Brian37 Wrote:Unless you understand the difference between the human right to claim something, vs the ability to demonstrate a claim, you will NOT understand how wrong you are.
I fear you are using "demonstrate" in a very restricted sense. No, I cannot produce an experiment that will repeat consistently and show there is God. I can give you logical proofs and show you logical cohesion. This isn't good enough for some to say it's correct, but it is, regardless of the popularity contest.
Brian37 Wrote:Christians are certainly capable of morality, but it is because they are humans and humans are capable of morality. If you can accept that people outside Christianity can be moral, then you should be able to see that morality is evolutionary based and NOT the invention of a label.
People outside of Christianity are moral all the time. Jews and Muslims is the easiest example, especially with straying from pre-marital and extra-marital sex. That is moral. Even if a completely hostile atheist were to give to the poor, they would be moral. If morality is evolutionary though, it's arbitrary. It's whatever benefits the species that should develop. This really doesn't actually mean morality as religions use it. Morality in your system is just a thing we do because our genes tell us to. Morality in our system actually tells us to resist different compulsions because they are inherently bad. In a sense, you are a slave to your own genetic code. We're given principles that may or may not be in every individual, and we're to follow them any way.
Most of all, what is the harm of being immoral? The government will come get you? What if you are the political leader? What if you're Stalin? Who's going to stop you from starving Ukraine? What is the fundamental problem with commanding ethnic cleansing as an atheist leader? You definitely can't say, "killing people is wrong" because that isn't in this guy's genetic code to want to do right now. Perhaps there should be a grand law that unites all people?
Brian37 Wrote:This lack of understanding is WHY ANY religion AS A CONCEPT is dangerous. Not because all in that label, any label, are or will be dangerous, but because religion DOES set up "in group" vs "out group" and bases the "in group" mentality as being the special inventor of all human morality.
There is "in group" vs. "out group" in politics, gangs, religion, football, and every high school ever. They must all be equally dangerous.
Brian37 Wrote:Religious division is PRECISELY because of the false notion that A LABEL and not nature itself, invented morality. THAT is what makes religion dangerous. Failing to recognize this allows you, who may not be violent yourself, to make excuses for the others within Christianity who are and would be violent if given the chance. Now please don't falsely accuse me of picking on your religion, or hating religious people.
A label does not invent morality. I agree there. However, the only defense I give of violence is in defense of another. Personally, I don't even think we're supposed to have self-defense, but that's just me. I will gladly stop injustice wherever I see it.
However, you have to stop saying religions are dangerous. Political leaders cause wars and sin causes harm. Mohammed was both the leader of a religion and, basically, the executive power of a regime. The Pope after 1000 C.E. had an army because he was both king of the Papal states as well as religious leader for the Christians. The Darfur raids were out of greed and hatred for the Christians. Hitler was "catholic" and hated Catholicism's teachings (especially that Jesus and all apostles were Jewish). The affect of the religion played no part. Stalin saw religion as evil and his morality was... well... Iffy, to say the least. It doesn't take religion to cause harm. Harm comes through people one way or another.
Brian37 Wrote:"They shouldn't do that" is also not my point. "They aren't real(whatever)" is also not my point. Religion sets up in group vs out group the same as a political party. When you understand this you will see religion as the weapon it should be treated like.
Then why not ban political parties? I think that people are the problems, not organizations. Otherwise, we need to abolish countries.
Brian37 Wrote:If as believers of all labels around the world claim "religion works", if it worked so well then why is there still so much global division? The part they always miss is "works for who?" And it "working" always comes at the expense of the "out group".
All religions claim they have a solution, but we're not interested in making a utopia here. That is impossible. People have evil inclinations from the moment they exist. All people. You, me, Gandhi, and Mother Teresa had/have evil inclinations. Unless we change people, we can't have utopia. If we force people to change, we're not a religion any more, but a cult (governmental bodies go from protecting to enslaving the people). Two things are required for this: government and religion, both attempting to excel as much as possible in their respective areas of influence.
The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
