Religion, what's the point?

[The Neviller]

Other people do charity work without the suspension of belief.

In the church in St Stephen's Green in Dublin there are 3 slots to give money. One is marked The Parish, one The Priest and the 3rd The Poor. They all lead into one drawer.

True, but those who do believe and feel they are doing the work of God by helping others shouldn't have it thrown in their face that by donating they are causing worldwide suffering, as has been suggested today.

There are plenty of people who believe in God and profess a faith who don't like some of the actions of their church. There are plenty of devout Catholics with a strong belief in their faith who are just as appalled by the actions of priests with regards paedophilia as anyone else. Should they be held accountable for the acts of others because they go to the same church, have the same faith and devote their time and money to something they believe in?

 

[Zarlak]

@ Zarlak

Your middle paragraph does sum up my folks to be fair. I just feel they are trapped into the church by the idea of religion. Religion has always subjugated the individual that way so it's not only not knew but the whole point.

That's fair, I guess it could be a choice, to accept the teachings of whatever holy book that goes with their chosen religion and not attend church, but I can also see how it could be the other way round where it's perceived that it's all a ruse so they're essentially forced to go to church and donate, to be considered a good [insert religion]. Or even not so much have to donate etc, but feel forced to attend.

 

[rednev]

Agreed. My parents are both born again Christians (their term, not mine) who go to church and donate money. Much of it is used for charitable works and they do a lot of work in Africa, building schools and hospitals and providing communities with life essentials. My Da gave up time from his work to go out to Africa to help with these building projects.

I've donated money to the church to help with these projects. I don't think I or my parents should be demonised for doing so.

I don't know what Church your parents belong to, but if we take the Catholic Church as an example, donated money goes directly towards funding, among other dangerous things, a campaign in Africa to get people to stop using condoms. Even when we consider the building of schools and hospitals by the CC in Africa, they operate under twisted Catholic teachings, which means that pupils and patients are discouraged (to put it lightly) from the use of condoms, which contributes to the spread of HIV.

If people want to bring healthcare and education to the poor, why not donate to secular charities?

 

[moses]

True, but those who do believe and feel they are doing the work of God by helping others shouldn't have it thrown in their face that by donating they are causing worldwide suffering, as has been suggested today.

Hang on, are you saying religion hasn't caused suffering? Unless you are then people have to accept that. Why should other ignore the churches misdeeds because it upsets your Mum?

My Mum is offended when I say child rape, I'm offended she won't say anything harsher than abuse. It'd be rape if he wasn't a priest.

 

[Saliph]

You need to look up the meaning of self-evident Saliph.

Before responding to anything else I’m going to clarify the Santa distinction, because you are just not getting it.

I’m saying that something stated as being true, is more believable than something which is stated as being false. You have to be utterly insane to reject this as being correct.

As I said, I'm not making any comment on the evidence for religion or the historical accuracy of the bible. The point is that there is a difference between something which is proposed as being true and something which is admitted as being a lie or fictional. It's clearly more ridiculous to believe in something which is admitted as being made up, than something which is proposed as being true - regardless of the evidence.

If I made these two statements,

1) “yesterday I went to the gym – this is true by the way”
2) “yesterday I played 5 asides – that is a lie by the way”

Then out of the two it’s unquestionably more reasonable to believe in number one, despite you having no other basis for believing it than me proposing it as true. The same logic can be applied to Santa/God. One is proposed as being a lie, the other as being the truth. It is more reasonable to believe in the latter.

As I stated before, you can accurately trace the tradition of Santa and observe the embellishment of the original Saint’s facts and history, with fictional additions leading to the current Santa interpretation.

So if you were saying – believing in God is the same as believing in St Nicholas – then that would be a fair comparison.

But saying – believing in God is the same as believing in Santa Claus – is a ridiculous comparison because it originates from admitted fiction, such as Moore’s poem.

What a complete waste of time.

No, I do get the distinction you are trying to make. It's so dumb, I don't even know where to begin, so I won't. You're obfuscating the issue by invoking this pointless and irrelevant nonsense.

But hey, as I said, exchange Santa for Poseidon if that helps you understand the analogy better (seeing as your moronic objection is that it's "admitted to be made up").

 

[The Neviller]

I don't know what Church your parents belong to, but if we take the Catholic Church as an example, donated money goes directly towards funding, among other dangerous things, a campaign in Africa to get people to stop using condoms. Even when we consider the building of schools and hospitals by the CC in Africa, they operate under twisted Catholic teachings, which means that pupils and patients are discouraged (to put it lightly) from the use of condoms, which contributes to the spread of HIV.

If people want to bring healthcare and education to the poor, why not donate to secular charities?

They don't belong to the Catholic church, and the church they belong to doesn't prevent the use of condoms, so in this instance it doesn't apply to them, though I agree with the point.

As one said, there are plenty of religious people who don't agree with everything their church does, and I don't think they should be made to feel guilty for donating money to their church.

Secular charities do plenty of worthless shite with money donated to them as well, amongst the good that they do.

I'm not religious, but people I care about are and I don't think they should be painted as stupid or complicit in evil acts perpetrated by "religion" because they believe in something I don't.

 

[Theon]

What a complete waste of time.

No, I do get the distinction you are trying to make. It's so dumb, I don't even know where to begin, so I won't. You're obfuscating the issue by invoking this pointless and irrelevant nonsense.

You embarrassment

It's a shite analogy, deal with it.

 

[The Neviller]

Hang on, are you saying religion hasn't caused suffering? Unless you are then people have to accept that. Why should other ignore the churches misdeeds because it upsets your Mum?

My Mum is offended when I say child rape, I'm offended she won't say anything harsher than abuse. It'd be rape if he wasn't a priest.

Religion through the years has caused suffering. As has politics, and many other things such as consumerism and commercialism. We're all complicit in the suffering of people around the world in some form or another. Why single out religion and religious people?

 

[moses]

Religion through the years has caused suffering. As has politics, and many other things such as consumerism and commercialism. We're all complicit in the suffering of people around the world in some form or another. Why single out religion and religious people?

It's a thread about religion.

Each evil can judged on it's own merits.

 

[The Neviller]

It's a thread about religion.

Each evil can judged on it's own merits.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

[moses]

No, let he who has his own words type them.

 

[rcoobc]

The church that is a stones throw away from my house needs 20 grand of repairs done...

Id be basically saving my neighbours 20 grand if i took a sledgehammer to it in the night

 

[The Neviller]

If you do shit that might directly or indirectly cause bad things to happen to other people, and shit, then don't be judging others for the shit they do that might be directly or indirectly causing harm to others. And shit.

 

[moses]

Well done TN

I think you need to be guided along the right path

General Forum - RedCafe.net

 

[ecantona7]

This is the root of the issue. When talking about god the religious use decision making techniques that they use nowhere else in life as they would quite rightly be laughed at and ridiculed. They then get upset when anyone points out the illogicality of their thinking, yet seem to have no problem with their religion governing whole swathes of everyone's life. Bizarre.

Well said.

 

[MrMojo]

I have read Luke. What you quote is from a parable. Those words are what the master says to the servant.

What Jesus is saying to his disciples is to whom much is given , much will be expected. He is exhorting his disciples to take risks in spreading the word of God. With the exception of John, all died martyrs.

That's not how I read it at all. Genuinely to help with my understanding of it, isn't Jesus using the parable of a noble man who wants to expand his kingdom, with Jesus being than noble man? Then when he hears of those who don't want to be ruled his wish is for them to be slain?

If Jesus isn't the noble man then who is and what would then be the point of the parable?

 

[Wibble]

Why do you presume I'd answer that question with a "No"

Because I assume you capable of rational thought.

 

[Revan]

I don't like to quote Dawkins a lot because I think he should stick to science, but his spectrum of theistic probability is I think a worthwhile contribution to the debate.

1.Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2.De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3.Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4.Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5.Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6.De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7.Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

I'd put myself at 6 in relation to a vague idea of a creator-being, 7 when it comes to the various religions.

I'd put myself at 6 too.

Centuries? Wasn't the bible as we know it canonized at most 100 years after Jesus's death?

Credo Nicea when Bible was canonized was mroe than three centuries after the Jesus's death.

Albania during communism was an Atheist state, I guess god didn't exist there.

Not exactly, it was like other very communist states. An atheist state but more because that if you say that you're part of a religion, you're fecked in a mine for the next few years.

 

[Red-Indian]

I've given an opinion. I'm not religious, I don't go to church. I believe there is some form of higher force than us, but what that is I have no idea, and I don't presume to know the answers.

I'm perfectly happy for people to believe or not believe in a God, and don't think anyone on either side needs to deem anyone who has a differing opinion as stupid or misguided. Belief or lack therefore is just that. None of us know with any certainty whether there is a God or not, we just believe or don't.

But that's absurd. That's like telling me I don't have a right to ridicule Liverpool fans for believing next year is their year. Obviously their belief isn't doing me any significant personal harm and I definitely can't prove with certainty (despite having heaps of circumstantial evidence that they're going to be clearly mid-table again) but i'd still reserve the right to debate them and ridicule them.

I don't understand why God fans should get more respect than Liverpool fans.

 

[MG]

Atheists sure spend a lot of their time talking about God.

 

[Ubik]

*lack of a god.

 

[Saliph]

Atheists sure spend a lot of their time talking about God.

Maybe when guys mentally equivalent to these

Spoiler

get their hands on this

Spoiler

you'll understand why.

 

[PhilipB]

I don't get it. What do you mean by "mentally equivalent"?

 

[MG]

Eyepopper made the best contribution to this thread. Most of the awful things in this world are done for power and money (oil, resources etc). Religion may be used as an excuse by some extremists, but they're not the ones making the powerful moves in politics that leads to most wars. The world wars were not started by religion. Exploitation, greed and individualist selflessness cause most of the world's harm (incidentally, those are the things that most religions argue against!)

As a feminist, I hate what the Abrahamic religions have done to women, and am in favour of getting rid of them as much as possible - the laws against contraception and abortion are causing untold harm, but women have been subjugated by secular states just as much. A lot of secular people still don't believe in abortion, and plenty still believe in 'traditional' values that limit women's rights to contraception. Capitalism in general subjugates and oppresses women. Atheist philosophers and thinkers have been extremely misogynistic in the past, and most of earlier ones still argued in favour women's inferiority (*cough* Freud!), it took more than just eradication of religion to bring about women's liberation, it took a complete change in attitudes, and the attitudes of the early atheists had to be changed as well. The same is needed to bring about a change in the way our profit-driven world exploits and harms the majority so the minority can make money.

Incidentally, the 20th century was probably the least religious century there's been since the beginning of civilisation, and was also probably the most violent century of all. I'm not saying secularism causes violence. But to eradicate violence and oppression takes a lot more than just getting rid of religion, because I think greed and exploitation are bigger causes of inequality and harm in this world, far more so than religion. A more egalitarian society would bring about the utopia the atheists in this thread want, but it's going to take completely changing the mindset of the people, and that won't be given to us just by getting rid of religion.

 

[Ubik]

Have the mentality of wanting to destroy western civilisation and not mind getting killed in the process, I imagine.

 

[PhilipB]

Have the mentality of wanting to destroy western civilisation and not mind getting killed in the process, I imagine.

Ah okay, get it now. The second picture is supposed to be a nuclear bomb then.

 

[MG]

I fecking hate Freud btw. Just putting that out there right now.

 

[PhilipB]

I fecking hate Freud btw. Just putting that out there right now.

I love Freud. All this stuff is so easy to remember because most of it seems insane.

 

[Ubik]

Eyepopper made the best contribution to this thread. Most of the awful things in this world are done for power and money (oil, resources etc). Religion may be used as an excuse by some extremists, but they're not the ones making the powerful moves in politics that leads to most wars. The world wars were not started by religion. Exploitation, greed and individualist selflessness cause most of the world's harm (incidentally, those are the things that most religions argue against!)

As a feminist, I hate what the Abrahamic religions have done to women, and am in favour of getting rid of them as much as possible - the laws against contraception and abortion are causing untold harm, but women have been subjugated by secular states just as much. A lot of secular people still don't believe in abortion, and plenty still believe in 'traditional' values that limit women's rights to contraception. Capitalism in general subjugates and oppresses women. Atheist philosophers and thinkers have been extremely misogynistic in the past, and most of earlier ones still argued in favour women's inferiority (*cough* Freud!), it took more than just eradication of religion to bring about women's liberation, it took a complete change in attitudes, and the attitudes of the early atheists had to be changed as well. The same is needed to bring about a change in the way our profit-driven world exploits and harms the majority so the minority can make money.

Incidentally, the 20th century was probably the least religious century there's been since the beginning of civilisation, and was also probably the most violent century of all. I'm not saying secularism causes violence. But to eradicate violence and oppression takes a lot more than just getting rid of religion, because I think greed and exploitation are bigger causes of inequality and harm in this world, far more so than religion. A more egalitarian society would bring about the utopia the atheists in this thread want, but it's going to take completely changing the mindset of the people, and that won't be given to us just by getting rid of religion.

Believe it or not, there are women that don't believe in the rights and equality of women. That doesn't make women party to the subjugation of women, it just means there are some very short-sighted women around. And so it goes with secularists. It's not a pathway to guaranteed utopia, but it's a jolly good start.

 

[MG]

I love Freud. All this stuff is so easy to remember because most of it seems insane.

Urgh. I'm fed up of having to do a Freudian analysis all the time. Like, this female protagonist resents the male authority figures in her life because of penis envy, apparently.

Penis envy??? feck off. I'd say she resents the male authority figures in her life because they're complete and utter pricks who restrict her freedom and generally make her life a misery.

I like penises, but I'm perfectly happy not having one, thanks. feck off Freud.

 

[MG]

Believe it or not, there are women that don't believe in the rights and equality of women. That doesn't make women party to the subjugation of women, it just means there are some very short-sighted women around. And so it goes with secularists. It's not a pathway to guaranteed utopia, but it's a jolly good start.

Oh, absolutely. Don't get me wrong. I consider some of the right-wing women that write for the Daily Mail to be some of the very worst sexists imaginable. I despise them. But plenty of them aren't religious. It's an attitude, a mindset, and it takes an awful lot to change. A hell of a lot more than getting rid of organised religion.

 

[Red Dreams]

That's not how I read it at all. Genuinely to help with my understanding of it, isn't Jesus using the parable of a noble man who wants to expand his kingdom, with Jesus being than noble man? Then when he hears of those who don't want to be ruled his wish is for them to be slain?

If Jesus isn't the noble man then who is and what would then be the point of the parable?

Yes. you are right in saying The master represents God. I have heard this parable many times. I have always understood it to be using your gifts to spread the word of God.

"To whom much is given, much is expected."

But I can understand why you may think otherwise.

 

[PhilipB]

Urgh. I'm fed up of having to do a Freudian analysis all the time. Like, this female protagonist resents the male authority figures in her life because of penis envy, apparently.

Penis envy??? feck off. I'd say she resents the male authority figures in her life because they're complete and utter pricks who restrict her freedom and generally make her life a misery.

I like penises, but I'm perfectly happy not having one, thanks. feck off Freud.

What is it you study? Freud is actually not covered in much length at all on my Psychology degree. He was at A level but just his general theories.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

Incidentally, the 20th century was probably the least religious century there's been since the beginning of civilisation, and was also probably the most violent century of all.

Actually the 20th century in Western Europe has been, in real terms, far and away the least violent in human history. That includes death tolls from both world wars.



Also, I think that all opinion polls show that in England, and I would expect this to be similar in all the top 10 'least religious countries', are overwhelmingly pro choice.

 

[MG]

What is it you study? Freud is actually not covered in much length at all on my Psychology degree. He was at A level but just his general theories.

English Lit and Lang, with Creative writing. We have to do a lot of literary theory though, and that means loads of different schools of thought and analysis, including Freudian. I try to avoid it as much as possible but I still have to read it sometimes.

 

[MG]

Actually the 20th century in Western Europe has been, in real terms, far and away the least violent in human history. That includes death tolls from both world wars.

Also, I think that all opinion polls show that in England, and I would expect this to be similar in all the top 10 'least religious countries', are overwhelmingly pro choice.

Yes, you're probably right with Western society. I'm not denying that the loss of religion is good for humanity - it is - but I think there's a lot more to it than that. A lot of the world's genocides and wars (mainly outside the West) are fought for power and possession of resources. Loss of capitalist greed and exploitation will be the biggest asset to humanity, imo.

And yes, as I said, getting rid of religion is brilliant for women's rights. Just it does take more than that, it takes a complete change in attitudes. Amongst the people who are anti-choice, there are plenty of non-religious. Look at sex trafficking. At the moment, worldwide more women and girls are being sold into slavery than there ever was at the height of the slave trade in the 19th century, by criminal gangs run on the basis of profit and greed. Nothing to do with religion, but it hinders the lives of millions and millions of women. And women make up the majority of the world's poor, they overwhelmingly work in the lowest-paid jobs. Even in the West, women are the majority of the people on minimum wage. Capitalism in general oppresses most women, because it relies upon, and exploits, women's unpaid and underpaid labour. Eradication of religion doesn't change any of that.

I don't want people to think I'm against getting rid of organised religion. I just think there are worse forces in this world for humanity.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

MG

I am not particularly au fait with the nuances of feminist philosophy, you know, being the owner of a penis n all. But certainly a lot of females that I have known have been happy, even wanting, to be the slightly subservient partner in a relationship, you know, to be 'looked after' by a man.

Obviously women should have the opportunities to climb any 'ladders' that they are capable of, but are there not some innate biological factors at work here?

 

[Wibble]

Atheists sure spend a lot of their time talking about God.

Perhaps it is because it infuses most aspects of life and frequently in official capacities e.g education and government.

 

[Ubik]

I don't think there's any innate biological factor for a woman to see herself as the lesser of her partner at all (other than darwinian stuff regarding offspring), it's essentially because that's what society has stipulated her to be for thousands of years. An idea that's held to be true without question is very hard to break free from, even if you are the one suffering - and it's why dogma is highly toxic. Society was built around females being subservient, and although that's finally beginning to fall away, the effects of it haven't just vanished. It'll take time and plenty of arguments.

Institutionally sexist organisations don't help.

 

[rcoobc]

If you do shit that might directly or indirectly cause bad things to happen to other people, and shit, then don't be judging others for the shit they do that might be directly or indirectly causing harm to others. And shit.

John 21:14