Topic: More religious tolerance
started by: Leisher
Posted by Leisher on Jan. 21 2010,05:58
< The French hate Muslims. >< Muslims hate Christians. >
I would never disagree that religion has done some people a lot of good in their lives. It's given folks a sense of morality, focus, etc. (Whether or not they could have gotten that from another source is another debate.)
However, you'd have a hard time convincing me that the overall effect of religion on the world has been anything other than negative.
Posted by TPRJones on Jan. 21 2010,06:29
(Leisher @ Jan. 21 2010,07:58)
QUOTE
It's given folks a sense of morality...
I strongly disagree with this statement. Any "morals" derived from purely external sources and based in a fear of punishment is not a moral code at all.
The only valid moral codes are ones that the individual arrives at upon reflection on the nature of the universe and their own personal values of right and wrong. It has to come from a desire to do the "right" thing simply because it is the right thing, not because they are afraid their imaginary big daddy in the sky will spank them if they don't.
Posted by Leisher on Jan. 21 2010,07:13
QUOTE
(Whether or not they could have gotten that from another source is another debate.)
Yes, I'm quoting myself. I didn't want to debate this here because we've debated this topic previously, and recently. Plus, I think there's a larger topic on the effect religion has truly had on the human species.
However, since you're pushing the issue...
QUOTE
Any "morals" derived from purely external sources and based in a fear of punishment is not a moral code at all.
No disagreement on that statement, except your conclusion that I said religion (or "purely external sources") solely make up one's morals. External influences will always have an influence on one's moral compass, but I didn't mean to imply that it'd be the only one...if that's what you took away from my statement. Friends, family, society, education, entertainment, etc. all help form that moral compass. The most important factor, however, is how the person's brain is hardwired, IMHO.
QUOTE
The only valid moral codes are ones that the individual arrives at upon reflection on the nature of the universe and their own personal values of right and wrong.
See, you agree. One cannot create a moral compass without first creating values. Those values aren't created completely internally. One's religion, or spiritual beliefs, will affect those values and that moral compass.
QUOTE
It has to come from a desire to do the "right" thing simply because it is the right thing, not because they are afraid their imaginary big daddy in the sky will spank them if they don't.
We covered the "fear" thing, but this gives me an interesting thought. I wonder what the numbers are between murderers who believed in a higher power, and murderers who don't? Not only would the numbers be important, but so would the types of murder they committed. Do religious murderers commit murder out of passion (unplanned murders)? Do non-religious people commit murders for profit?
Posted by TPRJones on Jan. 21 2010,07:28
I think we're on roughly the same page, I guess. Although I may be stronger in my stance that it is absolutely impossible for a religion to "give folks a sense of morality."
Posted by Leisher on Jan. 21 2010,11:14
Agreed. I don't think it's impossible for religion to help someone build a proper moral compass, but as you said, it can't be the only source for that compass, and the religion must be taught properly.
As an example, if you claim your religion is all about peace and tolerance, you can't fly airplanes into skyscrapers to kill innocent civilians in the name of that religion.
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 21 2010,12:27
QUOTE
The most important factor, however, is how the person's brain is hardwired, IMHO.
Maybe. Some brains are hardwired to absorb & believe damn near anything anyone else tells them.
QUOTE
Do religious murderers commit murder out of passion (unplanned murders)? Do non-religious people commit murders for profit?
Assuming you could ever confirm someone truly believes in or denies a faith, that would very much depend upon the effect religion has upon the individual. For some, it's just another excuse to treat others shittily & rationalize it by claiming they're ultimately "saving" them & making their life (& perhaps afterlife) better. For others, it's an excuse to surrender any notion of independence, uniqueness, individualism, or personal responsibility, becoming pathetic puppets of human beings. I'd wager most folk fall somewhere in between those two extremes.
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 21 2010,12:31
(Leisher @ Jan. 21 2010,13:14)
QUOTE
As an example, if you claim your religion is all about peace and tolerance, you can't fly airplanes into skyscrapers to kill innocent civilians in the name of that religion.
Sure you can, you just have to add some asterisks after "peace" and "tolerance."
Posted by Vince on Jan. 24 2010,06:53
(Leisher @ Jan. 21 2010,07:58)
QUOTE
< The French hate Muslims. >
< Muslims hate Christians. >
I would never disagree that religion has done some people a lot of good in their lives. It's given folks a sense of morality, focus, etc. (Whether or not they could have gotten that from another source is another debate.)
However, you'd have a hard time convincing me that the overall effect of religion on the world has been anything other than negative.
< Muslims hate Christians. >
I would never disagree that religion has done some people a lot of good in their lives. It's given folks a sense of morality, focus, etc. (Whether or not they could have gotten that from another source is another debate.)
However, you'd have a hard time convincing me that the overall effect of religion on the world has been anything other than negative.
Government has a worse track record than religion. And I'd argue that it was the politics of religion (not religion itself) that caused overall negative effect.
The simple act of practicing most religions generally doesn't cause bad things to happen.
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 24 2010,14:10
(Vince @ Jan. 24 2010,08:53)
QUOTE
The simple act of practicing most religions generally doesn't cause bad things to happen.
Unless "practicing" includes "forcibly convert everyone else." Soon as you think you got a supreme being or two in your corner, all kinds of weird thoughts start seeming justifiable.
Posted by Leisher on Jan. 24 2010,15:29
QUOTE
The simple act of practicing most religions generally doesn't cause bad things to happen.
Lots of Catholics in third world countries where people are starving and VDs are thriving refuse to wear condoms because they're practicing their religion.
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 24 2010,15:42
(Leisher @ Jan. 24 2010,18:29)
QUOTE
QUOTE
The simple act of practicing most religions generally doesn't cause bad things to happen.
Lots of Catholics in third world countries where people are starving and VDs are thriving refuse to wear condoms because they're practicing their religion.
Actually, minor point: If they were practicing their religion they wouldn't be screwing unless they were married. Fewer babies, no VD.
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 24 2010,15:57
(GORDON @ Jan. 24 2010,17:42)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Jan. 24 2010,18:29)
QUOTE
QUOTE
The simple act of practicing most religions generally doesn't cause bad things to happen.
Lots of Catholics in third world countries where people are starving and VDs are thriving refuse to wear condoms because they're practicing their religion.
Actually, minor point: If they were practicing their religion they wouldn't be screwing unless they were married. Fewer babies, no VD.
Even in developing countries, it's in your interests to have as many children as possible, even if monogamy is observed. Chances are increased that one of your kids amounts to something & pays your way for the rest of your life.
& it's amazing how quickly religion gets put aside when pussy is available.
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 24 2010,17:23
One man can have 1000 women pregnant at a time, and give all of them AIDS, contributing to the problem. But not if he is monogamous.
Posted by Vince on Jan. 24 2010,17:38
(GORDON @ Jan. 24 2010,17:42)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Jan. 24 2010,18:29)
QUOTE
QUOTE
The simple act of practicing most religions generally doesn't cause bad things to happen.
Lots of Catholics in third world countries where people are starving and VDs are thriving refuse to wear condoms because they're practicing their religion.
Actually, minor point: If they were practicing their religion they wouldn't be screwing unless they were married. Fewer babies, no VD.
Valid point.
Posted by Leisher on Jan. 24 2010,18:25
The point might stop the spread of VDs, but not pregnancies.
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 24 2010,18:34
No VD would exist anywhere if people waiting until they were married to have sex, and were monogamous.Just saying.
Posted by Leisher on Jan. 24 2010,18:47
No argument there.Although, not all religions bar pre-marital sex or more than one wife.
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 24 2010,18:57
Honestly I could never get behind those rules. My sperm is just too in demand by hot chicks.