Should religion be eliminated

[well named]

Yes, well, that brings us to the question of whether or not things which are far less like religion than Confucianism is, and which have filled the place - if not precisely the role - of religion, are as effective or desirable in that place. And because filling that place certainly does mean that they will also end up defining cultural morality, the assessment of their efficacy and desirability will hinge largely on the quality and effectiveness of the cultural morality they define.

Definitely, and to be clear I don't think that having more secular institutions will lead automatically to more moral cultures (given my particular moral assumptions, of course). I don't think it's very easy to predict outcomes. In some sense I think changes to extant religions are inevitable purely in response to changes in knowledge, technology, and in response to greater cultural and economic exchange, and I think those changes are necessary simply because traditional religious worldviews no longer function adequately as worldviews for many people, including myself. I can't believe in the Christian worldview of an 4th century (or 18th century, for that matter) monk, no matter how aesthetically appealing I find it. I can't ground an ethic very easily in a view of the world which I find implausible.

But there's also plenty of evidence from history that more secular worldviews are not automatically better, or immune from social problems or institutional failures. My view is that we're all kind of in this struggle together, religious and non-religious, and there is plenty of wisdom (and beauty, and truths) to be gleaned from many traditions, both religious and secular.

 

[Avatar4321]

No. Religion should not be eliminated. It should be celebrated

 

[BreezeWood]

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, but I think when you refer to religion as a "metaphysical ingredient" you are referring to a belief that religious values are revealed from some metaphysical source? If so, that's wrong under the paradigm of "religion" I've suggested. Religion as I've defined it doesn't have to be concerned with metaphysics or the supernatural at all. And in any case my view is that religions as cultural systems are thoroughly human creations, not divine revelations.

.

And in any case my view is that religions as cultural systems are thoroughly human creations, not divine revelations.

not divine revelations ...

that is not to say the initial life template all beings have evolved from was not a product manufactured by the metaphysical forces of the universe and are not the motivation living beings use in their everyday lives and for the furtherance for their future prodigy.

at any rate what are "human creations" if not metaphysical abstracts such as the great flood bearing the original Religion of Antiquity ... The Triumph of Good vs Evil.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no ‘opposition to religion’ on USMB.

No one advocates for religion to be ‘eliminated.’

If it is bad as everyone says it is the logical conclusion would be to eliminate it. Right? Am I missing something?

Everyone? There are a handful of anti-religion types here. But "everyone"?

 

[Taz]

No. Religion should not be eliminated. It should be celebrated

Like Santa Claus.

 

[ding]

There is no ‘opposition to religion’ on USMB.

No one advocates for religion to be ‘eliminated.’

If it is bad as everyone says it is the logical conclusion would be to eliminate it. Right? Am I missing something?

Everyone? There are a handful of anti-religion types here. But "everyone"?

Everyone as in everyone who says it is as bad as they say.

Not everyone everyone.

This is me agreeing with you and clarifying what I wrote.

 

[ding]

There is no ‘opposition to religion’ on USMB.

No one advocates for religion to be ‘eliminated.’

If it is bad as everyone says it is the logical conclusion would be to eliminate it. Right? Am I missing something?

If liberals are as bad as every conservative says they are (liars, commies, perverts, nazis, fascists, scum, traitors, terrorists lovers) the logical conclusion would be to eliminate them. Right? Am I missing something?

Nope. You are not missing anything. Your logic is sound.

Fortunately for me I don’t see them that way.

I believe no one is all good or all bad. So I don’t treat them that way.

 

[Taz]

Evolution will doom religion.

 

[ding]

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.

You know this how?

If someone is truly seeking guidance from above, do you think he would turn his back on them because they did not address him by the correct name. God goes by many names. He only cares that we seek him. He'll take care of the rest. It's not always a straight line.

 

[ding]

Evolution will doom religion.

That's doubtful. Faith / religion offers functional advantages that atheism does not.

And it is functional advantage which drives evolution.

Like I said in my previous post, it's not always a straight line.

You are a linear thinker in a cyclical universe.

 

[ding]

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.

Jesus did not come for the strong, he came for the weak. We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.

The exalted will be humbled and the humble will be exalted. Word.

 

[ding]

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.

I don't think it would. I don't think people understand that gifts are not taxable unless they are over a certain amount.

The reality is that people would no longer receive a deduction for their charitable contribution. I don't think that would make them stop giving.

But if it did, that would only cause the government to give more. So in the end, the government would be paying 100% of the "charity" instead of giving a tax break on say 20% of the charity.

I think it is an emotional thing. They hate religion so much they can't look at it analytically.

 

[ding]

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.

Ya, because insulting people randomly gives you strength?

You are the pot calling the kettle black. You just use a thin veil.

 

[ding]

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.

Where is the proof that we are accountable to an invisible being?

It is inside you. That's why you believe so strongly about justice.

 

[ding]

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.

I don’t believe it would. There is no tax on gifts less than 10k. People would still give.

Yeah, but taxing the church would have the result that the church wouldn't get to keep what they give.

And if people couldn't deduct it on their taxes as a charitable donation, some wouldn't give, or would give less.

They can't tax the church for gifts under a certain amount.

And I don't think they would stop giving if they could not take a deduction for the gift. They don't give for the deduction. They give because they are charitable.

And if they did stop giving, it would end up costing the government more in the end.

 

[ding]

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.

How do you know there's only one god?

Logic, reason and experience.

How do you know there's not?

 

[ding]

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.

So nobody goes to churches so they're closing even with tax exempt status. Good plan.

Only time will tell, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Would it make you sad if they didn't?

 

[ding]

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.

I don’t believe it would. There is no tax on gifts less than 10k. People would still give.

Yeah, but taxing the church would have the result that the church wouldn't get to keep what they give.

And if people couldn't deduct it on their taxes as a charitable donation, some wouldn't give, or would give less.

Churches need to save up for the inevitable sex crime payouts.

You should read the John Jay report.

 

[Taz]

Evolution will doom religion.

That's doubtful. Faith / religion offers functional advantages that atheism does not.

And it is functional advantage which drives evolution.

Like I said in my previous post, it's not always a straight line.

You are a linear thinker in a cyclical universe.

As humans evolve to be smarter, they are abandoning organized religion. It's a fact.

 

[Taz]

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.

Jesus did not come for the strong, he came for the weak. We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.

The exalted will be humbled and the humble will be exalted. Word.

"Word"?, what are you, black for a day?

Jesus is your crutch, thanks for clearing that up.