Overgeneralization at best – to all religions and/or to all their beliefs. But clearly you don’t want your beliefs damaged, so I’ll refrain from saying more.
I’m sorry, I meant to say core beliefs. Or is it debatable whether Jesus Christ is our Savior? Or whether you are reborn into a certain plane of existence, according to your actions in this life?
I thought one of the ‘advantages’ of religions is their ability to provide absolute answers to otherwise ‘unanswerable’ questions, giving a guidance on how to live ‘right’.
Please educate me if I am mistaken!
Your are mistaken. Partly by assuming that Christianity is the definition of “religion”; Judaism, for example, strongly encourages debate on most issues (but you’re expected to have educated yourself about the recorded past debate and be able to defend your arguments against theirs as well as your peers’). Partly by assuming that specific varieties of Christianity represent all of Christianity – there are folks who are perfectly happy to consider Jesus merely an inspired religious reformer without being hung up on whether he was the “son of god” literally or figuratively. Partly by ignoring that even Christianity actually does have a history of refining itself, though there were periods where it got defensive and periods (such as the American westward expansion) where people were both under-trained and unable to access that history and fell back on biblical literalism because it was the only resource they had available.
Yes, there are certainly particular practices, in particular groups, at particular times, that one can object to. But trying to tar all of religion with that brush simply doesn’t work. Remember, many scientists are religious as well; “the profoundest act of worship is to try to understand,” and as long as you use each set of beliefs for the purposes it was INTENDED for they don’t have to conflict. Science is about what and how. Religion is about what it means to us.
I’m agnostic. I don’t believe that any religion can prove its correctness. I don’t believe atheism can prove its correctness either. I don’t believe it matters. And I don’t believe that throwing rocks at stained-glass windows is helpful when what you’re really objecting to is that the church’s mulberry tree is covering the sidewalk with rotting fruit; better to help them understand the problem and prune it.
I’m sorry that was that unclear again. I thought that by posting examples from the Aztec culture, Scientology, Buddhism and, yes, Christianity I made clear that I meant religions in plurality, not just American Christians. I hate it, when people do that! Assuming that all religious people are like Christians.
My best friend is a very literate Jew and he often relates to me the most intriguing philosophical things, and we criticize them together.
Finer points can of course get refined, rejected, turned around… But the basic premises remain, don’t they? And these basic premises stem in all cases I can think of from
a) misunderstanding the natural world
b) false rationalization or personification thereof
c) wishful thinking
d) willful deception for one’s own gain; sometimes, though to benefit society
That is what I mean by lies and ignorance. Sorry for the harsh words.
Do you agree with that?
Also: Agnostic. Isn’t gnostic/agnostic orthogonal to theist/atheist? Anybody who considers himself not agnostic is either delusional or has truly seen god! If you don’t believe in god, you are not a theist, which makes you an atheist.
There are not many things you can really know, or be gnostic about. But what’s likely, or believable? That any one of the thousands of religions has it right? That someone made up just the right story of the universe, or a supernatural being revealed its knowledge and wisdom to some select tribe or person? I find this very hard to believe. Extraordinary claims and all that.
Not to dismiss the societal, cultural and even scientific progress stemming from some of these myths, but I think for every charity, there’s a crusade; for every “thou shalt not kill” a “stone the sorcerers, magicians and homosexuals to death”. People mostly do what they want to do and find rationalizations in their belief systems (be that a religion or something else). I just don’t see much benefit of believing in fairy tales these days, only the harm.
Lets see here …
Putting words in my mouth and implying I’m dishonest or a liar…
Implying that religion inherently corrupts and implying that only the religious declare things to be irrefutably bad or good…
Ignoring the answers I’ve given to your questions as if they were never profered and shifting goalposts by restating and changing your questions…
Adding an unneeded [sic] to a perfectly correct quotation for no apparant reason…
Invoking specific problematic examples of individual doctrines or theologies, despite my prior statements against such individual doctrines or theologies and in spite of my arguments in fact revolving about religion as a cultural phenomenon, a concept you seem to be repeatedly failing to grasp…
Inaccurate statements regarding the nature of belief…
A failure to recognise that many secular systems do not provide evidence or arguments any more compelling than those employed by religion, for example in fields such as Art and Aesthetics…
I may have a soft spot for human wonder and faith where it makes the world a better place, but here I feel it best to cede to the evidence - and all of the above evidence is telling me that you’re not interested in a reasonable discussion, and that you’re not going to listen to my arguments with anything resembling care, interest, or respect. Very well, I shan’t waste my breath.
See, this is why we can’t have nice things.
And you, not being a believer, are the judge of what is and isn’t considered a basic premise? Sorry, but what you’re demonstrating is your own preconceptions about what religion – any religion – must be.
Agnostic: Yes, it’s orthogonal. And no, it isn’t dependent upon proof any more than theism – or atheism – is. It’s a statement of personal belief, I can tell you which religions I don’t believe in; I can’t tell you that I believe or disbelieve in a supreme mover because there is absolutely no way to test the assertion either way; it’s outside the bounds of science.I am not an atheist, I am not a believer, I simply consider the whole question irrelevant.
However: I have seen some folks get substantial emotional benefit out of their beliefs, and use them to help motivate substantial contributions to society. I don’t see believing an untestable as doing any harm by itself. The problem, if there is one, arises only when and if that belief interferes with functioning in society and/or when they try to impose that belief on others.
Note that for these purposes, atheism is as much a religious belief as any other. If you don’t want folks waving their holy books in your face because they disagree with you, you owe them equal space to believe what they want. Namecalling, invoking worst cases, etc. frankly comes across as either proselytizing – which is inherently and unavoidably rude – or as fear that you can’t hold a civil conversation without being corrupted by them, which may say something about your own confidence.
Actions may be influenced by religious points of view, and not always in the expected ways. Those actions may be good or ill. Judge individuals on their words and their actions; their minds, hearts, and souls if any are their own. And resist the temptation to overgeneralize; you can find sufficient bad actors in ANY group if you look hard enough.
May you never be judged by the loudest members of any group you belong to.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
