Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Religious people know they are full of shit.

191012141517

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes it could (and has), as could many other things based in scientific fact. But unlike religion, you will never find science making that judgement for you. All science does is present you with the facts as they are scientifically understood. It is then up to the individual's moral code (i.e. religion) to decide what to do with these facts.
    Religion is much more than a moral code though. And you still haven't disproved Moonrat's point, that there are many things that can be used to manipulate people, and it doesn't make things bad in themselves, it depends on how they are used. They, like religion (yes, even organised religion) can also be used for good or for bad.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teach her to jump burning pews and PT Barnum's Ringling Bros. Circus might just have a slot for her!

    Look at her eyes! It's like she's high on Jesus.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bluewisdom wrote:
    Religion is much more than a moral code though.
    Yeah, I never said there wasn't. The moral code is just what seperates religion from other ways of looking at the world, such as science.
    bluewisdom wrote:
    And you still haven't disproved Moonrat's point, that there are many things that can be used to manipulate people, and it doesn't make things bad in themselves, it depends on how they are used. They, like religion (yes, even organised religion) can also be used for good or for bad.
    There are no benefits to organised religion that are a direct result of it being organised. Any benefits (and it isn't exactly universally accepted that there are any) surely can be gained through personal faith. The very idea of organised religion is that one 'group' of people is morally superior to another. I think this is where I drop the bit in where people say that anyone who doesn't agree with their religion will burn in hell for all eternity. Organised religion causes division and discrimination based purely on the labels that people are given, rather than because of any views or moral opinions any individual has offered.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are no benefits to organised religion that are a direct result of it being organised. Any benefits (and it isn't exactly universally accepted that there are any) surely can be gained through personal faith.
    There are benefits to be gained from organised religion that cannot necessarily be gained from individual faith alone. The sense of belonging within a large group of fellow believers (e.g. a billion others) would probably be much more intense than that of an individual who believes in whatever they want to believe. It is a lot easier to have solid faith in your beliefs if you have millions of others to back you up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are benefits to be gained from organised religion that cannot necessarily be gained from individual faith alone. The sense of belonging within a large group of fellow believers (e.g. a billion others) would probably be much more intense than that of an individual who believes in whatever they want to believe. It is a lot easier to have solid faith in your beliefs if you have millions of others to back you up.
    So their faith is based on the number of other people that believe the same thing? There's a name for that - they're called sheep. You can gain an equal sense of acceptance and belonging by expressing moral views that everyone largely agrees with, it doesn't have to be part of a club. You say it will be "more intense than that of an individual who believes whatever they want to believe." I'm confused. I thought these people did believe what they want to believe. Are you suggesting that organised religion causes them to believe things that the otherwise wouldn't given complete free will? Or believe in more extreme versions of their basic beliefs, than they would if they weren't watched and judged constantly by a big group of 'fellow believers'. If so, I think you've hit on something there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock does my nut in
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So their faith is based on the number of other people that believe the same thing? There's a name for that - they're called sheep. You can gain an equal sense of acceptance and belonging by expressing moral views that everyone largely agrees with, it doesn't have to be part of a club.
    I never said anything about a religion being based on the number of people believing the same thing. I said a person would experience a greater sense of belonging as part of that group. And yes, if you want to call them sheep then feel free. They are, for the most part however, happy sheep.
    You say it will be "more intense than that of an individual who believes whatever they want to believe." I'm confused. I thought these people did believe what they want to believe. Are you suggesting that organised religion causes them to believe things that the otherwise wouldn't given complete free will?
    Of course everybody believes what they want to believe. I meant an individual who doesn't choose to believe in a highly-followed faith probably wouldn't have the same level of belonging.

    Following a particular set of beliefs that happen to be shared by millions of others, and having the free will to choose what you believe, are not mutually exclusive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Following a particular set of beliefs that happen to be shared by millions of others, and having the free will to choose what you believe, are not mutually exclusive.
    :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The very idea of organised religion is that one 'group' of people is morally superior to another.
    You are way off. You're getting morals and religion mixed up. I'll talk about Christianism, which is the religion I know the most, and Christian belief is that morals alone will not save you. If you follow all the "rules" to the letter, that isn't going to save you. You are saved by the grace of God, and by your own willingness to be saved, end of. It is not about who is more 'morally correct' who gets saved, it is only down to God and yourself, about your faith in Him and your acts of love (both of which show your willingness). Morals in themselves don't enter this equation. Moral codes elaborated from here are there to help you guide your conduct to what is assumingly more humanizing and therefore, brings you closer to God. But it is explicit that they are only assumptions - in the end it is down to the individual's conscience. And even if those 'morally correct' acts are followed but done without love, then they don't 'count' for anything. From 1 Cor 13:
    "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
    And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
    If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing."


    Even further proof: in the Fourth Century a group of Christian monks emerged called Pelagianists which, in short, stated that humanity could save itself without the aid of God by being morally correct in everything. They followed every 'rule' to the letter, being very strict. And guess what? The Church considered Pelagianism as heretic, because it opposed precisely what is stated above, ie morals alone will not save you.

    So, returning to the original point, religions do not consider themselves to be morally superior to others, it is more about beliefs in after-life, and what they believe will 'save' you. These are not morals. They are related, but it *isn't* them. And btw, if you look at 'moral codes' of different religions, you'll find that generally, they are quite similar in principal values (like compassion and peace). Obviously there are fundamentalists who deviate from the original intention of their religions, but they are a minority. Sadly though, they are the ones who get the attention from the press, so then the rest think they are all like that, and the generalisations begin. And then all the regular followers are tarred with same brush. Imo, this is where the conflicts arise, in the misunderstanding of the other's religion (which is very linked to the misunderstanding of the other's culture, which is a big source for conflict), not in the religions themselves (as not in the cultures themselves).
    I think this is where I drop the bit in where people say that anyone who doesn't agree with their religion will burn in hell for all eternity.
    Well, badly dropped then becuase it isn't true. At least for Christianity, which I think you are alluding to by mentioning the burning in hell bit. Christians believe that any person of good will can be saved if they are willing to be, even non-Christians. This is in the Catholic doctrine. (I'm not sure about the rest of Christian churches, but my bet is that it's also there.) I agree it's what happened in the past, but inter-religious dialogue has advanced a great deal, and now-a-days, it's not like that anymore.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bluewisdom wrote:
    Christians believe......
    And here is the problem. As soon as you have one person claiming that they speak for a group of people, you have problems. Christians don't believe anything. Individuals believe things. Their beliefs may be similar, but organised religion is exactly why misunderstandings occur, because you are assuming that people think in groups, rather than as individuals.

    I don't really want to get into the intricacies of any particular religion, but my focus on the moral aspect was really just to illustrate the difference between religion and my other example of science. In your examples, there is still a clear sense of right and wrong (i.e. acts that bring you closer to God). If not, I could commit any act I wanted, and as long as it is was done with love for God and in God's name, I would be 'saved'.

    And just as a side note, moral codes for major religions are similar because moral codes for almost all humans are similar, and religions are a by-product of inate human morality.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course everybody believes what they want to believe. I meant an individual who doesn't choose to believe in a highly-followed faith probably wouldn't have the same level of belonging.
    The same could apply to race or nationality too, but these three combined are responsible for practically every war (well actually every war that I know about) in history. I just don't feel that the sense of 'belonging to a group' is a big enough trade off for the problems it causes. Would individual citizens be willing to go to war if it wasn't for 'national pride'? Would race riots occur if it wasn't for 'racial pride'? 'Groups' as a whole are the reason that people are willing to be violent against other people who they've never even met before. If you put the focus on individuals instead, then you'll get a better dialogue of ideas. The old saying "a person is intelligent, but people are stupid" is something I consider very true. It's up to them I suppose though. If you want to feel part of a group, then go ahead, just don't complain when another individual attacks you or doesn't listen to your opinion, just because they are from another 'group'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In your examples, there is still a clear sense of right and wrong (i.e. acts that bring you closer to God). If not, I could commit any act I wanted, and as long as it is was done with love for God and in God's name, I would be 'saved'.
    Exactly, you would be saved. That was the whole point I was making in my previous post... :banghead: (And it doesn't even have to necessarily be in God's name, as long as it is a sincere act of love in itself it's enough). You have just proved my point.

    To put it in other words, moral codes in religion are subordinated to faith. It is on this level that religions differ, not on a moral level.
    And just as a side note, moral codes for major religions are similar because moral codes for almost all humans are similar, and religions are a by-product of inate human morality.
    Well, then there would be no reason for different religions to assume their moral code is the best then, would there (as they're all very similar)? :yeees:
    I don't really want to get into the intricacies of any particular religion
    Why not? Is it because when faced upon deeper knowledge of a religion you realise you don't have the ground to debate? If you are making a point then you should be able to back it up (with accurate information). If you are going to talk about religions, get to know them first.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The same could apply to race or nationality too, but these three combined are responsible for practically every war (well actually every war that I know about) in history. I just don't feel that the sense of 'belonging to a group' is a big enough trade off for the problems it causes. Would individual citizens be willing to go to war if it wasn't for 'national pride'? Would race riots occur if it wasn't for 'racial pride'? 'Groups' as a whole are the reason that people are willing to be violent against other people who they've never even met before. If you put the focus on individuals instead, then you'll get a better dialogue of ideas. The old saying "a person is intelligent, but people are stupid" is something I consider very true. It's up to them I suppose though. If you want to feel part of a group, then go ahead, just don't complain when another individual attacks you or doesn't listen to your opinion, just because they are from another 'group'.
    If you think organised religion shouldn't exist because of these reasons, then surely under this logic countries and races neither then? If not, please enlighten me as to what you mean...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Logically you could call me Stupid, but I`m with I`m With Stupid with many of the views expressed in this thread.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bluewisdom wrote:
    If you think organised religion shouldn't exist because of these reasons, then surely under this logic countries and races neither then? If not, please enlighten me as to what you mean...

    Please enlighten me that they(countries and races) do. Just more organised religion in my eyes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are no benefits to organised religion that are a direct result of it being organised. Any benefits (and it isn't exactly universally accepted that there are any) surely can be gained through personal faith. The very idea of organised religion is that one 'group' of people is morally superior to another. I think this is where I drop the bit in where people say that anyone who doesn't agree with their religion will burn in hell for all eternity. Organised religion causes division and discrimination based purely on the labels that people are given, rather than because of any views or moral opinions any individual has offered.
    What about Baha'i?

    People always talk about 'organised religion' as if Christian extremism and Muslim extremism are the only forms of religion out there. Baha'i is one of the world's newer religions and believes that all paths to God are right... basically a universal unity of hearts and souls. They do not believe in sexism or racism or sexism and are very active in human rights campaigning and helping those in poverty. Are you goingto tar those with the same brush?

    The Quakers? What is your opinion on them? I would hardly say that they believe in moral superiority, in fact (in my opinion) the Quakers are probably the coolest Christiansout there.

    Jainism is a religion (from India I think) that believes in the equality of all living creatures and as reguards human beings, the equality of each of us reguardless of sex or race or religion. It is a religion known for its tolerence and non-violence.

    I often wonder if people who speak of the evil or intolerence of religion have even heard of the Quakers, of Baha'i, or of Jainism. By making a sweeping statement like the one above you are painting out anybody who adopts a religious lifestyle as evil. The above statement talks about moral superiority... I think the writer should read in to some Buddhism on that one. Again the idea of hell... As far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), but very few religions actually believe in hell. A lot of eastern religins have concepts of reincarnation, transmigration and so on...

    At least in my opinon by branding all 'organised religion' as unjust or evil, you are doing exactly what a lot of the people you hate are doing. You are saying "I am right and you are wrong", creating an "us and them" ethos. is it not the idea of "us and them" or "right and wrong" that truelly divides people? Rather than religion itself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You are saying "I am right and you are wrong", creating an "us and them" ethos. is it not the idea of "us and them" or "right and wrong" that truelly divides people? Rather than religion itself.
    Yes I am saying I am right and you are wrong, not we are right and you (your group) is wrong. There's a big difference. Mine doesn't cause two people who've never met to fight just because of the label they've given themselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jainism is a religion (from India I think) that believes in the equality of all living creatures and as reguards human beings, the equality of each of us reguardless of sex or race or religion. It is a religion known for its tolerence and non-violence.
    Can you not believe in all of those things without needing to be part of a club? Does being an individual rather than a group not mean that your opinions are heard rather than the groups opinions are heard (and since 'a groups' opinions can't exist, the leader of the group assumes he speaks for everyone else in the group).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Logically you could call me Stupid, but I`m with I`m With Stupid with many of the views expressed in this thread.
    Took me a while to get my head round that one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes I am saying I am right and you are wrong, not we are right and you (your group) is wrong. There's a big difference. Mine doesn't cause two people who've never met to fight just because of the label they've given themselves.
    You just created a lot of labels in your post. I think whatyou said would cause a fight, I at least found it offensive and I'm sure a lot of religious people would too. Especially in the several religions you probably don't even realise exists judging by your sweeping statements.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can you not believe in all of those things without needing to be part of a club? Does being an individual rather than a group not mean that your opinions are heard rather than the groups opinions are heard (and since 'a groups' opinions can't exist, the leader of the group assumes he speaks for everyone else in the group).
    So you are saying that people do not have the right to group worship? Not every religion has heirarchy.

    Surely you like to spend time with people who share the same opinions as you on certain matters.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bluewisdom wrote:
    If you think organised religion shouldn't exist because of these reasons, then surely under this logic countries and races neither then? If not, please enlighten me as to what you mean...
    Exactly. Well I don't think the 'shouldn't exist' because I have no right to impose my opinions on the people that participate in such groups. But I do think that they cause a huge number of problems, more than they solve. If their was no such thing as nationalism, then one person would never be willing to shoot another person that they've never met in a war, just because they happen to be on the 'other side'. If it wasn't for people organising themselves into race groups, then all large scale race related violence would be wiped out instantly. So yeah, I think it would be better if these groups didn't exist. But feel free to tell me any benefits of such groups I might have missed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So you are saying that people do not have the right to group worship? Not every religion has heirarchy.

    Surely you like to spend time with people who share the same opinions as you on certain matters.
    Everyone has the right to group worship. Where did I say otherwise? I just don't think it's of benefit to anyone. If these people do, then good luck to them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You just created a lot of labels in your post. I think whatyou said would cause a fight, I at least found it offensive and I'm sure a lot of religious people would too. Especially in the several religions you probably don't even realise exists judging by your sweeping statements.
    But would it cause a fight between me and the one person I offended, or between my 'group' and the 'group' of people I offended. Which would be worse?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well Quakers, for example, are pacifists.
    All of them? There you go assuming you know what they are all like based on the label they've chosen to give themselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But would it cause a fight between me and the one person I offended, or between my 'group' and the 'group' of people I offended. Which would be worse?
    So it's Ok for you as an individual to be intolerent about how others wish to live their lives and express their spirituality, as long as more than one of you doesn't hold the same opinion?

    You didn't answer all my questions by the way,what do you think of the religions I mentioned and do they fit in with the model of what organised religion is that you proposed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well Quakers, for example, are pacifists, so you can't really blame them for wars. Lots of other religions are peaceful too.

    That's not true.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All of them? There you go assuming you know what they are all like based on the label they've chosen to give themselves.
    What about the labels you have given members of organised religion? So your labels are correct and theirs aren't?
Sign In or Register to comment.