(June 18, 2013 at 5:42 am)max-greece Wrote: Does rather beg the question - if religion does not offer any benefit to society - why have it?

Bit of a loaded question But ok, you have to think about specifically what the stated purpose of religions are, what do they claim to achieve (bear in mind each religion has its won stated purpose, there's no blanket answer, except maybe for the abrahamic ones). And you also have to think about what you mean exactly by "benefit", because there are things that we think benefit us, but in the long term it might not be beneficial at all. Sub-prime mortgages is a case in point, alan greenspan thought he knew what he was doing, what was beneficial for america, turns out he was wrong and the whole country paid the price.

---

(June 18, 2013 at 5:51 am)Simsim Wrote: we don't attribute any kind of absolutism to them.

I do Rape for example, is wrong at an absolute level in my opinion, I don't scripture to tell me that.

(June 18, 2013 at 5:51 am)ideologue08 Wrote:

(June 18, 2013 at 5:42 am)max-greece Wrote: Does rather beg the question - if religion does not offer any benefit to society - why have it?

Bit of a loaded question But ok, you have to think about specifically what the stated purpose of religions are, what do they claim to achieve (bear in mind each religion has its won stated purpose, there's no blanket answer, except maybe for the abrahamic ones). And you also have to think about what you mean exactly by "benefit", because there are things that we think benefit us, but in the long term it might not be beneficial at all. Sub-prime mortgages is a case in point, alan greenspan thought he knew what he was doing, what was beneficial for america, turns out he was wrong and the whole country paid the price.

---

(June 18, 2013 at 5:51 am)Simsim Wrote: we don't attribute any kind of absolutism to them.

I do Rape for example, is wrong at an absolute level in my opinion, I don't scripture to tell me that.

Well we could discuss the sub-prime market and why it went wrong but we would probably not agree who the guilty parties are (I'm going for the lenders and their punitive penalty interest rates on the basis of one late payment) - but that's a whole other story.

As for religion I guess my real question is this:

If someone is religious (and for the sake of argument believes in the right religion) is it unreasonable for us to expect that person to be a more moral, law-abiding person than a non-believer or a believer in a wrong religion?

Further, if that is not the case - and I have seen no evidence of any religions followers being under-represented in prison - then isn't it reasonable to assume there are no right religions and that these carry no perceivable benefits?

(June 18, 2013 at 6:00 am)max-greece Wrote: As for religion I guess my real question is this:

If someone is religious (and for the sake of argument believes in the right religion) is it unreasonable for us to expect that person to be a more moral, law-abiding person than a non-believer or a believer in a wrong religion?

Further, if that is not the case - and I have seen no evidence of any religions followers being under-represented in prison - then isn't it reasonable to assume there are no right religions and that these carry no perceivable benefits?

You're right, it is not unreasonable to expect that at all. The problem here is how you define morality, as well as the fact that a person who believes in the correct religion is still a human being and is just as susceptible to the same emotions of anger, sadness, fear etc. In theory what you're saying makes sense but in practice it doesn't really work, we all make mistakes regardless of what we think the correct option is.

About the morality part and its subjectivity, I don't watch porn or gamble, but people who do these things could argue that what they're doing is not immoral at all. So how can you judge religions on the morality of a religion's followers if there is no consensus between us what the moral or immoral actions are. Breaking the law is only one aspect of immorality, as well as the fact that there are many people who do immoral things without breaking any laws (such as some bankers, politicians, lawyers etc.).

(June 18, 2013 at 6:15 am)ideologue08 Wrote: So how can you judge religions on the morality of a religion's followers if there is no consensus between us what the moral or immoral actions are.

One could argue there is an underlying objective basis for morality that we all already at least implicitly honor, which is simply how much/little suffering and/or pleasure an action causes in other sentient beings.

The law is just a very, very blunt and imprecise instrument when trying to quanitfy this to come up with rules that ensure the least amount of suffering caused by any individuals actions.

(June 18, 2013 at 6:15 am)ideologue08 Wrote: You're right, it is not unreasonable to expect that at all. The problem here is how you define morality, as well as the fact that a person who believes in the correct religion is still a human being and is just as susceptible to the same emotions of anger, sadness, fear etc. In theory what you're saying makes sense but in practice it doesn't really work, we all make mistakes regardless of what we think the correct option is.

About the morality part and its subjectivity, I don't watch porn or gamble, but people who do these things could argue that what they're doing is not immoral at all. So how can you judge religions on the morality of a religion's followers if there is no consensus between us what the moral or immoral actions are. Breaking the law is only one aspect of immorality, as well as the fact that there are many people who do immoral things without breaking any laws (such as some bankers, politicians, lawyers etc.).

On the subjectivity of morality would it be acceptable to use merely a sub-set that we all might agree upon.

I would expect murder, rape and paedophilia would be regarded by all of us, whatever our religious backgrounds, as being morally unacceptable.

If we can agree on that then we can measure the propensity of religious followers of any religion against the average to see if they are less likely to commit these crimes than anyone else.

Atheists can be a handy nul case for comparison.

I suspect, you - in common with me - anticipate no correlation whatsoever - I'm just wondering if its ever been formalized.

(June 18, 2013 at 5:01 am)ideologue08 Wrote: I would also say that the knowledge of God's existence is also innate.

I have to disagree, because atheism is always the default position. The only two ways I know of for someone to learn of the concept of God is through indoctrination or creating the concept himself without help from any outside source. Unless one spends a solitary life in a cave without internet access, no television, and no books, the latter is not likely to happen.

---

(June 18, 2013 at 5:42 am)max-greece Wrote: if religion does not offer any benefit to society - why have it?

The only thing that comes to mind for me is that people hold onto it for the sake of comfort much as an infant does a pacifier.

Why would I want people who wouldn't know what to do with it to be privy to the enlightenment that set us apart?

So long as they don't vote, yokels like GC, Polaris, frodo, and stadler wordoff should remain mental serfs they are.

My answer is for the mindset of "I believe 'x' and everyone else should as well or else" to be eliminated and destroyed in all its forms through a peaceful evolution and acceptance of the idea that 'people believe in different things, and I'm ok with that so long as they don't try to enforce their beliefs on others, or try and tell me I'm bad becuase I don't follow their beliefs'.

It doesn't matter to me that people are religious so long as they don't try and make me religious. Those that do are, in my opinion, pretty terrible people that should garner no respect from anyone.

---

(June 17, 2013 at 9:58 pm)Polaris Wrote: Societies that have shunned religion for secular control have been the most destructive and most dangerous to humanity.

Not forgetting of course that the treaty of Westphalia was initiated by one sect of Christians trying to wrestle state legitimacy from another sect of chrisitians.

Secularism is not about creating a sphere for atheists to control state structures and political heirarchies; never was. It's about creating a neutral sphere in said structures and heriarchies for people of all religions (and none) to have equal input into the running of the state. It's about fostering a legitimate structure elected by the people that doesn't enforce anyone else's religion onto the people, rather allows them to [not] believe whatever they want without fear of being persecuted/restricted in their [lack of] belief by a majority that doesn't [not] believe the same thing they do.

It's actually a great system that theists and atheists alike should support because it ensures that their beliefs are not supported/restricted by state sanctions. None of this was aimed at you Polaris, rather just at people who think that secularism = atheism, or that secularism = the denial or restriction of religion in every part of society.

---

(June 18, 2013 at 8:00 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(June 18, 2013 at 5:01 am)ideologue08 Wrote: I would also say that the knowledge of God's existence is also innate.

I have to disagree, because atheism is always the default position. The only two ways I know of for someone to learn of the concept of God is through indoctrination or creating the concept himself without help from any outside source. Unless one spends a solitary life in a cave without internet access, no television, and no books, the latter is not likely to happen.

I agree with the above and use myself as proof. I've never once been 'religious' or believed in a deity. Not since day 1 of my existence.

I think that even if all religions are eliminated there will be many kinds of metaphysics. Religions are just some manifestations of metaphysics but not all the metaphysics. You will find many people (want to) believe in metaphysical aspects. Other people will be very interested to the extent that makes them theorize these philosophies. Others will exploit people metaphysical desires to control them or fleece them. Gradually and over time you will find yourself in front of a new religion.
Circumstances will determine whether this religion is harmful or not, peaceful or not, progressive or not ... etc.

Maybe if we raise our children on scientific thinking and scientific method we will guarantee, to some extent, that no one can deceive them since they will automatically test every piece of information applied to them.

** My answer to the question is the fifth option (otherwise). What is this "otherwise" definitely? I don't know, but it is otherwise anyway.

I would like everyone to be an Atheist. It's really the best option and it's going to happen sooner or later anyway.

Manowar