Religulous

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Hey Kolle - "Science" is becoming flawed just like religion. So now what? What do we trust if the rigors of scientific empericism are being eschewed for money (much like the Catholic church and religion)?

We're just all fucked, aren't we?

[Xakk]

Originally Posted by GrobbeeTrull2.0

Hey Kolle - "Science" is becoming flawed just like religion. So now what? What do we trust if the rigors of scientific empericism are being eschewed for money (much like the Catholic church and religion)?

We're just all fucked, aren't we?

looks like we need a 3rd party now

[Chrisb3]

Expect that Scientific Fraud is very easily discredited and removed from Science forever.

Religious Fraud makes up 99% of Religion and isn't going away.

The internet is still working, my TV is still on. I think Science is doing ok tbh.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

The moral truths that are contained in religion didn't go away just because of the fraud you claim happened. We still don't kill people all the time, avoid adultery, etc.

[Kolle]

That's flawed on several levels. If a pile of shit contains remnants of undigested food that doesn't mean you should eat the entire pile of shit. Not murdering people? Sure, that's not a bad rule to live by. Too bad god and most of his followers never followed by that rule and many others. The notion that we need religion in order to not kill people is fucking retarded. This is especially true since religion is responsible for so many fucking deaths in the first place. The bible, the christian religion, and every other religion are creations of man. It's bullshit. It's flawed, error-filled bullshit. What it teaches is not true. If you subscribe to a religion then you are believing in a lie. If someone needs to believe in a religious lie in order not to go around murdering people then that person has a serious fucking mental problem.

It's not just about the errors. There's a great many of them, but the religion has all sorts of problems beyond that. Just look at the content. Forget for a moment that the book is full of mistakes. If you examine the content without a brainwashed eye then you can see how absolutely ridiculous it is.

[Neferata]

As I've said in other threads, the idea that religion is the source of our morals is absolutely not true. The most secular countries on earth are also the most moral. They have the lowest violent crime rates, they rank among the top in literacy and employment, and have the lowest poverty rates. See the Scandinavian countries and countries like Japan. The most religious places on earth, places like the middle east and the US, are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Divorce is higher among the religious. Prison populations are unbalanced as well. You're simply wrong.

Regardless of any of that, whether or not religion actually helps us be better people is an entirely different debate. If the only thing preventing you from killing, stealing, lying, etc. is a fear of god, you're simply not a very good person to begin with.

Anyway, I'd appreciate it if someone would answer the questions I asked in my previous post.

[Snugglebear]

Originally Posted by Neferata

As I've said in other threads, the idea that religion is the source of our morals is absolutely not true. The most secular countries on earth are also the most moral. They have the lowest violent crime rates, they rank among the top in literacy and employment, and have the lowest poverty rates. See the Scandinavian countries and countries like Japan. The most religious places on earth, places like the middle east and the US, are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Divorce is higher among the religious. Prison populations are unbalanced as well. You're simply wrong.

Regardless of any of that, whether or not religion actually helps us be better people is an entirely different debate. If the only thing preventing you from killing, stealing, lying, etc. is a fear of god, you're simply not a very good person to begin with.

Anyway, I'd appreciate it if someone would answer the questions I asked in my previous post.

I would argue against this. Religion plays a large role in morality. Just because people ignore the intentions of religion in some instances is not justification for saying religion has no influence. In ancient pagan Rome, Christianity offered an attractive alternative to other religions due to its emphasis on the virtues of taking care of the weak in a community-related sense. Prior to this, mercy and charity were not viewed so much as a virtue. In the United States, the first proponents of the abolition of slavery were christian Catholics. Most of those Scandinavian countries you talk about were founded on Christian traditions, just as the United States was. Japan was crushed by a secular democracy founded on Christian beliefs and rebuilt into the society it is today. Just because a country is not a theocracy does not mean religious beliefs did not play an important role in its inherent morality.

[Neferata]

They're not religious beliefs. You can just as easily call them atheistic beliefs. Religions promote certain important morals, but I don't think they are in any way the source of them. People continue to be moral without religion.

[Kolle]

Originally Posted by Neferata

Anyway, I'd appreciate it if someone would answer the questions I asked in my previous post.

i suspect that a large number of religious folks haven't given serious thought to those questions. the ones who have tend to find a reason to keep believing. there are many excuses. "not understanding the mysterious ways of god" would probably be the most used excuse.

judging by post history this board seems 95% atheist. i'm not sure if anyone would answer those types of questions at all. i'm sure 95% is not the true number, but i would guess that any true believer would be quite scared to post. there's only a few that have ever bothered. they know they can't explain all the problems away so they don't try. at least not here. if a believer does post they usually pose everything from a philosophical standpoint.

honestly i'd question the moral fiber of any christian who frequents this board considering its content and the reason it exists in the first place

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Irreligion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Estonia - leading the way in global ethics.

As I've said in other threads, the idea that religion is the source of our morals is absolutely not true. The most secular countries on earth are also the most moral. They have the lowest violent crime rates, they rank among the top in literacy and employment, and have the lowest poverty rates. See the Scandinavian countries and countries like Japan.

You're right. Religion never, ever existed in Scandinavia (Norse/Pagan) or Japan (Buddhist/Shinto), and surely was not the reasoning for the foundation of their laws.

I know you're smarter than that. Religion of some sort or another has been the foundation for mores and norms for just about every culture since the dawn of time. It's ok to admit it.

Regardless of any of that, whether or not religion actually helps us be better people is an entirely different debate. If the only thing preventing you from killing, stealing, lying, etc. is a fear of god, you're simply not a very good person to begin with.

Actually, it's central to the theme of the usefulness of religion - which I believe is what this film mocks. And, I think you'll find yourself arguing against giants if you think that people should just "know" good automatically. Have you ever read anything by Hobbes?

I'll answer your questions, and hopefully you'll answer mine: What reason should any person adhere to a law that is not "divine" in nature? I would counter that if the only thing stopping you from committing a crime is corporal punishment, well, you're not a very good person at all.

1) How did you come to choose your particular religion?

I came to studying Buddhism through exposure during Philosophy and World Religions classes. I am henofideistic, which means that I believe all faiths are a path to one Transcendantal truth - whatever it may be.

2) Why do you feel faith is a virtue?
Because I can read the definition of virtue, and understand that if one has true faith, it will indeed lead to moral excellence.

3) How do you reconcile the fact that there have been thousands of other religions, and the way you feel about their followers is exactly the way their followers feel about you? What makes you think their religion is false and yours is true?

Horrible, argumentative and loaded question, but I'll answer it anyway. Well, frankly, I'm not sure what others think of Buddhism, but I honestly don't care. They are free beings with the right to believe what they wish. I don't think their religion is false. I think people adhere to a religion that suits their needs as humans.

4) How do we know the difference between scripture teachings that are to be taken in the proper context, such as the previously quoted scripture regarding the treatment of women, and scripture teachings that are to be taken literally, such as the teaching that homosexuality is a sin? Is this because something like homosexuality was supposedly still a sin after the new testament? Why do we even care about the old testament if its teachings are no longer valid?

Well, I can see you just dislike Abrahamic religions, but I'll do my best to field it - though ubdoubtedly you won't like the answer or even consider any answer I give as sufficient. The quick answer? You don't know the difference. You have to have "faith" in a true answer, and whatever personal meaning you derive from it will be suitable to you.

As to why people care about the Old Testament despite there being a New Testament? Well, historic reasons mainly. I suspect there are still some good moral nuggets to be gleaned from it, as well as offering a background of information for those who chose to go on to the New Testament.

5) Why do we think god cares so much about whether or not we believe in him?

I wouldn't assume to know the mind of a god. The story goes, however, that the Christian God cares for us so much that he wants us to love him like he loves us.

I'm sure you'll find some sort of flaw in that statement, but know I'm not a religious expert, so that's a simplistic and cursory answer.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by Neferata

They're not religious beliefs. You can just as easily call them atheistic beliefs. Religions promote certain important morals, but I don't think they are in any way the source of them. People continue to be moral without religion.

Clearly your blind hatred of Christianity has clouded your thoughts - Shinto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - has a lot of information on Shinto and it's practice, and if you deny that Shintoism wasn't the basis of Japanese society from the 5th century until WW2, then I don't know what to tell you.

Originally Posted by Wiki

Shinto has largely reverted to its pre-imperial family state. Post-war, the number of Japanese citizens identifying their religious beliefs as Shinto has declined a great deal, yet the general practice of Shinto rituals has not decreased accordingly, and many practices have persisted as general cultural beliefs (such as ancestor worship, which is still very popular), superstitions, and community festivals (matsuri) — focusing more on religious practices and items than principles. The explanation generally given for this anomaly is that, following the demise of State Shinto, modern Shinto has reverted to its more traditional position as a folk religion which is culturally ingrained, rather than enforced. In any case, Shinto and its values continue to be an important component of the Japanese cultural mindset.

[Neferata]

Originally Posted by GrobbeeTrull2.0

You're right. Religion never, ever existed in Scandinavia (Norse/Pagan) or Japan (Buddhist/Shinto), and surely was not the reasoning for the foundation of their laws.

I know you're smarter than that. Religion of some sort or another has been the foundation for mores and norms for just about every culture since the dawn of time. It's ok to admit it.

I'm referring to these countries in the present day. I'm pretty sure you know this. I don't have a very extensive knowledge of the history of many countries and how religion influenced their laws/culture, but I would assume you are pretty much correct here. I really have no idea how the countries of our planet would have turned out without the influence of religion. I don't think we can assume we wouldn't have laws or morals without religion, though.

Actually, it's central to the theme of the usefulness of religion - which I believe is what this film mocks. And, I think you'll find yourself arguing against giants if you think that people should just "know" good automatically. Have you ever read anything by Hobbes?

I do feel at least most people know good in its most basic forms. Even children. Perhaps especially children. I feel people can also be taught without religion. If all religion taught were basic, moral truths, I think I would feel very different about it.

I've never read anything by Hobbes, no.

I'll answer your questions, and hopefully you'll answer mine: What reason should any person adhere to a law that is not "divine" in nature? I would counter that if the only thing stopping you from committing a crime is corporal punishment, well, you're not a very good person at all.

I agree. However, corporal punishment is at least real, so in that regard they're at least reasonable, non-good people. I do agree, but I also believe you're wrong if you believe most moral, non-religious people are moral only out of fear of punishment. I don't believe most moral religious people are moral only out of fear of being punished.

[Kolle]

still based on imagination. although, i will admit the imagination of some men in the past was a bit better than others where religion is concerned.

[Zerai]

I'll answer your questions, and hopefully you'll answer mine: What reason should any person adhere to a law that is not "divine" in nature? I would counter that if the only thing stopping you from committing a crime is corporal punishment, well, you're not a very good person at all.

I don't kill people because I don't want to die. It's pretty simple why most laws are followed. Having it illegal means you don't have to worry about it as much (you still have to be careful, but it's not like living in the dark ages).

Why would people follow a divine law without proof? It's ridiculous.

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by GrobbeeTrull2.0

The moral truths that are contained in religion didn't go away just because of the fraud you claim happened. We still don't kill people all the time, avoid adultery, etc.

I'm not a historian but it was one of my favorite subjects. My memory is a bit hazy on this but I'm pretty sure most crimes/laws predated religion. For example adultery was outlawed in Babylonian culture due to reasons of inheritance (how the fuck would the father know it's his kids he's passing shit to unless his wife remained faithful).

A lot of Hammurabi's codes were due to social/economic reasons like this.

In any case I think you guys have it the other way around, men were influenced by laws like this to write their works of fiction (religion) and maybe pushed in a few new ones that fit their philosophy.

Even if you believe in [your religion here] you agree that nearly 100% of all other religions are pretty much completely fiction and people came up with these stories. Whomever started writing about Babylonian gods or greek ones knew they were just making up stories. People inevitably took it as truth and I honestly don't see why most religious people don't realize the same for their religion.

Sure it's hard to be swallow at first and religions have many safeguards to prevent you from thinking down this line. But I went through the process of becoming an atheist due to history mostly. It wasn't a particularily happy moment for me but it was liberating, especially if you were Muslim like I was. The amount of things we can't do is just ridiculous.