Do you believe in God?

Post by Gone

Ryjacork, you seem to have focussed on my "religion has a lot to answer for" line. That was really in response to Elura saying that people blame it for everything and are wrong to do so. I agree that we shouldn't blame them for everything but do think that criticising the things that religious organisations do that are bad or wrong and criticising religious teachings that lead people to forgo critical thinking would be healthier for society and it should not be taboo to do so.

I was more responding to the general idea of of religion = harmful, yours was the last post that I read, so that was the line that I focused on. Sometimes I have trouble putting my thoughts into words, so I was just using that phrase in a general sense, not necessarily directed solely at you.

Post by ElhonnaDS

@Alf- I am addressing the general tendency of people to lump all religions together into a single entity, and kind of get tunnel vision about anything pertaining to religion other than the specific thing they are upset about. I think your line was kind of a good "catch phrase" and that's why I honed in on it to stay off my thesis statement, but my post as a whole was more directed at the overall flow of conversation in this and other threads we've had. It's funny to me when people say "religion is X or Y" because I find it such a general term encompassing so many different things, that I find it hard to debate about statements made about "religion" other than those specifically about believing in things that cannot be shown physically.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##

Post by civgw

I don't believe in god.

I've thought a lot about this thread and came to the conclusion that I can't elaborate without most likely offending some of the posters so I will leave it at that.

Post by asakawa

Yeah, I'd certainly admit that I chose those words poorly. It was intended as a light-hearted opener before I plunged into my more serious thoughts but I don't think I was very clear at all, sorry all.

I think there's a couple of things though. Firstly I don't want to seem to focus my criticism on any one religion. I know Christianity best so it would be too easy for me to come across like my issue is with that while I'm much more interested in discussing broader issues that are not specific to any single church (for me that would be the corrupting influence of power (arguably not a religious topic at all) and the presentation of faith as virtuous).

So, what I'm saying is that too much specificity can seem more like an attack which is a tone we certainly want to avoid.

Also though, isn't you listing the positive influences of religion the same sort of fallacy? There are lots of non-religious charities so without religion there would still be charity (the giving people would still give) but perhaps the negatives would not be present without religion. It's just a thought.

Post by ElhonnaDS

I'm listing them to show that the generalizations usually made have many exceptions. I am saying that within that broader umbrella, there are specific groups that do quite the opposite of what many suggest. And if people DO want to weigh the entirety of religion as a whole, then they need to weigh both the positive and negative aspects of the various religious organizations, and not just what they dislike, or else it's not a fair evaluation of the category in addition to being overly vague because of how much it encompasses.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##

Post by asakawa

Yup, very fair. I suppose my point is that the bit that worries me is when a religion asks its followers to behave in a way they wouldn't ordinarily. I'd be willing to admit it may be my bias but I see more instances of that occurring that are negative than positive. There would also be an argument over what comes under positive and negative as I know I see things as negative that others wouldn't.

Post by ElhonnaDS

One could also make the argument that the legal system asks people to behave in a way that they normally won't. They offer penalties and punishments for people who do the wrong thing to encourage them to do the right thing. Religious works on the same principles, it's just that most of the penalties (and rewards) are intangible and not immediately measurable. It's also the same system schools use to get cooperation from children - punishment and reward to elicit certain behavior. Any institution or system that creates codes of behavior enforces them in the same way- the stakes are just different. Any institution that has rules has them specifically because they want people to act in a way that is different than how they would normally act.

Post by Jubilee

I think that's where many people's problems with religion derive. Instead of responsibility for one's actions residing solely on him or herself, the responsibility is redirected on their part toward some intangible being or faith-based moral system. When someone's stance ultimately boils down to "sorry but God said so," one can easily begin to extend one's frustration beyond the person saying that to the religious construct itself.

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by asakawa

We choose our laws through democracy. The people decide what constitutes behaviour that is conducive to a better society. This is quite different to the kinds of thing I'm talking about. When Salman Rushdie wrote a work of fiction (a simple novel) the spiritual and political leader of an entire nation offered money to anyone that would kill him.

I would argue that this behaviour is only enabled by the willing relinquishment of one's own reason to something exterior in which one puts one's faith. As an outsider to all religions I don't presume to question the faiths themselves (or at least, I occasionally do but that's not what I'm getting at here) but most religions are led by men. Most followers of a religion at some point are asked/told to put their faith, not in the divinity of a deity, but in the divinity of a man (or men - (almost) never women). In politics we are extremely careful about how much a single individual can do but not so in religion despite the power it can wield.

Also, to your point about rewards and punishments. I don't think there's much mileage in the idea that Christians (just for example) follow the commandments in order to avoid hell. A Christian doesn't murder because they innately know that to be wrong, I'm quite sure. This is demonstrated by ex-Christians and those who have never had a religion also knowing that murder is wrong.
Meanwhile a suicide bomber may be looking forward to their promised reward in heaven but they do the terrible act because they believe to their core that it is what their god wants from them. They don't do it in order to get the reward; the reward is just there to confirm that the action is a good one despite everything they may feel and doubt.

One could argue that governments apply the same pressure on their citizens at times of war (all the time in this modern era it seems). They ask that the faith of "normal men" be placed in those in charge who have decided that they need to kill people who are just like them but wearing a different uniform. I'm meandering way off topic now >.<

edit to add: Unlike Soldrethar, I believe that, generally, good deeds are done for benevolent reasons. People may pay some sort of tithe out of societal/social/parish pressure but people don't give to be good. Good people do just give I think. I understand the point you're making about whether there can really be such a thing as altruism when a reward is even just hinted at but I still think that there's some very good people in the world and that doesn't necessarily need cynically undermining.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Squishalot

Sold - do you question people who give donations, and are able to claim it back as a tax deduction?

At the end of the day, there are non-selfless motivations for doing just about everything. Philanthropic work, charity, volunteering at soup kitchens all provide personal utility, work experience, bragging rights, etc., and are therefore not selfless. So unless you question everybody (in which case, it would be wrong to single out a particular group), you should probably stop and think about the fact that everybody is doing things for their own reasons, whatever they may be.

Post by Nathanyal

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by asakawa

I think this was actually a skit in Friends once >.<
Just feeling good about doing something for someone else means that you're getting something out of it. It really calls into question if there is such a thing as a selfless act. However, I don't think this is particularly interesting territory for this thread (though others may disagree of course) because it isn't specific to religions or religious people.

Also, why would someone who donates their time or money care if you think they're genuine? ^_^(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##

Post by Squishalot

I don't know squish, if you're bragging about how you donate to charity or work at a soup kitchen, I wouldn't call it selflessness.

Or are you referring to the ability that they could brag about what they have done?

The ability to, moreso - the fact that business leaders can get up and say that it's OK for them to earn hundreds of millions, because they give millions to charity. And that's exactly my point - it's not selfless. No 'good' deeds are completely selfless, so I disagree with the idea of saying that Christians are particularly bad because their good deeds are predicated on a heavenly reward.

Just feeling good about doing something for someone else means that you're getting something out of it. It really calls into question if there is such a thing as a selfless act. However, I don't think this is particularly interesting territory for this thread (though others may disagree of course) because it isn't specific to religions or religious people.

Indeed, which is why I'm trying to put an end to this particular line of discussion, because it's not religious in nature.

Post by gnomerdon

who cares if they are getting something out of it for helping others.. and who cares if a person is genuinely good or not. really. we're all bad people from the moment we came into this hell hole. dig deep enough, and you fall into a black hole. the fact of the matter is that THE PERSON DONE AN ACT OF KINDNESS. ACTIONS speak the loudest, whether or not they are d-bags or not. they are still good people for doing something.

the fact that someone is willing to give something away is good enough. keep it simple.

anything past that is just garbage. to say that it is bad for someone doing acts of kindness and compassion just to increase their rep? look how far we've fallen to even consider morals and ethics through subjectively helping others.

im done.

Post by Nathanyal

So your saying that as a new born baby I was a bad person? Even though the only thing I ever accomplished at that point was crying?

I say the opposite of what you said is true. Babies are some of the most innocent beings there are. Everyone is probably
considered neutral when they are born. This includes everyone from spiritual leaders to mass murderers.

And it's true face, some people do good things to cover up bad things they have done.

Post by Gone

I think Immanuel Kant was the one who said that the only true good dead is the one that a person preforms without getting anything in return. Nobody does a good dead without getting something out of it, even if the thing you get is just a warm feeling inside.

I would say that a Christian doing a good dead because he thinks God will look favorably upon it is being more selfish than a person who does a good dead just out of the goodness of his heart, because the second person is still doing it for self serving reasons.

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Do you believe in God?

Post Reply