without having a pretty good idea of what that something is.

The plain fact of the matter is, there are lots of religions, and they pretty much all have some specific ideas and traditions, concepts and mandates. The more fascinating thing to me is that all assume that they are right, and yet since all are in various degrees of conflict with one another, that cannot be the case. So when you talk about "religious diversity," as a general rule it can only be assumed that the adherents of one religion, supposing it has "the truth," while perhaps not ragging on other religions, at the very least must consider them to be lacking in "truth." That's diverse, but not, I think, in the way that you mean.

 

[Quintessence]

How does this relate, for instance, to the answers Christ offers to life's most compelling questions?

Christianity represents one set of religions, with one set of approaches to what religion looks like. Not all religion looks like that, and many of us have no interest in what this Christ has to offer.

Religions are known for feigning knowledge and insisting they have answers where they only gave ignorance.

Some are, sure. Hardly all, which was my point.

Well, then, we are in disagreement. I think, actually, the disagreement may be over something quite fundamental: the meaning of the word "religion," which is not, as you seem to be some generalized quest of spiritual truth. Religion comes from the Latin religare, which means "to bind (oneself)." And you cannot bind yourself to something without having a pretty good idea of what that something is.

I'm not talking about religion in the sense of some "generalized quest for spiritual truth." I don't even know what that means so I definitely don't view religion that way... haha. But I don't define religion in a way that ends up excluding a bunch of things that I know to be religions. Viewing things the way you do would demand that of me. I would have to pretend that I've never run into progressive Christians, any sort of indigenous religion or its revivals, and definitely ignore that Unitarian Universalism exists. All of these paths really aren't into the whole "need to be right" thing.

Honestly, I think the "need to be right" thing largely transcends religion and is a function of personality. Those who have that personality apply it to everything just in general, and those who do not leave it by the wayside. There are plenty of religious traditions and persons I've run into that lack an exclusivist "my way or the high way" attitude. I've heard tell from scholars that it is the Abrahamic religions - specifically Christianity - that invented this exclusivist attitude in religion. I'm not one of them, so I don't think like them. The opening post might as well be written in a foreign language with how poorly it applies to the religious landscapes I've explored.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Some are, sure. Hardly all, which was my point.

The vast majority of them do, as one of the traditional appeals of religion is provides for answers to existentialist questions that we are still really only beginning to search for outside of religion.

 

[Quintessence]

The vast majority of them do, as one of the traditional appeals of religion is provides for answers to existentialist questions that we are still really only beginning to search for outside of religion.

The vast majority? There's no impartial, unbiased way for us to know that. Religions themselves are an artifice, and the pie can be sliced to say whatever one wants it to say. The OP itself is an example of that, actually...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The vast majority? There's no impartial, unbiased way for us to know that. Religions themselves are an artifice, and the pie can be sliced to say whatever one wants it to say. The OP itself is an example of that, actually...

They have no real or concrete answers for gods, souls, afterlifes, meaning and purpose, collective consciousnesses, but yeah, the vast majority of them do claim to have the answers to these. But they don't.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Christianity represents one set of religions, with one set of approaches to what religion looks like. Not all religion looks like that, and many of us have no interest in what this Christ has to offer.



Some are, sure. Hardly all, which was my point.



I'm not talking about religion in the sense of some "generalized quest for spiritual truth." I don't even know what that means so I definitely don't view religion that way... haha. But I don't define religion in a way that ends up excluding a bunch of things that I know to be religions. Viewing things the way you do would demand that of me. I would have to pretend that I've never run into progressive Christians, any sort of indigenous religion or its revivals, and definitely ignore that Unitarian Universalism exists. All of these paths really aren't into the whole "need to be right" thing.

Honestly, I think the "need to be right" thing largely transcends religion and is a function of personality. Those who have that personality apply it to everything just in general, and those who do not leave it by the wayside. There are plenty of religious traditions and persons I've run into that lack an exclusivist "my way or the high way" attitude. I've heard tell from scholars that it is the Abrahamic religions - specifically Christianity - that invented this exclusivist attitude in religion. I'm not one of them, so I don't think like them. The opening post might as well be written in a foreign language with how poorly it applies to the religious landscapes I've explored.

Well, perhaps as a simple way to begin clearing things up, you could define what you mean by that single word, "religion." I'll begin by giving you mine, which I began doing a post ago.

Religion: The set of beliefs, feelings, dogmas and practices that define the relations between human beings and the sacred or divine. Root: Latin religare to bind (Lucretius, Tertullian).

In this definition, the OP makes perfect sense, to me. If your definition is different, well please share, and we can consider further.

 

[Unguru]

Atheists can be just as moral as the religious, it's just that many atheists or even most will have thought more about their morality than simply accepting such from one particular religion or another.

Sure they can be but not rationally.

General 'Atheist morality' is just hopping on the back of Protestant Christianity, pretending that it is something implicit outside of religion.
On the other end, many Atheists are also relativists, which one is correct?

I think Atheists do a good job judging religious people but they take for granted everything they've been given. Nothing less than I expect from Atheists. Reduce religion down to nothing and then frame Atheism as 'the answer' to (or "progress from") their conniptions with religion(s), posing religion as outdated or archaic, you know standard Atheist rhetoric.

 

[Spartan]

Since the question "why religion" has been asked, I think it not inappropriate to begin a thread of my own, suggesting some (perhaps many, who knows how long I'll continue) some of the reasons that I sincerely do not like religion, and give others the chance to say why they do not.

Please feel free to tell me when you think I'm dead wrong, but ONLY if you are prepared to back up your criticism with a fact-based argument.

So, here are a few of my arguments, just to get things going:

• The discouragement of rational, critical thought. Christianity in particular discourages critical thinking. In essence, it makes people less intelligent by telling them that faith is just as good, or better, than arriving at a conclusion through deductive reasoning and evidence

OK, let's start with this one.

Put on your "critical thinking" hat and show me ONE (1, just your BEST ONE) example of a person, place, or event in the GOSPELS that has been shown to be fictitious? Cite the scripture #'s and your argument.

By the way, men who believed in a creator God have been very instrumental in the formation of various scientific disciplines.

"According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (2005) by Baruch Aba Shalev, a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prizes). Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards." Can You Be a Scientist and Believe in God?

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” ― Former NASA Scientist Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers