This is why religion is a problem

[skeptical]

It works either way, since a personal revelation may, in part, go against universal revelations.

I think the key there is "in part".

As an aside, I would also add at this point that I have been quite impressed and have quite enjoyed this discussion with you. As with the best discussion, while we obviously hold differing viewpoints, there has been a very open dialogue and I have actually learned quite a bit, both from addressing these questions, and from answering yours. It is for this reason that I came to this forum and it is always a pleasure to meet, in dialogue, an individual such as yourself. My hat, if I owned one, would be tipped to you.

Back at you, that's why I come here as well. And, I have learned the concepts around revelation are not quite as simple as I thought they were. (as with most things)

You are partially correct. The Roman Catholic church may (and obviously does) reject personal revelation when considered “erroneous”. Yet you are incorrect that an individual who has had a personal revelation, which might go against universal dogma, must then either adhere or be removed from membership. The article pointed out two examples where this was the case with Marie de Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich. Both remained Roman Catholic and continue today to be held up as examples of good members. I want to say both are beatified as well.

This is a bit of a gray area I suppose, but for me the key is that it is entirely at the discretion of the church which revelations count and which don't. IMO, just because they are willing to allow some personal revelations that in some ways go against some principles, that is only the exception that proves the rule. From a practical perspective, a person who says they have a revelation that goes against some core principle of the church is very likely going to be excommunicated, even though there is some slim chance that that church might, for its own reasons, allow that person to remain in the church.

I agree with this definition. In fact, I’ve never thought we disagreed on the meaning of BA. What I’ve disagreed with is your statement, “Boiled down to its essence, most religious systems encourage blind obedience to dogmatic authority, and discourage questioning and letting conclusions follow the evidence.” [emphasis added]

To this point, I have shown that BA is not a requirement or even really encouraged by “most religious systems” and specifically that of the Roman Catholic church, certainly one of the most dogmatic authorities to be found within the realm of religion.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I think it is clear that the church requires adherence to certain beliefs and that these beliefs are in the vast majority of cases not open for discussion. A few exceptions doesn't eliminate the overarching structure of authority backed dogma requiring adherence to the dogma.

This is not to say, as I pointed out to Acleron, that blind adherence doesn’t occur, and occur in the majority of members. Only that the dogmatic authority doesn’t require BA, and that questioning of the authority is allowed of members.

But such questioning is entirely at the discretion of the church, it can silence whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants and will tolerate only those whom it chooses to tolerate. From my perspective, to say that such a system does not _require_ BA is a bit misleading, because all the questioning that the system tolerates is whatever dissent it is willing at that particular moment to tolerate. I also think it is just wrong to say that such adherence is not encouraged. Any system that tells its followers that there is single voice of the Deity, be it a person, group or text, is by its very nature encouraging blind obedience.

I think we have probably taken this as far as we can go on this particular topic, but I am willing to continue the discussion if you would like. I'm just not sure there is much more for either of us to add as I think our respective positions are clear.

 

[RobRoy]

This is a bit of a gray area I suppose, but for me the key is that it is entirely at the discretion of the church which revelations count and which don't. IMO, just because they are willing to allow some personal revelations that in some ways go against some principles, that is only the exception that proves the rule. From a practical perspective, a person who says they have a revelation that goes against some core principle of the church is very likely going to be excommunicated, even though there is some slim chance that that church might, for its own reasons, allow that person to remain in the church.

Agreed. However, the individual who claims a private revelation against a core Roman Catholic belief, say the Ascension of Mary, could, if they maintained that revelation, be excommunicated. But the process if quite rigorous and allows for . . . at least the pretense of an open dialogue before that penalty would be handed out.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I think it is clear that the church requires adherence to certain beliefs and that these beliefs are in the vast majority of cases not open for discussion. A few exceptions doesn't eliminate the overarching structure of authority backed dogma requiring adherence to the dogma.

I actually don't think we disagree on this point except that, as I understand it, everything is open for question. Ultimately, the Roman Catholic church can trump all, regardless of logic or eloquence. But such questioning belies the concept of a required BA.

But such questioning is entirely at the discretion of the church, it can silence whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants and will tolerate only those whom it chooses to tolerate.

This is certainly true in the past. The Roman Catholic church was quite, quite low on the tolerance scale for even a hint of contradiction. But even Martin Luther had his day in court. It took a great deal of time from Luther's dissent to his actual excommunication.

From my perspective, to say that such a system does not _require_ BA is a bit misleading, because all the questioning that the system tolerates is whatever dissent it is willing at that particular moment to tolerate. I also think it is just wrong to say that such adherence is not encouraged. Any system that tells its followers that there is single voice of the Deity, be it a person, group or text, is by its very nature encouraging blind obedience.

On this, you're correct. We'll have to resort to the cliche of agreeing to disagree. Claiming a single voice does not necessitate a blind adherence. My understanding from what I've researched is that is actually the duty of every member to individually verify for themselves any church edicts. That that isn't practiced, and perhaps isn't even encouraged, I wouldn't argue against. I'm sure it would be easier, over all, for the Roman Catholic church and any other similarly organized faith, to require blind adherence. But, as I originally contended, they don't.

I think we have probably taken this as far as we can go on this particular topic, but I am willing to continue the discussion if you would like. I'm just not sure there is much more for either of us to add as I think our respective positions are clear.

Yeppers. Thanks for the discussion, it was actually quite enlightening.

 

[Acleron]

Well, the Roman Catholic church, like all organized religions, seems to think it has evidence in spades. That you or I don’t agree is hardly important to the church.

"Seems", nice word but hardly useful. If the RCs had any proof I might still be a member but alas...
Being in their terms a 'lapsed catholic, and you what you are, the RCs are unlikely to be concerned unless you or I convince any of their brethren to lapse, then you might see how angry they can become

It may seem like it but it’s not. I would agree that the majority of Catholic blindly adhere to these and all the other supposed mysteries of faith. Yet, the point is that blind adherence is not a requirement to be a member. In fact, technically, a member is required to consider deeply the tenets of their faith. A member can easily pursue a course of questioning any or all of the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith and not be excommunicated for that questioning. There is no where within the Roman Catholic dogma where blind faith is required to be a member.

Providing, of course, that all that cognition results in belief and acceptance, otherwise exclusion is the result. For example, as has been mentioned above, if you do not actively support the RCs on their abortion stance you are excluded (sorry excommunicated).

So, wanna bet!?

Yes, most religions want to maintain power, why otherwise would the individuals want to believe in inconsistent, nonsensical, unprovable fairies?

 

[articulett]

At school, I had a certain amount of faith in my teachers and in the text books. These days I have faith in the scientific method and faith in the peer review process. I have some faith in the history professors who have spent many more years than I examining their subjects. I find that faith can be very useful in learning about what is true. I believe that evolution is true based on the faith that the evidence that is claimed does actually exist and that if I were to review it, I would discover the same things.

Would it help if I called your definition of 'faith' a tired old atheistic stupid meme? I'm not quite sure how else I'm going to convince you that the definition you are using is not what "the faithful" (or pretty much anyone else) mean by the word 'faith'.

Let's try this example: You and a friend, after a party, are waiting for a lift from your friend's sister. Your friend says "She's always reliable. I have faith that she'll turn up soon". Does your friend believe this with no evidence or does she know her sister well enough to have built up trust in her and a confidence that she won't let you down?

When a husband is said to be "unfaithful", should we take that to mean that (1) he's not full of belief without evidence or (2) he betrayed his wife's trust and confidence?

Try as you may to change the subject and make false analogies... let's stay on topic. Religion tends to be about "divine truths" and one or more invisible undetectable entities that talk to and influence people and want (demand) that you believe in them. For some reason, the most important thing to these entities (and by proxy the mortals who speak for them or write their books or interpret their stories) is faith and obedience... most religions make that the "highest good"-- the path to eternal glory. No matter how you slice it, that is a very manipulative meme. Sure, some might really be in touch or really know what the invisible immeasurable unknowable creator of the universe wants-- but you wouldn't know how to tell if they did. Nor would that daughter... nor would people having delusions... nor would people experiencing confirmation bias and getting signs... nor would people afraid not to believe... afraid of eternal torment.

That is a fact. That is the fact you conveniently ignore with your straw men. We live in a world where every one rushes to make excuses for religion that they don't make for other superstions or forms of delusion... this was obvious when I substituted "belief in psychics" for faith. Playing word games because faith means different things might distract you from the topic... but we are talking about faith that god tells people by proxy what he wants... or communicates telepathically. All gods are indistinguishable from delusions of gods past. All gods are indistinguishable from imaginary friends. Even your god.

Is it smart to be raising a world of people with this vulnerability? I think it's cruel. You have no control over which voices in their head or which people will convince them that they've accessed the divine. I point out the obvious. There is no evidence of any divine truths... nor is there evidence that faith is good for anything except fooling yourself and others.

Lack of belief is not a belief. Opinion is not a fact. Faith is the opposite of critical thinking. Your words are distractions for yourself. You want to believe that faith in gods can't possibly lead to awful things, so you lie to yourself and cover for the awful things it can lead to. You make bad guys out of people who point out the obvious.

If faith was good or true, there would be no need for all the side tracking and fear of probing. There would be no need to see malice in the critics that isn't there. If god were real, he could surely fight his own battles. He doesn't needs a person tossing up straw man left and right to defend him.

To me, faith makes people less rational... but they imagine themselves more rational. It makes them arrogant while imagining that those who claim no divine truths are arrogant. IT makes people feel like they know more than the very people who might actually teach them something while praising preachers who are supposedly experts on unknowable things--myths-- the imagination.

Do you believe that god communicates with humans? Do you think it's good to believe that? Quit dithering around definitions... and get to the point. Is that a good thing to encourage people to believe? If so, are people just supposed to have an "inner knowingness" about whether it's god or not god? Are they supposed to ask you? Your preacher? Your holy book? Weren't the hijackers praying to Allah on 9-11? Weren't the passengers? How do you know whose god was listening?

 

[RobRoy]

"Seems", nice word but hardly useful. If the RCs had any proof I might still be a member but alas...

Depends on who you are. For me, their evidence doesn't work so well. But for others, it works perfectly. <shrug>

Being in their terms a 'lapsed catholic, and you what you are, the RCs are unlikely to be concerned unless you or I convince any of their brethren to lapse, then you might see how angry they can become

Out of curiosity, and with the caveat that you can tell me to go to hell, why did you lapse? Was it a lack of evidence? The recent crises the RC church has been facing? Something else? Again, just curious, and I understand if you're not interested in discussing it.

Providing, of course, that all that cognition results in belief and acceptance, otherwise exclusion is the result. For example, as has been mentioned above, if you do not actively support the RCs on their abortion stance you are excluded (sorry excommunicated).

I could go down the semantic arguments, but in the main you are correct. Exceptions have been made, but more often then not, if a member challenge the Roman Catholic church to duel, and insist on it being to the death, that member isn't going to win.

On the other hand, I was not trying to prove that this particular point. I was trying to show that the Roman Catholic church doesn't require blind adherence. A member can challenge church doctrine and take it to the hilt, while still being a member. A member can have personal revelation that doesn't impact their membership. A member is technically required to personally sustain any and all church doctrines as part of their membership.

Yes, most religions want to maintain power, why otherwise would the individuals want to believe in inconsistent, nonsensical, unprovable fairies?

Sorry, not certain what this has to do with the point of blind adherence under Pope Benedict? Can you please explain?

 

[AkuManiMani]

<snip>

But still, I'm glad you recognise that faith is a bad thing.

Actually, there is nothing wrong with faith, in the general sense. Faith becomes problematic if it is unfounded and/or unconditional.

One can have faith that a manufacture they buy from produces, and will continue to produce, safe products. If that person continues to have faith in that manufacturer despite clear evidence that their product is harmful then it is no longer faith; it's delusion.

 

[Stone Island]

Perhaps because Stalin didn't use atheism as a reason for murdering millions.

Does anyone ever read Marx anymore? Lenin? Koestler's Darkness at Noon?

According to its adherents, the Communist revolution is a scientific, materialistic, historically necessary revolution. The sacrifice of individuals, even placing a bomb in a crowded restaurant, if it moves society "down the road" ,as Fiedler says in The Spy Who Came in From The Cold, is absolutely necessary.

 

[RobRoy]

Actually, there is nothing wrong with faith, in the general sense. Faith becomes problematic if it is unfounded and/or unconditional.

Is it possible to determine that religious faith is unfounded?

 

[Acleron]

Out of curiosity, and with the caveat that you can tell me to go to hell, why did you lapse? Was it a lack of evidence? The recent crises the RC church has been facing? Something else? Again, just curious, and I understand if you're not interested in discussing it.

My story is quite simple. I couldn't quite see the sense in being told I must believe something that couldn't be proven. The pivotal point was in school at the age of 14. Most of us in the class were very interested in science and one teacher decided to prove the miracles scientifically. For one example of his ineptitude he claimed the Red Sea was parted by a wind, he became extremely angry when I pointed out a wind capable of forming a channel in the sea to the bedrock would have blown over the Israelites. That was the time when I also realised that people who become angry when questioned often have no evidence.

I could go down the semantic arguments, but in the main you are correct. Exceptions have been made, but more often then not, if a member challenge the Roman Catholic church to duel, and insist on it being to the death, that member isn't going to win.

On the other hand, I was not trying to prove that this particular point. I was trying to show that the Roman Catholic church doesn't require blind adherence. A member can challenge church doctrine and take it to the hilt, while still being a member. A member can have personal revelation that doesn't impact their membership. A member is technically required to personally sustain any and all church doctrines as part of their membership.

Sorry but I feel you contradict yourself. You are saying that providing an RC doesn't disagree with the authority of the church then he/she is OK. The authorities in RC interpret the scriptures, if you disagree with their interpretation you will be excluded. To maintain your membership you must agree with all their pronouncements, surely this is blind adherence. You may argue about something that is not considered by the authorities to be essential, but the moment they state that it is essential, you have to agree.

Yes, most religions want to maintain power, why otherwise would the individuals want to believe in inconsistent, nonsensical, unprovable fairies?

Sorry, not certain what this has to do with the point of blind adherence under Pope Benedict? Can you please explain?

The point I was trying to make here, very badly, is that religions are a power base. If they truly believed in 'turn the other cheek', 'fellowship of man' etc and the fairies, they would not spend so much time combatting the ungodliness ie everyone else who doesn't share their delusions. However look at the major religions, by their very identity, they are committed to proving themselves correct and everyone else wrong. They cannot use force of moral argument to show why they are correct, they have to rely on arguments they have acquired from people who were barely out of the stone age. They have to rely on blind adherence to their own arguments because reason destroys much of what they say.

 

[Acleron]

Does anyone ever read Marx anymore? Lenin? Koestler's Darkness at Noon?

According to its adherents, the Communist revolution is a scientific, materialistic, historically necessary revolution. The sacrifice of individuals, even placing a bomb in a crowded restaurant, if it moves society "down the road" ,as Fiedler says in The Spy Who Came in From The Cold, is absolutely necessary.

Yes, religion is the opiate of the masses. Marx saw religion as an obstacle to his future society and it can be fairly claimed that he wanted to destroy relgion and replace the population with thinking atheists. Lenin and Stalin had more pragmatic problems. Lenin needed to wean his population away from religion because of its close association with the deposed royalty. Stalin just wanted to remain in power. Did either of these two think that they needed to kill people because they themselves were atheists? Very doubtful.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Is it possible to determine that religious faith is unfounded?

Why sir, that would depend upon the religion

Yes, religion is the opiate of the masses. Marx saw religion as an obstacle to his future society and it can be fairly claimed that he wanted to destroy relgion and replace the population with thinking atheists. Lenin and Stalin had more pragmatic problems. Lenin needed to wean his population away from religion because of its close association with the deposed royalty. Stalin just wanted to remain in power. Did either of these two think that they needed to kill people because they themselves were atheists? Very doubtful.

Did it occur to you that perhaps Marxism/Leninism was virulent secular cult that is essentially the same as theistic fundamentalism, sans the heavenly taskmaster?

 

[RobRoy]

My story is quite simple. I couldn't quite see the sense in being told I must believe something that couldn't be proven. The pivotal point was in school at the age of 14. Most of us in the class were very interested in science and one teacher decided to prove the miracles scientifically. For one example of his ineptitude he claimed the Red Sea was parted by a wind, he became extremely angry when I pointed out a wind capable of forming a channel in the sea to the bedrock would have blown over the Israelites. That was the time when I also realised that people who become angry when questioned often have no evidence.

That's a great story. It reminds me of my history class teacher, who was actually a coach (and a nice guy) who had us take an open book test on Nazi Germany. One of the questions asked what kind of party the Nazi's were. The book's exactly line, which I recall to this day, read, "The Nazi's claimed to be a socialist party. They were not. They were a fascist party."

I scored well on the test, but got this wrong, with about everyone else in the class because we'd all written "They were a fascist party" just like the book said. In this class, we were allowed to challenge wrong answers, but when I did so, the teacher insisted the book's first line was the one we should learn: that the Nazi's were a socialist party. It came to the point where the teacher was so angry with me that he gave me a choice, I could argue this in the vice-principal's office, or I could agree he was right. Guess which I chose.

Sorry but I feel you contradict yourself. You are saying that providing an RC doesn't disagree with the authority of the church then he/she is OK. The authorities in RC interpret the scriptures, if you disagree with their interpretation you will be excluded. To maintain your membership you must agree with all their pronouncements, surely this is blind adherence. You may argue about something that is not considered by the authorities to be essential, but the moment they state that it is essential, you have to agree.

There is no contradiction in what I'm saying. If it appears so, then that's my fault for not properly communicating. Let me run you thought a theoretical example:

The Roman Catholic church "reveals" that X is true.
A Roman Catholic member, who we'll call Bill, for whatever reason, questions the truth of X.
Bill takes his question to his priest. They argue inconclusively.
Bill takes his question to his bishop. They argue inconclusively.
Bill takes his question to his cardinal. They argue inconclusively.
Bill takes his question to an ecumenical council, the pope, or some other appointed body. They argue inconclusively.

At no point in Bill's questioning and arguing has he been excommunicated. Bill, as a good, upstanding member of the Roman Catholic church didn't just blather on incoherently, but studied his scriptures, the church doctrines, etc., and provided sound theological arguments for his position in counter to the church's position.

Now, I do agree that at this point in the argument, Bill and the church are at an impasse, and as I said before, if you challenge the church to a duel to the death, they are going to win. Bill, if he is not convinced by the church's arguments, likely faces a choice of adherence or excommunication. In some cases, the church could come to the conclusion that Bill's personal perspective is just that, does not apply universally to the Roman Catholic church, and thus Bill can hold his perspective. But I've already admitted this is pretty rare.

Still, if Bill chooses to remain a member of the Roman Catholic church, he has hardly chosen that blindly. The church does not require blind adherence from its members, and every member is supposed to individually verify all of the church's tenets.

If the church did require blind adherence, Bill would never make it past his priest, and would be excommunicated on the spot for challenging the church in any capacity.

So, while it is adherence to the church in the end, it is not blind adherence. At least, for every member, it shouldn't be.

The point I was trying to make here, very badly, is that religions are a power base. If they truly believed in 'turn the other cheek', 'fellowship of man' etc and the fairies, they would not spend so much time combatting the ungodliness ie everyone else who doesn't share their delusions.

Can you please provide me with examples and statistics of how much time a particular faith spends "combating the ungodliness in everyone who doesn't share their delusions"? Since we've been using the Roman Catholic church, that one will suffice. This is not said with any irony.

However look at the major religions, by their very identity, they are committed to proving themselves correct and everyone else wrong.

Which religions are these? My understanding, which I'm guessing you're disputing, is that almost every major faith is based on a principle of "do unto others" rather than "we are correct". I would make the exception of the LDS faith, which does seem to spend a great deal of time in discussion of how they are correct to the exclusion of others, but that's an exception that proves the rule.

They cannot use force of moral argument to show why they are correct, they have to rely on arguments they have acquired from people who were barely out of the stone age. They have to rely on blind adherence to their own arguments because reason destroys much of what they say.

Given that religious papers and arguments are being presented, examined, questioned, and argued among almost every major faith today, I feel that the above is quite incorrect. If what you're saying were true, there would be no need for the general conferences and councils that are convened all the time.

 

[RobRoy]

Why sir, that would depend upon the religion

So then your answer is yes. What measures do we use to determine if a religious faith is unfounded? Again, there is no irony said with this question.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

What could be more proper for this thread than quoting Thomas Paine: “Of all the tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst. Every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in, but this attempts a stride beyond the grave and seeks to pursue us into eternity.”

 

[Acleron]

Did it occur to you that perhaps Marxism/Leninism was virulent secular cult that is essentially the same as theistic fundamentalism, sans the heavenly taskmaster?

I had to read that several times before, I think, I understood it. My understanding of Marx is that as an experimental philosopher he would not have achieved many marxs (sic myself) unless Lenin hadn't unsuccessfully tried to implement his ideals. Now Marx presumably believed in his own theories although they couldn't be tested (another common facet of phliosophers). OK that explains my interpretation of the Marx/Lenin deal.

Now to deal with whether I had ever considered that Marx/Leninism was a virulent secular cult. The answer is a considered yes.

Of course I have also considered many other explanations of what happened in Russia before, during and after the revolution. The most probable model is that which I elucidated in my previous post. Certain people seem to think that being an atheist means being against a particular or all deities. I would ask them to think logically. How can some one think they are against something that they believe does not exist?

 

[Acleron]

That's a great story. It reminds me of my history class teacher, who was actually a coach (and a nice guy) who had us take an open book test on Nazi Germany. One of the questions asked what kind of party the Nazi's were. The book's exactly line, which I recall to this day, read, "The Nazi's claimed to be a socialist party. They were not. They were a fascist party."

I scored well on the test, but got this wrong, with about everyone else in the class because we'd all written "They were a fascist party" just like the book said. In this class, we were allowed to challenge wrong answers, but when I did so, the teacher insisted the book's first line was the one we should learn: that the Nazi's were a socialist party. It came to the point where the teacher was so angry with me that he gave me a choice, I could argue this in the vice-principal's office, or I could agree he was right. Guess which I chose.

I feel that we are on the same planet and wish to discuss rather than destroy each other (of course I could be wrong).

There is no contradiction in what I'm saying. If it appears so, then that's my fault for not properly communicating. Let me run you thought a theoretical example:

The Roman Catholic church "reveals" that X is true.
A Roman Catholic member, who we'll call Bill, for whatever reason, questions the truth of X.
Bill takes his question to his priest. They argue inconclusively.
Bill takes his question to his bishop. They argue inconclusively.
Bill takes his question to his cardinal. They argue inconclusively.
Bill takes his question to an ecumenical council, the pope, or some other appointed body. They argue inconclusively.

At no point in Bill's questioning and arguing has he been excommunicated. Bill, as a good, upstanding member of the Roman Catholic church didn't just blather on incoherently, but studied his scriptures, the church doctrines, etc., and provided sound theological arguments for his position in counter to the church's position.

Now, I do agree that at this point in the argument, Bill and the church are at an impasse, and as I said before, if you challenge the church to a duel to the death, they are going to win. Bill, if he is not convinced by the church's arguments, likely faces a choice of adherence or excommunication. In some cases, the church could come to the conclusion that Bill's personal perspective is just that, does not apply universally to the Roman Catholic church, and thus Bill can hold his perspective. But I've already admitted this is pretty rare.

Still, if Bill chooses to remain a member of the Roman Catholic church, he has hardly chosen that blindly. The church does not require blind adherence from its members, and every member is supposed to individually verify all of the church's tenets.

If the church did require blind adherence, Bill would never make it past his priest, and would be excommunicated on the spot for challenging the church in any capacity.

So, while it is adherence to the church in the end, it is not blind adherence. At least, for every member, it shouldn't be.

So the only way that Bill can stay a member of the church is through sheer hypocrisy. He doesn't agree with the tenet required by the church but for other reasons decides to stay. I felt we were arguing about people with the morals of perhaps Martin Luther.

Can you please provide me with examples and statistics of how much time a particular faith spends "combating the ungodliness in everyone who doesn't share their delusions"? Since we've been using the Roman Catholic church, that one will suffice. This is not said with any irony.

I cannot imagine what kind of statistics would be valuable in this discussion, perhaps deaths per religion, miracles per pope. No mathematical ratio comes to mind but examples from the RC that are known are easy. I linked you through to the 21st Century, you might try the 20 Century for equally inane reasons.

Which religions are these? My understanding, which I'm guessing you're disputing, is that almost every major faith is based on a principle of "do unto others" rather than "we are correct". I would make the exception of the LDS faith, which does seem to spend a great deal of time in discussion of how they are correct to the exclusion of others, but that's an exception that proves the rule.

Your guess is wrong. Each faith ( substitute blind reasoning, ie without evidence, to make it clear) believes in different aims. Sometimes the difference is so esoteric it requires the functions of a philosopher to make clear the difference. RC is a good example, if a non-RC marries an RC in an RC church it is demanded that the children be brought up as RCs. If they were not so uptight about their own interpretation of god, why the stipulation.

Given that religious papers and arguments are being presented, examined, questioned, and argued among almost every major faith today, I feel that the above is quite incorrect. If what you're saying were true, there would be no need for the general conferences and councils that are convened all the time.

Oh dear, let me give you an example from an equally deluded set of people. Homeopaths meet and discuss their treatments, they present papers and convene conferences. All of this is totally valueless. If what I said was true, and it is, there would be no need for religion, unfortunately I don't see an end to their vacuous discussion.

 

[Acleron]

What could be more proper for this thread than quoting Thomas Paine: “Of all the tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst. Every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in, but this attempts a stride beyond the grave and seeks to pursue us into eternity.”

I hate you for reminding me of that quote .

It's just the jealousy I feel that someone can so accurately convey my feelings in so few words but with such meaning.

But thanks for reminding us.

 

[AkuManiMani]

So then your answer is yes. What measures do we use to determine if a religious faith is unfounded? Again, there is no irony said with this question.

I personally consider religion to generally be benign and harmless as long as it is not exploitative and does not require adherence to doctrines that contradict known facts and violate the rights of others. I accept it as a natural [tho, not necessarily universal] part of the human condition that, like so many other things, can be a force for good or ill. IMO, one should only have as much faith as ignorance allows, and even then be cautious.

I had to read that several times before, I think, I understood it. My understanding of Marx is that as an experimental philosopher he would not have achieved many marxs (sic myself) unless Lenin hadn't unsuccessfully tried to implement his ideals. Now Marx presumably believed in his own theories although they couldn't be tested (another common facet of phliosophers). OK that explains my interpretation of the Marx/Lenin deal.

Now to deal with whether I had ever considered that Marx/Leninism was a virulent secular cult. The answer is a considered yes.

Of course I have also considered many other explanations of what happened in Russia before, during and after the revolution. The most probable model is that which I elucidated in my previous post. Certain people seem to think that being an atheist means being against a particular or all deities. I would ask them to think logically. How can some one think they are against something that they believe does not exist?

<emphasis added>

That last statement pretty much sums but my view that strong anti-theists are stuck in the same paradigm as theists. In a way they are repressed theists in much the same way that many homophobes are repressed homosexuals themselves.

As to the question of Marxism/Leninism being cultic I would have to say that while Marx's original formulation was merely that; personal views open to revision over time -- it metastasized into something much less benign. By the time it was translated into a political movement, it was hardened into the basis of a dogmatic [and very violent] ideology that, for all intents and purposes, was cultic.

As far as I can tell, the movement is a text book example exhibiting that much of the behavior commonly associated with theistic thinking is more a product of groupthink than something that emerges strictly from a religious framework. Events like those that unfolded in Soviet Russia and medieval europe are basically manifestation of the same sociological phenomenon but with different cultural trappings -- tho modern technology in the case of the former made the effects much more pronounced.

 

[RobRoy]

I feel that we are on the same planet and wish to discuss rather than destroy each other (of course I could be wrong).

Not exactly certain what you mean here.

So the only way that Bill can stay a member of the church is through sheer hypocrisy. He doesn't agree with the tenet required by the church but for other reasons decides to stay. I felt we were arguing about people with the morals of perhaps Martin Luther.

For the sake of simplicity, yeppers, you're right. But the point here is that Bill can question his faith, and Bill is hardly being forced into blind adherence.

I cannot imagine what kind of statistics would be valuable in this discussion, perhaps deaths per religion, miracles per pope.

Well how do you define "combatting the ungodliness ie everyone else who doesn't share their delusions." If it's just excommunication, by the figures you've provided, there just doesn't seem to be that many, given the size of the Roman Catholic church. That suggests that they don't spend very much time at all in "combating the ungodliness".

Your guess is wrong. Each faith ( substitute blind reasoning, ie without evidence, to make it clear) believes in different aims. Sometimes the difference is so esoteric it requires the functions of a philosopher to make clear the difference. RC is a good example, if a non-RC marries an RC in an RC church it is demanded that the children be brought up as RCs. If they were not so uptight about their own interpretation of god, why the stipulation.

I'm not certain what this has to do with the majority of faiths being founded on a "do unto others" base premise. Please advise.

Oh dear, let me give you an example from an equally deluded set of people. Homeopaths meet and discuss their treatments, they present papers and convene conferences. All of this is totally valueless. If what I said was true, and it is, there would be no need for religion, unfortunately I don't see an end to their vacuous discussion.

Not at all what I was discussing. You stated, ". . . they have to rely on arguments they have acquired from people who were barely out of the stone age." That's simply not true. Theological arguments are being offered and reviewed constantly.

This is apples to loaves and fishes anyhow. Homeopaths are trying to prove they're a legitimate science without using scientific foundations and ignoring any scientific findings.

 

[RobRoy]

I personally consider religion to generally be benign and harmless as long as it is not exploitative and does not require adherence to doctrines that contradict known facts and violate the rights of others. I accept it as a natural [tho, not necessarily universal] part of the human condition that, like so many other things, can be a force for good or ill. IMO, one should only have as much faith as ignorance allows, and even then be cautious.

I can agree with this, quite heartily in fact. So by this measure, which faiths would you then consider to be unfounded?