Should religion be eliminated

[Cecilie1200]

Religion does what governments can’t, they teach civility.

So, the only two sources of civility are religion or the state?
A chilling set of alternatives.

No. There is only one organization that does that; organized religion.

Yes, we can learn civility from our family, friends and our experiences.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

The problem with learning civility from our family and friends is that it still has to be traceable to somewhere. If my parents hadn't known what civility was or why it mattered, they wouldn't have been able to teach it to me.

And if my parents hadn't taught it to me, I'd be unlikely to derive it from my experiences.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

It's better than being guilty and afraid all the time.

Good thing I am neither.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

Because you’re a weak individual.

ALL people are weak in some way and at some point in time. To require yourself to be completely strong, all the time, all by yourself is to set yourself up for failure by setting an impossible standard to meet.

Every relationship we have in life is intended exactly for the purpose of providing a support structure for those times when we cannot function and achieve individually. Why would our relationship with God be different?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, we can learn civility from our family, friends and our experiences.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

Anthropologists and sociologists will tell you that the primary socialization provided by family and friends is enormously important. But, there is also nothing which prevents other social institutions or organizations from trying to teach civility. Just as an example, in my state the government mandates that general education programs at state universities try to incorporate teaching about social responsibility, including civility.

And where are THEY getting it from?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

It's better than being guilty and afraid all the time.

Good thing I am neither.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

Because you’re a weak individual.

Apparently. But now I am strong.

No, you’re still a weenie who need a religion crutch.

And you're still an emotional cripple trying to make yourself be something you can't be, are not designed by nature to be. Again, you have my sympathy, because you are so much less than you could be, and you can't even see it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hmmm... which one do you think is more far reaching in terms of numbers?

I imagine someone could argue that public education plays a role that's similar in scope to organized religion in the contemporary US, but I don't know, and in any case you're changing the subject. If you'd said that organized religion currently plays the single largest role in teaching social values then I would have agreed with you. Instead you said that only organized religion could play such a role, which is different.

I think we can state definitively that public education is not only NOT teaching civility, it is actually mucking around with silly notions like it's "oppressive" to "impose values on children".

And again, the question is, when some person or group teaches civilized values, where are THEY getting what they're teaching from?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Eliminated ? For what ? Taxed ? FukkinA. it's BIG bidness

Is it? And how are you defining "big business"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hmmm... which one do you think is more far reaching in terms of numbers?

I imagine someone could argue that public education plays a role that's similar in scope to organized religion in the contemporary US, but I don't know, and in any case you're changing the subject. If you'd said that organized religion currently plays the single largest role in teaching social values then I would have agreed with you. Instead you said that only organized religion could play such a role, which is different.

Fair enough.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

Well, I think THAT depends on the religion. But no, religion per se isn't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Religion does what governments can’t, they teach civility.

So, the only two sources of civility are religion or the state?
A chilling set of alternatives.

No. There is only one organization that does that; organized religion.

Yes, we can learn civility from our family, friends and our experiences.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

True believers, such as your good self, never cease to amaze me with how their faith can blind them to the entire body of Western & Eastern philosophy.

True believers, such as yourself, never cease to amaze me with how their faith can blind them to the entire history of mankind.

 

[well named]

Science is not a “belief system” but a process and methodology for seeking an objective reality.

I agree that science is a set of principles relating to epistemology, but I think it's also clear that we use the word in multiple ways which go beyond this. So I might say that science is all of these:

- An epistemology. By which I mean that "science" is the word we use to describe a particular philosophy about what distinguishes knowledge from non-knowledge, and what kinds of justifications can reasonably legitimate propositions about the world in order to say that we "know" those propositions are true (i.e. empiricism)

- A diverse collection of methodologies and methods applied to different domains. What makes methods and methodologies "scientific" is the attempt to make them harmonious with the epistemological basis of the philosophy of science.

- A somewhat vague way of referring to a set of social institutions, including universities, research organizations (like CERN), government agencies (NASA), and professional organizations (like the APA or the AMA)

- An even vaguer way of referring to some modern secular worldviews for which scientific epistemology and institutions are central, as well as the body of knowledge associated with them.​

Taken altogether, I think one can understand what kind of comparison a person is making when they describe a certain scientific worldview as "religious", although I also agree it's too reductive, typically too pejorative, and isn't always completely clear. But if you think about traditional religious belief and practice incorporating both social institutions and and beliefs about the world, along with some epistemological principles which are thought to legitimize both of those, then you can see how scientific epistemology also serves to legitimize various scientific social institutions and beliefs about the world, along with some forms of ethics.

Additionally, in practice we place a certain amount of trust in those institutions and processes without being able to dutifully and individually apply NDT's principles in every case, because no one has enough time to do so on every possible scientific topic. It's not surprising to me that people compare that trust with the trust others have in traditional religious institutions or organizations.

It seems to me that when religious folks attack atheists as treating science as a religion the mistake they are making is not so much that there is no comparison, but in thinking that because there's a comparison that there is also some exact equivalence in epistemological validity or trustworthiness. So my response is not "science isn't religion!" but more like pointing out that a certain scientific ethos does serve a similar role (in part) to traditional religion, but opposition to some religious organizations/institutions doesn't constitute a rejection of the need for something to serve that role (i.e. we're not treating science and religion hypocritically), and within that specific context science has a lot of advantages which justify the trust we place in it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hmmm... which one do you think is more far reaching in terms of numbers?

I imagine someone could argue that public education plays a role that's similar in scope to organized religion in the contemporary US, but I don't know, and in any case you're changing the subject. If you'd said that organized religion currently plays the single largest role in teaching social values then I would have agreed with you. Instead you said that only organized religion could play such a role, which is different.

Fair enough.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

View attachment 232365

whether acknowledged or not history speaks for itself, the two sides of religion and those in denial of responsibility ...

Whether acknowledged or not, your bias speaks for itself in what it focuses on versus what it chooses to ignore.

To attempt to blame evil on religion (or on Nazism, Communism, mental illness, whatever) is to ignore the fact that evil is endemic to humanity.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hmmm... which one do you think is more far reaching in terms of numbers?

I imagine someone could argue that public education plays a role that's similar in scope to organized religion in the contemporary US, but I don't know, and in any case you're changing the subject. If you'd said that organized religion currently plays the single largest role in teaching social values then I would have agreed with you. Instead you said that only organized religion could play such a role, which is different.

Fair enough.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

View attachment 232365

whether acknowledged or not history speaks for itself, the two sides of religion and those in denial of responsibility ...

Some of those who are/were responsible are the very authors of so called holy books.

Responsible for what, precisely? And which authors? Be more specific, man. Vague generalities are the same as saying, "I don't have anything, but I wish I did!"

 

[well named]

And where are THEY getting it from?

The really short answer is through enculturation, which in most human societies involves learning aspects of culture we describe as religious. The point of that exchange with ding (as I said to him) is not to deny the importance of traditional religious institutions, it was to point out that it's not only the kinds of religious organizations with which we are familiar that can serve that function within a society, and of course the "religious" aspects of various cultures are highly variable and different from each other, which illustrates the point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

Why would one have to be accountable to god?

If God exists, then one would be accountable to Him because He made the universe and everything in it, including you.

Therefore, the post is saying that people choose not to believe in God because they do not wish to be accountable for their actions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You dismissed it using using rhetoric. There was no substance to your rebuttal.

How does one refute so incoherent an abuse of the English language? I’m not going to even try.[/QUOTE]

I just heard, "I can't rebut it, so I'll just insult it."

 

[Cecilie1200]

another example, one more to your liking - to work with ...
Look, I find it embarrasing that maybe someone will imagine I’m defending the KKK but that slogan may not have been placed there by the clan but have come as a permanent fixture in a hired hall. The ’sin’, if we can call it that, may lay with whoever rented or allowed the KKK to use their premises.
On the other hand the KKK members would all probably be horrified if they met the original Jesus and realised he wasn’t exactly white as the driven snow.

Breeze has a hard time understanding that Christianity and God are not automatically responsible for the evil that humans choose to do, simply because the humans attempt to hide behind them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As for Bishop John Shelby Spong, he's an Episcopalian, and he is speaking about his church. One I do not have enough knowledge of to comment about their creed, but I do not believe their foundational beliefs are vastly different than most mainstream Christian denominations.

Spong may have been Episcopalian (Anglican in the UK but with some differences) but his writings, sermons and public addresses have many of the US Episcopalian creed seeing him as apostate.

But if you really want to have a conversation on diversity, you first need to understand that it applies to much more than religion. It applies to all things. Whereas you may see this as a negative, it is without a doubt a positive and a strength. In fact without it there would be no progress and advancement.

Yes but such becomes a serious issue when supporters of different translations and interpretations of scripture all claim their version is the inerrant 'Word of God’. Unless the Almighty expresses himself/herself etc in riddles and contradictions I suggest all such claims must be taken with more than a grain of salt.

Biblical apologists though always have a way of wriggling out of such problems. Some claim the apparent contradictions within the bible and it’s many versions are seen in their true light only by those who are imbued with the Holy Spirit’ HMMM!

People make sweeping generalizations when they're long on vitriol and short on fact. Hmmmm!

 

[ding]

Hmmm... which one do you think is more far reaching in terms of numbers?

I imagine someone could argue that public education plays a role that's similar in scope to organized religion in the contemporary US, but I don't know, and in any case you're changing the subject. If you'd said that organized religion currently plays the single largest role in teaching social values then I would have agreed with you. Instead you said that only organized religion could play such a role, which is different.

Fair enough.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

Well, I think THAT depends on the religion. But no, religion per se isn't.

It is a slippery slope that should be traversed with caution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

Because a generic god doesn’t care what u do? That’s true

I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.

In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.

Just because there's only one God doesn't mean everyone is automatically praying to him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Should we let it die on it's own? That's another question best answered after We, The People stop propping it up with tax favors

I didn't know we were keeping it alive.

I'm for eliminating all deductions including charitable and for a flat tax that is based on balancing the budget. That ought to get the talking monkey's attention. The churches will be fine.

Our town's little church that has been around since the 1830's can barely pay the minister and keep oil in the furnace. A tax and the nix on charitable deductions would completely wipe out our church. I have a feeling ours wouldn't be the only one.

So you're saying that only poor people (or is it cheap people?) go to church?

No, she's saying that taxing churches, which by definition are non-profit, would end up wiping many churches out of existence.

 

[Taz]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

It's better than being guilty and afraid all the time.

Good thing I am neither.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

Because you’re a weak individual.

ALL people are weak in some way and at some point in time. To require yourself to be completely strong, all the time, all by yourself is to set yourself up for failure by setting an impossible standard to meet.

Every relationship we have in life is intended exactly for the purpose of providing a support structure for those times when we cannot function and achieve individually. Why would our relationship with God be different?

You're weak too, apparently, so you invent in invisible being that you thing give a shit what you do. Totally deluded. And without foundation.