In writing Santa Claus I gave a perfect example of things that should require proof before adults believe in them and, again, showed the flaws in your argument. — Thanatos Sand
If you think I actually meant the fat guy in the suit at the mall instead of the fantastical cultural figure, you are having more difficulties than your erroneous argument. — Thanatos Sand
In writing Santa Claus I gave a perfect example of things that should require proof before adults believe in them and, again, showed the flaws in your argument.
— Thanatos Sand
If you think I actually meant the fat guy in the suit at the mall instead of the fantastical cultural figure, you are having more difficulties than your erroneous argument.
— Thanatos Sand
You make my point. I expressly said I did not know what you meant. And I still don't. I infer from your reply that you reject for lack of proof the spirit of giving. Do you? And given the tenor of your replies, may I suggest you read and think before you reply. Save us both time and effort.
As for religion allows people to harm others, even though I'm an atheist I'm not really sure if this is just a hasty generalization and this is true.What I mean by this is that all societies have either some kind of religion or system of beliefs that helps explain the world around them and what they 'ought' to do so it is more or less a given that some of these religions or systems of beliefs may make the groups more aggressive/hostile than others EVEN if almost ALL of them preach peace and tolerance of some kind. Because of this, I believe it is more accurate to point out the aspects of what makes a religion or system of beliefs more aggressive/hostile than others than to just say that some of them are. Or at least that is my two cents on the matter. — dclements
Doesn't it seem like most religions operate on the principle that there is some good force greater than ourselves? and that we can learn to understand its goodness, and emulate it? (That's what I understand Socrates to be saying, as well).I guess one thing that is a positive aspect of theism and Christianity is that they seem to 'work' on some level in regard to making people feel content and allowing them to just go about their lives. Although this is also true of many other socially accepted/large organizations such as Shintoism,Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc as an atheist it just seems odd that it actually works for theism as well. Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that my gut instincts tell me that a system is fundamentally flawed then it should tear itself apart somehow although I don't know if Murphy's Law (ie something that can ruin a existing functional system) apply to such conditions since allowing such a system to work may cause things to be worse. Perhaps it is just that whether a system works or doesn't make much a difference when it comes to the process which allows it to exist in the first place. — dclements
That's why I speak out against New Atheism.HOWEVER if a group has a tendency as a whole to be more hostile/ aggressive/ violent than others and/or preach the same thing then that should be pointed out too. — dclements
If there is no standard of morality, then why make an issue of what religions (or anyone for that matter) are (is) doing? It seems to me that if no standard by which to judge, then all we can comment on is differences in behavior.Religions may operate on such principles but it isn't a given that it is true. To me it is as or more plausible that "WE" ourselves define what is "good" and "evil" based on what is either useful or counter-productive to us than the idea there is some external metric of "good"/"evil". As far as I can tell, what we perceive as some kind of external power and/or standard of morality and good is merely our superego playing head tricks on us. — dclements
It seems to me that if people believe there is a God who influences us and at least some of that influence comes from religion, then it stands to reason that people of different religions will have different perceptions of and about that God, and tolerance is required of religious believers. Jesus had a lot to say about tolerance.While some religious beliefs may help us to become better, this is true of any religion or system of beliefs as a whole. The real problem is what makes a religion/system of beliefs any better than any other religion or system of beliefs. I believe that it isn't really all about what religion or system of beliefs they subscribe to but more about HOW they believe and go about their lives. Of course such an idea I imagine could be seen as harmful to many organized religions based on Abrahamic beliefs where they expect someone to follow a certain doctrine and not just make up things for themselves. — dclements
Chris Hedges says it better than I can."That's why I speak out against New Atheism."
---anonymous66
Ok, what do you feel is bad about it? — dclements
As a person who tries to adhere to the idea of subjective morality and accepting any and all religions/systems of belief as being more or less equal to each other in most ways, I have some reservations about why a religion may be better (or worse) than other religion for whatever reason. However even if I feel this way about people's beliefs, I think it is fruitful to have such a discussion in the kind of context that is when one is studying or doing research for comparative religions. In such a context it is usually accepted that even if various religions/systems of beliefs have pros and cons, such discussion isn't necessarily about using such information to show why one is better or worse than anotherbut about understanding other religions; although if one wishes to it can later be used within some metrics to determine which ideology is better or worse than another but it isn't a given that it will be used as such.
Anyways I just wanted to get that out of the way in the hopes that if people reply to the OP that this thread doesn't descend too much into a shouting contest between people with different beliefs
I guess my biggest problem for theism, or it's biggest 'con' as I see it is that a large part of it just doesn't make sense on some fundamental level. Of courser this is likely because I'm an atheist and with theism being the biggest religion in influencing Western society, it is practically a given that people that think and believe like I do will be uncomfortable with theism for various reasons. But I'm not sure if that is all that it is. To me it is harder to grasp why people believe in God and go to church (other than social acceptance and being part of a group which I understand is part of the reason), but for someone who can not believe in God even if they try (which I have) the entire thought process on "HOW" someone can eventually go about believing in God is something that is virtually impossible for me without some kind of major brain rewiring which would make me into someone that I am not while I'm writing this.
Even as I say this I can not say that it is a problem with theism (although I imagine it could likely be broken up into several issues with each pointed out/argued independently) when taken as a whole I'm unsure if this is a problem with me or with theism itself since to the best of my understanding is that if what I thought was true, it would be hard for a predominate religion to get as big as it has if at it's heart there was so many issues with it. Because of this I'm sort of uncertain since my position as just someone who studies philosophy is not enough to merely pass such judgement on such issues without a little pause.
The only other issue I have with theism that I will mention in this post is that some schisms of Christianity (and likely Judaism and Islam as well) seem to tend to be more exclusive than inclusive;m although this doesn't apply to Unitarian Universalists and similar churches for obvious reasons. To me the problem here seems to be that at it's core it requires someone to believe in God (in a way that is difficult for people in the modern age may have difficulty doing) and it requires one to believe in God in the way that is prescribed by their church on how they believe one 'ought' to believe. While I imagine there are some benefits to such measures, for people who have trouble believing in God in the first place (such as myself) it makes Christianity even more hostile and aggressive than it might seem otherwise. While I know that not all churches are exclusive, as a child and a teenager in the south and mid-west I was often very uncomfortable with having to deal with such people to the point where it almost felt like I was a character in the movie "The Children of the Corn" when I was around to many of them, although I guess I could say the same when I have been around too many Wiccans as well but for different reasons.
I guess one thing that is a positive aspect of theism and Christianity is that they seem to 'work' on some level in regard to making people feel content and allowing them to just go about their lives. Although this is also true of many other socially accepted/large organizations such as Shintoism,Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc as an atheist it just seems odd that it actually works for theism as well. Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that my gut instincts tell me that a system is fundamentally flawed then it should tear itself apart somehow although I don't know if Murphy's Law (ie something that can ruin a existing functional system) apply to such conditions since allowing such a system to work may cause things to be worse. Perhaps it is just that whether a system works or doesn't make much a difference when it comes to the process which allows it to exist in the first place. — dclements
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.