Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Aeax]

For the record, I was raised a Jehovah's Witness.

[Baffler]

Just another random thought:
I have many times said to someone in a class-debate, "Do you think your religion is the right religion? Do you think, for example, Hinduism is equally viable" and they always say no.

But it is equally viable. In fact, some religions are more viable in their own ways. It's rather selfish to say "My religion is the one true religion!" and close your ears to the other half a dozen people shouting the same thing of their religions.

No more, I think, than it is for a Democrat to think of Republicans as misguided at best. Religion isn't just an otherwise meaningless label, it's a system of beliefs, and most people thinks that their own beliefs are correct after all. I'd say that two religions are only ever equally viable in the eyes of someone who considers neither viable.

[Orange Wizard]

So I stopped going to church. Continued to not really read the Bible much. I try to pray regularly. But just saying this made me realize I don't think I've prayed in months. So that's another "bad" thing.

If it makes you feel any better I'm something like 90% certain the bible says pretty much jack all about going to church, not much (if anything) about reading the bible, and pretty much nothing in particular about prayer frequency -- or even if setting aside specific time for prayer is needed at all. Bit about the sabbath (which most christians honor on the wrong day anyway so :V), but not terribly much else, in regards to that sort of thing. Quite a lot of the ritual bits of christianity have honestly been pretty much invented whole cloth, and not adhering to them makes you no further from Christ than adhering to them does. Possibly even closer, since fair amount of church activities and whatnot kinda' get in the way of being Christian.

Not so much an emphasis on "going to church", but there are certainly (general) pointers towards structured worship, and none too few verses encouraging believers to meet together.

[Spehss _]

It may not have made you a perfectionist, but it imposed an artificial and inherently unreachable goal upon you, and the combination of these two factors proved psychologically malignant.

Well, yeah, but I do that to myself with almost everything. Impose an artificial and unreachable goal, that is. My religious experience is hardly the only thing responsible for the development of a psychological process.

Way more important factors involved with that, like how I didn't like being around lots of new people as a kid but then felt lonely and unloved because of not making friends or staying in contact with friends, and concluding that I wasn't good enough and to solve that I would have to work harder and do more so people would notice me and think I was cool and wanted to be around me.

Probably the most harm I got out of church was the whole social aspect of being around lots of people lots of the time. Not like I'd say the morality and ethics I got out of it hurt me. Not being a judgmental asshat to others and trying to be helpful and generous seems to be good morals.

Just another random thought:
I have many times said to someone in a class-debate, "Do you think your religion is the right religion? Do you think, for example, Hinduism is equally viable" and they always say no.

But it is equally viable. In fact, some religions are more viable in their own ways. It's rather selfish to say "My religion is the one true religion!" and close your ears to the other half a dozen people shouting the same thing of their religions.

Yes. There's lots to learn from other religions. They're all viable ways to live your life. Whether they are the "one true religion responsible for the creation of the universe" is unnecessary.

Buddhism? Good shit. Lots of good stuff on introspection and changing oneself through one's own willpower in order to help others...all I really know of Buddhism is the Eightfold Path and the whole nirvana thing, but that seems a great philosophy.

Old Norse Paganism? Really good at developing close friendly relations with the god of your choosing. Worship Thor, worship Freya, whatever, just sacrifice some mead, smoke a bowl (of mead?), chat with your patron diety like a friend, and be respectful of the cool stuff they do. Like the god of the earth making those pretty flowers you just smoked. Or Thor smiting all the ice giants. Long as you hang out with your patron deity occasionally, you're cool. Not like you're a horrible sinner or something.

Hell, even Satanism seems to have some sound philosophy. Just looking at their website, stuff like live for yourself, be kind to those who are kind to you, don't be stupid or follow the herd or be pretentious or close minded. Seems cool for a bunch of devil-worshipp--*USER WAS SMITED FOR THIS POST*

[BlindKitty]

Well, all the atheists in here seem to forget a few things (not really surprising, seeing as they are mostly either strawmanning, or picking on some obscure Protestant branches I know nothing about), but I would like to point to some of them at least:

a) Catholic Church believes not only Bible itself, but also Tradition (yeah, capital T) is basis for outside forms; most importantly, stuff like going to church every Sunday is not explicitly mentioned in Bible, but it is part of the Tradition, descending from Apostoles, who knew a lot about Jesus and his teachings (this is also why their letters are a part of New Testament). Protestants are less interested in Tradition, as far as I know (but I might be mistaken here).
b) Because heaven is eternal and perfect, going to heaven is worth even the greatest pains in one's earthly existence. Heaven is infinity; mortal life is finite. No matter how big finite number you subtract from infinity, it doesn't change; the result is still infinity. Thus, pain and suffering in mortal life that leads to being a better person and landing in heaven is worth it, no matter how much pain and suffering.
c) God is omniscient and all-powerful; but He chose to give us free will, thus sacrificing a part of of His power. He is still all-powerful, but He doesn't exercise His powers to make our will really free. We can choose whether to believe Him or not, whether to be good or not, et cetera. Because blessed are those who have not seen, yet believed. It is nothing noteworthy if you know that God exists, because every morning He writes 'Hello' in burning letter on the sky when you go to work, to believe.
d) Where do the morals come from, if there is no God? Who is to say that killing is wrong, and helping poor is good, and not vice-versa? Who says that you can eat oatmeal, and can't eat human flesh?

[Il Palazzo]

Not to mention no Catholic takes their morals from god. They take their morals from the society they were born into, and then cherry pick those passages in the bible that match those morals, dismissing the rest.
When was the last time any church goer thought adultery, believing in other gods, or working on Sunday is a capital offense?
Sure the book has got some nice philosophical and morally acceptable ideas peppered around, but it's not like those were unknown before. The golden rule, no antisocial behaviour - those are the most widely agreed upon moral things across the world, no matter the culture or religion.

BlindKitty's statements b) and c) are one of the most disturbing and potentially harmful about religion.
c) praises ignorance, and the more one is willing to close their eyes to reason and just follow blindly somebody else's commands the better
b) makes it a logically sound argument to intrude on other people's lives and impose one's set of beliefs using every means necessary, as you're doing them the best possible favour - you're saving them from eternity in hell, which is as bad a thing as they go

[Criptfeind]

B) always stuck me as interesting, because it's pretty clear that for the most part religious people don't live like that. If this life really mattered so very little in the grand scheme of things. And all that mattered was punching your "good little worshiper" ticket... Well, if I knew that to be absolutely true I'd spend my whole life being a good worshiper. I'd try to save others all I could, and it wouldn't matter if 99% of them hated me for it. Depending on your religious tenants that idea that this life and this world doesn't matter. It justifies absolutely any action.

But people don't actually live like that, generally speaking.

C) Seems to be trying to address a specific point about why evil exists, but I mean. It still doesn't answer it. It only sorta answers it in a unsatisfying way why evil made by humans exists, why random evil that has nothing to do with free will happens to people for no reason who can't do anything about it is still a pretty big issue with the whole idea of a god being good.

On the whole other religions are not as viable as ones own religion thing. I don't understand that actually. Or, I understand part of it, the moral part, where we think our morals are superior (although most religions seem to have mostly the same morals anyway) but the actual specific items and events, like god, jesus, budda, thor, prayer, ect ect ect. That's all completely unknowable and unprovable except though, like, you have to admit, super shaky evidence on all sides. So that part at least all seems equally viable to me. (Of course, I might be missing something, perhaps like Baffler said "two religions are only ever equally viable in the eyes of someone who considers neither viable." And I'm certainly the one here not considering ether viable.)

[penguinofhonor]

I think that all religions are equally viable in that they're all subjective philosophies that you can either use as inspiration to do good or to justify your hatred and harmful actions.

b) makes it a logically sound argument to intrude on other people's lives and impose one's set of beliefs using every means necessary, as you're doing them the best possible favour - you're saving them from eternity in hell, which is as bad a thing as they go

Yeah, no amount of bad things you can do can compare to the infinite good you'll do if you get someone into heaven. Missionaries are particularly good at showing why this attitude is harmful.

[scrdest]

I think that all religions are equally viable in that they're all subjective philosophies that you can either use as inspiration to do good or to justify your hatred and harmful actions.

b) makes it a logically sound argument to intrude on other people's lives and impose one's set of beliefs using every means necessary, as you're doing them the best possible favour - you're saving them from eternity in hell, which is as bad a thing as they go

Yeah, no amount of bad things you can do can compare to the infinite good you'll do if you get someone into heaven. Missionaries are particularly good at showing why this attitude is harmful.

See: Lying for Jesus.

d) And if morals DO come from God... what does this change? In other words, what ethical justification you have for following them? Because God is good? If morals come from God, that's tautological, because he's the one that decides what IS good. Because he loves us? So? If you make an argument that this means he wishes the best for us, then this is no different than enlightened self-interest with an added metaphysical caveat. Because he created us? Well, my mother gave birth to me, but that doesn't make her a world-class ethicist.

And conversely, if morals come from God, how come there are societies in which behaviors contrary to those sprung up? If you, for example, claim homosexuality is immoral, then why do animals practice it? If cannibalism is immoral, does this make the Caribs devilspawn?

[mastahcheese]

Dang it, I missed the conversation on reincarnation, and I don't have enough time to go back for stuff right now.
(Personally, I believe in it, because it makes a whole lot more sense to me, but I'll have time some other day to explain)

[TD1]

Well, all the atheists in here seem to forget a few things (not really surprising, seeing as they are mostly either strawmanning, or picking on some obscure Protestant branches I know nothing about), but I would like to point to some of them at least:

a) Catholic Church believes not only Bible itself, but also Tradition (yeah, capital T) is basis for outside forms; most importantly, stuff like going to church every Sunday is not explicitly mentioned in Bible, but it is part of the Tradition, descending from Apostoles, who knew a lot about Jesus and his teachings (this is also why their letters are a part of New Testament). Protestants are less interested in Tradition, as far as I know (but I might be mistaken here).
b) Because heaven is eternal and perfect, going to heaven is worth even the greatest pains in one's earthly existence. Heaven is infinity; mortal life is finite. No matter how big finite number you subtract from infinity, it doesn't change; the result is still infinity. Thus, pain and suffering in mortal life that leads to being a better person and landing in heaven is worth it, no matter how much pain and suffering.
c) God is omniscient and all-powerful; but He chose to give us free will, thus sacrificing a part of of His power. He is still all-powerful, but He doesn't exercise His powers to make our will really free. We can choose whether to believe Him or not, whether to be good or not, et cetera. Because blessed are those who have not seen, yet believed. It is nothing noteworthy if you know that God exists, because every morning He writes 'Hello' in burning letter on the sky when you go to work, to believe.
d) Where do the morals come from, if there is no God? Who is to say that killing is wrong, and helping poor is good, and not vice-versa? Who says that you can eat oatmeal, and can't eat human flesh?

A) Protestants are fine with tradition, as long as it does not interfere with God's intended Law and the Bible. The Pardoners and other such quacks were a good "tradition" to leave behind.

B) And does God not love the animals, too? Then why should they suffer so much pain. Because of sin seminally present since the time of Adam? Because our original sin is infectious? Also, as to entrance into heaven, that leads to an interesting point: Are you still you when you go there. Your belief, I assume, is dualistic. The Body and Soul are separable. But your soul is not you as you are now. Your bodily capacities and your mental abilities define who you are. Lose the body, lose the self. Same thing. You'd go to heaven to find you are not you...it's like if someone hit you quite hard on the head, and you developed a different personality. (Example taken from King Henry VIII.) others have gone over some other points on this, no point in me repeating them, but I will also say that horrendous acts on earth which terminate any soul-deciding potential you ever had is ridiculous, and contrary to what you would claim God's intent is.

C) Hm. One could use the same logic to verify Santa's existence.

D) Where do morals come from? Why, us of course. Even your own argument proves this...God gave us free will, and doesn't exercise control over our actions....what else are morals but rules, the like of which you claim God would not impose?
Besides this, who says eating human flesh is worse than eating oatmeal? Most people. But that does not mean there haven't been societies where it is acceptable. Morality is a blend of a desire for group-survival, cultural stigma and personal inhibition. Besides, if God is in charge of morality, why not also of evil? Satan is a lovely scapegoat.

Dang it, I missed the conversation on reincarnation, and I don't have enough time to go back for stuff right now.
(Personally, I believe in it, because it makes a whole lot more sense to me, but I'll have time some other day to explain)

Please do explain. I am doing a large part of my Religious Education A Level on reincarnation. Any insight is appreciated.

As for Greatorder: The basic idea is that the Atman (soul) gets "Karmic Fruits" attached to it, and is recycled until it achieves enough realisation to go to nirvana and go to Brahman.

[freeformschooler]

When was the last time any church goer thought adultery, believing in other gods, or working on Sunday is a capital offense?

You'd be surprised.

[Il Palazzo]

When was the last time any church goer thought adultery, believing in other gods, or working on Sunday is a capital offense?

You'd be surprised.

I'm not talking about your wacko American Protestant fundamentalists, but wholesome Polish Catholics.

[freeformschooler]

OK, you just said church goer. Yes, there are probably no catholics who believe that stuff (barring perhaps adultery).

[TD1]

Protestantism is a Catholic church, too.

But Roman Catholics are just as capable of saying those things, too.

Wholesome Polish Catholics, indeed.