The Religion Thread

[Benguin]

7 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

While we wait for Ben to collect his thoughts on the objective morality issue allow me to lay out a few thoughts in the hope this thread doesn't get locked for squabbling:

 

If there is a God entity which made us and governs us then there is an objective morality: If it pleases God it's moral and vice versa.  Given that God can't be proven (or rather given they choose not to give modern humans incontrovertible proof), this cannot prove an objective morality.

 

Morality is at its essence about maximising society's happiness and security.  It's built on human emotions and instincts and so naturally evolves as our capabilities, our understanding of the world and of each other all evolve.  For me this demonstrates clearly that although there are certain things we consider universally wrong (cold blooded murder for instance), morality as a construct will always be a subjective thing.

 

I think the best rule of thumb is the golden rule:  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

  Edit to add this: 

Believing morals to be subjective doesn't mean I don't have a solid code of morals which I believe to be objectively correct here and now, I'm just aware it's subjective to me and the society I live in.  I'd wager @Facecloth's objective morals align fairly closely with my own take on ethics.

 

It’s not about what your moral codes are but how they can exist if we are nothing more than star dust. I’ve changed my mind slightly, I think the evidence of objective morality is intuitive and so I think an opponent of this would need to show absolute proof of this being contrary whilst being bound to their worldview that nothing transcends their own experience. Granted that’s circular but I think that’s because the idea that nothing is universally wrong is logically inconsistent.

 

But wait you say there are some things that are universally wrong. Isn’t that proof? If not, how can that be grounded in your worldview? 

[Benguin]

7 hours ago, Facecloth said:

I'm not asking you to admit you might be wrong, I'm asking you respect another view point and that others can see things differently. I accepted that about you, you can't accept that for others. Its not about saying you might be wrong, it about respect and acceptance.

Okay, I’m not sure where I neglected this but if it helps: Facecloth I accept that you don’t believe what I believe and I respect your choice. 

[Benguin]

7 hours ago, Foxy_Bear said:

I'm fine with faith. I admire it even but I thin organised religion is dangerous and nothing more than an outdated attempt to control the population. 

 

I think people get religion and faith mixed up. 

If that were true, we would expect the great departure from faith after the enlightenment to have produced a couple of centuries of peace. Oh wait, didn’t we kill more people than all the other centuries put together post enlightenment? 
 

On your second point, religions certainly can control people but I’m yet to hear anyone who thinks this provide any evidence that the early church, who were oppressed and murdered in horrific ways, controlled anyone? 

[Benguin]

5 hours ago, The Syrup said:

I'm an atheist. Believing or following a deity is fine if that gives you comfort or focus, just can't see it myself. I'm sure the world would be a more peaceful place if it wasn't for religion though. 

The evidence though suggests it wouldn’t seen as the last century has been the most godless period of time in history yet the century has been the bloodiest ever. That to me shows that without religion, there would be far more genocides and horror. 

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, Benguin said:

If that were true, we would expect the great departure from faith after the enlightenment to have produced a couple of centuries of peace. Oh wait, didn’t we kill more people than all the other centuries put together post enlightenment? 
 

On your second point, religions certainly can control people but I’m yet to hear anyone who thinks this provide any evidence that the early church, who were oppressed and murdered in horrific ways, controlled anyone? 

 

25 minutes ago, Benguin said:

The evidence though suggests it wouldn’t seen as the last century has been the most godless period of time in history yet the century has been the bloodiest ever. That to me shows that without religion, there would be far more genocides and horror. 

If a religion bases itself on an inflexible, infallible series of tenets with a deity right at the top (which a lot of them do), then the 20th Century wasn't "godless" at all - it was merely filled with humans who placed themselves and/or The Party in place of such a deity.

 

Established organised religion may have not been directly responsible for all those deaths, but the mindset driving it - that of "this is a universal, infallible truth, believe or suffer and die" - that has formed the basis for them often in the past was.

[Benguin]

48 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

If a religion bases itself on an inflexible, infallible series of tenets with a deity right at the top (which a lot of them do), then the 20th Century wasn't "godless" at all - it was merely filled with humans who placed themselves and/or The Party in place of such a deity.

 

Established organised religion may have not been directly responsible for all those deaths, but the mindset driving it - that of "this is a universal, infallible truth, believe or suffer and die" - that has formed the basis for them often in the past was.

It sounds like you agree, that without religion, people would still find a way to kill each other. 

[leicsmac]

35 minutes ago, Benguin said:

It sounds like you agree, that without religion, people would still find a way to kill each other. 

I think the ideology that drives at least some organised religion can be used to kill people without reference to those specific religions, yes.

 

But to clarify, I make no distinction between those who abuse power in the name of a deity and those who abuse it in the name of themselves or The Party - it's the same thing at a fundamental level, specifically that "X idea" is infallible even when in the face of evidence otherwise and one is willing to oppress and kill to prove it. So the aspects of organised religion that carry that concept - specifically an idea being utterly infallible - will always be a problem.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

It sounds like you agree, that without religion, people would still find a way to kill each other. 

 

People have found ways to kill each other with religion, and often as the pretext for doing so (the Crusades, the Inquisition, Islamic/Christian expansionism for example).

 

And there is nothing to suggest that organised religion 'invented' morality - I imagine societal rules regarding things such as infanticide evolved quite naturally through concensus many thousands of years before being told 'God' says so.

Edited 20 December 2020 by Buce

[Benguin]

14 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

People have found ways to kill each other with religion, and often as the pretext for doing so (the Crusades, the Inquisition, Islamic/Christian expansionism for example).

 

And there is nothing to suggest that organised religion 'invented' morality - I imagine societal rules regarding things such as infanticide evolved quite naturally through concencus many thousands of years before being told 'God' says so.

Just to clarify what you’re saying because you are quoting from a discussion about whether without religion the world would be more peaceful and then going back to the moral argument. Do you think the world would be more peaceful without religion? My contention was never that religion  hasn’t caused violence but rather we should look at the evidence and that evidence is that in times when religion has been less of a dominant force in society, violence has gone up, not down. So to say there would be more peace without religion is to not follow the evidence. 

[Benguin]

44 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think the ideology that drives at least some organised religion can be used to kill people without reference to those specific religions, yes.

 

But to clarify, I make no distinction between those who abuse power in the name of a deity and those who abuse it in the name of themselves or The Party - it's the same thing at a fundamental level, specifically that "X idea" is infallible even when in the face of evidence otherwise and one is willing to oppress and kill to prove it. So the aspects of organised religion that carry that concept - specifically an idea being utterly infallible - will always be a problem.

If you’re not making a distinction, it sounds like you think people will use power to cause violence irregardless of whether they follow religion. If that’s what you’re saying, I agree. 

Edited 20 December 2020 by Benguin

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

If your not making a distinction, it sounds like you think people will use power to cause violence irregardless of whether they follow religion. If that’s what you’re saying, I agree. 

Yep, that's what I'm saying, with emphasis on parts of organised religious belief being part (but not all) of the problem.

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yep, that's what I'm saying, with emphasis on parts of organised religious belief being part (but not all) of the problem.

If there is emphasis on the religion part, presumably you are able to account for why violence and genocide has become more prominent post enlightenment? 

[Finnaldo]

Which Pope was the real one the one in Rome or the one in Avignon?

[Buce]

36 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Just to clarify what you’re saying because you are quoting from a discussion about whether without religion the world would be more peaceful and then going back to the moral argument. Do you think the world would be more peaceful without religion? My contention was never that religion  hasn’t caused violence but rather we should look at the evidence and that evidence is that in times when religion has been less of a dominant force in society, violence has gone up, not down. So to say there would be more peace without religion is to not follow the evidence. 

 

In theory, yes, because I believe the only way for there to be universal peace is for humanity to be accepting of the fact that we are all together on Spaceship Earth, that we are all one race, that borders are an artificial human construct based on ideas of nationalistic, racial and religious exceptionalism; if we don't embrace those ideas, we are doomed.

 

In practice, no, because I have little faith in the ability of humanity to grasp those principles, with or without religion.

Edited 20 December 2020 by Buce

[Finnaldo]

3 hours ago, Benguin said:

If that were true, we would expect the great departure from faith after the enlightenment to have produced a couple of centuries of peace. Oh wait, didn’t we kill more people than all the other centuries put together post enlightenment? 

 

3 hours ago, Benguin said:

The evidence though suggests it wouldn’t seen as the last century has been the most godless period of time in history yet the century has been the bloodiest ever. That to me shows that without religion, there would be far more genocides and horror. 

Is this a joke or do you genuinely believe the absolutely massive rise in population and massive industrialisation between Enlightenment and the 20th Century is less the reason for more deaths than straying from God’s light and becoming savages?

 

By relative terms of casualties to the population involved, the bloodiest war at least in Europe was the Thirty Years War, which is inextricably linked to the Protestant Reformation. 
 

No to mention, the majority of conflict and terrorism seen of British shores in the last 60 years continue to be religious (The Troubles, Islamic Fundamentalism)

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, Benguin said:

If there is emphasis on the religion part, presumably you are able to account for why violence and genocide has become more prominent post enlightenment? 

 

4 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Is this a joke or do you genuinely believe the absolutely massive rise in population and massive industrialisation between Enlightenment and the 20th Century is less the reason for more deaths than straying from God’s light and becoming savages?

 

By relative terms of casualties to the population involved, the bloodiest war at least in Europe was the Thirty Years War, which is inextricably linked to the Protestant Reformation. 
 

No to mention, the majority of conflict and terrorism seen of British shores in the last 60 years continue to be religious (The Troubles, Islamic Fundamentalism)

This would be my answer.

[Benguin]

14 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

In theory, yes, because I believe the only way for there to be universal peace is for humanity to be accepting of the fact that we are all together on Spaceship Earth, that we are all one race, that borders are an artificial human construct based on ideas of nationalistic, racial and religious exceptionalism; if we don't lose those ideas, we are doomed.

 

In practice, no, because I have little faith in the ability of humanity to grasp those principles, with or without religion.

So in summary it’s not accurate to say the world would be more peaceful without religion because really what you mean is the world would be more peaceful without the many different human ideology’s. 

[Buce]

22 minutes ago, Benguin said:

So in summary it’s not accurate to say the world would be more peaceful without religion because really what you mean is the world would be more peaceful without the many different human ideology’s. 

 

Of which religion is one such ideology, since it promotes exceptionalism like all the others.

[Finnegan]

58 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Which Pope was the real one the one in Rome or the one in Avignon?

 

Depends. 

 

Are you an ally of France? 

[Scotch]

4 hours ago, Benguin said:

The evidence though suggests it wouldn’t seen as the last century has been the most godless period of time in history yet the century has been the bloodiest ever. That to me shows that without religion, there would be far more genocides and horror. 

No evidence to suggest the Church controlled anyone? There doesn't need to be. It's clear to see that there a points in time where the Church were desperately trying to kling to the power they had over the population. Why else would the so aggressively oppose translating the "word of god" to the common tongue? They murdered translators in the street because they knew if people could read the bible themselves, there power over them would be diminished. 

 

Even Christmas was a PR stunt by the Church. The Birth of christ should surely be one of the most sacred days in the christian calendar but they were so pre occupied with controlling as much of the population as possible that they deliberately celebrated it to coincide with the winter solstice to try and convince Pagans to convert. 

[fuchsntf]

13 hours ago, Facecloth said:

And you ignore what he put, didn't answer his question etc. This is what I was on about earlier. No respect, bad discussion, not interested in any other angle just that you're right and that's that.

For him, he is right.!! ..Its called faith

Something Leicester fans have been drastically Short of, despite Angel Rodgers, greetings of glad tidings of all will be well...

and the 3 midfield Kings,following that Great shining star...I

 

Too many Herods Posting on the forum..

[Carl the Llama]

14 hours ago, Benguin said:

It’s not about what your moral codes are but how they can exist if we are nothing more than star dust. I’ve changed my mind slightly, I think the evidence of objective morality is intuitive and so I think an opponent of this would need to show absolute proof of this being contrary whilst being bound to their worldview that nothing transcends their own experience. Granted that’s circular but I think that’s because the idea that nothing is universally wrong is logically inconsistent.

 

But wait you say there are some things that are universally wrong. Isn’t that proof? If not, how can that be grounded in your worldview? 

You don't seem to understand how proof works. You've made a positive claim for something, it's therefore up to you to provide the evidence.  I'm suggesting the thing you're arguing for isn't existent, I cannot prove a negative so it's unreasonable to lay burden of proof that way around.  

 

If your evidence is only intuitive then it's not objective.  I'm unsure you really understand what objective means.

 

I said there are some things we would all agree to be universally wrong.  That doesn't prevent it being subjective to our society in this time and place.  

 

Edited 20 December 2020 by Carl the Llama
wording

[The People's Hero]

15 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

And my response to that, as written above, is that if there is an absolute moral law then it would be definable and quantifiable, there'd be scientific studies and no need to prevaricate.  Just like we have with all other natural laws.

 

The point I'm trying to get to is this:  You keep saying that God must exist because it's implied by the existence of this absolute code.  That argument relies on the assumption of an absolute moral code existing.  I'm challenging that assumption because you're not pointing to any evidence in support of it and I don't believe you can possibly have any.

 

You're more than welcome to say you believe an objective morality exists, but unless you can back it up with non-subjective arguments it's still a subjective belief.  That's all the argument is.

I didn't used to like you; but I've agreed with pretty much everything you've posted of late. One of us must have changed. Or Covid has addled our brains.

[The People's Hero]

This Benguin is a blinkered zealot. Many like him.

 

Where my Mum lives, there is a church nearby. The Christians flock to it and park on double yellow lines, outside houses, blocking drives etc. When challenged on it, they are amongst the rudest and most entitled people you could meet.

 

I think the attitude tends to be that the more Christian you are (big C) the less christian you need to be (small c); or rather, the more you talk about God, the less you need to follow the ideals of thoughtfulness and kindness and consideration and empathy. You are afterall, above the non-believers and who cares if you ruin their day, as long as you have a slightly shorter walk to Church.

 

Cheers and good day!

[The People's Hero]

hang about - coming back for another go.... 'AND ANOTHER THING' (he says, reappearing in the doorway of the pub') - you lot act however you want, 'liberating' and 'enlightening' peoples, by sailing over and swanning in and killing the people and forcing them to build your churches. Religious imperialism! The CRUSADES! The glorious CRUSADES. You get a sniff of JIHAD which is equally repugnant and you're all up in arms. Aggressive spread of religion is bad. Seeking to subjugate people is bad. Any kind of fundamentalism and extremism must surely find its way to ending in tears (and deaths??).

 

And yet you lot swan off to Heaven and us people who act according to an informed MORAL compass (that's right! We are capable of deciding for ourselves how we act) instead of getting it from a holy (!?) book, (which by the way you selectively pick from and place stress on or ignore to suit your own biases), well, we have to go to hell because we didn't believe in a big bearded dude.

 

Worship whoever you want and live by whatever moral code you want, but respect other people and be considerate. All the most aloof people are religious. It isn't inherently 'bad' but it does give impressionable people absolute conviction in their idiocy and a level of aloofness that makes we want to go jehovah witness style and put leaflets about the big bang through Christian's doors. Speaking of which, why are we trying to combat global warming with science, why not just ask God? Why do we even run cars on petrol, or any fossil fuel or even batteries? Why can't God just make them go?

 

Don't even get me started on young people getting cancer of whatever. Actually, maybe I could do a post on that.

Edited 20 December 2020 by The People's Hero