Mixed bag, but in general, it promotes credulity, blind obedience to authority (as do things such as nationalism and parochialism). Religion is often an excuse to diffuse responsibility for one’s own morals and feelings, “I don’t hate gays, but the bible tells me it is immoral”. Religion is an excellent tool to control people, because you can tell them you aren’t asking them to follow what you say for you, but out of respect for the ultimate authority.
Do elaborate. Due to the nature of religion, what may seem “perfectly reasonable” to a person of one particular faith may seem hateful, ignorant or inflammatory to others who do not share that faith. (And vice versa.)
I reject religion on multiple grounds, it’s usefulness as a tool of control, which while not unique to religion, is something it excels at. As to collectivism, it’s not a term I generally use, but how does one reject it? Collectivism at its most basic, as more than one person working for a common cause, is just a social fact. But it comes in varying degrees. So, not really sure what your point is…
Does it? Religion is divergent, the very opposite of singular. Thousands of disparate religions and sects. If anything, religion is a truth discerning tool of unarguably unreliability. On what factual basis can you claim it to establish a singular source of truth?
“Yes, it does” really isn’t a convincing argument for your position.
Also, lack of religion does not imply lack of morality. All humans have a moral code, even sociopaths. Their moral code just happens to center around them, with no empathy whatsoever for anyone.
No, it does not. Religion, including Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Hellenism, Native American Spiritualism are all evidence that “god” does not provide a singular source of truth as all of those religions each arrive at different truths.
Religions are divergent. They do not converge on a singular truth.
[quote=“TrollsOpinion, post:10, topic:52319”] (quoting Skeptic)
And to what end is such a belief demonstrably true or useful?
It establishes a singular source of truth.
That’s neither “demonstrably true” nor “demonstrably useful.” One could say the same about a belief in Santa Claus, since such a belief could explain ever so many things about the magical appearance of toys worldwide overnight, even when doors are locked and chimney flues are tight enough to seemingly prevent any mortal’s entry.
There are zeitgeists and there are zeitgeists. Loads of people base their morality in their belief in, fear of, or respect for the wishes of some deity or other. Among those people, you will find many, many variations in their personal moralities, even among those who profess to follow Scripture. Few indeed follow all the directives in Levitican law, as you are perfectly aware, even though they’re right there, spelled out in the Book in any terrestrial language one could desire.
I find my own homebrewed, custom-tailored morality to be both more reliable and more humane than the store-bought ones available for long-term lease from the local shamans. “Nebulous”? No. I know what I will and what I will not do, and more importantly, I know why. And it’s not just because an old book tells me to.
Okay. I am straightforward enough to avoid splitting hairs about that claim above a quantum level.
And there you spout an indefensible platitude. The truth doesn’t care where we seek it or where we find it; it is what it is and where it is. If I seek knowledge, wisdom, enlightenment, whatever, I’m going to look wherever I can. I never stopped looking even when I believed that it all began and ended with the Christian Trinity, and that’s one reason why I outgrew that belief. It didn’t come close to addressing or answering all my questions. It felt as childish as my similarly discarded belief in Mr Claus and his elves.
I’m the undereducated redneck in this thread. I grew up with them, they’re my family and friends. But the ones I know and love have never been afraid to grow and learn, and they’ve always encouraged me to do the same. Many people would find this discussion, like many religious discussions, a waste of time and energy. But then, I had some time to waste. I look forward to seeing if you can maintain any interest in this, perhaps by offering a reason why the presence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity is a better explanation for Life, The Universe, and Everything than any of our morally-suspect non-ecclesiastical theories.
Which one? The one who says rape is fine as long as you marry the woman you rape and pay her dad 40 shekels? Or the one who says you should blow up a hospital so you can bang a bunch of virgins? Or perhaps the Buddha, who says everything is illusory, and that if only people stopped believing in suffering, we wouldn’t need medicine. Or maybe some hindu god. Or perhaps Ra?