What is good about religion?

[JetLeg]

Ah, so you agree that the Bible is self-contradictory. Unusual.

If there is a contradiction, it means that there is a need for interpretation. Not in a bad way, as when you and I would contradict ourselves.

 

[scotth]

What about this : try to feel the meaning with your heart.

Because that is a (proven) horrible method for finding the truth.

 

[JetLeg]

I tried but I started getting a tingling feeling in my left arm.

Come on, be serious.

 

[scotth]

If there is a contradiction, it means that there is a need for interpretation. Not in a bad way, as when you and I would contradict ourselves.

So, what else are you going to make up as you go along?

 

[JetLeg]

Because that is a (proven) horrible method for finding the truth.

I agree that it might have some problems, but how is it (proven) exactly?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

1) You have to follow the right taught morality.
2) It has to be taught by god and not by someone else.

That's right, you have to be right in the head, boy! The problem is every religion things it's right. Who's got the inside scoop on what's "right"? You? The Pope? Jim Jones? Hitler? This fictitious god that people talk about?

Kind of a difficult question...or maybe really easy. It depends on what side of the fence you are looking from.

It's simple.

You have a spiritual text. And in it there are things about loving your brother, and being good. So, you can assume that the writer is not a lunatic.

Then you see that he says "Sell all of your belongings". So, you can safely assume that he did not mean that literally, since then it would be lunacy.

Wow, you're being real selective on what parts of the holy text you want to believe in. It's all supposed to be the word of god, no? You're supposed to follow it all. You can't "safely assume" anything. Your immortal soul depends on it!

 

[Skeptic Guy]

What about this : try to feel the meaning with your heart.

Dude, you're watching too many Hollywood movies. You need to use reason to achieve understanding. That comes from an area a bit north of the heart.

 

[articulett]

What does it mean for a religion to have been shown "true"?



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?

How come if we say something negative, people think we're speaking in "generalities"-- aren't those speaking of the benefits of religion speaking in generalities. Are people afraid that if they say something good about religion, people will think they are defending all religions-- I've actually started accusing people of that when they hear every negative comment about religion as an attack on all religions. Sure, not all religions "suck the life out of people"--but the vast majority claim to have "higher truths" that they expect you to access via faith and feelings. I think, that, in itself is a nutty notion to inflict in anyone. Prove that there are higher truths and that faith is good for accessing anything true before proffering such unthinking platitudes on trusting folks--and then swearing it's necessary for salvation.

If all religious people taught their beliefs, the way they'd like the Muslims, Scientologists, etc. to teach their beliefs (as beliefs...not truths... and one brand of millions, for example), then it might be good. But what religion doesn't claim to have access to "higher" (unproveable) truths and invent reasons why one must access them?

As for truths-- there is no evidence for gods, "higher truths", souls, afterlives-- none... despite eons of belief... no evidence for heavens or hells or that "life is a test" to determine your eternity... no evidence of reincarnation... or any of it. So, all faiths are according to the evidence they have for them, equally likely to have claims on the truth. And there are millions of them--as many as there are human imaginations that can define such invisible immeasurable concepts. But there is only one reality... and the facts tend to correspond with that reality... the ones that are the same for everybody. So I think that teaching a "belief" as a "higher truth" necessary for happiness or salvation or morality is a LIE. And a harmful one at that.

 

[Raskolnikov123]

The big benefit to religion that I see in history is the extent to which it drove literacy, writing, and education. It isn't too much of an exaggeration to say that writing and literacy were primarily developed so that religions could keep track of sacred stories and rules, and pass them on to believers without having to recite them from memory repeatedly.

That isn't to say that writing was invented for that purpose, but that its the primary reason people actually *did* learn to read and write.

 

[rocketdodger]

What about this : try to feel the meaning with your heart.

Even that would be fine. The problem is that religion tells people "feel the meaning with your heart ... and this is the meaning you should be feeling ... if not, then please sit still and do not resist the mental reconditioning."

 

[scotth]

I agree that it might have some problems, but how is it (proven) exactly?

Because, when people go with heart, their odds of being right are about nil. (or about the same as chance in a multiple choice situation)


Relying on your 'heart' is the same and make up what ever you like that you that makes you feel good about it. How on Earth could that possibly be a good way of figuring something out?

 

[JohnChasWebb]

"Religion", in the very least, introduces concepts and ideas of alternate dimensions of reality and then presents ideas as to how to go about attaining access to alternate dimensions.
I am not defending 'religion', I believe that 'religions' are best if investigated, as to their beliefs, rather than joined.

 

[rocketdodger]

That isn't to say that writing was invented for that purpose, but that its the primary reason people actually *did* learn to read and write.

And in North Korea, the primary reason anything even remotely good happens is for the glory of Kimmy boy. Does that mean the reign of that bastard is a good thing?

The gaping flaw in your argument is the assumption that those things would not have happened in the absence of religion, or even under different, nicer religions.

 

[JetLeg]

Even that would be fine. The problem is that religion tells people "feel the meaning with your heart ... and this is the meaning you should be feeling ... if not, then please sit still and do not resist the mental reconditioning."

Where and when??

 

[JetLeg]

Because, when people go with heart, their odds of being right are about nil. (or about the same as chance in a multiple choice situation)


Relying on your 'heart' is the same and make up what ever you like that you that makes you feel good about it. How on Earth could that possibly be a good way of figuring something out?

Maybe life is just designed this way that the thing we feel best about (god) is also true? God wanted us to have a gateway to him - our deep feelings about him & the bible.

 

[articulett]

That would be complete lunacy, if taken literally, so one needs an interpretation here.

That's a convenient interpretation. Who are you to decide which of god's words are to be taken literally and which ones aren't. If you really had faith, you'd donate your stuff to a good non-profit (and non-prophet) organization like JREF. Besides, don't you think the rapture is eminent? Is this really the time to be picking and choosing about which of god's words were "lunacy"?

 

[articulett]

And I still do not understand what the Nazi have to do with anything in the first place.

Almost all of them claimed to be followers of Jesus--the new testaments teachings... just like you...they used the bible to endorse their genocide-- and all white supremacist groups refer to themselves as "Christian Groups", and as far as I know, they always have. The KKK wants to be known first for it's "Christianity"...

 

[Cello Man]

The big benefit to religion that I see in history is the extent to which it drove literacy, writing, and education. It isn't too much of an exaggeration to say that writing and literacy were primarily developed so that religions could keep track of sacred stories and rules, and pass them on to believers without having to recite them from memory repeatedly.

That isn't to say that writing was invented for that purpose, but that its the primary reason people actually *did* learn to read and write.

Or as I like to call it: Doing a potentially good thing for all the wrong reasons.

 

[scotth]

The big benefit to religion that I see in history is the extent to which it drove literacy, writing, and education.

You must be completely ignorant of the dark ages. And the church had zero interest in most people being able to read the bible for themselves for the vast bulk of history. In fact, it was positively put down by the church.

It isn't too much of an exaggeration to say that writing and literacy were primarily developed so that religions could keep track of sacred stories and rules, and pass them on to believers without having to recite them from memory repeatedly.

Yes it would be. Especially since writing predates any religion we've ever heard of. Writing seems most likely to have been allowed and necessited by the advent of the agrarian lifestyle.

That isn't to say that writing was invented for that purpose, but that its the primary reason people actually *did* learn to read and write.

Again, no. Your grasp of history is incorrect. Pretty much from the fall of Rome to the Renaissance, the church had little interest in the common people being able to read and even less interest in them being able to read the bible for themselves.

ETA: I am only speaking to literacy in western societies, I know little to nothing about the history of literacy of other cultures.

 

[JetLeg]

Almost all of them claimed to be followers of Jesus--the new testaments teachings... just like you...they used the bible to endorse their genocide--

Any references?

and all white supremacist groups refer to themselves as "Christian Groups", and as far as I know, they always have. The KKK wants to be known first for it's "Christianity"...

They obviously got it wrong. You know, "Love your neighbour as yourself" does not equal kill him...