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

[Helgoland]

That makes no sense, why not be part of a more loose, morally motivated religion? You can still support people's right to believe and it's benefits without signing on. (Plus, you technically still end up in hell.)

Why would I care about hell? It's not like I believe in it. And being part of a loosely organised religion would be missing the point because a) that religion is not established and thus ineffective and b) the degree of organisation is part of the appeal: The whole point is giving people some framework to hold on to.

a) that religion is a natural urge of man, just like hunger or wanting company, so it should be satiated in a controlled, non-harmful manner

I would question that.

I've yet to see an irreligious society...
Also, what does supporting religious freedoms have to do with this?

[TD1]

The Epicurus quote mentioned earlier I was taught in connection with Mackie's inconsistent Triad, which I think  I've mentioned here before.


The combination of any two attributes cancels the third.

a) that religion is a natural urge of man, just like hunger or wanting company, so it should be satiated in a controlled, non-harmful manner

I would question that.

Marx called religion "the opium of the people." What we have is an urge to know, not an urge to worship. We want to know things, and in a society where knowledge was scanty, we went to those boys that were saying they knew all the answers. They often also had daring new forms of dress . It's also a social thing with friends, assures you your life isn't worthless, and tells you "hush, everything will be okay." It's no wonder people wanted to believe them. An urge? Not in its own right, I believe. More just a form of fulfilling a variety of other urges, but knowing the actual answers/having other sources of assurance or comfort would serve just as well.

I would also state that I have absolutely no urge to prostrate myself in front of a deity, so would you suggest that I lack a certain natural urge? Believing for societal reasons is a terrible way of spreading a lie possibly damaging to society.

b) that religion, when applied the right way, is a very useful tool to bring people together, especially in increasingly individualist times such as our own,

And in most cases, as religion is never applied the right way, it leads to conflict, violence, hatred. The purpose of uniting people is a noble one, but it has limited successes, causes more divisions than there are countries, and ultimately (given the number of different religions out there, all claiming to be the only true one) at the very least you believe all of them bar one are wrong-in other words, it's a falsehood. Fine if people like it, but I've never liked being led by the nose, nor do I ever anticipate that I will.

that the particular religion of an area or of a people is a tradition that should be upheld like any tradition that does not harm people

I completely agree, as long as there is an "opt-out" option.

that Catholicism is a better means of achieving said goals than Protestantism, because it's eassier to keep our crazies under control.

*Snorts in a mixture of exasperation and surprise*

If you're not joking (which I assume you're not?) then you're saying the same thing every other religion would say. Protestants: Filthy Catholics! Corrupted Bishops raising a Pope for corrupt reasons, a source of much death, fanaticism, out-right superstition (the non-biblical kind) and general greed. Unites people? Sure, as long as they're not those people. And have you heard of all the coverups? All the children raped by "holy" men, then the "holy" men moved, and it all hushed over?

Truly, the Catholic church cannot control its "crazies." The fact is, Helgo, the crazies are always going to be there. A central Catholic hierarchy only means they're less likely to be brought to notice, and a more diverse, localised hierarchy would be more likely to pick up on it. But they're always there.

---

a) that religion is a natural urge of man, just like hunger or wanting company, so it should be satiated in a controlled, non-harmful manner

I would question that.

yea I thought there was a god spot but maybe there isn't, after all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/god-spot-in-brain-is-not-_n_1440518.html

Well, in that case, no one has a good excuse anymore.

Whadda bout Persinger's God Helmet Experiment. Doesn't sure religion as an urge, only shows that what seems to be a religious experience actually isn't.

[Rolan7]

Well, I'm Catholic because I believe a) that religion is a natural urge of man, just like hunger or wanting company, so it should be satiated in a controlled, non-harmful manner, b) that religion, when applied the right way, is a very useful tool to bring people together, especially in increasingly individualist times such as our own, c) that the particular religion of an area or of a people is a tradition that should be upheld like any tradition that does not harm people, and d) that Catholicism is a better means of achieving said goals than Protestantism, because it's eassier to keep our crazies under control.

As you may have noticed, I'm not Catholic because I believe~

Huh, so...  You don't believe the Church's teachings are true, but you think the organization is a stabilizing influence which fulfills peoples' primal desire for religion?  That actually makes a ton of sense.  I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of priests feel the same way:  Guiding people to behave in a moral and civilized manner, using a lie or untestable hypothesis.

Whether the Catholic Church's rules are all good ones is a different discussion we probably don't need to broach...  It sure does provide stability, education, and charity along with whatever else.

[TD1]

Oh, yes, so it does. And so does every religion.

[Helgoland]

It's the family theology, really. Agnosticism ho~

Marx called religion "the opium of the people." What we have is an urge to know, not an urge to worship. We want to know things, and in a society where knowledge was scanty, we went to those boys that were saying they knew all the answers. They often also had daring new forms of dress . It's also a social thing with friends, assures you your life isn't worthless, and tells you "hush, everything will be okay." It's no wonder people wanted to believe them. An urge? Not in its own right, I believe. More just a form of fulfilling a variety of other urges, but knowing the actual answers/having other sources of assurance or comfort would serve just as well.

I would also state that I have absolutely no urge to prostrate myself in front of a deity, so would you suggest that I lack a certain natural urge? Believing for societal reasons is a terrible way of spreading a lie possibly damaging to society.

Religion != worship. Religion is a lot more than that. About the whole science vs religion thing - this ties into the 'god of the gaps' idea: Science may - and hopefully will! - provide us with answers where empiricism works, but it's hard to comfort a grieving widow with fun facts about biodegradation. Being told your life isn't worthless is worth a lot, you know? And yes, it is also a way of fulfilling other urges - I said so myself. What I propose is using it as a tool to make sure they're actually fulfilled!

And in most cases, as religion is never applied the right way, it leads to conflict, violence, hatred. The purpose of uniting people is a noble one, but it has limited successes, causes more divisions than there are countries, and ultimately (given the number of different religions out there, all claiming to be the only true one) at the very least you believe all of them bar one are wrong-in other words, it's a falsehood. Fine if people like it, but I've never liked being led by the nose, nor do I ever anticipate that I will.

It's been a damn long time since the bishop of Cologne went to war. And when you look at some of the economically better-off multireligious countries like Southern Africa, you'll find that religions can indeed coexist peacefully, even if they're monotheistic.
And who said you had to believe? Nobody's forcing you to - it's for the benefit of those who don't think about this topic as much as the people in this thread.

that Catholicism is a better means of achieving said goals than Protestantism, because it's eassier to keep our crazies under control.

*Snorts in a mixture of exasperation and surprise*

If you're not joking (which I assume you're not?) then you're saying the same thing every other religion would say. Protestants: Filthy Catholics! Corrupted Bishops raising a Pope for corrupt reasons, a source of much death, fanaticism, out-right superstition (the non-biblical kind) and general greed. Unites people? Sure, as long as they're not those people. And have you heard of all the coverups? All the children raped by "holy" men, then the "holy" men moved, and it all hushed over?

Truly, the Catholic church cannot control its "crazies." The fact is, Helgo, the crazies are always going to be there. A central Catholic hierarchy only means they're less likely to be brought to notice, and a more diverse, localised hierarchy would be more likely to pick up on it. But they're always there.

It wass mostly a jab, Dwarfy. But - apart from a few theologically significant points - the Catholic Church has one key advantage: It is one single organisation. Sure, there's bound to be bad people - they're the same as everyone else, after all - but stuff like the evangelical sects would be unthinkable within the Church, because they'd be excommunicated faster than you can say transsubstantiation. That's why I said under control, not non-existent.
Corruption, pedophilia etc are different issues - but do you seriously think these things do not occur in other religions as well?

Oh, yes, so it does. And so does every religion.

Well yes - that's why I'm strongly against proselytising, at least when there's already an established unified religion in place.

[smeeprocket]

I wouldn't call rampant overpopulation and child rape cover-ups charity, personally.

But that's just me.

I think there are better ways to build a society than through lies. And I don't trust those that are telling the lies to do things in the best interest of everyone. (Such as women.)

That's the problem with one organization, besides the increased pressure on everyone to conform or punish those that don't. You are putting all your eggs in one basket. You could have a Pope Francis, or... a Pope Benedict.

And frankly, no one is listening to Francis, anyway.

It's gotten to the point where a good chunk of hospitals in the US are under catholic rules and guidelines. If you are having problems with your pregnancy, and the only safe option is to terminate it, they will send you home. They are not legally obligated to tell you your life is at risk, even. They just won't mention it, that is their policy.

Hell, let's say you're on your sixth kid and you want a tubal litigation when you give birth, but the closest hospital is a catholic one. Nope.

All I see from Catholicism as a woman is more oppression. I suppose it's nice if you are a man and are permitted within the leadership and don't have the Church dictating your reproductive rights, but there are those of us who don't get or are losing those liberties due to the Catholic church.

It does far more harm than good, let's not paint it for something it's not. One patriarchy is a good as another, which is to say, not good at all.

[Baffler]

Right but I'm asking reasonable Christians, why are you Christian?

Either your fate has already been sealed one way or another, and believing or not believing is irrelevant to your location after death (omnipotent, omniscient,) so it seems unnecessary and burdensome, or your God is kind of a jerk, and it would only be worth following him out of fear.

I am a Christian (and more specifically Catholic) mostly because I had a Catholic education. I was lapsed until very recently though, when I decided to take the time to actually investigate my patron saint (who I'd chosen in the 8th grade without too much thought,) Thomas Aquinas. Before then I'd really only seen the Church as a charity with some lifestyle demands. His work (or rather a commentary on his work) showed me that there was... more to it than that, and so I came back.

I wouldn't call rampant overpopulation and child rape cover-ups charity, personally.

But that's just me.

I think there are better ways to build a society than through lies. And I don't trust those that are telling the lies to do things in the best interest of everyone. (Such as women.)

That's the problem with one organization, besides the increased pressure on everyone to conform or punish those that don't. You are putting all your eggs in one basket. You could have a Pope Francis, or... a Pope Benedict.

And frankly, no one is listening to Francis, anyway.

It's gotten to the point where a good chunk of hospitals in the US are under catholic rules and guidelines. If you are having problems with your pregnancy, and the only safe option is to terminate it, they will send you home. They are not legally obligated to tell you your life is at risk, even. They just won't mention it, that is their policy.

Hell, let's say you're on your sixth kid and you want a tubal litigation when you give birth, but the closest hospital is a catholic one. Nope.

All I see from Catholicism as a woman is more oppression. I suppose it's nice if you are a man and are permitted within the leadership and don't have the Church dictating your reproductive rights, but there are those of us who don't get or are losing those liberties due to the Catholic church.

It does far more harm than good, let's not paint it for something it's not. One patriarchy is a good as another, which is to say, not good at all.

Fine, let's just ignore the fact that doctors in Catholic hospitals can and do perform medically necessary abortions. Fuck those guys, right?

And why do you say nobody listens to Francis?

[TD1]

Religion != worship. Religion is a lot more than that. About the whole science vs religion thing - this ties into the 'god of the gaps' idea: Science may - and hopefully will! - provide us with answers where empiricism works, but it's hard to comfort a grieving widow with fun facts about biodegradation. Being told your life isn't worthless is worth a lot, you know? And yes, it is also a way of fulfilling other urges - I said so myself. What I propose is using it as a tool to make sure they're actually fulfilled!

What you're suggesting is to breed a new generation of humans whose central being stands on pillars of sand? For one, it's intellectually dishonest. For another, one scientific blast of wind could conceivably topple its central reasoning altogether. Yes, the grieving widow might like to think they're "in a better place." You shouldn't tell them about biodegradation, but comfort them in a small way. A good comfort would be the "better place" thing, but then you get into what the associated religion entails...it only helps cement a myth as fact. That is...to me at least...completely unforgivable. The healing/forgetting process goes at the same pace with or without religion (though, granted, burial can help somewhat, but you could continue it as a tradition rather than ritual.)The believer, I can understand when he offers such support. The non-believer would be betraying themselves. For what? Some temporal comfort which does not figure largely in the human ability to just get up and go on.

It's been a damn long time since the bishop of Cologne went to war. And when you look at some of the economically better-off multireligious countries like Southern Africa, you'll find that religions can indeed coexist peacefully, even if they're monotheistic.
And who said you had to believe? Nobody's forcing you to - it's for the benefit of those who don't think about this topic as much as the people in this thread.

Nobody is forcing you to for quite a few religions, true (though there are religions that would do their best to) but they all will do their utmost to try and "bring you to the flock." Whether or not you want the flock doesn't figure- they're gonna do their best to get you there, because they believe it utterly. Do you want a society run and inhabited by those who don't think, just believe? 'Cause that's what you seem to be asking for.

It wass mostly a jab, Dwarfy. But - apart from a few theologically significant points - the Catholic Church has one key advantage: It is one single organisation. Sure, there's bound to be bad people - they're the same as everyone else, after all - but stuff like the evangelical sects would be unthinkable within the Church, because they'd be excommunicated faster than you can say transsubstantiation. That's why I said under control, not non-existent.
Corruption, pedophilia etc are different issues - but do you seriously think these things do not occur in other religions as well?

Yes, but paedophilia is as a direct effect of the very organisation of the church you're defending. Priests should be allowed to marry.

Well yes - that's why I'm strongly against proselytising, at least when there's already an established unified religion in place.

As long as no damage is done, that's fine. But the fact remains that for every benefit of religion, there's another disadvantage. Using the argument of "it helps people" is perfectly valid, but therapists help people just as efficiently. For every person taking comfort in religion, there is someone losing a limb or life to it. For every act of charity, an act of atrocity.

[smeeprocket]

Right but I'm asking reasonable Christians, why are you Christian?

Either your fate has already been sealed one way or another, and believing or not believing is irrelevant to your location after death (omnipotent, omniscient,) so it seems unnecessary and burdensome, or your God is kind of a jerk, and it would only be worth following him out of fear.

I am a Christian (and more specifically Catholic) mostly because I had a Catholic education. I was lapsed until very recently though, when I decided to take the time to actually investigate my patron saint (who I'd chosen in the 8th grade without too much thought,) Thomas Aquinas. Before then I'd really only seen the Church as a charity with some lifestyle demands. His work (or rather a commentary on his work) showed me that there was... more to it than that.

I wouldn't call rampant overpopulation and child rape cover-ups charity, personally.

But that's just me.

I think there are better ways to build a society than through lies. And I don't trust those that are telling the lies to do things in the best interest of everyone. (Such as women.)

That's the problem with one organization, besides the increased pressure on everyone to conform or punish those that don't. You are putting all your eggs in one basket. You could have a Pope Francis, or... a Pope Benedict.

And frankly, no one is listening to Francis, anyway.

It's gotten to the point where a good chunk of hospitals in the US are under catholic rules and guidelines. If you are having problems with your pregnancy, and the only safe option is to terminate it, they will send you home. They are not legally obligated to tell you your life is at risk, even. They just won't mention it, that is their policy.

Hell, let's say you're on your sixth kid and you want a tubal litigation when you give birth, but the closest hospital is a catholic one. Nope.

All I see from Catholicism as a woman is more oppression. I suppose it's nice if you are a man and are permitted within the leadership and don't have the Church dictating your reproductive rights, but there are those of us who don't get or are losing those liberties due to the Catholic church.

It does far more harm than good, let's not paint it for something it's not. One patriarchy is a good as another, which is to say, not good at all.

Fine, let's just ignore the fact that doctors in Catholic hospitals can and do perform medically necessary abortions. Fuck those guys, right?

And why do you say nobody listens to Francis?

In America the policy is to not do the abortions, I have never heard of them making exceptions. So no, I am not saying fuck those guys, I am saying where the fuck are those guys? While we are at it, they need to stay away from women's uteruses in general. They have no business there with their maiden/mother/whore perception of women.

I say nobody listens to Francis because.. nobody does? No one powerful in the church has changed their tune since he arrived. So what good is he? He told them they focus too much on abortion, they continue to be one of the bigger threats to women's healthcare and drive away conversations about safe sex and contraception in poorer countries where it needs to be discussed (and at home, actually.)

Catholicism is female oppression personified. It promotes women as the birth of sin, makes their sexuality evil, controls their reproductive system, and just generally does bad things without even giving them the courtesy of the lowest tiers of leadership so they can participate in their own oppression.

[smeeprocket]

Religion != worship. Religion is a lot more than that. About the whole science vs religion thing - this ties into the 'god of the gaps' idea: Science may - and hopefully will! - provide us with answers where empiricism works, but it's hard to comfort a grieving widow with fun facts about biodegradation. Being told your life isn't worthless is worth a lot, you know? And yes, it is also a way of fulfilling other urges - I said so myself. What I propose is using it as a tool to make sure they're actually fulfilled!

What you're suggesting is to breed a new generation of humans whose central being stands on pillars of sand? For one, it's intellectually dishonest. For another, one scientific blast of wind could conceivably topple its central reasoning altogether. Yes, the grieving widow might like to think they're "in a better place." You shouldn't tell them about biodegradation, but comfort them in a small way. A good comfort would be the "better place" thing, but then you get into what the associated religion entails...it only helps cement a myth as fact. That is...to me at least...completely unforgivable. The healing/forgetting process goes at the same pace with or without religion (though, granted, burial can help somewhat, but you could continue it as a tradition rather than ritual.)The believer, I can understand when he offers such support. The non-believer would be betraying themselves. For what? Some temporal comfort which does not figure largely in the human ability to just get up and go on.

It's been a damn long time since the bishop of Cologne went to war. And when you look at some of the economically better-off multireligious countries like Southern Africa, you'll find that religions can indeed coexist peacefully, even if they're monotheistic.
And who said you had to believe? Nobody's forcing you to - it's for the benefit of those who don't think about this topic as much as the people in this thread.

Nobody is forcing you to for quite a few religions, true (though there are religions that would do their best to) but they all will do their utmost to try and "bring you to the flock." Whether or not you want the flock doesn't figure- they're gonna do their best to get you there, because they believe it utterly. Do you want a society run and inhabited by those who don't think, just believe? 'Cause that's what you seem to be asking for.

It wass mostly a jab, Dwarfy. But - apart from a few theologically significant points - the Catholic Church has one key advantage: It is one single organisation. Sure, there's bound to be bad people - they're the same as everyone else, after all - but stuff like the evangelical sects would be unthinkable within the Church, because they'd be excommunicated faster than you can say transsubstantiation. That's why I said under control, not non-existent.
Corruption, pedophilia etc are different issues - but do you seriously think these things do not occur in other religions as well?

Yes, but paedophilia is as a direct effect of the very organisation of the church you're defending. Priests should be allowed to marry.

Well yes - that's why I'm strongly against proselytising, at least when there's already an established unified religion in place.

As long as no damage is done, that's fine. But the fact remains that for every benefit of religion, there's another disadvantage. Using the argument of "it helps people" is perfectly valid, but therapists help people just as efficiently. For every person taking comfort in religion, there is someone losing a limb or life to it. For every act of charity, an act of atrocity.

I do not believe that pedophilia relates to not being allowed to marry. Not having sex doesn't make you rape children, being a child rapist makes you rape children.

[Caz]

I do not believe that pedophilia relates to not being allowed to marry. Not having sex doesn't make you rape children, being a child rapist makes you rape children.

This... seriously. The idea that priests aren't allowed to marry having anything to do with them turning into pedophiles is nonsense. Where's the scores of pedophile nuns, buddhist monks, brahmas etc?

[TD1]

Being sexually frustrated doesn't make you lust after some form of release more?

As for Catholic hospitals, there's the locally famous case of an Indian non-Catholic denied abortion in Ireland because of religion. She died.

Also, as a preemptive strike, please try to keep any talk on gender in a strictly religious context.

Not saying it would have gone to the dogs, but best if it's limited now rather than in the middle of it

[penguinofhonor]

Corruption, pedophilia etc are different issues - but do you seriously think these things do not occur in other religions as well?

No, but the pedophiles in other religions don't usually have a huge international institution protecting them.

Science may - and hopefully will! - provide us with answers where empiricism works, but it's hard to comfort a grieving widow with fun facts about biodegradation. Being told your life isn't worthless is worth a lot, you know?

Somehow atheists manage to deal with tragedy without their psyches falling apart. This just feels like the grief equivalent of "without religion everyone we would have no morality and everyone would murder each other."

[smeeprocket]

I think the oppression of a gender by the church is contextual.

If a priest goes out and has an illicit affair, that's because he's not allowed to have sex and is lusting.

Unless all men are on the verge of rape at any given moment, and can't control themselves unless they get sex regularly. But I like to think men are mostly not rapists, and if they are, it's because they are rapists and not just horny, because that is not how rape works.

I mean, if you guys are all must potential serial rapists, we need to consider some kind of curfew.

[smeeprocket]

I'm trying to figure out the line of thought for horny priest -> pedophile.

Do guys generally start wanting to force themselves on children when they get sexually frustrated? Because, that has never happened to me ever.