Religion

[Mickyblueeyes]

22 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

I think that the events of that particular time don't necessarily reflect on religion, per se, but are representative of people's acutal investment in religion.

 

Near to none when the chips are down.

Not trying to dig you out but I don’t understand this. My fault, could you elaborate ? 

[Babylon]

6 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Are you saying some things are universally wrong now? 

It's clear what I said "not everything has always been universally wrong and many things certainly still are not universally wrong".

 

 

[Babylon]

Just now, Mickyblueeyes said:

Not trying to dig you out but I don’t understand this. My fault, could you elaborate ? 

I'd imagine he's saying if you are scared to death of some despot, many people may put aside their religious feelings to just survive. 

[Benguin]

Just now, Babylon said:

It's clear what I said "not everything has always been universally wrong and many things certainly still are not universally wrong".

 

 

You used the word many, not all which implies some things are universally wrong. Would you then change that to “and all things certainly still are not universally wrong” 

[Babylon]

Just now, Benguin said:

You used the word many, not all which implies some things are universally wrong. Would you then change that to “and all things certainly still are not universally wrong” 

No.

[Dunge]

Apologies if I end up sending this around in circles somehow, but does it matter greatly whether morality is objective or subjective?
 

I don’t subscribe to the idea of some universal, perfect morality myself, more that society in general tries - sometimes successfully and sometimes not - to make the best laws and rules that it can under a democratic system, that it will never be perfect but it can be good for an imperfect and naturally unequal world.

 

The objective morality of religion is, to me, also subjective - although I accept that you (Benguin) will disagree. To me, it’s a set of unchanging subjective rules as opposed to a set of subjective rules with a degree of flexibility to them, in that they may change, slowly, over time. But that is to say that morality does still exist in my view and is very real, just that it isn’t absolutely set in stone, and that is fine.
 

In other words, if your rules and morality are “objective”, then to me that doesn’t make them better by that single definition. (I’ll also add that it doesn’t necessarily make them worse either.)

[Benguin]

45 minutes ago, whitlock said:

Do you believe that there are other Gods, for the other religions out there, or there is only one God - your one?

No, I believe in the triune God, one God who is three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

Christianity is an Abraham of religion as is Judaism and Islam. We have shared beliefs but also major disagreements. The Jewish people do not think Jesus was the messiah. Islam views Jesus as a prophet only.
 

I reject Judaism because I believe Jesus has fulfilled all of the prophecies about him in the Hebrew bible. 
 

I reject Islam because it says Jesus was not crucified and this is one of the best attested facts about the historical Jesus.

 

Most religions are about works. Do good and you go to heaven, do bad and you go to hell. Christianity is about a relationship with God. It is the only religion that adequately explains what is intuitively known.

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Apologies if I end up sending this around in circles somehow, but does it matter greatly whether morality is objective or subjective?
 

I don’t subscribe to the idea of some universal, perfect morality myself, more that society in general tries - sometimes successfully and sometimes not - to make the best laws and rules that it can under a democratic system, that it will never be perfect but it can be good for an imperfect and naturally unequal world.

 

The objective morality of religion is, to me, also subjective - although I accept that you (Benguin) will disagree. To me, it’s a set of unchanging subjective rules as opposed to a set of subjective rules with a degree of flexibility to them, in that they may change, slowly, over time. But that is to say that morality does still exist in my view and is very real, just that it isn’t absolutely set in stone, and that is fine.
 

In other words, if your rules and morality are “objective”, then to me that doesn’t make them better by that single definition. (I’ll also add that it doesn’t necessarily make them worse either.)

I’ll answer but first I’d need to know what do you mean by good, bad or better? These words are often written using a theistic meaning by an atheist so just want to clarify what they mean to you. 

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Benguin]

10 minutes ago, Babylon said:

No.

Well I can’t really debate your point if you are contradicting yourself can I? 

[Dunge]

I suppose “good”, meaning that living by those rules leads to positive outcomes for the populace, whether that be wealth, happiness, etc., rather than postulating anything that might come after. And then “Bad” and “Better” in similar definitions.

 

I’d also want to add something about your statement about “explaining something that is intuitively known”: I don’t think this is correct. I think it explains something that is intuitively believed. For instance, once we intuitively knew that the Earth was flat and time was linear. But now we know otherwise.

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I suppose “good”, meaning that living by those rules leads to positive outcomes for the populace, whether that be wealth, happiness, etc., rather than postulating anything that might come after. And then “Bad” and “Better” in similar definitions.

 

I’d also want to add something about your statement about “explaining something that is intuitively known”: I don’t think this is correct. I think it explains something that is intuitively believed. For instance, once we intuitively knew that the Earth was flat and time was linear. But now we know otherwise.

On the second point you are right, I misspoke. Definitely mean it is the only religion that adequately explain what is intuitively believed.(I’d probably actually change to just “what is intuitive”)

Okay, just need to gather a bit more to fully respond to what you’re posting. Why does it matter for atoms in motion to have a positive outcome? Can atoms in motion control anything? And Is there any transcendence or absolutes in terms of truth and logic in your worldview? (That is to say, do you know for certain that you are not in the matrix right now?) 

 

 

 

[SpacedX]

6 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I reject Judaism because I believe Jesus has fulfilled all of the prophecies about him in the Hebrew bible. 
 

I reject Islam because it says Jesus was not crucified and this is one of the best attested facts about the historical Jesus.

 

Most religions are about works. Do good and you go to heaven, do bad and you go to hell. Christianity is about a relationship with God. It is the only religion that adequately explains what is intuitively known.

But if you were born in Mea Shearim, Jerusalem, you would likely reject Christianity.

 

If you were born in Palestine you would likely reject Christianity.

 

Religion and its associated deity is as much a product of historical, geographical and cultural circumstance. Faith may be divinely inspired, but ultimately it is ascribed by the hand of man - not God. Gods are the creation of the latter not the other way around. 

 

Religion divides where it should unite...there is serious doctrinal debate and schism within the Christian faith alone.

 

Have you considered pantheism?  

[Captain...]

I think what @Benguin is saying is: "Without God and religion there are no absolutes with right and wrong."

 

I would agree, in reality there is a grey area over everything. Stealing is wrong, but Robin Hood is celebrated. Killing is wrong but we honour soldiers.

 

One of the mortal sins of christianity is suicide, it is unforgivable in the eyes of god, but you have situations like assisted suicide where someone has the choice between a quick and painless death or an agonising slow passing away causing huge amounts of pain and misery to loved ones.

 

As for killing babies, I think we can all agree it is in 99.99999% of cases completely unjustifiable, but there could be an extreme situation where it is not an evil act. Either an act of compassion (where a baby would have no quality of life and be in agonising pain until it dies) or an act or preservation of another (conjoined twins that can't live as they are but separation will kill one of them, but not separating them will lead to them both dying).

 

This is my problem with religion it is so black and white and the rules can't be updated because God is infallible so if he "said" something 2 thousand years ago and has not been back since it must still be true even though the world is a very different place now.

Edited 16 November 2020 by Captain...

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, Line-X said:

But if you were born in Mea Shearim, Jerusalem, you would likely reject Christianity.

 

If you were born in Palestine you would likely reject Christianity.

 

Religion and its associated deity is as much a product of historical, geographical and cultural circumstance. Faith may be divinely inspired, but ultimately it is ascribed by the hand of man - not God. Gods are the creation of the latter not the other way around. 

 

Religion divides where it should unite...there is serious doctrinal debate and schism within the Christian faith alone.

 

Have you considered pantheism?  

How can you possibly say I’d reject Christianity in Palestine?

 

1. how does being born thousands of miles from the origin of a religion make me more or less likely to believe said religion? If location was a determining factor, why is the origin of the religion not the epicentre of it in terms of followers?

 

2. How do you know God hasn’t placed people in the right place to choose the path that suits their volition? Maybe if I didn’t want to be a Christian god would have put me somewhere else.

 

Can you give some evidence of unity being more prevalent outside of religion? Countries ruled by religion seen less divided than the free world. 
 

Yes I have and it’s stupid.

[Dunge]

3 minutes ago, Benguin said:

On the second point you are right, I misspoke. Definitely mean it is the only religion that adequately explain what is intuitively believed.(I’d probably actually change to just “what is intuitive”)

Okay, just need to gather a bit more to fully respond to what you’re posting. Why does it matter for atoms in motion to have a positive outcome? Can atoms in motion control anything? And Is there any transcendence or absolutes in terms of truth and logic in your worldview? (That is to say, do you know for certain that you are not in the matrix right now?) 

 

 

 

I couldn’t say for certain that we were in the matrix or not right now. Perhaps we have control, perhaps we don’t. Perhaps fate exists, perhaps it doesn’t. But if there is no control it makes everything a moot point anyway.

 

So assuming there is some control, it feeds into an evolutionary will to survive and, in these days of survival to be more common, to thrive. If we make the world better, perhaps we’ll be more likely to be remembered well by future society or our descendants. And we all like to be the good guys, religion or otherwise. As such do our actions matter, even if simply as an emotional experience for us silly scraps of stardust.

 

And I totally get why a solid, unchanging morality for society could be good for society, at least in certain ways if not others. But that doesn’t so much prove that it’s objectively correct or, to return to a word from earlier, better.

[Benguin]

6 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I think what @Benguin is saying is: "Without God and religion there are no absolutes with right and wrong."

 

I would agree, in reality there is a grey area over everything. Stealing is wrong, but Robin Hood is celebrated. Killing is wrong but we honour soldiers.

 

One of the mortal sins of christianity is suicide, it is unforgivable in the eyes of god, but you have situations like assisted suicide where someone has the choice between a quick and painless death or an agonising slow passing away causing huge amounts of pain and misery to loved ones.

 

As for killing babies, I think we can all agree it is in 99.99999% of cases completely unjustifiable, but there could be an extreme situation where it is not an evil act. Either an act of compassion (where a baby would have no quality of life and be in agonising pain until it dies) or an act or preservation of another (conjoined twins that can't live as they are but separation will kill one of them, but not separating them will lead to them both dying).

 

This is my problem with religion it is so black and white and the rules can't be updated because God is infallible so if he "said" something 2 thousand years ago and has not been back since it must still be true even though the world is a very different place now.

Christianity is not about rules. Take the part in Acts where Peter questions the lord about the laws in Leviticus of eating unclean food or in the Gospels where Jesus is angry at the Pharisees for wearing the rules like armour but being contradictory in their hearts.

 

the message of Christianity is simple. We are all sinners and need a saviour. 

 

Romans 3 21-24
 

21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justifiedfreely by his gracethrough the redemptionthat came by Christ Jesus.

 

[Dahnsouff]

46 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

I would prefer to describe it as those that do not murder babies do so because of two reasons

1. It does not benefit them or their family
2. It would result in the consequences we have discussed

It is the same as you said, but in a less sensationalist way

@Benguin Is this the final word on this topic? A divergent understanding?

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

@Benguin Is this the final word on this topic? A divergent understanding?

Only that I would ask if you have articulated this in a way that is consistent with your worldview without being deceitful or mistaken. 

Your worldview is that there is not an absolute standard. Are you absolutely sure?

 

 

[Benguin]

16 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I couldn’t say for certain that we were in the matrix or not right now. Perhaps we have control, perhaps we don’t. Perhaps fate exists, perhaps it doesn’t. But if there is no control it makes everything a moot point anyway.

 

So assuming there is some control, it feeds into an evolutionary will to survive and, in these days of survival to be more common, to thrive. If we make the world better, perhaps we’ll be more likely to be remembered well by future society or our descendants. And we all like to be the good guys, religion or otherwise. As such do our actions matter, even if simply as an emotional experience for us silly scraps of stardust.

 

And I totally get why a solid, unchanging morality for society could be good for society, at least in certain ways if not others. But that doesn’t so much prove that it’s objectively correct or, to return to a word from earlier, better.

If you could be in the matrix, can you know anything to be true? 

[Dunge]

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

If you could be in the matrix, can you know anything to be true? 

If we’re in the matrix, it doesn’t matter what either of us believe.

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, Dunge said:

If we’re in the matrix, it doesn’t matter what either of us believe.

Do you know that? 

[Dahnsouff]

12 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Only that I would ask if you have articulated this in a way that is consistent with your worldview without being deceitful or mistaken. 

Your worldview is that there is not an absolute standard. Are you absolutely sure?

In terms of consistent and without deceit, I wholeheartedly reiterate this to be the case.

But I am at a loss as to what you mean by an absolute standard - is this in relation to the murdering babies question?

 

 

 

Edited 16 November 2020 by Dahnsouff

[SpacedX]

3 minutes ago, Benguin said:

How can you possibly say I’d reject Christianity in Palestine?

 

I can't - which is why I phrased it 'likely' - and it's highly likely if you were born and bred there you would.

 

1. You appear to have completely missed the point. Read my post again.

2. An unfalsifiable argument and logical fallacy. The onus does not lie with me or any other party to establish a negative or an absent. I suggest that you familarise yourself with the concept of Russel's teapot.

 

What I can say is that religion has cultural and geographical origins. It's possible that if you were born and raised in rural Japan you would very probably follow shintoism. If you were born in the central Tarai of Nepal you would likely be Buddhist. If you were born and raised in Tehran you would likely not only be of Muslim faith, but almost definitely Shi'a. If you had been born into one of the 13th century nomadic Tribes of what is now the Eastern Steppe of Mongolia during the Mongol Empire, you would have unquestionably adhered to a shamanistic practice or Tengrism. 

 

20 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Can you give some evidence of unity being more prevalent outside of religion? Countries ruled by religion seen less divided than the free world. 

A theocracy perhaps.

 

Every major religion is and has been historically divided by schism an in fighting. Your question regarding unity in the secular world is irrelevant and a non-sequitur. My observation was simply that religion can be highly divisive which is impossible to refute. 

 

 

 

[Houdini Logic]

Religion can be used for good and it can be used for evil. I think anyone who focuses too much on religion is kind of missing the point that humanity is the problem IMO