What is good about religion?

Upchurch said:
True of some religions, not all religions. Be careful of your brush size when you're painting in generalities.



Again, not all religions are the same or have the same methodologies. I'm referring to heretical religion as opposed to orthodoxy. Despite it's dominance in public perception, orthodox religion is not the only game in town.
Click to expand...

Speaking of religions in general doesn't mean anyone thinks all religions are equally bad. It's such a red herring. Six7's said "many"-- not ALL. We are all aware that not all religions are the same. We are also all aware that none of them have been shown to be true. Some might be useful for some things. I'm curious to know more about those things and what the evidence is. They seem to provide a sense of community for many-- a sense of purpose or esteem. I've seen people seemingly more happy and less angst filled from Buddhist and middle Eastern type meditation practices and studies. But when it comes to religion in general, is there anything we can say that it's good for? Is there anything that is good or useful about the majority of them and those who practice them? And if it's based on the idea that faith in something is good, is it worth it? Is believing a lie worth the benefit? If faith is "good", what exactly is it good for?
 
Oh, and I like the guy in the video a lot.
I'm curious as to what others think and why?

If you don't like him, do you know why?

I think I like him because he's right on target, funny, and he confirms my thoughts... only he expresses them better. I think he's the "opposite" of shrill--the adjective so often inflicted upon atheists.

I like him better than the people who don't like him, because I suspect their reasons for not liking him have to do with jealousy, or beliefs they are trying to prop up, or lies they are telling themselves, or because says stuff they don't want to think about. But I might be missing something. Am I? Did he miss a benefit of religion we can evaluate using facts? Did he say something untrue or something others should rightfully find offensive (and not just because its blasphemous or profane per their belief system... I don't think beliefs should get more respect than they are worth just because they involve god--and I sure don't think believers should get more respect than they give Pat Condell and other non-believers... or even those of other faiths they think are wacked.)
 
articulett said:
hear that a lot. What do you mean by morality? We could test the premise with definitions. Do you think religious people are more likely to commit acts of altruism like donating blood? Be less bigoted? Commit less pedophilia? torture? murder? Are they less likely to lie? More likely to empathize with people and other sentient beings like animals--even those unlike them?
Click to expand...

It is somewhat of a problem to measure it. Religion teaches us about ideals. People might, or might not follow them. Teaching about the ideals is very important, however if people don't follow them, it is their own fault, and not the fault of the religion.


Religions teach that religion is necessary for morality--I was taught this. But I see no evidence to support this. The more secular societies have the least dysfunction and are the most prosperous for the most people.
Click to expand...

(1) What do you base this upon?

(2) If you want to make sure you are not confusing correlation with causation, you need to make a double-blinded randomly assigned study.
 
articulett said:
We are also all aware that none of them have been shown to be true.
Click to expand...
What does it mean for a religion to have been shown "true"?


articulett said:
But when it comes to religion in general, is there anything we can say that it's good for?
Click to expand...
I think what I'm asking is: Are religions too diverse to speak of in generalities?

One might as well ask whether there is anything we can say that chemical elements are good for? Yes, some, in the right combination are very beneficial. Other, in the wrong combination are extremely hurtful. But can we pass judgment on all of them, in general?
 
Upchurch said:
True of some religions, not all religions. Be careful of your brush size when you're painting in generalities.
Click to expand...

There is an unstated assumption here that we are talking about non-liberal religion. I don't even characterize liberal religion as a religion, I dunno why they call themselves that. Maybe tax purposes?
 
JetLeg said:
Eh... No. The morality of the Nazis involved

hm... killing Jews?
Click to expand...

So what. It is still a morality. And it was "taught" to all Germans at the time. I am illustrating the danger of "teaching" morality as opposed to finding it for one's self.
 
Am I going to H***?

When I was forced to go to church, as an urchin, so that my parents, who weren't in church, could get rid of me and my wacky brothers for a couple of hours, I discovered this amazing plate from which I could make weekly withdrawals.

On a less larcenous note, I am a new member. I have been a big fan of Randi since he exposed that scumbag, Peter Popoff. I discovered this site by accident on Audio Asylum (the silly cable thing with Fremer).
 
rocketdodger said:
So what. It is still a morality. And it was "taught" to all Germans at the time. I am illustrating the danger of "teaching" morality as opposed to finding it for one's self.
Click to expand...

Hitler is a great example of someone that found the morality of jew-genocide for one's self.
 
JetLeg said:
(2) If you want to make sure you are not confusing correlation with causation, you need to make a double-blinded randomly assigned study.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter in this case. Whether secularization results in a better life, or a better life results in secularization, or most people who have a better life just happen to live in secularized societies, all the combinations don't speak very well for religion.
 
I was most pleased by the last third or so of his video (starting from about
4:40). That could have been me speaking (would that I were that eloquent).
 
JetLeg said:
I agree that the OT has problems.

But nowdays, religion does not teach that. Agree with that?
Click to expand...

No.

According to Jesus, all the laws of the old testament still stand. He was quite specific about that in a number of locations.

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

In addition, Jesus also condoned slavery. (Do you think slavery moral?)

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

1 Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

1 Timothy 6:2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Titus 2:9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;

Luke 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

Luke 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

Luke 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

Jesus also tells everyone to give away everything, reject their own family, etc. (Do I need to quote chapter and verse again? I can do it all day long)

That you and most other people reject a great deal of the 'morality of the bible', keeping just the 'good stuff' indicates rather strongly that we don't get morality from religion, but from our instincts, logic, etc. (by what other facility could anyone sort the bible into its good and bad bits, if not one's own moral compass?)

How do you know that slavery, among many other moral outrages contained in the bible, is wrong? In Jesus's own words, we are still to stone to death children who sass their parents, murder your wife and dump he on her parents step, if you find her not virginal on your wedding night. (the only conclusion to be drawn from not one iota of old law passing)
 
Last edited:
JetLeg said:
Hitler is a great example of someone that found the morality of jew-genocide for one's self.
Click to expand...

*laughs* Is that you Kleinman?

JetLeg, the whole point is that if humans typically thought for themselves, instead of following idiots and their "taught" moralities, then Hitler would have been the only one (or only one of a few) who thought that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom