Religious Prejudice

[AOI_Tifa_Lockhart]

I read this article today, and found it rather laughable. Today's society seems to be very prejudiced in general. Even with all this information at our fingertips the world seems to be very shallow and opinionated. The media is a tool, which seems to subtley, and sometimes overtly promote fear and prejudice and then they write this sort of article.

It's almost trying to sound shocked that nowadays, in this post 9/11 world and with the futile Iraq war and the un-winnable Afghan war still continuing that the world is somehow prejudiced against Muslims?

In general i'm not overly fond of religion, however I woudln't persecute people, either to their faces or behind their backs because it is people's own choices. But the report just seemed horrifically ironic

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12235237

Stating Muslims are divided into moderates and extremists, what do peopel expect? News is usually brief, never in depth enough and almost always biased. In all honesty when most of the news will portray bombings, riots and "terrorist threats" constantly what do they expect?

I also think a lot of people in the UK will read papers such as The Sun and the Daily Mirror which are both factually very weak in substance, but also cherrish general ranting about everything to write about in the news.

Extremists in all religions tend to be a minority. The media wants us to believe they're waging their own crusade which Europe did in Medieval times. Is religion not evolving? Well without human intervention it would have died long ago perhaps? Of course these "devout" people will consider their religion to be the correct one. But why don't we worship Ancient Roman Gods? History is written by the victors, so hence why a select few religions exist? Perhaps? Maybe it's historically inaccurate.

I recall Richard Dawkins commenting on a consensus of scientists and intellectuals who were asked if they believed in a God, and amongst these select few people, some of the msot brilliant minds of modern time, the belief in God is a severe minority, interesting how he stated that an Athiest would never have much of a chance of running for Presidency or perhaps Prime Minister of England, that even in modern times the leaders of countries are almost expected to be religious...anyways I digress...

If there were constant news reports about fundamental Christian's there would be a report stating that society nowadays is always prejudiced against Christianity perhaps? In my opion religion is over 1000 years past it's sell by date, but even in a world of modern technology and ideas people are always taking comfort in these supernatural ideas of religion, fate, luck and my personnal tormentor horoscopes....but that in itself could be considered prejudice?

I recall religious studies back at school, I enjoyed it thoroughly but even with whole hearted attempts to truely believe in a God, how my mother does I just coudln't. I respect people who can have that faith but I really cannot, when science constantly evolves and religionr elies on dogma I cannot see the logic in it other than people needing a belief in an afterlife..or being born and raised into it without little or no choice, and with muslim countries denying their faith is seriosuly frowned upon, sometimes more than that.

Religion isn't a way to lead a moral life, history can proove that beyond a doubt. You can have morals without the need for religious texts and ideas. Anyways I think I've rambled enough and not really got anywhere with it :P

Tifa

[RenzokukenZ]

The world of today consists of two peoples: The shepherds and the sheep. The shepherds (Media news/Religion) tell the sheep of where to go and what to, and the sheep (people) follow these orders around without any question or thought. To the sheep, the shepherd's word is law. Pretty much all of that above in a nutshell.

[AOI_Tifa_Lockhart]

Hah yes indeed i love how you rounded that up so neatly :D Also this is kinda on topic but he's just so witty


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzEs2nj7iZM&feature=fvw

Tifa

[KodiaX987]

At least now the extremists are the minority, unlike all the shit that's gone on during the middle ages.

"What? You invented protestanism? THIS MEANS WAR!!"

[Fayorei]

The world of today consists of two peoples: The shepherds and the sheep. The shepherds (Media news/Religion) tell the sheep of where to go and what to, and the sheep (people) follow these orders around without any question or thought. To the sheep, the shepherd's word is law. Pretty much all of that above in a nutshell.

*applauds* You sir, got it right exactly. I studied in Comm Media/Journalism, and yeah, that about sums it up. I used to live in Northern Ohio, people kinda took the news with a grain of salt. Hell, when I moved to Northern Kentucky, people still seemed pretty laid back, noticed a bit of difference... then when I visit my friend's place in Southern Kentucky I just felt on edge at first. Her mom's side of the family is super religious, and as such, more extreme than any other place I've been to. That, and the news is the gospel.

What got me though, is that my friend's uncle posts inflammatory Facebook stuff all the time and she tells me how disgusted she is by it. Stuff about people from the Middle East that would be dire insults to his own family if you substituted Christianity into his little "quips".

What gets me about down here though is, it's not some place where gays are persecuted constantly or people being extremely rude, it's almost surreal- people just believe Fox News is gospel. Which, any news station being gospel is a very bad idea. Ergo, they just repeat whatever they heard on the news to anyone, and don't really even regard what the person might think or if they'd have a differing opinion. It isn't everyone down here- the younger generation seems much more open-minded just like anywhere else, but the elderly down here absolutely scare me with how little they know of the world, but how opinionated they are that they must hate it... because of the news.

And yeah, I'll be the first to say every religion has its extremes. Using my friend again, she is a practicing Christian, but she gets this letter from her very fundamental aunt's church from a girl saying "I'll be praying for you, I hope you find your faith". It was completely out of taste in my opinion. o_O

Also, George Carlin rocks!

[BIG OLAF]

I think some people might actually need to read the Qu'ran before making any assumptions about Muslims, considering that it teaches to marry children, have sex with animals, rape women, and to convert or kill anyone (regardless of who they are) who doesn't follow Islam. That's all I'm going to say about that.

As for religion in general, I don't believe in any of it (Atheist). Now, if only people would stop trying to pound it down everyone else's throats via the media, maybe the world would be a better place.

[xmoonprismpowerx]

That's why I don't watch the news, because Fox news is, "*GASP* *THEATRICS*". You can HEAR them acting. It's pretty disgusting! And liberal media is the same, just biased towards their own goals. I stopped watching the news around when 9/11 happened.

Everyone wants their own opinion but don't want to do much research (general statement). But I try not to talk about politics/religion. It just causes fights because everyone IS entitled to their own beliefs, even if they are based on bullshit.

As far as religion goes, no I don't believe in god (although it WOULD be nice, a romantic idea) for it to be true. God represents our hope in what we can't see. And we SHOULD have faith, but faith in ourselves, as individuals. People want to follow a book. Well, make up your OWN morals. They can be BASED on some good morals already existing.

I follow the "don't be a dick" rule. It would be a dick move to kill someone, steal their husband, steal something from them, be mean to them (unless they are intervening on MY rights to live, exist, and do what I'm gonna do). I will kill someone who tries to kill me. THEY'RE being a dick, I defend myself. But I don't go and attack anyone. And I try to help as much as I can without feeling MYSELF needing to asplode. It works very well for me!

And someone who wants to ride on MY beliefs and be rude to me for what I believe, maybe you shouldn't be a dick :/ Freedom of speech? Can we still uses it?

[Sinue_v2]

I saw a poster one time that I think nailed the subject pretty well. It read, "Religion: Treat it like your penis. Don't show it off in public, and don't shove it down your children's throats."

I don't really have time to get into the subject too heavily just now, but I'll be back after a bit see where the conversation is going. In the meantime, I'll leave this video, which lays out a pretty good history and description of the God of the western world as a remnant and chimera of earlier polytheistic pantheons.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

[Akaimizu]

There are extremists for every belief. And definitely proven by the internet, extremists don't even have to have a religion to be one.

I also think people shouldn't constantly preach anti-religion and force it down peoples' throats all the time, as well. Just because you don't practice a religion doesn't mean you can't do to others what you don't want done to you. Food for thought. Not that it's being done here, but it's being done a whole lot, especially on internet forums.

That's why I typically don't like Religious topics in public forums that have nothing to do with the topic, regardless who writes them.

[Fayorei]

I follow the "don't be a dick" rule. It would be a dick move to kill someone, steal their husband, steal something from them, be mean to them (unless they are intervening on MY rights to live, exist, and do what I'm gonna do). I will kill someone who tries to kill me. THEY'RE being a dick, I defend myself. But I don't go and attack anyone. And I try to help as much as I can without feeling MYSELF needing to asplode. It works very well for me!

I follow this same rule.:) Well-put.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

It is necessary that there exists an entity of some sort, which has these two properties: first, it cannot interact with Time in the same way that we do, and second, it must have the ability to cause the universe to exist. Without an entity with these two properties, presumably among others which my logic does not identify, it is not possible for anything to exist, at all. It must interact with Time differently, so that it can perform the function of its second property, causing the universe to exist, in a time when it, itself, does not yet exist. Whatever this entity is, it is responsible for everything being here.

That being said, I hold Christian beliefs, but I also hold the assumption that a great deal of Christian cosmology, as documented by men, may be very, very wrong. Furthermore, I also submit that it is not the job of religion to teach scientific principles, but to provide instruction on how one should live. Where demonstrable science contradicts one's doctrine, then the doctrine is apparently wrong. Church is a very poor place to gain a scientific understanding of the world.

I don't believe that the problems in our world come from religion. The scriptures of our world's most pervasive religions instruct us all to seek peace-- not war. Often, however, religion becomes corrupted, and used to justify the things which men wanted to do, anyway. It becomes a powerful tool for justifying your hate, and for getting others to hate with you.

Religion isn't the problem. Humans are.

[Sinue_v2]

I think some people might actually need to read the Qu'ran before making any assumptions about Muslims, considering that it teaches to marry children, have sex with animals, rape women, and to convert or kill anyone (regardless of who they are) who doesn't follow Islam. That's all I'm going to say about that.

I haven't read much of the Qu'ran, but from what I have read, I don't see anything in it more morally reprehensible than what is found in the Old Testament. Many of the same repugnant decrees are found in the OT as well, but have been tempered out of most modern Christian and Hebrew teachings by society. I have no doubt that Islam can be (and often is) domesticated in similar fashion.


It is necessary that there exists an entity of some sort, which has these two properties: first, it cannot interact with Time in the same way that we do, and second, it must have the ability to cause the universe to exist.

I'd say that a bit redundant, considering that time and space are, apparently, one in the same phenomena... so it is a given that any first cause to our localized bubble of spacetime would necessarily be outside of our spacetime. I do not think "Entity" is necessarily a proper term to use, since Entity entails it has to have conscious perception and self-awareness. This may well not be the case, especially in a multiverse. Though even that would still beg the question, "what started the multiverse"... and it doesn't really answer the question of why is there something, rather than nothing?

I doubt we'll ever find the answer to that.


Furthermore, I also submit that it is not the job of religion to teach scientific principles, but to provide instruction on how one should live.

I'm skeptical of that view, because I don't see a distinction between Objective and Subjective morality the way many of my Christian friends do. While the various religions of the world do hold some very good lessons on morality, many of them also contain horrific and bigoted moral laws which I think we should do away with. The argument that law is given by a higher source, and is thus objective (like a law of physics) is weakened by the argument of an intelligent agent who actively judges and interacts with their creation (which the god of the old testament often does). It's not so much an objective morality in that case, as it is simply supplanting your subjective morality with the morality of another. Besides, when you take the view of human civilization as a super organism, it's not a far stretch then to say that getting our morals from society is also objective - since societies do not necessarily behave as the individuals who make up it's structure, and laws and moralities can emerge collectively.

Furthermore, considering how plastic and malleable language is, you cannot follow an objective morality that is given to you by subjective interpretations on it either on the pulpit, or in your own readings. And we see this all the time, as priests and holymen routinely co-op their holy scriptures to further their own political and moral ends. For it to be objective, it would require divine revelation to everyone... and likely not in the form of language (which can be misunderstood), but rather the direct injection of knowledge.


Where demonstrable science contradicts one's doctrine, then the doctrine is apparently wrong.

This is a very good rule to live be, especially if you consider that a god created this universe, since it could be said that the creation itself would be a form of "language" or expression of that being. To supplant an understanding of the natural world (which man cannot create) with the words of a book (that men can create) in the name of god, I consider that a form of idolatry wherein the works of men are held as a greater authority than the work of god.

While I'm glad that this view (to within certain limits) is much more pervasive in today's world, there are still many religious individuals and organizations which will flat out tell you that (in the words of Answers in Genesis's statement of Faith (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith)) "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."


I don't believe that the problems in our world come from religion. The scriptures of our world's most pervasive religions instruct us all to seek peace-- not war.

On the second article, I would disagree. All of them do contain much material about the promotion of peace and love, but to say that they do not order their believers to make use of war and violence is inaccurate.

On the first article, I do agree wholeheartedly. Religion in and of itself causes no problems, just as guns and medicine are neither problematic or problem solvers in and of themselves. It is a matter of application by people that determine their benefits or detriment. The larger issue at hand, I think, is fundamentalism... which religion often demands, but is not a product of. Fundamentalism underscores many different facets of human society, most notably political and racial ideologies, and can be just as devastating no matter where it comes from.


That's why I don't watch the news, because Fox news is, "*GASP* *THEATRICS*".

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but they are all pretty much theatrics. Even when the stage show is kept to a minimum, what is left is usually just biased opinion and blatant speculation... not fact. It's far easier and cheaper to just scour blogs and the news wire for stories, then whore it up with bullshit to sell as either to a specific market (I.E Fox & Conservatives/MSNBC & Liberals) or as general entertainment.

Personally, I take a more holistic approach. Anything that's really important will get to me via friends, seeing newspapers, blogs, etc. When something interests me, I look up several sources from several different perspectives... do some fact checking on the parts that seem sketchy, and generally trying to get as close to the source material as possible. From there, a clearer picture tends to emerge.

Otherwise, the only real major news sources I regularly frequent are BBC, NHK, NPR, and occasionally Aljazeera.


As far as religion goes, no I don't believe in god (although it WOULD be nice, a romantic idea) for it to be true.

I actually believe in god, but I don't think it's a romantic or necessarily desirable thing to be true. I much prefer Sagan's view of the universe.

"We are star stuff which has taken its destiny into its own hands. The loom of time and space works the most astonishing transformations of matter. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxlPVSAnWOo

[Wayu]

Not gonna write something as massive as above lol.

Here's my simple point of view:
There probably IS a god, but until I see legitimate proof of that god through science and logic and not false reasoning through "oh, he has to be there because Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/etc. are righteous" I'll remain skeptical.

-Wayu

[Sinue_v2]

Not gonna write something as massive as above lol.

Sorry, but this is a topic I take great interest in.


Here's my simple point of view:
There probably IS a god, but until I see legitimate proof of that god through science and logic and not false reasoning through "oh, he has to be there because Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/etc. are righteous" I'll remain skeptical.

-Wayu

I don't think you're going to find any legitimate proof of god via logic, you definitely won't find any in science (since science can only study the natural world, and god would necessarily be outside of and beyond the natural).

If you're interested, I'd say the closest I've seen anyone come is "A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram... and that's not even it's purpose or conclusion. (In fact, Wolfram skirts the issue saying there is no place for god in his model) Still, it provides a strong implication, even though it doesn't constitute positive evidence. Basically, he argues for a digital universe, and that it can be described by mathematical "programs" (sets of simple rules of interaction) similar in execution to Cellular Automata like Rule 30, which can produce repeating patterns and unpredictable emergent behavior with a reasonably high computational upper limit.

(So Douglas Adams may have not been far off when he suggested in HHGtTG that the answer to life, the universe, and everything, is 42.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/CA_rule30s.png

This isn't to say that the theory of digital physics is without it's problems, and it's critics, but it is the best argument that I've seen which supports the view of a god-made-universe.

[Wayu]

I may take a look at it sometime, then.

But my general attitude towards religious debate:

http://www.bestviral.com/i/images/101.jpg

-Wayu

[Kion]

Cracked.com put together a very good article; 5 Ridiculous things you probably believe about Islam (http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam.html). There's always the communists or something. I think in recent years Muslims are just a scape goat for a political agenda.

I remember seeing on the news a radical-Christian group saying that all of the Muslims should die and thinking, "way to do the exact thing you're accusing someone else of doing". The term "war" is used far too casually, as the number of people who died in response to 9/11 out weighs the number of people who died in the world trade centers that day. And the sad part is everyone's attitude seems to be; it's fine as long as they're brown.



Personally, I take a more holistic approach. Anything that's really important will get to me via friends, seeing newspapers, blogs, etc. When something interests me, I look up several sources from several different perspectives... do some fact checking on the parts that seem sketchy, and generally trying to get as close to the source material as possible. From there, a clearer picture tends to emerge.


I only watch Jon Stewart anymore. Though I may check out one of Olberman's rants here and there or clips from Glen Beck for a laugh.

[AOI_Tifa_Lockhart]

I heard on BBC Radio 4 this mornign that the American news will consider their headlines based on viewer ratings and numbers. Therefore you will choose the stories that stir the most emotinal response from the viewers to get the ratings, which is worrying. The more popular papers in England seem to be the least well written. Popular culture in general seems the easiest to consume but the least factual or talented depending what it may be.

It seems the more extremist a person is in terms of religion the less concerned they are with militaristic and violent views about people of another religion. Science never states anything as solid fact, they are theories which, if disproved evolve into new theories. Relgiion does not do this, it relies on doctrine and if questioned is usually less open to debate from the believers. but with many religious followers people pick and choose, for instance not believing in Creationism but taking the rest of the bible as red, which seems tricky sconsidering the sudden shift from a vengeful, jealous and violent God to one of peace, forgiveness etc.

Richard Dawkins made a very valid point with regards to Creationism, how their best excuse is lamitable ignorance. A pretty blunt view, but his example is extremely apt: The margin of error of the Creationist belief would be comparable to believing the width of the USA is less than 10 yards. but also he speaks of the stranglehold upon children of a religious upbringing denied the beauty of 4 billion years of history of evolution. An elogant, scientifically valid theory, and our relationship to all animals and creatures that have existed which have influenced our evolution and development.

I don't think there'd ever be scientific proof of God, but science is always evolving, but our mentality towards looking for more meaning to life and a possible afetrlife seems stuck in the quagmire of religion and the supernatural which I think is worrying in this world of high technology that baser ideals of religion are still practiced by the majority. Even over a century after Darwin's theories were published, people of religious backgrounds rely more on faith and disregard scientific evidence without any knowledge of it's background or reasearch and findings.

I can't say i've read the Qu'ran, but all religious texts can be read in terms of peace and moral teachings, or in a more militaristic viewpoint. The fact that divergance from the muslim religion in some Middle Eastern countries is punishable by death or at the very least extreme social persecution is terrifying. A religion existing from bullying? As with Christianity too though, religious household will indeed teach their children their ways, and a child will be considered to be whatever their parents religious views are. Freedom of choice should surely be taught first? Or at an older age a child should be allowed to choose for themselveS? perhaps teach children at an older age instead of relying on their youth and ionnocence to set them into the parents religious mould.

I dream of a world without religion...how far would humanity have progressed? I think it would be so much more advanced, think of all the brilliant minds who must have been killed due to religious wars and persecutution. A colleciton of stories written so long ago, during a time of persecution, ignorance and a lack of scientific understanding...well has the world changed much/ Perhaps that's why people rely on it and teach it still. I'm not sure, I mean look at the Ancient Greek society and it's huge advances in the fields of science and philosophy to name a couple which were generations ahead of most societies, but again history is written and peopel's future's are governed by the victors of wars.

I'm loving the debate and responses atm and the videos too it's all fascinating :D

Tifa

[BIG OLAF]

I dream of a world without religion...how far would humanity have progressed? I think it would be so much more advanced, think of all the brilliant minds who must have been killed due to religious wars and persecution.

Well, my reason for not being religious is that I believe that the sole reason that religion was invented (because I don't think God created man, but man created God) thousands of years ago, during ancient times, was to use an omnipotent "deity" or "deities" to explain everyday things that, back then, couldn't be explained, such as: the changing of the seasons, the rising and setting of the sun, natural disasters, etc.

But, now we have science, and tools that have discovered (and continue to discover) how these things really work. Therefor, in my opinion, religion has very little place in today's society and culture.

EDIT: Also, the other reason I don't believe (that I forgot to put). Ren mentions it on the next page:
As for God, it's just the creation of human beings to cope with the troubles of the world. Humans needed something to look at when the times were dark. Something to give them faith when all seemed lost. And thus, God was born.

However! I do believe religion has been good for mankind, as well. Most religions teach morals, empathy, and understanding of others. And, without those things, we'd still be basically wild animals. So, I will thank religious people (not all of them, because some of them are crazy) for preaching and teaching love, kindness, and respect for fellow man.

Those are just some of my thoughts on the matter.

[Akaimizu]

A world without religion would also possibly mean that blacks in America would never ever be treated like human beings. It was a non-religious belief and scientific theory that stated they were different and lesser beings upon the earth. It was a religious one that saw them as human equals and deserving of a better life. It took religious figures to get them out of that mess. Dogs and Cats were treated better.

Just an example. And probably one reason why you'd hardly ever see minorites speak against religion like it was the cause of all problems. At one point, it was all they had to keep clawing to humanity, which the immediate world around them wanted to deny.

You don't have to go back that far in history. Some of us are actually old enough (though still being fairly young) to remember times when, outside of family, only the Church had their back. Not even because of cultural, language, or even religious differences. Just skin color.

[AOI_Tifa_Lockhart]

Hmm but Manifest Destiny? It'd mean there woudln't have been such a push to take land from the natives in the first place? Possibly, who knows the theory could have endless possibilities and conclusions.

Tifa

[Akaimizu]

Natives were pushed out due to simple greed. Simple as that. That drives so much. It also drives those to pervert usually nice practices and conduct to hopefully support their means. The simple belief that life will be better as long as I see and act on any opportunity to gain something, regardless of what I do to others. Nothing bad will come to me, unless I make it bad for myself. It's simple short-term risk vs. reward meaning. Turn it all into numbers, and the plan looks good.

[RenzokukenZ]

Hey, if the guy who discovered DNA stated that blacks are genetically less intelligent than everyone else, and even showed proof, then yes. Tough.

As for God, it's just the creation of human beings to cope with the troubles of the world. Humans needed something to look at when the times were dark. Something to give them faith when all seemed lost. And thus, God was born.

[Akaimizu]

DNA didn't prove anything. It was theory. Not proof. Science wasn't and technically is still not advanced enough to formulate any real proof or even the means to test itself on its accuracy. Extreme differences like something out of species has data that's at least notable. But even then, the theory was formed on Neanderthalic practices without controlled data. Yep. If someone has less education than another, they'll know less. Who would think it? Lack of education, starting from a young age, and passed on, as a control tactic was used long before there was a trip to the west.

[Sinue_v2]

I only watch Jon Stewart anymore. Though I may check out one of Olberman's rants here and there or clips from Glen Beck for a laugh.

Steward and Colbert are good, but they're not really news... which makes it a bit ironic that according to a Pew Research Center poll (http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions), Colbert/Steward tends to have the most knowledgeable viewership when it comes to current events. (NPR, O'Reilly & Rush Limbaugh radio listeners also scored fairly high, although Fox/MSNBC/CNN Cable News viewers were some of the least informed.)


I dream of a world without religion...how far would humanity have progressed? I think it would be so much more advanced, think of all the brilliant minds who must have been killed due to religious wars and persecutution. ... I'm not sure, I mean look at the Ancient Greek society and it's huge advances in the fields of science and philosophy to name a couple which were generations ahead of most societies, but again history is written and peopel's future's are governed by the victors of wars.

I'm not wholly impressed with the graphs which show the "hole" left in our scientific knowledge by the Dark Ages. Quite a lot of scientific advancement was made during that period which is conveniently forgotten about, and even if we can steadfastly assert that the collapse of the western roman empire put Europe back several hundred years of advancement, this doesn't take into account the Islamic Golden Era which carried the torch of Greek and Roman civilization and philosophy. The advancements of mathematics and science in this period were no small event, as testament by the fact that we still use Arabic Numerals in our mathematics, and algebra is a pillar of our mathematical understanding.

In fact, it's during this period that the first real practice of modern science emerged. Ibn Al-Haytham (Alhazen), is known as the first scientist - because as he postulated; Only god is perfect. Man is flawed, and so a system of error correction must be devised to correct these flaws of perception when studying the natural world. Not to mention he wrote probably the most important scientific works on the field of optics in it's history.

And there are many, many more Islamic scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians who did carry the torch of that Western Europe abandoned to the dark ages.


Most religions teach morals, empathy, and understanding of others. And, without those things, we'd still be basically wild animals.

Was it really religion that taught these things, or did we already possess these qualities and then simply superimposed them upon the religions we created? And who is to say that other animals don't display empathy, compassion, and morality? Those traits certainly seem to be present in at least our closest ape relatives. And does the "good" that religions promote outweigh the negative moralities they endorse? How are we to even know the difference between what's good and what's bad in a religion if we do not already possess these qualities outside of religion?


A world without religion would also possibly mean that blacks in America would never ever be treated like human beings. It was a non-religious belief and scientific theory that stated they were different and lesser beings upon the earth. It was a religious one that saw them as human equals and deserving of a better life. It took religious figures to get them out of that mess. Dogs and Cats were treated better.

This isn't quite right. While social perceptions of other races outside of the norm for western European societies certainly created an unchecked confirmation bias, it was not an objective study of the natural world which lead to the conclusion that other races of man were inferior. In fact, religious folk in the South regularly turned to their holy scriptures as a means of justifying and dignifying the practice of slavery.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm
http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgs_gsgn-MU

Religion was used both as a promotion of, and an argument against, slavery and the genocide of native peoples... depending on the views and interpretations of the one giving the argument. When a book can be used equally to canonize and demonize the practice, it's authority to provide guidance on the topic is neutered and irrelevant. It was the people, not the religion, who collectively decided slavery and genocide was wrong, and should be resisted.


Hey, if the guy who discovered DNA stated that blacks are genetically less intelligent than everyone else, and even showed proof, then yes. Tough.

No... if I recall, he said we should be prepared to accept such a conclusion if the evidence points in that direction, and that we should not be shunned from the truth should it run contrary to political hot topics. As it turns out, though there is undeniably some link between IQ and Genes, there is no direct evidence that any race of man has any sort of deficiency or surplus of IQ inherent because of their genes. Further, the extreme plasticity of the brain and the understanding of epigenetics (role of environmental triggers on gene expression) have rendered any genetic basis of IQ differences between races insignificant. Socioeconomic, developmental, and environmental factors are the overwhelmingly dominant drivers of intelligence.

Watson later, by the way, apologized and admitted that he spoke very poorly and didn't convey the sentiment he wanted to get across.

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

Regardless, he is only one researcher, no matter how big a discovery he was involved with - that doesn't make him immune to being wrong. Scientific discovery does not leap forward from the statements or the diligence of one lone researcher, but emerges from larger bodies of work. And it's important to note that even if he himself did think that Africans were genetically of lower IQ, the body of science opposing his view was substantial - and researchers in the field of genetics were quick to correct and denounce his error in judgment.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

The argument that law is given by a higher source, and is thus objective (like a law of physics) is weakened by the argument of an intelligent agent who actively judges and interacts with their creation (which the god of the old testament often does).

This is where people screw up. Scripture is a place to find instruction-- not law. In the case of Christianity, and this is something that even most Christians don't get, Jesus didn't seek to teach people how to get into Heaven, he sought to teach people how to be pure of heart. A good deed performed to the end of securing a place of comfort in the afterlife is a deed performed in bad faith. The goal of a good deed should not be to gain "spiritual props", or even to improve oneself, but rather, to improve the condition of the deed's subject. It's not meant to be a collection of laws or even rules.

[Sinue_v2]

This is where people screw up. Scripture is a place to find instruction-- not law.

Can I assume you are referencing Matthew 5 on this?

[spoiler-box]“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." ~ NIV[/spoiler-box]

This wasn't how it was presented to me in religious study classes (catechism and otherwise). Scripture was said to be the law, as laid down in the OT books such as Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus. We were taught that Jesus was not so much a giver of law, but an example of the law made flesh. This didn't mean he usurped the law, or invalidated it, but that it was still demanded - and that it should be followed after his example.

To further continue the passage,

[spoiler-box]“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." ~ NIV[/spoiler-box]

He then goes on to give some practical examples, such as holding contempt for someone being judged the same as murdering them in your heart, so reconcile your grievance with them before making an offering to the altar. It was still the law, and it was still to be followed, but a different take on it than the Pharisee had been instructing.

In fact, Matthew 15 even shows an example of Christ turning the law back upon the Pharisee when they attempted to accuse him of desecrating the law, basically calling them out be invoking the law and saying that they have themselves desecrated it, and are continuing to desecrate it out of tradition and obstinance.

[spoiler-box]“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites!" ~ NIV[/spoiler-box]

As I understand it, the old laws are still in force, but the way they are practiced has change. They have been internalized. For example, the act of animal sacrifice before the altar is still in force in the Catholic Church in the form of holy communion. Christ was to be the last sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice, and when Catholics go to the altar to receive communion, they are instructed to believe that the Eucharist and wine are literally transubstantiated into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus as a symbol of the new covenant.

(So technically, every devout Catholic you meet is actually a cannibal!)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTTwSJK_XMI


In the case of Christianity, and this is something that even most Christians don't get, Jesus didn't seek to teach people how to get into Heaven, he sought to teach people how to be pure of heart.

You're right, I don't hear many Christians say that. Usually it's all; "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me", signifying devotion to Christ himself, rather that just the example he set on being a good person for it's own sake.

But even so, Jesus was said to be the embodiment of the law (according to those who instructed me)... so to seek and find a source of example on how to be a good person without the attachment of law, wouldn't Buddha be a more fitting role model? That it seems is really more a collection of philosophies, rituals, and a search for enlightenment from within, and without the tether of an outside personal deity making behavioral demands.


A good deed performed to the end of securing a place of comfort in the afterlife is a deed performed in bad faith. The goal of a good deed should not be to gain "spiritual props", or even to improve oneself, but rather, to improve the condition of the deed's subject.

This I wholeheartedly agree with, and it's long been one of my main complaints with modern Christianity (even when I was a Christian), especially those who believe that salvation comes by faith - not by works. The whole thing seems rather "Carrot and Stick"-ish to me. A murderer in prison is not necessarily a good person simply because the bars of his cell has prevented him from killing anyone for the last 30 years, so why should the shackles of faith make someone a good person simply because they are afraid of the celestial repercussions? And salvation by faith alone seems simple carte blanche to be a profound dick so long as you do it with Jesus in your heart.

It makes any display of goodwill or charity into a shallow, hollow, gesture done for purely selfish reasons. It strips the meaning and significance out of the act. If you're feeding the poor to help get you into heaven, you're not doing them a favor... you're doing yourself a favor, and using them as a stepping stone for your own ambition. It's disgusting, and shameful IMO.