What is good about religion?

rocketdodger said:
Humor, including sarcastic humor you do not find humorous, is as valid a medium as any other. Critical thinkers understand that a point made, whether in a humorous rant or a peer reviewed journal, is still a point, and the only important quality in points is whether they are valid or not.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's take part of his clip for consideration, shall we? Islam. You might think that he has nothing good to say about Islam, but actually he likes their symbol, because it gives him the opportunity to be a jackass about Christianity's symbol. And heheh...he likes the synchronized bowing; and gosh, radical Islam sure is dangerous, which is conclusive proof that ... all religion is dangerous, I guess? (that appears to me to be what he's saying; since his medium is "sarcastic humor" I have to extrapolate a little)

Exactly what message do you get from that whose validity you think I should judge? Other than the highly logical "radical Islam is dangerous so religion in general can't be harmless" one, anyway?

It seems like you are saying that one can safely ignore any communication they find distasteful. I don't think that is a very smart policy.
Click to expand...

I am saying that I can safely disregard this one, specific communication from a known idiot (I'm not judging this in a vacuum, see; I've watched his other stuff and consider it to be completely devoid of merit.) Not really the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Gregory said:
I'm not judging this in a vacuum, see; I've watched his other stuff and consider it to be completely devoid of merit.
Click to expand...

This implies that you are contrasting Condell with one or more others who are not "completely devoid of merit"

Please identify them
 
Plus they had all these church dances and camps and encounter groups that I liked at around age 13 or 14, because you could meet guys. But any seriously religious guy was to be avoided. You could use religion inside of your lack of attraction to reject a guy. And you could pretend your crush was religious inspired love... But before that, religion just caused angst... and after that, it made no sense. It seems to prop up a teenage world view of simplicity and "good guys" and "bad guys" and certainty of rightness and preference for "feelings" over facts for gaining knowledge.
 
rocketdodger said:
I don't want to be mean, but its pretty funny to see this post coming from someone who's avatar title is "Critical Thinker."
.............................

It seems like you are saying that one can safely ignore any communication they find distasteful. I don't think that is a very smart policy.
Click to expand...
Being smart might involve filtering out nonsense that is not worth one's time or effort ..

Nowhere did Gregory say one can safely ignore any communication..
That strawman is all your own.

.. and in this particular instance he didn't ignore it, he watched a few seconds and decided not to waste any more time on it .. Sounds pretty critical to me ..
My critical sense led me not to watch it at all.. About as critical as I can be …



If you really don't want to be mean, then you shouldn't be.
If you choose to be mean, then obviously you do want to ..
 
Both reason and religion are methods arising from the same wistful belief; the belief in justice, whether that justice originates with a divine outside power or from the merit that humans earn by rational problem-solving alone. Both reason and religion also assume that the human condition makes some kind of sense, and that it isn't just a terrible joke.

Yet, neither reason nor religion can flourish when the people are convinced, deep down, that the entire universe is somehow rigged against them or laughing at them behind their backs.
 
Gregory said:
I am saying that I can safely disregard this one, specific communication from a known idiot (I'm not judging this in a vacuum, see; I've watched his other stuff and consider it to be completely devoid of merit.) Not really the same thing.
Click to expand...

Well, enlighten us. Why do you think he is a known idiot? How do you imagine you come off as less angry than him or as saying more useful things? Since you are familiar with him, is there something good about religion he doesn't seem to notice? I don't think he comes off as angry; I think YOU come off as angry. Maybe your opinion about him would be useful. Could you give examples and how you would express yourself differently? You sound judgmental, but without anything to back it up from my perspective. Did you just weigh in to say you find the guy an idiot and yourself so much better? What sort of things do you say that you find are "worth listening to", "viewing" or "reading" beyond what you've assessed of his gifts? You might have a point. But so far it seems to be mostly in your head, I think. Are you mad because he doesn't find much to like about religion? Perhaps he's overlooked stuff-- but we won't know unless someone tells us. And don't be vague as you are with your unsupported opinions and assertions so far. They aren't facts just because you state them as such, you know.
 
Gregory said:
I am saying that I can safely disregard this one, specific communication from a known idiot (I'm not judging this in a vacuum, see; I've watched his other stuff and consider it to be completely devoid of merit.) Not really the same thing.
Click to expand...

In that case Gregory I apologize. I didn't know you had a priori knowledge about the guy that you could use to judge this video.
 
Fnord said:
Both reason and religion are methods arising from the same wistful belief; the belief in justice, whether that justice originates with a divine outside power or from the merit that humans earn by rational problem-solving alone. Both reason and religion also assume that the human condition makes some kind of sense, and that it isn't just a terrible joke.

Yet, neither reason nor religion can flourish when the people are convinced, deep down, that the entire universe is somehow rigged against them or laughing at them behind their backs.
Click to expand...

Who believes that? What "human condition"?-- yes, I think it makes rational sense... no I don't think it's a terrible joke... but I don't see what religion or reason has to do with either. Justice? In a nebulous afterlife where a god punishes all the people you think are evil and rewards you and your ilk with eternal glorious salvation. How childish.

Primates evolved a desire for "fairness"--it helps build cooperative societies. But what could be more fair than everybody fading out of consciousness exactly as they faded in-- It's the ultimate neutrality. Religion makes up answers that you can never test about things you cannot measure in any way and invents a problem for which belief in it is the only solution.

The facts don't care about what's "fair" or who believes in them or whether you find them awe-inspiring and unfathomable or a "big sad joke"-- they just are. Religion keeps you from understanding them-- and that might be a good thing for those convinced that such knowledge is nihilistic or makes the "human condition" a cosmic joke. If it's a "joke"-- then it's just a joke to humans... and you may as well be laughing along with it.

I think peoples' anger and defense at such information is a shield to keep them from having to provide evidence for the value of faith-- to keep them from having to think about what he's saying. But I could be wrong. Does anyone have any evidence that religion is good for something. It all sounds like words with unprovable nebulous premises. If it's good for something does that make it useful to prop it up as "truth" as opposed to a philosophy or belief?
 
Diogenes said:
Being smart might involve filtering out nonsense that is not worth one's time or effort .
Click to expand...

My point was that I thought using only a single sentence as filter input seemed to be rather narrow. For instance, the second sentence could have been "The previous statement was something someone else said that I disagree with."

Yes that is contrived, but you get my gist.

Diogenes said:
Nowhere did Gregory say one can safely ignore any communication..
That strawman is all your own.
Click to expand...

I know and I apologize. I assumed the only information he was filtering on was that single sentence.
 
Fnord said:
Both reason and religion are methods arising from the same wistful belief; the belief in justice, whether that justice originates with a divine outside power or from the merit that humans earn by rational problem-solving alone. Both reason and religion also assume that the human condition makes some kind of sense, and that it isn't just a terrible joke.
Click to expand...

I would say "spirituality" instead of "religion" as a method.

Religion, on the other hand, is dictated spirituality, and it uses the goals and benefits (if there are any) of spirituality to rationalize its existence. Face it -- the primary purpose of religion is as a tool of domination. That is why there is not a single popular religion, not a single one that doesn't preach (and thereby enforce) some kind of social order.

I think one of the best strategies of getting rid of religion is to teach people that they can be spiritual (because many people seem to refuse not to be) without all the crap that is religion.
 
Church keeps the fundies outta my Sunday morning Ultimate Frisbee league during the winter and spring.
 
rocketdodger said:
As in, because it lacks them?
Click to expand...

rocketdodger said:
I meant "because it lacks any concept of searching for them?"
Click to expand...
True of some religions, not all religions. Be careful of your brush size when you're painting in generalities.


six7s said:
Perhaps

But so what? (in light of Religion does hinder many an individual's searching for meaning, purpose, and ethics being an equally, if not more, valid statement)
Click to expand...
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.
 
JetLeg said:
I do think that religion teaches morality.
Click to expand...

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?
Are they more likely to treat all people the way they would like to be treated? Are they more compassionate? Are they less judgmental?

If we looked at statistics, how would we see this "morality" reflected. Would more religious places take better care of the poor? Would they have less murder? What "morality" do you imagine religion teaches that you wouldn't find in non theists (such as most of the people on this forum or the Nobel Acedemy of Sciences) as a whole? Where are the great religious leaders who have added so much to the world and what percentage of religious people are they? Do they compare what great strides in medicine, agriculture, science, and technology?

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. I think religions act as an expensive insurance policy for the afterlife that the poor are especially drawn to-- and that such money would better be used in ensuring their health in this life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom