What is good about religion?

articulett said:
How come if we say something negative, people think we're speaking in "generalities"
Click to expand...
Because you're treating a large and diverse group of entities as a single entity?


articulett said:
aren't those speaking of the benefits of religion speaking in generalities.
Click to expand...
Yeppers.



articulett said:
Are people afraid that if they say something good about religion, people will think they are defending all religions--
Click to expand...
Do you think I'm defending all religions because I'm pointing out that some religions have good aspects to them? (You'll note that I am able to say that without resorting to broadly sweeping, all-inclusive statements.)


articulett said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would have to agree. Although, I'm not sure I would label that "sucking the life out of people", but whatever.


articulett said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.


articulett said:
But what religion doesn't claim to have access to "higher" (unproveable) truths and invent reasons why one must access them?
Click to expand...
Unitarian Universalism, for one.


I'm going to skip the rest of your post and call for a time out.

Part of skepticism (and I'll remind everyone that this is a board that promotes skepticism) involves questioning not only other people's assumptions but our own as well. What I see happening on this thread is damning (if you will pardon the pun) religion as a whole, but not actually showing all that much knowledge about religion as a whole.

When you make broad sweeping statements about religion, you are making a claim. What I am doing is challenging that claim by providing examples on instances where the claim does not hold to be true. At that point, you have two choices, you can either modify your claim or you can reject it.

What we do not want to do is reject the example because it does not fit the claim. That is not skepticism.


Time in.

There are forms of religion and theism that do not claim to have cornered the market on truth. There are some that do not even require that you have any faith at all. There are some that do not require you to believe in the existence of gods. To condemn (or condone) religion based solely on certain kinds of religion is dishonest and a logical fallacy.
 
JetLeg said:
Hm... Arguments against religion are usually of two types - those that try to show that the basic ideas are unfounded, and those that try to point contradictions.

The problem with the second, is that the best way to resolve contradictions is to become an extremist.

The best way to follow the OT is to become an ultra-orthodox jew, I guess. Or perhaps a killer of disobidient sons. But I do not really want that. On the other hand, god's word is more important than my wishes.
Click to expand...

In other words, you recognized the evil in "God's word" and you choose to act morally rather than in line with the teachings of your religious text.
 
Irony said:
In other words, you recognized the evil in "God's word" and you choose to act morally rather than in line with the teachings of your religious text.
Click to expand...

I am not sure. God's word is more important my personal wishes. Though I don't like it.
 
JetLeg said:
Hm... Arguments against religion are usually of two types - those that try to show that the basic ideas are unfounded, and those that try to point contradictions.
Click to expand...

And apologists don't have good answers for either.

Even going all fundamental doesn't get you past the contradiction, though it does remove a good number of them.

But returning to unfounded.... Genesis and Exodus are both completely fiction. The earth is not of recent vintage, we did evolve and were not created, there was no global flood, there wasn't even a large population of slaves in Egypt to free, Jewish or no.

Modern Israeli archeology has pretty well ruled out that Jews wandered the desert, conquered Canaan, or that there were large kingdoms of David or Solomon.

These truths are just today starting to come into the awareness of the majority of Jews in Israel. This is information dug up by their own scholars in an effort to confirm the historical veracity of the OT. They weren't going out to dash their own beliefs, but they did.

So, how much do you toss out and still think that bible is the basis for the belief of anything?
 
JetLeg said:
Any references?
Click to expand...

http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm

It's all over the web and archive footage and translations of Mein Kamf. They killed atheists along with gays. The only people spreading the lie that they were atheists or twisting Hitlers social policies to relate to Darwins scientific discoveries are theists-- who are used to lying and twisting and fear mongering to pretend that you can't be moral without god. It turns out, you can't be moral when you let dogma do the thinking for you.



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

http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm

The problem, my little cherry picker is you can use the bible to justify what ever you want to believe.

From Matthew 5:17-19 (NKJV)

These are the words of Jesus:
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”


"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." (Luke 12:49-51) These words, by the way, come immediately after Jesus talked about beating slaves.


And let's not pretend that "thou shall not kill" kept Christians from accusing and killing people for being witches, Muslims, heretics, Jews, infidels, and each other for eons. It doesn't enhance morality--it just makes everyone sure they are more moral than those who don't share their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Raskolnikov123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm... That was probably the case in any religion's life when truth was being sought out and meaning derived from it. The fact is that Christianity sprang out of Judahism long after it had passed that hurdle and was more interested in making and keeping converts than in discovering truth. Christianity kept civilization alive in the middle ages only in a sense; it kept it lock up, safely away from most of the population so as to preserve its purity and its "mystery". The attempts to suppress science in the latter day demonstrates that that is still a deeply held drive regardless of being thwarted by the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. Printing as an art was actively condemned in the church, as was translating the Bible into the vernacular. Secular music was treated as sinful, even as it is today.
 
Jetlag-- I think the people here know a lot more about religion and your bible than you do-- most of us have been believers-- most of us wanted really to know what was true because we could see that lots of people seriously believed things they claimed were true, but were clearly crazy or false or in conflict with the beliefs of equally certain people. You insult the people that could teach you and pretend to have knowledge about their lack of knowledge--and yet you are completely unaware of your own gaping ignorance and the way you skip over information that might actually improve your understanding of the skeptic viewpoint-- instead of just arrogantly presuming you have something important to teach us.
 
JetLeg said:
I am not sure. God's word is more important my personal wishes. Though I don't like it.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside whether such a god exists, the cognitive dissonance you're feeling disappears the minute you stop considering the many-times-copied-and-translated, assembled-by-committee, Bible to be his exact and literally true teachings.
 
Upchurch, I think I agree... and I don't think most religions "suck the life out of people". And I know there are some that don't claim to have "higher truths"-- but the majority invents a problem (suffering after death) and then proffers a solution in return for "faith" and allegiance. In general, I think it's twisted that we assume "faith is good". I don't. I think people have come to respect a general deference for faith that is not warranted.

But I don't think faith is "all bad". I look forward to it fading away, however--and I thought the video was great. Religion claims to be good for a lot of things-- but what exactly is it good for? I just don't think it works as advertised. It's a lemon for the most part--snake oil--

I reserve the right to criticize it individually or as a group until or unless someone gives me a good reason not to-- and saying that "not all religion is bad" is not a good enough reason to keep me form sharing this clever video here. :D
 
articulett said:
http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm

It's all over the web and archive footage and translations of Mein Kamf. They killed atheists along with gays. The only people spreading the lie that they were atheists or twisting Hitlers social policies to relate to Darwins scientific discoveries are theists-- who are used to lying and twisting and fear mongering to pretend that you can't be moral without god. It turns out, you can't be moral when you let dogma do the thinking for you.
Click to expand...

Well with the power of my googles I can find a website that says he wasn't a Christian.

http://www.davnet.org/kevin/essays/hitler.html

While I'm sure that davnet.org is just as skewed as evilbible.com, there is still evidence to say he was an atheist as well. The truth is, nobody knows what Hitler believed. He was raised a Catholic, promoted atheism in Nazi Germany, and pandered to the Pope all at the same time. I really think Hitler was a theist who believed that Hitler was God. I point this out to you because I believe that bringing up Hitler just makes a bad point. I've heard it said on other message boards that "once you bring Hitler into the mix, you've lost the argument" because Hitler makes such a fine straw man.

As for Hitler killing atheists, I think we'd all agree that Hitler killed anyone who was inconvenient to him.
 
Articulett, what do you mean exactly by

"I think you don't really have that much faith in your beliefs. "
And
"Neither do your beliefs about your beliefs [make sense] "

?
 
shadron said:
How about the point that religion is so negative in outlook and effect on civilization that the only things to feel positive about are the trivial? Seems like a serious, meaningful point to me; I would even argue a valid one. Condell is not attempting to prove his point in his video; an exhaustive proof would take much, much longer than youtube would likely stand for, but he is trying to get people to see it and perhaps, to think about it, which you at first refused to do, and then were cajoled into.

Non-religionists can be sneaky, you see.
Click to expand...

But you can't have an argument with someone based on supposition. What's the point of going to all the effort of trying to come up with positive aspects of religion if the other person can just shrug and say, "Show me in the video where I say religion doesn't have any other positive aspects."? I think there's a reason that after the initial flurry of posts, none of the debate here has centered around the video; he doesn't make any real, positive comments that you can debate the truth of.

As far as what good religion can do, it has inspired a great many charities over the centuries. The fact that there are many secular charities? Completely irrelevant. The fact that religion isn't the only thing that inspires people to charity doesn't change the fact that people have been inspired to charity by religious belief. The fact that religion has inspired people to form charities is a good thing. Therefore, religion has done good; and maybe you agree that it's a little more positive then the synchronized bowing of Muslims?
 
Last edited:
Actually I'm going to amend my statement. Hitler did not promote atheism per se, he discouraged religiosity because it usurped his own power. Atheists have a nasty habit of questioning people, so I can see how he'd get annoyed with being questioned and decide that atheists were inconvenient while still discouraging religiosity. My bad.
 
JetLeg said:
Do you have solid evidence for this?
Click to expand...

Yes. Do you ever have any solid evidence for anything you say? Do you ever follow through with the evidence provided? Hitler spoke German, but there are translations of just about everything he ever said publicly all over the place.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1...ns-in-the-Name-of-Atheism-Secularism,Aboutcom

In one 1933 speech, he said that "To do justice to God and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the German Volk." In another he said: "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."
Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934.



I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work. [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland. [Message, signed Hitler, painted on walls of concentration camps; Life, August 21, 1939]

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. [Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]

http://profnewport.blogspot.com/2007/04/myth-of-atheist-hitler.html
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/HitlersFaith.html
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/submissions/hitler_resp.htm
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/murphy_19_2.html
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-hitler-was-atheist.html
 
Apology said:
Actually I'm going to amend my statement. Hitler did not promote atheism per se, he discouraged religiosity because it usurped his own power. Atheists have a nasty habit of questioning people, so I can see how he'd get annoyed with being questioned and decide that atheists were inconvenient while still discouraging religiosity. My bad.
Click to expand...

Not exactly... he wanted their allegiance to go to him not necessarily church leaders--but he considered himself catholic and he considered atheism "bad". He used the bible and Jesus in much of his movement as do all recognized white supremacist groups today. I know of no white supremacist groups that consider themselves secular and at least all the big ones consider themselves a "christian" organization.
 
Apology said:
Well with the power of my googles I can find a website that says he wasn't a Christian.

http://www.davnet.org/kevin/essays/hitler.html

While I'm sure that davnet.org is just as skewed as evilbible.com, there is still evidence to say he was an atheist as well. The truth is, nobody knows what Hitler believed. He was raised a Catholic, promoted atheism in Nazi Germany, and pandered to the Pope all at the same time. I really think Hitler was a theist who believed that Hitler was God. I point this out to you because I believe that bringing up Hitler just makes a bad point. I've heard it said on other message boards that "once you bring Hitler into the mix, you've lost the argument" because Hitler makes such a fine straw man.

As for Hitler killing atheists, I think we'd all agree that Hitler killed anyone who was inconvenient to him.
Click to expand...

No there isn't. His actual quotes from all his speeches and his opus, Mein Kamf make it quite clear that not only does he and the Nazis consider themselves a Christian group-- but they also consider "secularism" bad. Show me one quote that shows otherwise. This is just one of those inane lies that religions have been proffering for quite some time--particularly in the United States. Ask people from Germany--or any other country. It's propaganda, and it isn't true. His quotes are everywhere. find one that supports this view point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom