Religion

[BMP 424]

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment.

 

I think churches in general provide solace for people confronted with death. Having religion is still having something when everything else is taken from people. They also provide safe social settings for youth, community involvement, charity for down on their luck families, etc.

 

I'm more against religious involvement in politics, politicians pandering to the religious crowd to gain support to pass self serving legislation, and religious intrusion into my own life (i.e. the people who spend a week every two months on FSU's campus screaming at everyone that they're going to hell).

 

 

I know, and I touched on it earlier. I'm saying, in a perfect world, you wouldn't need facilities to control a lot of these people's thoughts and gain money/power from it. We're obviously far from that and just destroying every church wouldn't solve anything.

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

I wouldn't claim that the Democrats are without sin when it comes to pushing moral legislation. I don't think that the majority of the examples that you cited are religiously inspired however.

 

Why do they need to be rooted in religion to qualify as attempting to legislate morality? That's been my point from the beginning...

 

Its amussing how legislating morality is only associated with those who attempt to do so in the name of religion...

 

 

That's because most of it is done for religious purposes whether its done openly in the name of organized religion or politicians doing so in order to curry favor with the religious right.

 

 

That's a fallacy and the point of my comment. Both sides attempt to legislate morality ad nauseum.

 

 

Thanx for answering my question Osprey...

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

To add, nearly all Christian groups asked have spoken out against the Koran burning in Gainesville, (perhaps not Westboro Baptist).

 

If we'd only had the same level of denunciation from Muslim groups after 9-11

 

Not to beat this point into the ground too much, since the issue nationally at present is both pervasive and like, really *****ing stupid, but a lot of American domestic Muslim groups DID denounce the actions of 9/11. Some did so repeatedly. Even the Imam behind the Cordoba Center did(actually, he specifically denounced the actions of 9/11 within the speech people have quoted to suggest he didn't).

 

Now, I'm fully aware that some people in other countries, and probably a handful of people domestically, celebrated. That's obviously a tragedy, but I think we, as intelligent people, have to be careful to differentiate between the actions of a radical or group of radicals, and those who share some beliefs with those radicals.

 

As an example, if I blew up an orphanage tomorrow, I would be guilty of killing orphans. That guilt would not and should not be spread to include "all atheists", because most people, atheist or otherwise, recognize that blowing up an orphanage is wrong.

[E27 33]

When people talk about getting rid of religion, they mean organized religion, which is not good at all. This is something that no one in this planet knows more about than the other, and organizations shouldn't be allowed to profit off of other's questions and beliefs because they're able to con them into thinking they know more.

 

The world would be a much better place if people decided to think for themselves and stopped relying so heavily on churches.

 

 

 

The Vatican itself is a joke. Can you honestly believe Jesus himself would live in that place? It goes against nearly everything he tried to teach.

Exactly. And that was the point I was making. I don't like churches that take advantage of people by 1. telling them how to live and what to believe and 2. taking money from them by saying that Jesus would have contributed something too.

 

I don't like church because I feel that church should be about learning about God and teaching when, in reality, it's about greed.

[OrlandoNKentucky 54]

Wow. This thing has really blown up since I checked it last. So just to clarify and summarize - what those who are non-religious are basically saying is that a strong reason for why they are non-religious is because they are tired of the hypocrisy shown by the religious leaders of today? Is that what I'm reading or was there another underlying problem that was more of a concern than that?

[Osprey 199]

Exactly. And that was the point I was making. I don't like churches that take advantage of people by 1. telling them how to live and what to believe

 

So, if a preacher/Pastor/Imam teaches you to turn the other cheek when someone wrongs you, or to love your neighbor as you would your own family, isn't that telling you how to live your life? If they aren't supposed to tell you what to believe, then why even preach in the first place?

 

Basically you've said that religious leaders should basically suggest ways to live (but not tell them), and to make sure they don't use any specifics about their religion or God/gods.

[Emory889 353]

Wow. This thing has really blown up since I checked it last. So just to clarify and summarize - what those who are non-religious are basically saying is that a strong reason for why they are non-religious is because they are tired of the hypocrisy shown by the religious leaders of today? Is that what I'm reading or was there another underlying problem that was more of a concern than that?

 

For me, that's part of it. I also find religion to be incredibly destructive and wholly unbelievable. That's just my beliefs though. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want.

[BMP 424]

Wow. This thing has really blown up since I checked it last. So just to clarify and summarize - what those who are non-religious are basically saying is that a strong reason for why they are non-religious is because they are tired of the hypocrisy shown by the religious leaders of today? Is that what I'm reading or was there another underlying problem that was more of a concern than that?

 

 

No, the hypocrisy has nothing to do with it. There are several reasons why but I'd say the main one is that there are too many contradictions in the bible, as well as other writings, for me to take it to heart as the one book to model my life after. No one religion has all the answers and to me, these books should be used as moral guidance interpreted by the individual himself, and not as the answer to life that should be followed blindly.

 

 

My take on life: do whatever the hell you please as long as you don't bother others.

[Osprey 199]

No, the hypocrisy has nothing to do with it. There are several reasons why but I'd say the main one is that there are too many contradictions in the bible, as well as other writings, for me to take it to heart as the one book to model my life after. No one religion has all the answers and to me, these books should be used as moral guidance interpreted by the individual himself, and not as the answer to life that should be followed blindly.

 

 

My take on life: do whatever the hell you please as long as you don't bother others.

 

So if I do something that bothers someone I should stop? My students get bothered when I assign homework or give them a test. Should I stop doing that? I get bothered when they take money out of my paycheck for social programs, shouldn't they stop doing that? (I wish)

 

My point is that it's not that simple.

[BMP 424]

So if I do something that bothers someone I should stop? My students get bothered when I assign homework or give them a test. Should I stop doing that? I get bothered when they take money out of my paycheck for social programs, shouldn't they stop doing that? (I wish)

 

My point is that it's not that simple.

 

 

You know exactly what I meant.

[Osprey 199]

You know exactly what I meant.

 

Not really, because what you're saying isn't really definable. If you actually are talking about categorical imperatives then yes, I do know what that means, but not bothering someone is not very clear.

 

Basically if there is no moral code then we rely solely on laws to keep society just and running. However we can all agree that you can still be morally corrupt yet law abiding. So therefore a moral code is necessary, whether innate or explicit in order for a society to progress.

[BMP 424]

Not really, because what you're saying isn't really definable. If you actually are talking about categorical imperatives then yes, I do know what that means, but not bothering someone is not very clear.

 

Basically if there is no moral code then we rely solely on laws to keep society just and running. However we can all agree that you can still be morally corrupt yet law abiding. So therefore a moral code is necessary, whether innate or explicit in order for a society to progress.

 

 

You don't put anyone in harm and you don't bother anyone. Those students should have already known they were going to get homework and decided to go anyways, so they put themselves in that position. You didn't go to some random person and tell them to finish that assignment.

 

 

It really is simple. In a perfect world, if no one is bothering anyone else, what moral code will you really need? I've already stated before that these are circumstances in which I'd like to see the world in but know won't happen, probably ever. Not everyone is a good person and a few can ruin it for many. It still doesn't hurt to try it.