Religion vs. Religion

[gareth]

This couldn't be farther from the truth. I suggest that you are simply not familair with the vast swaths of scientific evidence accounting for altruism and benevolence. If you don't believe me, I'd be happy to come back and post mountains of citations which would quickly demolish your claim.

 

 

"Further, if you'd like me to show you just how non-altruistic and how uncharitable religions really are, I'd be glad to start citing examples, both from scripture and from real life accounts. Hell, I'll even let you choose which religion I have to work from. It won't be hard."

 

OK then - Zoroastrianism .

 

Thank you SouthTown. I am not talking about 'organised religion'.

 

It's quite interesting to see scientists getting emotive about how valueless religion is. The title of this thread is religion vs. religion, yet it has now degenerated into a science vs. religion thread (that old chestnut).

 

It's almost as if science has become a religion of sorts for some people (they seem to get uncomfortable and feel threatened when anyone suggests that perhaps science cannot answer all the big questions, and then they defend science with an almost religious zeal).

 

It has become very fashionable to denounce belief in God. Its very easy to prove the non-existence of a supernatural being. But dagnabbit, this is a theology/humanities forum, so your scientific evidence doesn't amount to a hill of beans here I'm afraid.

 

If you can provide evidence (or perhaps even a compelling argument of your own intelligent design*) that proves belief in God is valueless in terms of personal ethics, then please come up with it, as I enjoy having my preconceptions legitimately challenged.

 

*no pun intended.

If they drive God from the earth, we shall shelter Him underground

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

[InfiniteNow]

It's quite interesting to see scientists getting emotive about how valueless religion is. The title of this thread is religion vs. religion, yet it has now degenerated into a science vs. religion thread (that old chestnut).

Who said I was a scientist?

 

 

It's almost as if science has become a religion of sorts for some people (they seem to get uncomfortable and feel threatened when anyone suggests that perhaps science cannot answer all the big questions, and then they defend science with an almost religious zeal).

Oh, please. Stop equivocating.

 

 

It has become very fashionable to denounce belief in God.

Thank Thor for that. I can only hope the trend continues. I think it has something to do with with people getting smarter.

 

 

 

If you can provide evidence (or perhaps even a compelling argument of your own intelligent design*) that proves belief in God is valueless in terms of personal ethics, then please come up with it, as I enjoy having my preconceptions legitimately challenged.

Your belief may provide significant value to you. I don't challenge that. The thing is, your "belief" has zero to do with reality.

 

 

Do you believe in the Easter Bunny, too? What about Apollo, or Zeus? Unicorns, perhcance?

[gareth]

This couldn't be farther from the truth. I suggest that you are simply not familair with the vast swaths of scientific evidence accounting for altruism and benevolence. If you don't believe me, I'd be happy to come back and post mountains of citations which would quickly demolish your claim.

 

You seem to be picking and choosing data, ignoring that which runs counter to your preconceptions and only looking at that which reinforces it.

 

Further, if you'd like me to show you just how non-altruistic and how uncharitable religions really are, I'd be glad to start citing examples, both from scripture and from real life accounts. Hell, I'll even let you choose which religion I have to work from. It won't be hard.

 

 

Pretending the evidence is not there does not make it go away. Your position is not only inaccurate and false, but untenable.

 

As I understand it, the rules of this forum are that you have to prove your claims or be suspended. In your case, the claim was a very bold and slef-important one which you now have to back up:

 

"Hell, I'll even let you choose which religion I have to work from. It won't be hard."

 

 

I seem to remember Buffy commenting on how pride comes before a fall.

 

I said "OK then - Zoroastrism (the first monothesitic religion)" You have provided no response. Come on, "it won't be hard".

 

I'm sure if you trawl the internet for long enough you can come up with something, after all, God is with those who steadfastly persevere." (Qur'an 2:249)

 

If you can't back up your bold assertions, then I suggest you suspend yourself or give back some of your hard-earned medals.

 

For the record, I do believe in Unicorns: The Window in the Garden Wall--A C.S. Lewis Blog: The Late Passenger

[InfiniteNow]

:phones:

 

I was countering your claim that religion speaks more to altruism and benevolence than science ever could. Now, you're going to assume that you've won some battle because you've chosen a religion not practiced by any significant numbers to support your point?

 

 

Well, since there are like 3 people who actually practice Zoroastrism, it may take me somewhat longer to find acts which are counter to altruism and benevolence, but rest assured, they most certainly exist.

 

I'll see what I can find.

[gareth]

:lol:

 

I was countering your claim that religion speaks more to altruism and benevolence than science ever could. Now, you're going to assume that you've won some battle because you've chosen a religion not practiced by any significant numbers to support your point?

 

 

Well, since there are like 3 people who actually practice Zoroastrism, it may take me somewhat longer to find acts which are counter to altruism and benevolence, but rest assured, they most certainly exist.

 

I'll see what I can find.

 

Don't stay up too late!;)

 

As the first monothesitic religion, I think its a significant example of a religion, which is why I chose it. The fact that only 3 people follow it is neither here nor there. (we are after all talking about religion, not people).

 

I don't actually know much about Zoroastrism either. For all I know they might worship the sun :phones:

[InfiniteNow]

Okay. Here you go. Straight out of their scripture:

 

 

"Grehma the opponent of the faith and his wicked followers who harass the messenger of Ahura Mazda's holy words will go to the abode of the Worst Thought. Zarathushtra seeks to know how will he rout wickedness by the holy words of Mazda's ordinance. With these sacred formulas on their tongues, he says, he and his disciples will convert the wicked to their Lord. The words of the wicked are also called Manthras, and the prophet exhorts his hearers not to listen to them, because they bring destruction and death to the settlements of the faithful."

 

 

Yeah... sounds real altruistic:

 

"Zoroastrianism is essentially militant. It stirs human hearts to repugnance towards evil; it spurs man to fight it with all his being, body, mind, and spirit. Not to resist evil with offensive and defensive warfare against it is either to be callous or cowardly, or both in one's person; it is to fail in one's duty to mankind and be false to the redemptive task assigned by Ahura Mazda to man. Evil is the common enemy of Ahura Mazda and man, and man is engaged in fighting as an ally of the godhead. In his fight against evil, he is a co-worker and a fellow-combatant with Ahura Mazda. Men of all times and all places have to fight individually and collectively for the mighty cause."

 

 

And who gets to decide what they want to call "evil" and "wicked" that week? Curious, really.

 

 

 

However, it's only been 3 minutes since my last post. I wonder just how much I could push this into your face if I wanted to waste even more time showing how these people are fools deluded like the rest.

[Southtown]

And who gets to decide what they want to call "evil" and "wicked" that week? Curious, really.

*Sigh* That's really the crux of your argument, isn't it? Is what they call 'evil' and 'wicked' correct or incorrect? Without knowing that info, the benevolence of that passage can go either way. You expect people to assume that evil is a matter of convenience. But what about you? Do you find it inconceivable to fight against things which you think are bad? Say like misinformation, propaganda, or genocide, etc.?

[InfiniteNow]

*Sigh* That's really the crux of your argument, isn't it? Is what they call 'evil' and 'wicked' correct or incorrect? Without knowing that info, the benevolence of that passage can go either way. You expect people to assume that evil is a matter of convenience. But what about you? Do you find it inconceivable to fight against things which you think are bad? Say like misinformation, propaganda, or genocide, etc.?

 

It comes down to pointing out just how absolutely ridiculous, uneccessary, and inherently dangerous this approach to life is. It's precisely the misinformation and propaganda of religion that I'm trying to shine light on, and pull the curtain to show that there is no magical fairy tale of a man in the sky controlling it all.

 

 

If you had a son, and when he was 17 he still believed in the tooth fairy, you would think he needed help.

 

I'm here, trying to help you in much the same way.

[HydrogenBond]

In the west, Christianity is the most advanced religion. The beginning was very similar to the Nazi's rounding up the Jews. To be an early Christian was a death sentence. Like the Jews they went like sheep to the slaughter based on a hope. Where they depart, is in spite of that tough beginning and high risk, it continued to spread until it eventually was integrated into the ancient world super power, Rome. It was only a matter of time until Rome was run by Christianity to form the Holy Roman Empire. After that Christianity had two personalities, one like Rome, and one like Christians. This meant doing good things but if that didn't work, kick butt. It was the Holy Roman Empire, so it has a reputation to maintain.

 

The Holy Empire's influence extended over Europe via the seven kingdoms. From these early Divine Kingdoms would gradually emerged a wide range of empires, which among them controlled most of the world through many centuries. This helped to evolve and advance the world. From the church also appeared some of the greatest art and thinkers. It was also the cradle from which modern science and the Age of Enlightenment would appear.

 

Roman Catholic Church divided into a number of baby bells, each of which would continue to grow, prosper and spread throughout the world to teach people everywhere. Christianity set the moral constraints from which the Roman domination aspect was gradually phased out. But many of the higher cultural aspects were retained. The Declaration of Independence was written based on a blend of Roman and Christian ethics. This change the world and helped to usher in the modern age.

 

Whether you believe in God or not, Christianity changed the world, as was promised. Not too bad for some hayseed carpenter. There is no single person in history who has had more impact on the entire world than Jesus. He did this, not as a conqueror but as a sacrifice. Einstein was important, but Jesus was in a league of his own. He was like an evolutionary push that lead to the modern age as we know it. So he is put on high.

 

Christianity is now the kicking post not covered by PC. It has returned to the beginning again because it is suppose to turn the other cheek. It has already evolved the world to make the original possible in peace.

[modest]

*Sigh* That's really the crux of your argument, isn't it? Is what they call 'evil' and 'wicked' correct or incorrect? Without knowing that info, the benevolence of that passage can go either way. You expect people to assume that evil is a matter of convenience. But what about you? Do you find it inconceivable to fight against things which you think are bad? Say like misinformation, propaganda, or genocide, etc.?

 

I think you make a good point. Historically, a lot of conflicts we would call "holly wars" (ie religion vs. religion) had little to do with differences in ideology or belief. Mostly they seem to be either cultural, political, or territorial. Basically: tribalism. I believe the common sentiment that religion causes a lot of wars is a simplification. I'm sure there are examples where religion is a majority of the cause, but more likely the differences between waring parties would be there regardless of religion. In other words, it is more human nature to do these evils than it is religious nature.

 

For example, I condemn Christianity for advocating the killing of Native Americans in the new world. But, I realize the cause of that genocide was not religion but greed.

 

Blaming religion can then be a bit of a cop out. We can blame great evils on religion itself rather than facing the harder truth that human nature (something we all equally share) is the cause.

 

This is, however, a gray area and I realize examples can be given against what I'm saying. :shrug:

 

~modest

 

EDIT:

 

This post may have made more sense if I clearly stated that I think all war is evil. There are cases where one side in a conflict is justified in waging war, but that doesn't change my opinion that the nature, motivation, cause, and effect of war is always evil.

[InfiniteNow]

All the more reason to remove yet another source of tribal division.

[Buffy]

Thank you SouthTown. I am not talking about 'organised religion'.

 

It's quite interesting to see scientists getting emotive about how valueless religion is. The title of this thread is religion vs. religion, yet it has now degenerated into a science vs. religion thread (that old chestnut).

Well, that just means you're either not paying attention to what I'm saying or you're purposely avoiding it.

 

I've said several times before that Ecumenicism breaks out quickly whenever this topic is made concrete, and if you're going to blame someone for why the thread has "degenerated into science vs. religion" you need to look in the mirror. Now is hardly the only guilty one here.

 

You never did respond to the issue that I brought up earlier and which you continue with this appeal to Zoroastrianism, or personal religions as Southtown to his credit exemplifies:

• Religions are social phenomena.
  
• It is undeniable that most have dogma that is derogatory to other faiths.
  

The real point of this thread continues to be: what needs to happen in order for true Ecumenicism to occur, and not just the useful but meaningless feint to deflect attention to the evil of atheism?

 

Conflict with atheism is actually no different than the conflicts with other faiths: its all about "apostasy" and "unbelievers" which simply means disagreement with religious scripture/teachings/dogma.

 

You have yet to admit that you're moving the goalposts and avoiding this issue, and that would seem to be odd, because if you--like Southtown--have a personal faith, you are in the minority position of being able to avoid the accusation of having a belief system that by virtue of its most central tenants (usually a "divinely inspired" text, as was discussed previously) requires hostility toward other faiths.

 

So, this is not about you. Why are you acting so defensively? Why do you reactively "defend religion" when your personal religion is not being attacked? That's the source of the Ecumenicism that is one of the key discussion points here.

 

Can you do me a favor and discuss what you think about these points instead of just following Now down the path of Religion vs. Atheism?

 

I think you make a good point. Historically, a lot of conflicts we would call "holly wars" (ie religion vs. religion) had little to do with differences in ideology or belief. Mostly they seem to be either cultural, political, or territorial. Basically: tribalism. I believe the common sentiment that religion causes a lot of wars is a simplification.

You know, I'm a marketing person, and one of the things we say in marketing is that all good marketing does is give consumers reasons to justify the decisions they've already made.

 

In this respect, I actually quite agree with you.

 

OTOH, the thing is that religions and political structures up until very recent history were completely inextricably linked, and I am of the opinion that religions were actually the original organizing mechanism of the earliest human societies. Social groups lived and died by virtue that their "leaders" could "predict" the future, and by following their predictions of when to plant and dictating which behaviors should be condemned, and enforcing loyalty by threatening catastrophic outcomes for those that did not follow the words of the leaders/shamans.

 

So the issue here is not "is religion the sole cause of conflict purely based on doctrine," because that would be *silly*: its *obvious* that all conflicts have at their source issues associated with power, resources, control, etc. and that the leaders pick and choose what to do when no matter what doctrine says, but the fact is that they use doctrine to justify it, and in spite of the fact that there are detrimental effects that are a direct result of these strong and clear doctrines that are in the divine texts, the question becomes: why do people continue to support them?

 

Religions constantly transmogrify and reform, yet these dogmas about what bad people unbelievers are and even how they should be converted or shuned or even go to war with, are almost never excised from the belief systems. Why?

 

Blaming religion can then be a bit of a cop out. We can blame great evils on religion itself rather than facing the harder truth that human nature (something we all equally share) is the cause.

To make clear, this is not intended to be a *blame game*. This particular quote makes sense within the context of believing that all individuals have personal belief systems, which is *clearly* the exception and not the rule. So the question is the same in this light as well: why do people continue to support these religious dogmas that at the very *least* justify conflict with other groups?

 

One of the things I see as a point of resistance is--as I mentioned previously--that choosing to excise one particular item that has been taken for granted to be "God's word" begins the process of being able to question all of it, and that creates tremendous cognitive dissonance, that is scary and is avoided, in many cases by changing the issue to being one of "belief vs. non-belief" which is far more comfortable.

 

Doing that translation is an easy trap for people on both sides of that divide as we've seen in the last page or so of posts.

 

What's being avoided is the issue of Why, and *that's* by far the more interesting one, and one that none of you should be passing off and ignoring...

 

Self-importance is our greatest enemy. Think about it - what weakens us is feeling offended by the deeds and misdeeds of our fellow men. Our self-importance requires that we spend most of our lives offended by someone, :phones:

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

As much as it pains me to tell you, my path is the one that the world will ultimately follow. Just as Thor and Zeus and Apollo are seen as misguided relics from long dead cultures, so too will the gods and religions of today.

 

Community is powerful and necessary. I only argue in favor of grouping our communities on principles supported by reality and empiricism. It's long past time to release the fairy tales of our tribal ancestors and for us to collectively move ourselves into and through the next enlightenment.

[Buffy]

As much as it pains me to tell you, my path is the one that the world will ultimately follow....It's long past time to release the fairy tales of our tribal ancestors and for us to collectively move ourselves into and through the next enlightenment.

The "one true path"...to "enlightenment" no less. Sounds like a religious belief to me!

 

So just to clarify gareth, Now's position really isn't just Atheism, its a crusade to convert the believers in "wrong" religions, and punish them severely for their apostasy....so in that sense, its an excellent subject for this thread as an "alternate religion" with dogma that is supported solely by faith in its tenets. :phones:

 

As such Now, you've kinda stepped in it here: one of the key tenets of your belief system is intolerance and hatred toward "other" religions. How do you justify it? What do you suggest should be done about these religions? At some point if your prophesy proves to be more and more successful, religions will become minorities. Will you at that point advocate that such "immoral" thinking that is obviously antithetical to a functioning society be faced with actual sanctions? Should Bibles be burned? Should pagans be thrown in jail? Lined up against the wall and shot?

 

Or are you going to argue for....tolerance!

 

There are a whole lot of religious people in America, including the majority of Democrats. When we abandon the field of religious discourse—when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations toward one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome—others will fill the vacuum. And those who do are likely to be those with the most insular views of faith, or who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends,

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

As such Now, you've kinda stepped in it here: one of the key tenets of your belief system is intolerance and hatred toward "other" religions.

 

No, I'm pretty much an equal opportunity basher of ridiculous nonsense.

[Buffy]

No, I'm pretty much an equal opportunity basher of ridiculous nonsense.

We know! Its painfully obvious!

 

You do not lead by hitting people over the head-that's assault, not leadership, :phones:

Buffy

[modest]

No, I'm pretty much an equal opportunity basher of ridiculous nonsense.

 

I do not intend to advocate the implication of these videos! I think it's good to step into your opponent's shoes and see things from their point of view is all.

 

Commentary on the South Park episode Go God Go:

 

YouTube - South Park - Go God Go Commentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii5PNDBefHw

 

YouTube - South Park - Go God Go XII Commentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMqN1HkbKYY

 

~modest