Print

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

[scriver]

All religion is an attempt to explain/understand the world. Completely disconnected from morals, were it not for the fact that people's morality affect how they see the world and thus their explanation of it.

[Criptfeind]

I'm sorry. Is this a thousand years ago? Today we have something called Science to "explain/understand" the world.

[scriver]

Doesn't change anything.

You might also have noticed how a lot of strongly religious people are very adverse to "science" that goes against their belief but very approving of "science" that supports it.

[shadenight123]

religion can only be proven right or wrong after death.
it's the perfect scapegoat of whatever you wish.
it can be true or wrong, it doesn't matter.
Until you die you can't prove it, and once dead how are you going to tell the others?
maybe it's just a placebo, the idea of a "heaven" after death, of a "hell" for the sinners.
maybe it's just an excuse for some people to harness power and wealth.
maybe it's just a misunderstanding in the old days which carries on till now.
maybe it's a way of life.
maybe it's a way of living.
maybe it's right, or maybe it's wrong.
but instead of discussing this here, and now, let's make a deal.
we will meet in the afterlife, and discuss there who was right and who was wrong.
i'm sure that, by then, we will have all the answers we need.

[Criptfeind]

Doesn't change anything.

...

Why not? Religion is not a valid means of explaining anything. All it has left is morals. How can you say it has nothing to do with them?

You might also have noticed how a lot of strongly religious people are very adverse to "science" that goes against their belief but very approving of "science" that supports it.

What does that actually have to do with anything? Science does not need the approval of religion to be right. So who gives a flip to what they think?

[Leafsnail]

How can you say that faith does not work as a moral compass (at all and in any way) and not see it as useless?

What the fuck is any religion 'for' if not as a moral compass. If you invalidate the moral parts of it you are left with nothing but 17,000 years (Herp derp random number. I am sure faith has been around longer) of abuse and... well. Evil.

I mean... Fuck. You still have the social parts of it, but really. Who gives a fuck? If faith is not moral then what is the point? It is invalid. Who gives a fuck.

Faith certainly doesn't seem to be inherently moral though (obviously not to say you can't be faithful and moral - just that one does not seem to make the other more likely), as people with it don't seem to be any less prone to doing bad things than people without it.  It's up to you whether you feel there's any value in it otherwise.

[Criptfeind]

No, not. Inherently moral. But the idea that it's can not be used as what we would call a correct system of morals is what I have a issue with.

[Nadaka]

Doesn't change anything.

...

Why not? Religion is not a valid means of explaining anything. All it has left is morals. How can you say it has nothing to do with them?

Religion is nothing more than an infectious memetic agent that corrupts the neurological function of its host to spread. That corruption weakens the host and allows others to control it. Morality based on religion is inherently corrupt and flawed. True morality is rational and compassionate, not programmed.

[Criptfeind]

Are you being serious? Or trolling? I can't tell.

[ChairmanPoo]

I think that's an extremist take. All morality is both programmed and rationalized, in part. And religious people can be perfectly moral human beings, just as nonreligious ones

[The Fool]

Personally I think religion is just getting further and further from the source materials. Not to mention the fact that you can say anything and use the bible to justify it. Need to go to war? Use the old testament for an eye for an eye speech. Want peace? Use the new testament for a turn the other cheek speech. To use the whole book as a moral compass would be silly, because you might even be able to justify the crusades where millions died.

If you take the key stories such as the Ten Commandments then you should be fine in using it as a moral compass. Otherwise I'd read it with a grain of salt and think about it.

Religion is nothing more than an infectious memetic agent that corrupts the neurological function of its host to spread. That corruption weakens the host and allows others to control it. Morality based on religion is inherently corrupt and flawed. True morality is rational and compassionate, not programmed.

Nietzsche had a similar approach, but the problem with morality is that no one sets it. Subjective morality is a dangerous thing, because a killer might see the act of killing as something morally correct. Most morals however are taught by the parent, and in most cases it works well. In others, such as criminals in jail (to use a realistic example), religion can also act as a new moral compass separate from their original morality.

EDIT: Fool uses Philiosophic Exploitation. It's super-effective. The thread is now slowed.

[Andir]

This was on Slashdot if you want to change subjects:  (Since I know there are some Math geeks around here...)
New Study Concludes Math Gender Gap Is Cultural, Not Biological ... PDF

[Criptfeind]

I think that might have been brought up already. But yeah. I was surprised a study with the complete debunk was here now. I thought that was... Like. 10 years ago. I guess the culture here is just odd.

[GlyphGryph]

Religion... I don't see how it could be used as a moral compass, honestly. It can certainly influence ones morals, but serving as a basis for them? That's a bit hard to swallow.

Maybe some religions - but others, like christianity, it simply doesn't work. I don't think I've ever seen it used as a moral compass. I've seen it used for moral justifications, but that is a completely different animal.

Religions primary, if not sole purpose, is to allow people a shared myth, to bring them together. It is a tool used to form societies - and societies, any societies, are a requirement for having a moral compass, that much at least is true.

But religion itself is neither sufficient, nor necessary, and morality certainly isn't the point of it.

[Phmcw]

Yes that's exactly what this tragic story prove yet again. But I think the problem is the way you see that sentence : faith cannot be trusted as a moral compass mean that if you're wrong, your faith won't tell you so. At all.

What the fuck is any religion 'for' if not as a moral compass. If you invalidate the moral parts of it you are left with nothing but 17,000 years (Herp derp random number. I am sure faith has been around longer) of abuse and... well. Evil.

I mean... Fuck. You still have the social parts of it, but really. Who gives a fuck? If faith is not moral then what is the point? It is invalid. Who gives a fuck.

I hope you won't find yourself agreeing with my point and then thinking this, because that last conclusion is quite short sighted.

You see, religion are, in absolute generality, one of the three things we produced when we tried to explain the world.
There are science, Philosophy, and religion. And religion has been quite important at producing the two other.
As said Nadaka, religion is like an out of control meme, spreading through individuals, mutating each time it reach a new community to adapt with it's culture, and heavily influenced by science and Politics.
It was almost all there was at some time, and has religion, science and philosophy have often been lumped together, all three being learned and taught by the wises mens of the time.
Has Religion been evil, in the definition an humanist would give to evil? Well yes, at time. Good and a motor of progress, well yes at other time. Has it always been nothing more than dramatically human. YES!!!!
That's the problem I have with the church : " We were not always mind bendingly evil!" Yeah, sure, but seriously stop pretending being continuously inspired by the perfect creator of the universe, you're just embarrassing yourselves. And why?
Because FAITH DOESN'T WORK AS A MORAL COMPASS : no one is telling at those terrified mothers "no, that child you loved ten minutes ago is NOT a which and you should not torture it to death". The inner voice in the guys who devoted their lives and skills to destroy the WTC apparently didn't told them "Hey guy, Gabriel here, it so happen that god doesn't want those tower destroyed after all". And when the catholic priests listened to their inner voice to decide what to do, it seems that they told them that the image of the church was more important than bringing child rapist before justice.

So yeah, faith can be a motor or a crutch, but definitely not of moral compass, the same way you'd be unwise to use a watch as a compass. And religion... well Christianity is obsolete.