Why NOT Religion

[Mock Turtle]

Sure they can be but not rationally.

I suspect as rationally as any religious believer who believes stuff written long ago when knowledge was like finding gold nuggets on the beach. It is highly likely that the morals encoded in any particular religion are just reformulations of accepted moral behaviour that existed previously - like much of the dogma and teachings are.

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?

As mentioned above, religions are more than likely not the origins for moral behaviour, even if they claim so, and studies within the past several decades or so seem to confirm that other species apart from humans exhibit moral behaviour in some form or other. Animal behaviour, neuroscience, anthropology, psychology, etc. all have contributed to our better understanding of moral behaviour. Now how likely is it that a species as supposedly advanced as homo sapiens (or earlier ancestors) would not show morality of some sort long ago when other less advanced species seem to do so and where it is extremely unlikely that these less advanced species in fact have any concepts of religious belief?

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and then frame Atheism as 'the answer' to (or "progress from") their conniptions with religion(s), posing religion as outdated or archaic, you know standard Atheist rhetoric.

Given? I can understand how many of the religious do view atheists, which is essentially what I am apart from being more irreligious, but why not step into our shoes and witness the harms that religions have caused just as much as their supposed benefits. Do people really need to be told the core moral values that are the basis for most religions - but where the differences between them essentially are the causes of the frictions which we have seen and still do see between them.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

It isn't really necessary to harp on definitions. One need only look at religious diversity - not just dogmatic Abrahamic (Christian) religions - to have the opening post fall apart. Your opening post isn't an argument against "religion" it's an argument against specific things found within some religions - one grounded in your own values at that. In recognizing that, there's nothing really wrong with the list as it is provisionally accurate when applied to certain things, but to suggest it applies to religion as a whole or that it is unbiased in its assessment? No.

You're not interested in changing your anti-religious stance to something else, and I'm not going to pretend I never heard of things like Unitarian Universalism or other religious traditions and movements that the OP utterly fails to apply to. Or at least that's what I suspect.

 

[Maximilian]

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.

Why are you not interested in what Christ has to offer?

 

[Maximilian]

Atheists can be just as moral as the religious.

Which explains why you're against abortion and men marrying boys, yes?

 

[Quintessence]

Why are you not interested in what Christ has to offer?

Um.... because I'm just not? What, I'm not allowed to have my own preferences? Can I start asking you pointless questions about why you aren't interested in things you aren't interested in too?

 

[Maximilian]

Um.... because I'm just not? What, I'm not allowed to have my own preferences? Can I start asking you pointless questions about why you aren't interested in things you aren't interested in too?

I ask because Christ's beneficent body of teachings espouse compassion, humanitarianism, magnanimity, charity, self-sacrifice, goodness, etc., etc., and I'm trying to understand why you would be against this.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Which explains why you're against abortion and men marrying boys, yes?

Where on earth have I ever said such? (I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion on abortion, and my feelings on the latter, if legal, I haven't got any objections. Anyway - aren't I supposed to be for abortion - wicked heathen that I am?)

Is this your tactic? To cast slurs and insinuations at every opportunity?

You are a really great advert for your faith. Keep it up - and entertain us all!



Confuse me with someone else? - and still not answered is your snide remarks concerning atheists and morality.

 

[Maximilian]

Where on earth have I ever said such? (I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion on abortion, and my feelings on the latter, if legal, I haven't got any objections. Anyway - aren't I supposed to be for abortion - wicked heathen that I am?)

You claimed to be a moral person, did you not? If you are then this necessarily means you're against abortion and men marrying boys. Are you opposed to such?

 

[Mock Turtle]

You claimed to be a moral person, did you not? If you are then this necessarily means you're against abortion and men marrying boys. Are you opposed to such?

Your claiming an objective morality - which I assume you do, and coming from God - hardly trumps any other morality when you first have to prove the existence of God. Otherwise all you have is a projected morality from those who wrote the Bible - and hence we are left with the morality that tends to exist - a subjective, messy one - but then we are a messy species and should expect this rather than living in blacks and whites, good and bad, etc. It might work in theory but in practice it doesn't. 'Thou shall not kill' - where does that lead? No defending oneself against an attacker? No killing other species for food? No use of any medical treatment or medicine that might kill the bugs and bacteria that live inside and all over us? Etc.

And I can't claim to be any more moral than the next person - human as we are - but I have tried over my life. Some good and some bad.

 

[Maximilian]

Your claiming an objective morality - which I assume you do, and coming from God - hardly trumps any other morality when you first have to prove the existence of God. Otherwise all you have is a projected morality from those who wrote the Bible - and hence we are left with the morality that tends to exist - a subjective, messy one - but then we are a messy species and should expect this rather than living in blacks and whites, good and bad, etc. It might work in theory but in practice it doesn't. 'Thou shall not kill' - where does that lead? No defending oneself against an attacker? No killing other species for food? No use of any medical treatment or medicine that might kill the bugs and bacteria that live inside and all over us? Etc.

And I can't claim to be any more moral than the next person - human as we are - but I have tried over my life. Some good and some bad.

To be sure I'm examining your opinions in the proper context, I need to ask, if I may, do you have ASD?

 

[Quintessence]

I ask because Christ's beneficent body of teachings espouse compassion, humanitarianism, magnanimity, charity, self-sacrifice, goodness, etc., etc., and I'm trying to understand why you would be against this.

While this may be unintentional on your part, you're putting words in my mouth that aren't there. Not being interested in Christ doesn't equate to being against teachings someone has attributed to Christ. Especially when these teachings and ideas are hardly the sole property of that figure and can be found world over in many different cultures. Might as well claim that because I'm not interested in football, I am somehow against cooperation and teamwork. Nonsense.

 

[Maximilian]

While this may be unintentional on your part, you're putting words in my mouth that aren't there. Not being interested in Christ doesn't equate to being against teachings someone has attributed to Christ. Especially when these teachings and ideas are hardly the sole property of that figure and can be found world over in many different cultures.

And yet all of these are at the very heart of the Christian identity which explains why, wherever you find Christians, goodness abounds.

 

[Quintessence]

And yet all of these are at the very heart of the Christian identity which explains why, wherever you find Christians, goodness abounds.

If only that were actually the case. The OP itself gives some rather unfortunate examples of this very much not being the case for some religious demographics, and his experience is largely couched in Christian terms (albeit only certain factions within Christianity, not all of them).

Also, as a courtesy? I'm getting the impression that this line of off-topic conversation has a very particular sort of intent behind it. You should know that proselytizing is against the rules of our forums. Henceforth, the benefit of the doubt will no longer be extended by this one.

 

[Maximilian]

If only that were actually the case. The OP itself gives some rather unfortunate examples of this very much not being the case for some religious demographics, and his experience is largely couched in Christian terms (albeit only certain factions within Christianity, not all of them).

I'm curious, what objective moral touchstone, as it were, did you use to reach such a conclusion?

 

[Quintessence]

I'm curious, what objective moral touchstone, as it were, did you use to reach such a conclusion?

I didn't use whatever this "objective moral touchstone" is you're referring to, I used common sense and observation. There is no denying that Christianity can be a destructive force in some people's lives to varying degrees. These days in my country, it's often Christians targeting other Christians. There was a case of that recently in my town where one Christian vandalized another Christian church known to support LGBT+ rights. While these incidents are comparatively rare, it means I can't really agree that "where you find Christians, goodness abounds." As with anything, you'll find the entire spectrum of possibilities within.

To be clear, I have a positive impression overall of religion, which is one reason I take issue with the OP. I also have a positive impression overall of Abrahamic religions, including Christianity. I do not, however, whitewash their histories or their present conduct.

 

[Mock Turtle]

To be sure I'm examining your opinions in the proper context, I need to ask, if I may, do you have ASD?

Let's go one step at a time. Answer the assertion that atheists apparently don't do morality.

I fear I have a worse condition than ASD - innate skepticism - and I am at the extreme end of that spectrum. And no, I don't appear to be on the ASD spectrum according to all the tests I've taken. But then self-testing (never had any medical diagnosis regarding my mental health) is often a bit like religious beliefs - we might prefer to bend the results to suit our wishes.

You might care to look for independent evidence for why the more intelligent and/or better educated are less likely to be religious - which might account for those with ASD doing so too - if this is true.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It isn't really necessary to harp on definitions. One need only look at religious diversity - not just dogmatic Abrahamic (Christian) religions - to have the opening post fall apart. Your opening post isn't an argument against "religion" it's an argument against specific things found within some religions - one grounded in your own values at that. In recognizing that, there's nothing really wrong with the list as it is provisionally accurate when applied to certain things, but to suggest it applies to religion as a whole or that it is unbiased in its assessment? No.

You're not interested in changing your anti-religious stance to something else, and I'm not going to pretend I never heard of things like Unitarian Universalism or other religious traditions and movements that the OP utterly fails to apply to. Or at least that's what I suspect.

So again, you won't tell me what you are arguing for, just leave it open to me to find a "universal" way of saying something meaningful. Frankly, waving a tiny group like UU at me, whose membership includes many atheists and agnostics, that has no particular creed, and therefore no particular beliefs, seems to me to be much more of a social club with philosophical yearnings. And according to the Pew Forum, accounts for a whopping 0.3% of American religious belief.

I'm an old IT guy, and I learned long ago that in trying to analyze anything, if you begin with the minutiae, you are condemned to failure. My argument pertains to the vast, vast majority of religious believers in the world (which obviously cannot include some UUs, for the simple reason that some UUs are atheists, and therefore NOT believers). It is to that which I speak. Just as in analyzing business needs, I always look at the big picture first, foremost and almost exclusively, rather than what happens and the fourth Tuesday of every second fiscal year.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Dead people dont come back to life.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

seems to me to be much more of a social club with philosophical yearnings. And according to the Pew Forum, accounts for a whopping 0.3% of American religious belief.

Sort of. Its still very protestant in structure, but it becomes "whats the point?" when everything is considered equally valid.

 

[Maximilian]

Let's go one step at a time. Answer the assertion that atheists apparently don't do morality.

Well, only atheists push for women to have the right to murder their children in-utero and only atheists demand that men be able to marry boys yet it seems you would like me to believe that Atheists are moral. How am I supposed to do that?