Religion
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
- Status
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Not all donations to religious groups should be excluded, I completely agree with that but how much of those donations go to real charity and how much goes to the business that is the church itself seems to me needs to be separated. Would you count the money to Creflo Dollar for his new jet as true charity?
And the same charge of bias which is true that is given on the article I posted would have to be equally laid on the National Catholic Register article as both in the end are on some level self serving.
newfie
Well-Known Member
not at all a derail. while a libertarian in my beliefs I also recognize that there is a faction of libertarians that reject moral values which have been a very important foundation for us and thus the rock star example that abuses underage children.
I also think its important to note that these same libertarians possibly feel a tremendous amount of guilt over their rejection of religion and thus tend to overtly attack this important foundation of moral values many of us hold dearly.
I recognize your anguish and I shall pray for your salvation , may god recover your lost soul and give you the peace you seek.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
There's no morality without Religion?
newfie
Well-Known Member
its an interesting question , how can you be moral when you reject the teachings of god? I guess another way to ask that question would be what are your ten commandments?
newfie
Well-Known Member
it was not a question of kindness. Atheists tend to be much more so aggressive in pursuing their hatred of religion then any bible thumper ever was in promoting his.
this little example highlighted that point. you constantly scour the news networks looking for items to post bashing religions
I simply posted one positive about one religion and received a very intense , aggressive response from you in return.
with multiple postings that in some cases contained multiple listings.
all because I attempted to recognize something positive about one religion?
you as a liberal or libertarian pat yourself on the back for tolerance on social issues but god help the poster who dares trying to say anything positive about a religion here.
you lose your freaking mind.
I honestly think you're fighting a lot of guilt with rejecting god and his teachings as my little experiment showed.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Which God?
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
"Religious People Donate More to Church and Charity"
by Tim Drake, (AKA, captain obvious)
In my opinion, this very common argument is a type of defense mechanism used by religious types. Many have trouble even conceiving of someone who simply doesn't believe in any gods; someone who is not hostile to any particular god, but simply indifferent.
To you, the idea is threatening - surely atheists must be angry at your god, there's no way they have simply weighed the evidence for a god and found it lacking. To be confronted with people who recognize the absurdity of an anthropomorphic sky father is unsettling to the believer, and so you must invent motivations for them (anger, hate) that simply aren't there.
And then, of course, you end with the ultimate cliche of the believer: a promise to pray for the atheist.
Well, of course everyone feels guilty when they refuse gods command to stone adulterers, or to marry their rape victims, or to abandon their families to follow the teachings of jesus.
Yes, it's almost universally accepted that there were many later interpolations made to the work by the church.
Yeah, it's born in ignoring the absurdity of following the superstitious ramblings of ancient zealots in favor of believing in something that makes you feel better.
Granted, we find ourselves in an absurd situation, so I can't really judge anyone for how they deal with the existential horror/awe/occasional beauty of this life. I wound prefer some intellectual honesty though - perhaps an admission from the faithful that they believe because it's comforting, and not because it's the absolute truth.
Do you know how horrifying it is to consider that many of the world's faithful cannot conceive of a reason to be moral in the absence of commands from god? Is the fear of punishment and the desire for reward the only thing keeping you on your tether? That's akin to the moral calculus of a child.
Morality, for me, is derived from compassion, empathy, a lot of thinking and by reading the ideas of various philosophers. I do not need to be cowed into submission by a bully in the sky to maintain a moral framework. As if the 10 commandments are even impressive - half deal with satisfying the vain, jealous nature of your god. "Have no others before me, no idols, etc. " Why would an omnipotent manifestation of love fall victim to the ugliest of human vices - vanity and jealousy?
Could you have picked an easier example to counter? You assert that the rejection of religious morality led to a rock star abusing children. Have you somehow shoved the Catholic pedophilia scandal into the deepest recesses of your unconscious? Religious morality is not a guarantee of actual moral behavior. In fact, in the wrong hands, it may even be an impediment to moral behavior; after all, what could serve someone with immoral inclinations better than the suggestion that their earthly sins can be instantly forgiven with a prayer?
Predicting a no true scotsman fallacy in 3...2...1....
I love that you mentioned Joseph Smith. He was totally nuts. The only difference between him and the earlier "prophets" is that his temporal proximity to us makes it that much easier to see him for what he was - a gifted, megalomaniacal, possibly delusional conman. Elephants in America, magic plates/tablets, etc. Let's not forget his legacy of rampant sexual abuse of children.bbsam said:
A great man indeed.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Religion, when taken seriously, is not about "comforting". It's not a "feel good" or "the opiate of the masses".
How's this for intellectual honesty? As supernatural as it seems, I don't find resurrection the least bit impossible. I've seen too much of the impossible become reality to doubt. Oh, I'm sure that people explain things away and have excellent reasons for their disbelief. But why is such explaining the explainable more "intellectually honest" than accepting a miracle? True intellectual honesty on both sides would be simply admitting the finite limits of human intelligence. Anything out that realm is open to individual interpretation.
Of course, we are in a vast ocean of ignorance. My response to this situation is to accept that I do not know anything for sure, and to not believe in things for which there is no evidence. "Interpreting" things as miraculous simply because you believe you have witnessed the impossible made possible is not honest, it is faith. That's all well and good, but filling in the large gaps in our knowledge with what you hope to be true is wishful thinking, not intellectual rigor.
In what way is religion not comforting? The notion that the creator of the universe loves you, has a plan for you, and is waiting for you in paradise is not comforting? Don't kid yourself. Faith is an attempt to find solace in a terrifying universe. I can't blame anyone for resorting to it, especially with all the social pressure, but intellectually honest it is not.
In what way is accepting miracles as fact intellectually honest? What proof do you have for resurrection besides an ancient book? The truth is, we have no reason to believe miracles occur. All testaments of truly miraculous occurrences are based on old stories. All things in modern times that are ascribed to the supernatural, strangely enough, do not ever violate the laws of nature or what we know of biology. Amputees never regrow their limbs, no matter how pious. Time never reverses its flow, no matter how much a poor mother may beg God to bring her child back. What do I have to explain away to not believe in miracles? Anecdotal evidence from biased sources?
And what must you ignore to believe in them? Well, you must ignore the fact that all so called miracles can be easily explained without invoking the supernatural. You must ignore that most events that one might call miraculous suffer from survivorship bias - the man who thinks God saved him from a tornado spares no thoughts for those killed by it, and thus denied a miracle.
So, believe what you want. But be honest with yourself: you have no real evidence for your beliefs. That's why it's called faith.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
