Is religion good?

[Concejos Unidos]

Dear Yod, it really feels like you're not reading what I'm writing.

I would try to rephrase and explain again, but I'll simply sum up that you aren't getting the deeper level critique here, which is that you can't just invoke "inherent attributes" when you have no coherent epistemology to access them or show that they exist. So far, you've merely invoked "inherent attributes" again and again, not unlike a prayer chant, without explicating a clear ontology or epistemology relating to them. Nor do you seem to understand the fundamental problems with applying rationalism to the real world.

[Arval Va]

Dear Yod, it really feels like you're not reading what I'm writing.

I would try to rephrase and explain again, but I'll simply sum up that you aren't getting the deeper level critique here, which is that you can't just invoke "inherent attributes" when you have no coherent epistemology to access them or show that they exist. So far, you've merely invoked "inherent attributes" again and again, not unlike a prayer chant, without explicating a clear ontology or epistemology relating to them. Nor do you seem to understand the fundamental problems with applying rationalism to the real world.

How about this:

Let's take a group of people. Any group. For example, furries. Examine the behaviours or ideas of all people who self-identify as such, and what qualities they share that do not apply to people who self-identify as not furry. Those qualities are the universal qualities of being a furry. You can compare that to a preexisting definition of "furry" and revise it. If you wanted to criticise all furries on the grounds of X charge, you would have to demonstrate that X charge is one of those universal qualities. Otherwise your criticism of "all furries" would only apply to some subgroup, or perhaps none of them at all. These universal qualities are what exist in all members of the group, not "pure furryism" or something. Just what applies to all of them. I've said this all before. Let's look at the alternative, eh? Would you think it a fair criticism to cite all furries as evil because someone was bullied by a furry in middle school? That's the mess you get into when you judge an idea based on sociomaterial phenomena.

Now, there are some ideas (like atheism or irreligiousity) that can extend to people outside self-identification, specifically because they exist as an absence of or opposition to another idea, i.e. "Are you wearing a hat or not?" You can't answer "neither."

I like that comment about the prayer chant. Almost like you've never heard a prayer before.

[Concejos Unidos]

How about this:

Let's take a group of people. Any group. For example, furries. Examine the behaviours or ideas of all people who self-identify as such, and what qualities they share that do not apply to people who self-identify as not furry. Those qualities are the universal qualities of being a furry. You can compare that to a preexisting definition of "furry" and revise it. If you wanted to criticise all furries on the grounds of X charge, you would have to demonstrate that X charge is one of those universal qualities. Otherwise your criticism of "all furries" would only apply to some subgroup, or perhaps none of them at all. These universal qualities are what exist in all members of the group, not "pure furryism" or something. Just what applies to all of them. I've said this all before. Let's look at the alternative, eh? Would you think it a fair criticism to cite all furries as evil because someone was bullied by a furry in middle school? That's the mess you get into when you judge an idea based on sociomaterial phenomena.

Now, there are some ideas (like atheism or irreligiousity) that can extend to people outside self-identification, specifically because they exist as an absence of or opposition to another idea, i.e. "Are you wearing a hat or not?" You can't answer "neither."

I like that comment about the prayer chant. Almost like you've never heard a prayer before.

Universal qualities are not necessarily inherent qualities.

Looking at the roots of a sociomaterial phenomenon and using those to judge the idea is perfectly legitimate. After all, we don't live in the world of Platonic forms. In any case, I'm not trying to establish anything about atheism, merely to show that your sweeping generalization about atheism or religion is a purely rationalist endeavour that does not correspond to the real world and within the context of the real world, is by and large unprovable. I have no desire to play in this world of fantasies. To emphasize this point yet again, you haven't shown the connection of your ideas to the empirical and you cannot because inherent qualities are not a subject of empirical enquiry. Even if somehow you showed that all religious people, each and every one, was a superstitious closeminded bumpkin that would show nothing, nothing at all about inherent tendencies.

With regard to the prayer chant, here we recall Camus' point that brought to a certain point, ideology is just as much a leap of faith as religion.

[Primitive Communism]

Religion as a concept cannot be quantified as "good" or "bad" in any sense of either word as it is a fundamentally neutral concept. Whatever good or evil it brings into the world is at the will of human actors and actresses, not at the behest of the religion itself. Generally speaking the purpose of religion is to play with theory in the hopes of answering questions that are otherwise beyond explanation. While many atheists may want to prescribe this role to science and treat it as a substitute for, replacement of, or rival to religion this is a corruption of the purpose of science and it is at odds with the natures of both. Science seeks answers to observable, temporal phenomena while religion posits more philosophical questions to be answered. Where science can explain the origin of life it cannot explain the purpose of life; the inverse is true for religion. Even questions that are seemingly answered by scientific analysis can still give way to further questions which can't; we know *how* Mankind evolved, but we don't really know *why* Mankind evolved for example - assuming there even is a "why" behind it to begin with. It is more often religious people that are malevolent rather than their religion, and this is almost always because they were simply malevolent from the very beginning and not because their religion made them that way. It is more common that people corrupt religion rather than the other way around; and in that way religion is no different from any other idea that can be used to commit evil. I would say that it is superstition - not religion - which is a genuine problem in society, and I think there is an important distinction to be made between the two. Religion asks questions and provokes those who engage it into finding the answers to those questions. Superstition, on the other hand, presents answers to unasked questions without extrapolation and demands their acceptance without objection.

[Arval Va]

How about this:

Let's take a group of people. Any group. For example, furries. Examine the behaviours or ideas of all people who self-identify as such, and what qualities they share that do not apply to people who self-identify as not furry. Those qualities are the universal qualities of being a furry. You can compare that to a preexisting definition of "furry" and revise it. If you wanted to criticise all furries on the grounds of X charge, you would have to demonstrate that X charge is one of those universal qualities. Otherwise your criticism of "all furries" would only apply to some subgroup, or perhaps none of them at all. These universal qualities are what exist in all members of the group, not "pure furryism" or something. Just what applies to all of them. I've said this all before. Let's look at the alternative, eh? Would you think it a fair criticism to cite all furries as evil because someone was bullied by a furry in middle school? That's the mess you get into when you judge an idea based on sociomaterial phenomena.

Now, there are some ideas (like atheism or irreligiousity) that can extend to people outside self-identification, specifically because they exist as an absence of or opposition to another idea, i.e. "Are you wearing a hat or not?" You can't answer "neither."

I like that comment about the prayer chant. Almost like you've never heard a prayer before.

Universal qualities are not necessarily inherent qualities.

Looking at the roots of a sociomaterial phenomenon and using those to judge the idea is perfectly legitimate. After all, we don't live in the world of Platonic forms. In any case, I'm not trying to establish anything about atheism, merely to show that your sweeping generalization about atheism or religion is a purely rationalist endeavour that does not correspond to the real world and within the context of the real world, is by and large unprovable. I have no desire to play in this world of fantasies. To emphasize this point yet again, you haven't shown the connection of your ideas to the empirical and you cannot because inherent qualities are not a subject of empirical enquiry. Even if somehow you showed that all religious people, each and every one, was a superstitious closeminded bumpkin that would show nothing, nothing at all about inherent tendencies.

With regard to the prayer chant, here we recall Camus' point that brought to a certain point, ideology is just as much a leap of faith as religion.

I have no business with someone who argues with a caricature made up in their head. I'll be here when you want to argue with what I actually say.

[Luminesa]

-snip-

Dear Yod, it really feels like you're not reading what I'm writing.

---

Lol, but at least it's my choice whether I want to be religious

Who chose to first bring you to the LDS church?

---

No, virtues that are expected of an individual are generally written somewhere into the Bible/Torah/Quran/etc. that people read. Sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly. Whether or not people actually follow those virtues is on them.

Religious morality and doctrines just as often inspire hate as love, or induce violence as peace.

A good example, Galatians 5:22-23: “But the Fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”

I was responding to someone else regarding how Christians are supposed to view the virtues their religion inspires. It’s not cherry-picking to source my own holy book to respond to a comment.

[Arval Va]

Dear Yod, it really feels like you're not reading what I'm writing.

---

Who chose to first bring you to the LDS church?

---

Religious morality and doctrines just as often inspire hate as love, or induce violence as peace.

I was responding to someone else regarding how Christians are supposed to view the virtues their religion inspires. It’s not cherry-picking to source my own holy book to respond to a comment.

My point is that someone could just as easily base their morality on the Bible's less family-friendly sections, and still have the same basis for their argument. Who gets to choose which parts of the Bible are virtuous? Which ones you're supposed to follow and inspire your morality from?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I was responding to someone else regarding how Christians are supposed to view the virtues their religion inspires. It’s not cherry-picking to source my own holy book to respond to a comment.

My point is that someone could just as easily base their morality on the Bible's less family-friendly sections, and still have the same basis for their argument. Who gets to choose which parts of the Bible are virtuous? Which ones you're supposed to follow and inspire your morality from?

Ecumenical councils and such things. Acts 15 might be of interest to you, not to mention events like Chalcedon and Nicaea.

[Arval Va]

My point is that someone could just as easily base their morality on the Bible's less family-friendly sections, and still have the same basis for their argument. Who gets to choose which parts of the Bible are virtuous? Which ones you're supposed to follow and inspire your morality from?

Ecumenical councils and such things. Acts 15 might be of interest to you, not to mention events like Chalcedon and Nicaea.

Different groups and interpretations are constantly contradicting each other, not to mention how often the Bible contradicts itself. All of these verses stand on the same spiritual ground. What magical property gives the Council of Nicaea greater authority than the Biblical interpretation of the Evangelical pastors of American Lost Cause mythos, to decide how to revise this book thousands of years after its creation? It's all completely based on faith.

[Luminesa]

Ecumenical councils and such things. Acts 15 might be of interest to you, not to mention events like Chalcedon and Nicaea.

Different groups and interpretations are constantly contradicting each other, not to mention how often the Bible contradicts itself. All of these verses stand on the same spiritual ground. What magical property gives the Council of Nicaea greater authority than the Biblical interpretation of the Evangelical pastors of American Lost Cause mythos, to decide how to revise this book thousands of years after its creation? It's all completely based on faith.

The Council of Nicaea is 1700 years old, the American Lost Cause is roughly 100 years old, give or take. Pretty much every mainline Christian denomination worth their salt at least accepts that the most important Council in the history of Christianity is going to have a lot more weight than a dumb ideology that is not even as old as the nation it came from. This is just your lack of recognition of Church History.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Ecumenical councils and such things. Acts 15 might be of interest to you, not to mention events like Chalcedon and Nicaea.

Different groups and interpretations are constantly contradicting each other, not to mention how often the Bible contradicts itself. All of these verses stand on the same spiritual ground. What magical property gives the Council of Nicaea greater authority than the Biblical interpretation of the Evangelical pastors of American Lost Cause mythos, to decide how to revise this book thousands of years after its creation? It's all completely based on faith.

The precedent of the Council of Jerusalem laid out in Acts 15 by the Apostles themselves is that magical property. It established that Church leadership can and should come together to decide matters of doctrine when disputes or questions arise.

[Arval Va]

Different groups and interpretations are constantly contradicting each other, not to mention how often the Bible contradicts itself. All of these verses stand on the same spiritual ground. What magical property gives the Council of Nicaea greater authority than the Biblical interpretation of the Evangelical pastors of American Lost Cause mythos, to decide how to revise this book thousands of years after its creation? It's all completely based on faith.

The precedent of the Council of Jerusalem laid out in Acts 15 by the Apostles themselves is that magical property. It established that Church leadership can and should come together to decide matters of doctrine when disputes or questions arise.

And yet, just as most Christian denominations deny the morality of a whole host of atrocities from the Bible, someone could just as easily deny Acts 15. That's the whole point.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The precedent of the Council of Jerusalem laid out in Acts 15 by the Apostles themselves is that magical property. It established that Church leadership can and should come together to decide matters of doctrine when disputes or questions arise.

And yet, just as most Christian denominations deny the morality of a whole host of atrocities from the Bible, someone could just as easily deny Acts 15. That's the whole point.

I mean, yeah I guess, but they wouldn't really be a Christian at that point given they're just outright rejecting the Apostles themselves.

[Luminesa]

The precedent of the Council of Jerusalem laid out in Acts 15 by the Apostles themselves is that magical property. It established that Church leadership can and should come together to decide matters of doctrine when disputes or questions arise.

And yet, just as most Christian denominations deny the morality of a whole host of atrocities from the Bible, someone could just as easily deny Acts 15. That's the whole point.

Pretty much no Christian denomination, not even the ones that deny apostolic succession, would deny that church leaders should have an ability to come together and to make decisions. And none of them have an issue with the Apostles themselves, or with St. Paul.

[Arval Va]

And yet, just as most Christian denominations deny the morality of a whole host of atrocities from the Bible, someone could just as easily deny Acts 15. That's the whole point.

Pretty much no Christian denomination, not even the ones that deny apostolic succession, would deny that church leaders should have an ability to come together and to make decisions. And none of them have an issue with the Apostles themselves, or with St. Paul.

There's no logic applied in giving any verse spiritual significance, so no logic can be applied in excepting it from that significance. If the Bible has spiritual worth, what's to stop every Catholic in the Western world being condemned to hell for wearing mixed fabric, having long hair, or... not having long hair?

[Luminesa]

Pretty much no Christian denomination, not even the ones that deny apostolic succession, would deny that church leaders should have an ability to come together and to make decisions. And none of them have an issue with the Apostles themselves, or with St. Paul.

There's no logic applied in giving any verse spiritual significance, so no logic can be applied in excepting it from that significance. If the Bible has spiritual worth, what's to stop every Catholic in the Western world being condemned to hell for wearing mixed fabric, having long hair, or... not having long hair?

This is just turning into nonsensical ranting over the picking apart of Scripture. I wasn’t even responding to you when I spoke to Jedi Council, not to mention that line of argument had already died down for like a week until you decided to get mad that it was settled. Your understanding of the Bible and Biblical history is Evangelical at best and if you don’t have a coherent argument, I’m not going to waste my time.

[Pangurstan]

Pretty much no Christian denomination, not even the ones that deny apostolic succession, would deny that church leaders should have an ability to come together and to make decisions. And none of them have an issue with the Apostles themselves, or with St. Paul.

There's no logic applied in giving any verse spiritual significance, so no logic can be applied in excepting it from that significance. If the Bible has spiritual worth, what's to stop every Catholic in the Western world being condemned to hell for wearing mixed fabric, having long hair, or... not having long hair?

9 About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 Then he heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” 15 The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven.

[Arval Va]

There's no logic applied in giving any verse spiritual significance, so no logic can be applied in excepting it from that significance. If the Bible has spiritual worth, what's to stop every Catholic in the Western world being condemned to hell for wearing mixed fabric, having long hair, or... not having long hair?

9 About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 Then he heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” 15 The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven.

The fact that the Bible contradicts itself so often is enough evidence of its untrustworthiness - but it also presents a problem to the believer. How should one choose which parts to regard or disregard? That is the entire problem.

[Indecent Anime Empire]

Religion is abused, like everything, we the humans are the problem.

[Concejos Unidos]

There's no logic applied in giving any verse spiritual significance, so no logic can be applied in excepting it from that significance. If the Bible has spiritual worth, what's to stop every Catholic in the Western world being condemned to hell for wearing mixed fabric, having long hair, or... not having long hair?

A basic familiarity with Christian theology would tell you that injunctions in the Old Testament are subject to rather complex theological interpretation in terms of their applicability after the First Coming. So yes, there is reasoning about the relative spiritual significance of verses. The Bible isn't a set of axioms and propositions of equal weight like some mathematical proof, and it was never intended or interpreted that way. Critiques on that line, at best, show an incredibly shallow understanding of theology, if you think theologians just directly use faith to defend any given interpretation and discounts the rich intellectual tradition of Biblical interpretation and study.

Anyways, a text like the Bible is as much about the words on the page as the interpretations. Seeming contradictions may be subject to interpretations to reconcile them and a cursory examination of the extensive corpus of theological texts shows that they can be discussed beyond direct faith.

[Arval Va]

There's no logic applied in giving any verse spiritual significance, so no logic can be applied in excepting it from that significance. If the Bible has spiritual worth, what's to stop every Catholic in the Western world being condemned to hell for wearing mixed fabric, having long hair, or... not having long hair?

A basic familiarity with Christian theology would tell you that injunctions in the Old Testament are subject to rather complex theological interpretation in terms of their applicability after the First Coming. So yes, there is reasoning about the relative spiritual significance of verses. The Bible isn't a set of axioms and propositions of equal weight like some mathematical proof, and it was never intended or interpreted that way. Critiques on that line, at best, show an incredibly shallow understanding of theology, if you think theologians just directly use faith to defend any given interpretation and discounts the rich intellectual tradition of Biblical interpretation and study.

Anyways, a text like the Bible is as much about the words on the page as the interpretations. Seeming contradictions may be subject to interpretations to reconcile them and a cursory examination of the extensive corpus of theological texts shows that they can be discussed beyond direct faith.

The problem is all around which verses you give greater weight, where you decide to "interpret" or take it seriously. That is all in the realm of faith, whether it appears so on the surface or not.

[Concejos Unidos]

The problem is all around which verses you give greater weight, where you decide to "interpret" or take it seriously. That is all in the realm of faith, whether it appears so on the surface or not.

Well yes, religion is based on faith. So is empiricism in a way, as the Cartesian line of thought shows. So is any logical system, which cannot prove its own prime axioms. Therefore, all the results are contingent on the axioms, as is the results of theology on faith. There's nothing wrong with contingent statements and pointing to the fact that they're contingent to discount them is meaningless, not unlike how solipsism, even if true, is not a very useful position.

[Microoceania]

Stop making silly arguments on this guys. RELIGION is a true revelation from the almighty GOD and nothing you say will go against that. C'est la vie, find something else to waste your time over.

[Necroghastia]

Stop making silly arguments on this guys. RELIGION is a true revelation from the almighty GOD and nothing you say will go against that. C'est la vie, find something else to waste your time over.

You do realize there is more than one religion, right?

[Arval Va]

The problem is all around which verses you give greater weight, where you decide to "interpret" or take it seriously. That is all in the realm of faith, whether it appears so on the surface or not.

Well yes, religion is based on faith. So is empiricism in a way, as the Cartesian line of thought shows. So is any logical system, which cannot prove its own prime axioms. Therefore, all the results are contingent on the axioms, as is the results of theology on faith. There's nothing wrong with contingent statements and pointing to the fact that they're contingent to discount them is meaningless, not unlike how solipsism, even if true, is not a very useful position.

We've talked about this several times before. I'm not in the mood to run in circles any longer.