what religion?

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » 29 Jan 2007 23:24

Fletch and I just watched that film. It was SO hard not to yell at them during a few parts of the movie. Still, I recommend seeing it as long as you can keep in mind the differences between the evangelical Christians and the every day ones.

Theyâ€™re building an army of children.

full nelson · Post by **full nelson** » 30 Jan 2007 00:47

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but there was a great convention in November called Beyond Belief where scientists, philosophers, psychologists, etc got together to discuss science, religion and reason. It's really interesting to watch. Some are invited to give presentations and then argue their thoughts among their peers. You can find it all on video google. It's about 14 hours long. Here is the 2nd session. The 1st wasn't working for some reason.

full nelson · Post by **full nelson** » 30 Jan 2007 00:52

The first one and all the others can be found here from the main site as well.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Jan 2007 02:24

Scott wrote:Jeremy,
can you explain to me what you mean when you said
Religion just changes the definition of good
How does religion change the definition of good? What was the definition of good before religion?
I would have thought the definition was subjective anyway.

Well everybody feels that it is wrong to kill an innocent person to save the life of another innocent person (if you know neither of these people). Religion (and other cultural ideas) change the definition of what an innocent person is. Obviously it depends on the religion. If you want to know more, you should read the book.

Also, i'm sure Jamie doesn't need my defence and I may be wrong, but I don't think he was actually rejecting Sam Harris's assertion but merely the previous post by Fatbagger when he said
Religion is so selfish, everything they do is for themselves.
Jamie said that one of the major reasons Christians do good things is because they want to help people, not because they are afraid of going to hell. This point is obviously supported by Marc Hauser's study indicating that 95% of people want to do good things without any need for motivation by fear of going to hell.

That's not really what Marc Hauser says at all. Religious people may only do good things because of the fear of not going to hell, or because of the promise of heaven, and Marc Hauser would still be right. What he says is essentially that our sense of morality comes from the way we have evolved, and that we all (or at least a little over 95% of us) have the same core morals. How we defend those morals, is a completely different issue, and you would suspect that part of the 5% actually do have the same core morals, they've just rationalised away from the way they evolved. As I say, if you're interested, read the book, because it's obviously better than what I can tell you about it.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 30 Jan 2007 04:03

Well, I don't think people who aren't christians have terrible morals if that's what you're implying. As far as I'm concerned, we're all sinners and I'm no better than you just because I'm a christian. I wouldn't have a problem with 95% of people having the same morals at all.

Regarding religion changing the definition of an innocent person, although christianity may have been used to do this in the past, it wasn't part of Jesus' teachings.

My essay on why christians do good? For all the same reasons non-christians do good, plus their added respect/love for God.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Jan 2007 04:46

I was not implying anything. I was offering an explanation as to why the pope thinks that telling people in Africa that condoms don't work is a good thing to do, why some religions think mutilating women's genitals is a good thing, why some Christians once thought burning people alive was a good thing, why some Christians now think that murdering doctors who carry out abortions is a good thing and why some Muslims think blowing people up is a good thing. Those people think those actions are good for the very same reasons that I think giving $2 to a beggar is a good thing, or handing in a lost wallet without taking the money is a good thing. It's not because they're crazy, it's not because they're evil, it's only because of the environment they were brought up in, and the cultures that told them these actions are good. One day, perhaps, we'll live in a world without dogmatic belief. Until that day happens, we'll still have people making decisions that effect others without rationally being able to support those decisions. Obviously not all religious people have the same extreme views, but if we allow people to make dogmatic decisions not based on evidence, how can we draw a line and say that some dogmatic decisions are ok and others are not?

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 30 Jan 2007 07:11

Wow, I seem to be very good at misunderstanding you.

I read the article. Very good read.

For the record, I'm definately not 100% for God right now. Truth be told, I've never done christianity right. This has had the unfortunate result of me believing simply because I was brought up to. I've seen some fairly good suggestive evidence, but that's all. Every now and then I decide to follow God properly instead of turning up to church and ignoring Him for the rest of the time, but I never really got far before. I'm now at a point where this is a little more important, because I don't have any good reasons to believe right now. Nor am I going to risk eternal damnation to hell by simply not believing, it's a hard thing to get away from what you've been taught from birth. If christianity is true, then by following God properly I will find some good, real reasons to believe. I'm definately interested in any other articles you think might help.

mosher · Post by **mosher** » 30 Jan 2007 07:30

Religious people are so unfortunately deluded.

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » 30 Jan 2007 10:33

People who don't believe in God lead empty lives and they don't even know it.

This turned into some weird rant-type thing. Sorry about that, going to post it anyway:

I don't think Tom's is a fair statement. If I could believe in someone bigger than myself who would always love me, who would take care of me and bring me into heaven as I'm dying, who would watch over the people I love, who would never die, who would appreciate the things I do that go unnoticed, I probably would. Religious or spiritual belief can be a beautiful, safe feeling, warm fuzzy thing. It can be related to cultural belief and heritage. It can give people who need it a sense of community. Just because I think their overall belief (the existence of God) is not correct, that doesn't mean I should consider them deluded. They are practicing their cultural or familial belief. They are finding something that they apparently needed to feel whole. It's the ones who want to convert me that annoy me. Or the ones who think that because I don't believe in their God I'm a bad person or lack "morals." If I were brought up in a religious household and taught the existence of God as fact, I would probably believe that God exists, even if I reject the religion that goes along with that belief. I view religions in my country basically the same as the way I view the Ecuadorian people who shrank heads. The idea of believing that to control someoneâ€™s soul you shrink their head is totally foreign to me and doesnâ€™t quite make sense (to me). Same thing with people who believe in any God or spirituality. It seems very traditional to believe in God. I have to step back and see why people are religious in the way they are, if it's them or their religion talking to me when we're having a conversation, try to tell if their religion is harmful to themselves, me, or others around me, then if not, let it go. If it's them talking to me, we keep talking; if it's their religion talking to me, stop interacting for the moment. By the way, I (hopefully) obviously donâ€™t believe my first statement up there. It was for effect.

Yada yada, I still don't think doing wrongs in the name of religion is okay in the modern world.

Senor Grommet · Post by **Senor Grommet** » 30 Jan 2007 11:03

The last page has been an interesting read. I admit I have not given the entire topic a read, although I believe I've posted in here numerous pages ago. In any case:

Since the existence of modern, frontal-lobe thinking man, people have believed in religions of various sorts to guide their views of the world, to help them decision-make, and to help them interact in their world. It is strange to me that now, moreso than ever, people are starting to question and confront religion as being a "bad" thing.

And then I look back on history (which I admit I know very little of) and I think, is there really any more violence or hatred now than there has been in the past? Is violence "caused" or "propagated" by religion? I personally believe that before the concept of religion or some type of governing force, peace did not rule the land. There has always been violence/hatred/etc. and there always will be, with or without religion.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 30 Jan 2007 12:21

Senor Grommet wrote: I personally believe that before the concept of religion or some type of governing force, peace did not rule the land. There has always been violence/hatred/etc. and there always will be, with or without religion.

I don't think that anyone would argue that religion is the only cause of "tribal" (as in between groups...whether they be countries, warrior bands, religions, stone age tribes) violence. The one problem with your statement is that there has never been a time in recorded history in which the powerful governments of the world have not been controlled, backed or based around religion. I'm sure there are a few exceptions, but I'm also sure that at some time these atheistic (is this a word....if not it should be) societies were wiped off the face of the planet by religious groups which denounced them as heathens.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 01 Feb 2007 03:01

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/n ... dc&k=81087

This makes me sick. Keep your god away from the lives of those who cannot make their own decisions.

http://www.ajwrb.org/

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 01 Feb 2007 03:27

Jesus Loves Osama. It must be true, it's in the paper...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ama101.xml

I actually wanted to post this fantastic article by Peter Singer - who is a great philosopher, very misunderstood, but very wise, although, sadly, a moral vegetarian.

----

Godless Morality

Peter Singer & Marc Hauser
Project Syndicate, January, 2006

Is religion necessary for morality? Many people consider it outrageous, even blasphemous, to deny the divine origin of morality. Either some divine being crafted our moral sense, or we picked it up from the teachings of organized religion. Either way, we need religion to curb natureâ€™s vices. Paraphrasing Katherine Hepburn in the movie The African Queen, religion allows us to rise above wicked old Mother Nature, handing us a moral compass.

Yet problems abound for the view that morality comes from God. One problem is that we cannot, without lapsing into tautology, simultaneously say that God is good, and that he gave us our sense of good and bad. For then we are simply saying that God meets Godâ€™s standards.

A second problem is that there are no moral principles that are shared by all religious people, regardless of their specific beliefs, but by no agnostics and atheists. Indeed, atheists and agnostics do not behave less morally than religious believers, even if their virtuous acts rest on different principles. Non-believers often have as strong and sound a sense of right and wrong as anyone, and have worked to abolish slavery and contributed to other efforts to alleviate human suffering.

The opposite is also true. Religion has led people to commit a long litany of horrendous crimes, from Godâ€™s command to Moses to slaughter the Midianites â€“ men, women, boys, and non-virginal girls â€“ through the Crusades, the Inquisition, innumerable conflicts between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and suicide bombers convinced that martyrdom will lead them to paradise.

The third difficulty for the view that morality is rooted in religion is that some elements of morality seem to be universal, despite sharp doctrinal differences among the worldâ€™s major religions. In fact, these elements extend even to cultures like China, where religion is less significant than philosophical outlooks like Confucianism.

Perhaps a divine creator handed us these universal elements at the moment of creation. But an alternative explanation, consistent with the facts of biology and geology, is that over millions of years we have evolved a moral faculty that generates intuitions about right and wrong.

For the first time, research in the cognitive sciences, building on theoretical arguments emerging from moral philosophy, has made it possible to resolve the ancient dispute about the origin and nature of morality.

Consider the following three scenarios. For each, fill in the blank space with â€œobligatory,â€

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 01 Feb 2007 03:34

That's absolutely ridiculous that the "Watchtower" group can change what is spiritually right. How can they just up and decide to change the policy? Is this a human policy, of a God one?

I have friends that used to JW. As far as they're concerned it's more of a cult than a religion. Apparantly there's a lot that goes on like that link slowsis posted, i.e. authority saying 'do this' and 'don't do that' and everyone does just because they are the leaders, even though there is no basis in the bible for it. Bleh.

That is a disgusting story.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 01 Feb 2007 03:45

Uhh, Jeremy... no kidding. I could have told you that. Does anyone here really believe athiests are morally inadequete? What was the point of that article?

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 01 Feb 2007 03:45

Oh, and sorry for the triple post, but lol @ those church signs. Not reeeaaally that wise...

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 01 Feb 2007 03:52

james_dean wrote:Uhh, Jeremy... no kidding. I could have told you that. Does anyone here really believe athiests are morally inadequete? What was the point of that article?

Yes, actually lots and lots of Christians believe that (and probably other superstitious people ). A recent survey in the US showed that of all religious beliefs, people are least likely to vote for an atheist.

fatbagger · Post by **fatbagger** » 01 Feb 2007 04:03

Moxie your post confused me.

Moxie wrote:People who don't believe in God lead empty lives and they don't even know it.

So if I were to live my life for the purpose of saving the environment, reducing poverty and starvation and generally making the world a better place for my children and everyone elses, but I don't believe in god then my life is empty.

I don't think so.

Personally I think religion is a good thing for people who are too weak to listen to their morals and do the right thing on their own. Religion makes life real easy, every time you have to make a decision just look in the book, it'll tell you what to do. And then you will do that, it must not matter what you think.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh

THINK FOR YOURSELF

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 01 Feb 2007 04:22

Read her whole post Dan... she was making a point. She is actually athiest.

fatbagger · Post by **fatbagger** » 01 Feb 2007 04:30

I read the whole post, that is why it confused me.

I must not have picked up on the sarcasm.