The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[action]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And that's great! Focus on the good stuff. The oases in the deserts. I wish all religious guys would focus on what is good in their religious texts and dismiss the rest. Unfortunately they don't. Just take the simple text, "You shall not let a witch live" (paraphrased and I can't give you the citation) which undoubtedly was used as an excuse to torment and kill thousands of women through the ages and even to a small extent today in some African countries (!). But you see, the thing is, what is considered "good" changes over time. Ethics isn't really static. As long as the bible in an unedited complete version is being used by christians and considered having divine inspiration, it is just a matter of time before people again get inspired by verses you and I find morally questionable, and use them to motivate some horrible act. They would feel they did what was expected of them as christians, that their actions were good and that we are wrong. So it is all very relative. That's why religion is like a gun. It provides us with the means to do awful things. Like when Islamists kill 390 christians based on their interpretation and emphasis on their religious texts. And in that sense religion is worse than guns, more like a gun that whispers to us, "kill witches", "stone whores", "murder infidels", "populate the earth", "have no other god than me", "slay homosexuals" etc.

I absolutely agree that what is "good" changes over time.

But, at least, the "good" message in the bible is the same as it was the past 2000 years.

Suppose we discard it, then the pertinent question remains: what else? Who is going to define what is good and what is bad? And seeing how it will change, because there is no framework anymore, then this can turn out good or it can turn out bad.

There is really only one person who had the clear intention of removing religion from society,  as a moral framework, and actually succeeded doing so: Hitler. Hitler reasoned that the bible should not be the moral framework: national socialism should be. So the bible was gone, and a new moral framework was put into place. We all know what happened then.

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Ooooh, I can, I can!

Although I appreciate the intention of getting rid of ISIS, the heavy-handed video made me puke up a little in my mouth. And although I would prefer all members of ISIS to become christians, I still find it morally questionable to try to convert them from one form of theists into another form of theists. The better alternative would surely be to get them to reject superstition altogether, something which would automatically take away the religious' foundation for their atrocities.

you've not watched the video brother

the video is not about conversion, litterally nothing about it said so

[action]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The better alternative would surely be to get them to reject superstition altogether, something which would automatically take away the religious' foundation for their atrocities.

there is absolutely no guarantee that these people would act good, without a moral framework to refer to

I don't want no douchebag to dictate the "new" good or bad. there is enough lunacy in the world as-is. the bible is just fine. loving your brothers never hurt anybody

[action]

18 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And in that sense religion is worse than guns, more like a gun that whispers to us, "kill witches", "stone whores", "murder infidels", "populate the earth", "have no other god than me", "slay homosexuals" etc.

I refuse to respond to this remark as it has nothing to do with anything that's written in the bible.

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, action said:

Suppose we discard it, then the pertinent question remains: what else? Who is going to define what is good and what is bad? And seeing how it will change, because there is no framework anymore, then this can turn out good or it can turn out bad.

you've not watched the video brother

the video is not about conversion, litterally nothing about it said so

Who will decide what is good and what is bad? The same as always: we will. Through the interplay between the expression of our genes that modulate our behavior and cause us to feel compassion, empathy and fairness, and how we decide that our societies should be through our laws and our established manners, we decide what is considered "good" and "bad". We don't need gods to tell us that. This is why morals are different through time and why it is different in different countries today. 

There was some talk about washing away the sins of the sinners, and I assumed that meant that they had to become christians. No?

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, action said:

there is absolutely no guarantee that these people would act good, without a moral framework to refer to

Of course not. Without a moral framework we become moral anarchists. But fortunately even in the absence of religion we do have moral frameworks, as described in my previous post. Just look at atheists, they don't abide by any religious code of conduct yet they manage fine without it.

4 minutes ago, action said:

I refuse to respond to this remark as it has nothing to do with anything that's written in the bible.

I think most of it was directly referencing bible verses. Take the killing of witches, how can you say that has nothing to do with the bible?

[action]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Who will decide what is good and what is bad? The same as always: we will. Through the interplay between the expression of our genes that modulate our behavior and cause us to feel compassion, empathy and fairness, and how we decide that our societies should be through our laws and our established manners, we decide what is considered "good" and "bad". We don't need gods to tell us that. This is why morals are different through time and why it is different in different countries today. 

There was some talk about washing away the sins of the sinners, and I assumed that meant that they had to become christians. No?

I am very sceptic when you say "we will" decide what is good and what is bad.

In reality, with religion, we already have decided what is good and bad. From the beginning of civilisation it was already pretty clear what was good and bad. This stems from our inherent need to reproduce and to protect our genes.

Are you familiar with Durkheim? He argued that religion "originates" from society. Every society has "their" form of religion because it originates within society.

So if your concern is, that morals should be decided by us rather than by god, you're in fact contradicting yourself

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

There was some talk about washing away the sins of the sinners, and I assumed that meant that they had to become christians. No?

I think (but this is getting technical now), according to christianity, jesus washes away our sins. Even if we don't believe, jesus still loves us. in any case, the video does not say: become christian, it says: love will save you no matter how many people you kill

[action]

4 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I don't despise religious people(or anyone really even the few I really fucking hate ) just bullshit behaviour. I've made it clear numerous times my good intentions and feelings and the kindness and patience I've shown is just forgotten and overshadowed by confusion and bitterness, which saddens me but I won't take any blame for other people's bullshit. So I don't despise you either just the bullshit you've demonstrated. I turn the cheek far more often than some people care to admit - I'm just not a mug and don't suffer fools gladly. I get love and hate, mostly love, on here and in real life so I must be doing something right, oh well, can't please everyone.

I've been making no progress with vipassana meditation, haven't been doing it. Which is beyond dumb. It's just very difficult and I'm fucking lazy I guess. But it's very worthwhile and valuable so I'm intending on doing another 10 day course when I have the time and hopefully I can attain the discipline to do the daily practice.

 

sad to hear, but to be honest, I was expecting so.

Meditation is just a modern capitalist invention for atheists to find some sort of soul-searching. It's costly, its artificial and frankly, I view it as meaningless.

my advice to you, should you still want to listen after all the bullshit i've demonstrated: read the book whisdom in the bible. Even if you just read a couple of lines, like I did, you'll already feel different. I've went on the read the 4 gospels, and this made me a far more forgiving man than I was ever before. It may make a difference to you, it may not, but I suspect it will. you're a caring, kind individual. you would be a good christian.

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, action said:

I am very sceptic when you say "we will" decide what is good and what is bad.

In reality, with religion, we already have decided what is good and bad. From the beginning of civilisation it was already pretty clear what was good and bad. This stems from our inherent need to reproduce and to protect our genes.

Are you familiar with Durkheim? He argued that religion "originates" from society. Every society has "their" form of religion because it originates within society.

So if your concern is, that morals should be decided by us rather than by god, you're in fact contradicting yourself

I think (but this is getting technical now), according to christianity, jesus washes away our sins. Even if we don't believe, jesus still loves us. in any case, the video does not say: become christian, it says: love will save you no matter how many people you kill

When I said "we will" I was referring to the sum of all of us. Not you and me.

Of course religion originates from society. It is man-made, after all. And hence are its ethical systems. So I wasn't contradicting myself, I was contradicting your statement that morals come from god.

And that last message is troubling in itself. So the message to ISIS is that they are forgiven for their atrocities because Jesus will wash away their sins? What kind of deterrent is that, really? Then I am very glad we have secular laws who can give them a proper punishment.

[action]

20 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Take the killing of witches, how can you say that has nothing to do with the bible?

That's too bad for our sisters who practise the noble art of witchcraft.

If it's of any comfort to you, I'll do my best to convince my fellow christian brothers not to kill any witches anymore

[action]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

When I said "we will" I was referring to the sum of all of us. Not you and me.

Of course religion originates from society. It is man-made, after all. And hence are its ethical systems. So I wasn't contradicting myself, I was contradicting your statement that morals come from god.

And that last message is troubling in itself. So the message to ISIS is that they are forgiven for their atrocities because Jesus will wash away their sins? What kind of deterrent is that, really? Then I am very glad we have secular laws who can give them a proper punishment.

I was referring to the sum of all of us too. Again, see Durkheim for further doctrine in this subject

secular laws need to be of course. Not everyone takes christianity as a good enough incentive to act good. That's when criminal law comes in. But millions, billions of people have refrained from bad behaviour, for the past millennia, on the sole basis of being afraid from hell. Even the biggest scumbag in history, Hitler, on different occasions reckognised the need to please a "creator", which probably refrained him from killing even more people (Hitler, Adolf (1999). Mein Kampf. Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, pp. 65, 119, 152, 161, 214, 375, 383, 403, 436, 562, 565, 622, 632–633).

Edited April 24, 2019 by action

[DieselDaisy]

Here is a novel idea: religious plurality. Allow the religious man to be religious without haranguing him, and the atheism man to be atheistic without haranguing. End of argument. Go and discuss Guns N' Roses or something or other. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

That's too bad for our sisters who practise the noble art of witchcraft.

If it's of any comfort to you, I'll do my best to convince my fellow christian brothers not to kill any witches anymore

It is not a joking matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Ukpabio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_accusations_against_children_in_Africa

I am sure Helen Ukpabio believes she has the bible on her side when she torments children she thinks is possessed by evil spirits. I am sure she uses the aforementioned verse as support for what she does. Her actions, and her ethical system, is based (at least partly) on scripture. Which goes back to where we started: the good book is certainly not good and it cannot be safely used to build an ethical system. If you do that you risk ending up as a monster who torments kids for being possessed, or monsters who murder 390 Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka. It all comes down to interpretation and emphases. 

[action]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

It is not a joking matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Ukpabio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_accusations_against_children_in_Africa

I am sure Helen Ukpabio believes she has the bible on her side when she torments children she thinks is possessed by evil spirits. I am sure she uses the aforementioned verse as support for what she does. Her actions, and her ethical system, is based (at least partly) on scripture. Which goes back to where we started: the good book is certainly not good and it cannot be safely used to build an ethical system. If you do that you risk ending up as a monster who torments kids for being possessed, or monsters who murder 390 Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka. It all comes down to interpretation and emphases. 

fair enough.

at the end of the day, we all have a choice to act good or bad. while I acknowledge, of course, that not everything in the bible has equal moral value, many things do. The bible is, you've said it, a compilation. "the church", which I despise, has decided which texts form the bible. Seeing how man has decided which texts form the bible, I reserve the right to cherry pick those that I "think" hold most value.

As a start of being a good citizen, I think there are worse things than that

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Here is a novel idea: religious plurality. Allow the religious man to be religious without haranguing him, and the atheism man to be atheistic without haranguing. End of argument. Go and discuss Guns N' Roses or something or other. 

here was me thinking you didn't like flower-power mumbo jumbo  

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Here is a novel idea: religious plurality. Allow the religious man to be religious without haranguing him, and the atheism man to be atheistic without haranguing. End of argument. Go and discuss Guns N' Roses or something or other. 

That would be all well and good if religion wasn't such a burden on humanity.

And I try not to harangue anyone, and hopefully @action won't feel it that way, either. If so, I apologize. But I won't hold my tongue when criticising the morality of the bible out of some fear that christians will be offended by it. Nothing is above criticism, not even religion or their holy tests. Progress comes from discussions, and then we just have to try to not let it become personal.

[action]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

That would be all well and good if religion wasn't such a burden on humanity.

And I try not to harangue anyone, and hopefully @action won't feel it that way, either. If so, I apologize. But I won't hold my tongue when criticising the morality of the bible out of some fear that christians will be offended by it. Nothing is above criticism, not even religion or their holy tests. Progress comes from discussions, and then we just have to try to not let it become personal.

i'm not offended. when you point to wrong passages in the bible, I'll be the first to acknowledge them. these parts constitute a problem. But nothing that a person of good will couldn't downplay

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

That would be all well and good if religion wasn't such a burden on humanity.

And I try not to harangue anyone, and hopefully @action won't feel it that way, either. If so, I apologize. But I won't hold my tongue when criticising the morality of the bible out of some fear that christians will be offended by it. Nothing is above criticism, not even religion or their holy tests. Progress comes from discussions, and then we just have to try to not let it become personal.

You have been having this same tired old argument how long? Why? What is the purpose? Have you ever diverted somebody away from faith and onto the path of atheism? I don't believe so. Are you yourself susceptible to being persuaded about faith? No. It is a complete waste of time. Every few weeks you trigger another one of these boring arguments and it is an utter waste of time. 

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, action said:

at the end of the day, we all have a choice to act good or bad. while I acknowledge, of course, that not everything in the bible has equal moral value, many things do. The bible is, you've said it, a compilation. "the church", which I despise, has decided which texts form the bible. Seeing how man has decided which texts form the bible, I reserve the right to cherry pick those that I "think" hold most value.

Well, as I said, I am happy you do. My problem is just, how can I know that other christians will cherry-pick the same texts? It is waaaaay too arbitrary for comfort. We REALLY shouldn't let a book based on the ethical systems of bronze and iron age people, peope who lived in very different societies in very different times, be the source for moral systems today. Especially not when the bible is claimed to be divinely inspired. That's a recipe for disaster. How long can we expect society to help guide christians to the right verses and reject the bad ones? How long until we again see violents sects pop up in chistianity as we see in islam?

[action]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Well, as I said, I am happy you do. My problem is just, how can I know that other christians will cherry-pick the same texts? It is waaaaay too arbitrary for comfort. We REALLY shouldn't let a book based on the ethical systems of bronze and iron age people, peope who lived in very different societies in very different times, be the source for moral systems today. Especially not when the bible is claimed to be divinely inspired. That's a recipe for disaster. How long can we expect society to help guide christians to the right verses and reject the bad ones? How long until we again see violents sects pop up in chistianity as we see in islam?

I agree. there is no guarantee other christians will cherry pick the good ones.

but the problem doesn't start with religion.

the problem starts with the "ignorant mass" which by definition is stupid, egotistical and doesn't care about values. Man is born a wolf, and it needs to be tamed somehow. I maintain, that criminal laws in and of itself aren't sufficient. See how full the prisons already are. Now imagine that on top of that population, a whole group of people is added that doesn't have religious limits to their behaviour.

Religion is (was) a stronger incentive to act good, than criminal laws. Not too long ago, the fear of going to hell FAR outweighed the fear of going to jail. Good luck to a "worldy" set of morals to provoke the same amount of fear in people than hell and satan.

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You have been having this same tired old argument how long? Why? What is the purpose? Have you ever diverted somebody away from faith and onto the path of atheism? I don't believe so. Are you yourself susceptible to being persuaded about faith? No. It is a complete waste of time. Every few weeks you trigger another one of these boring arguments and it is an utter waste of time. 

How long? Probably since I realized that gods don't exist. That would be 30+ years by now.

Have I ever helped to make someone reject superstition? Oh yes, I like to think I have. But I don't really discuss religion outside of discussion forums, I have found it really doesn't lend itself to social settings 

Of course I am susceptible to changing my opinions, on anything, really. Just provide a good argument or evidence and I will happily start believing in the supernatural. 

It is not a waste of time if someone finds my posts interesting, or if I am having fun. What seems to be a waste of time, though, is you complaining about me.

[action]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

How long? Probably since I realized that gods don't exist. That would be 30+ years by now.

Have I ever helped to make someone reject superstition? Oh yes, I like to think I have. But I don't really discuss religion outside of discussion forums, I have found it really doesn't lend itself to social settings 

Of course I am susceptible to changing my opinions, on anything, really. Just provide a good argument or evidence and I will happily start believing in the supernatural. 

It is not a waste of time if someone finds my posts interesting, or if I am having fun. What seems to be a waste of time, though, is you complaining about me.

here's a good piece of evidence of the existence of a creator:

the universe

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

How long? Probably since I realized that gods don't exist. That would be 30+ years by now.

Have I ever helped to make someone reject superstition? Oh yes, I like to think I have. But I don't really discuss religion outside of discussion forums, I have found it really doesn't lend itself to social settings 

Of course I am susceptible to changing my opinions, on anything, really. Just provide a good argument or evidence and I will happily start believing in the supernatural. 

It is not a waste of time if someone finds my posts interesting, or if I am having fun. What seems to be a waste of time, though, is you complaining about me.

So it is only us who have this pleasure.

Can you not just drink some beer or listen to some music? Watch Man - oh, sorry, better not watch Man U. There are surely better ways to derive pleasure than haranguing people about religion on a Guns N' Roses forum?

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, action said:

the problem starts with the "ignorant mass" which by definition is stupid, egotistical and doesn't care about values. Man is born a wolf, and it needs to be tamed somehow. I maintain, that criminal laws in and of itself aren't sufficient. See how full the prisons already are. Now imagine that on top of that population, a whole group of people is added that doesn't have religious limits to their behaviour.

Religion is (was) a stronger incentive to act good, than criminal laws. Not too long ago, the fear of going to hell FAR outweighed the fear of going to jail. Good luck to a "worldy" set of morals to provoke the same amount of fear in people than hell and satan.

I agree, criminal laws aren't enough. Fortunately we have ethical systems on top of that. We are taught that hitting someone is wrong, not because we risk criminal punishment but because it is morally wrong. In addition, there is growing evidence that we are born with some moral sense expressed from our genes. So the combination of this, genes, ethical system, and the threat of criminal punishment, together seems to work fairly well. Religion doesn't seem to have much additive effect. Which is low religiosity, as seen in Norway, doesn't seem to lead to higher crime rates.

I find it morally detestable to try to make people do good because of the threat of some imaginary, and cruel, god.

3 minutes ago, action said:

here's a good piece of evidence of the existence of a creator:

the universe

Sorry, the existence of a universe isn't evidence of god. 

[action]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

We are taught that hitting someone is wrong, not because we risk criminal punishment but because it is morally wrong

why is it morally wrong?

if you say it is morally wrong, you say it is an ethical rule. Where is this rule written I ask? I can show you where it is written in my world: in the bible. "When they hit you, don't hit back but turn the other cheek". It's in the bible, a book more than 2000 years old that has the backing of billions of followers.

Where is your book?

Or is it, your "intuition"? 

that's a problem. Intuition isn't a good foundation for a moral rule. We need to somehow, dissect moral rules out of moral facts. But that is a tedious process, and you then have the burden of proof on top of it.

this is actually a problem for ethicists, and whole fields of ethics are dedicated on "proving" a moral rule. Seeing how ethicists have problems "proving" moral rules, why go through the effort? It's all already written in the bible. Even the book of whisdom alone will provide you with a good bagage of moral rules, should you somehow lack those to begin with

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

So it is only us who have this pleasure.

Can you not just drink some beer or listen to some music? Watch Man - oh, sorry, better not watch Man U. There are surely better ways to derive pleasure than haranguing people about religion on a Guns N' Roses forum?

No.

You know I listen to music, drink beer and watch football. But the good life to me wouldn't be complete without some good discussions about religion, too. It is endlessly fascinating to me that people can believe in gods.

2 minutes ago, action said:

why is it morally wrong?

Because it teaches people that something for which we have no evidence exists. And not only that, you are also using this fantasy to scare someone based on prehistoric morals instead of using the socially accepted morals. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

No.

You know I listen to music, drink beer and watch football. But the good life to me wouldn't be complete without some good discussions about religion, too. It is endlessly fascinating to me that people can believe in gods.

It is because we believe in a heterogeneous world whereby one can believe in things other people don't and vice versa. It is usually better to draw a line under it.