Anything good about religion at all?

Barr125

kylith wrote: »

I understand the point you're making, but in what way is does this manipulation of people tie in with the topic of good things coming from religion? In most people's opinion manipulation and control are generally seen as Bad Things.

Dades

Undergod wrote: »

I don't think telling jank Sweden has liberal abortion laws is going to get you anywhere...

Also, be careful mentioning the Swedes. They're in bed with the Saudis these days, don't you know? :pac:

Bannasidhe

Dades wrote: »

Also, be careful mentioning the Swedes. They're in bed with the Saudis these days, don't you know? :pac:

Only the Swedish men

Undergod

Dades wrote: »

Also, be careful mentioning the Swedes. They're in bed with the Saudis these days, don't you know? :pac:

I don't know, actually! What's all this then?

Dades

Undergod wrote: »

I don't know, actually! What's all this then?

Prepare to be outraged!

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Also, be careful mentioning the Swedes. They're in bed with the Saudis these days [...]

Like an IKEA bed, I sense this particular relationship won't survive too much passion.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Like an IKEA bed, I sense this particular relationship won't survive too much passion.

Aw not fair Robin - the IKEA solid pine bed I bought in Sydney in 1999 has lasted well - granted I have had to replace one or two (or 7/8) slats but not bad for 13 years of hot lesbian sex*





*By which I of course mean chocolate...HOT Chocolate.

Heres Your Future

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...A unifying force would actually have to transcend all the divides, social and geographic. Science is one such example. An experiment performed by a homeless person has the same results as it would performed by the president of a Christian nation, as it would by a middle class citizen in the Islamic East. Facts and Truth care not for social status, social divides or geography...

Sorry but I actually think you are mistaken here,you seem to be suggesting that science is value free. I would argue that in reality nothing could be further from the truth. Think about it... would you really expect experiments performed by a homeless person and say a scientist in Yale to show the same results? I certainly wouldn't, definitely not in the soft sciences anyway, and even in the hard sciences it's at least doubtful.

How many homeless people have any input into what gets studied and how it is studied? None. In the main it's college educated middle/upper class white guys who actually do the work and research institutes and industry that fund it.

You also mention at the beginning of your post that there is nothing good about religion, fair enough thats your view and you are entitled to it but it's just an opinion at the end of the day. Several perfectly valid example of good things about religion were cited in the thread, just because you don't agree doesn't invalidate them especially when you haven't properly pointed out why you disagree.

MagicMarker

Heres Your Future wrote: »

Sorry but I actually think you are mistaken here,you seem to be suggesting that science is value free. I would argue that in reality nothing could be further from the truth. Think about it... would you really expect experiments performed by a homeless person and say a scientist in Yale to show the same results? I certainly wouldn't, definitely not in the soft sciences anyway, and even in the hard sciences it's at least doubtful.

How many homeless people have any input into what gets studied and how it is studied? None. In the main it's college educated middle/upper class white guys who actually do the work and research institutes and industry that fund it.

I think you may be taking what he said a little too literally.

Heres Your Future

Hmmmm now I am confused...I presumed he/she meant to be taken literally...how else would you take that post???

Hotblack Desiato

Heres Your Future wrote: »

Several perfectly valid example of good things about religion were cited in the thread, just because you don't agree doesn't invalidate them especially when you haven't properly pointed out why you disagree.

Just because you do agree with them doesn't validate them

Heres Your Future

Never said it did, I wasn't the one making sweeping authoritative statements though ;-)

jank

Barr125 wrote: »

I don't think anyone is blaming religion for ''all the ills of the earth''. We're just blaming it for the things that it has caused.

Which for most people here pretty much everything...

Barr125 wrote: »

But as for said atheistic societies, Sweden is one of the most atheistic countries in Europe at 23% in 2005 (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf) and is one of the most gay-friendly countries in the world, having legalized same-sex acts since 1944 (compared to us in 1992) and marriage in May 2009 with 261 votes to 22 (most of the 22 coming from the Christian Democrats). They're also ranked no. 1 in the world in terms of gender equality by the Global Gender Gap 2006. Oh and abortion is legal up until the 18th week and totally up to the woman, for whatever reason they wish to give.

Basically Sweden is a.) the most atheistic country in Europe and b.) the most equal in terms of treating humans as they would like to be treated. Are you saying Sweden is dystopia?

Where did I say that an atheistic society would be a dystopia? What I said is that atheistic societies have been far from utopia. Sweden is a secular country but there is that freedom to practice religion there if the individual wants it. When I mention atheistic societies i mean a society where the state has determined that religion is an undesired element that should be restricted and/or banned. USSR, China, Cambodia, Albania etc. Now surely you don't want to go down that road!

Also, Sweden is not the most atheist country in Europe. Maybe you should read your own stats you present to falsely support the argument.
The Czech Republic had less respondents state that they believe in God, France has more people state that there was no God and so on.

Of course you pick Sweden as an attempt to piece the argument together that increased atheism means better legislative equality. Yet, why did France ban the Bur-qua?

Corkfeen

Jank, you know perfectly well that the vast majority if not all posters are opposed to state atheism. Such states have much in common with theocratic states by the way.

Bannasidhe

Corkfeen wrote: »

Jank, you know perfectly well that the vast majority if not all posters are opposed to state atheism. Such states have much in common with theocratic states by the way.

Indeed. The States Jank portrays as 'Athiestic' are more properly called Totalitarian. A feature of which is the enforced replacement of the cult of religion by the cult of personality. The two use similar tactics - a father figure who is all knowing and all powerful who will 'save' his people (who are 'chosen') and will lead them to glory; a rigid hierarchy which is removed from the people and masks itself in an aura of power and mystery; ruthless suppression of any dissent or criticism; employment of 'thought' police who operate clandestinely, use terror as their main tactic and act within the frame work of 'special' laws.

I, for one, am opposed to any form of State enforced 'group think' be it inspired by either political or religious ideologies.

Given that most of us here are atheists who, despite cultural pressures and an education system heavy on the indoctrination, have refused to conform to the all pervading concept of Irish = Catholic I think it is safe to say we have already demonstrated our unwillingness to participate in 'Group Think'.

Sarky

Jank, blindly repeating your tired old spiel about "atheist societies" will not eventually make it even a little bit correct. You do know that, don't you? Please tell us you know that. I'd be very disappointed to think that you actually believed that guff each and every time you posted it, as predictably as the f*cking tides...

Sarky

One thing I quite like about religion is the abysmal pamphlets that make me so angry and laugh so hard they give me energy. I was ambushed by a gentleman earlier who shoved one into my hand. I'll elaborate later, I'm off to play a heathen satanic RPG about samurai and demons and, well, things that are fun.

dan dan

Yes of course theres a lot of good things about religion. It keeps tens of thousands of people in business. It keeps its bosses in mind boggling luxury. It is a multi billion industry. What is wrong with that?.

Obliq

Love the song title. The fella was playing them at an ungodly hour this morning - thought ninja900 might appreciate. Video not bad either.....

Hotblack Desiato

Obliq

ninja900 wrote: »

OOHHH yes. THAT. Had forgotten it!

Obliq

"Catholic block" as opposed to "communist block"? I suppose we're the atheist block....

something wrong there. Is it "bloc" ??

Hotblack Desiato

"Block" as in "mental block"

jank

Sarky wrote: »

Jank, blindly repeating your tired old spiel about "atheist societies" will not eventually make it even a little bit correct. You do know that, don't you? Please tell us you know that. I'd be very disappointed to think that you actually believed that guff each and every time you posted it, as predictably as the f*cking tides...

Even a little bit correct? I see your usual self gratifying tripe of a monologue, I raise you Nietzche.

http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2010/05/30/nietzsches-checkmate-does-atheism-lead-to-totalitarianism/

And so to say, as Grayling does, that atheism leading to totalitarianism is a theist “canard” is not quite right. It is more accurate to say this: atheism opens the field for secular heroic dictator totalitarianism (Stalinism from the Left; Hitlerism from the right). It is one of the things that, on the chessboard of human moves, the removal of God from the board can come to. The stakes, in other words, are high. As Jacob Golomb and Robert Wistrich put it in the introduction to their edited collection of essays Nietzsche, Godfather of Fascism? (Princeton 2002, pg. 4):


The radical manner in which Nietzsche thrusts himself against the boundaries of conventional (Judeo-Christian) morality and dramatically proclaimed that God (meaning the bourgeois Christian faith of the nineteenth century) was dead, undoubtedly appealed to something in Nazism that wished to transgress and transcend all existing taboos. The totalitarianism of the twentieth century (of both the Right and Left) presupposed a breakdown of all authority and moral norms, of which Nietzsche was indeed a clear-sighted prophet, precisely because he had diagnosed nihilism as the central problem of his society—that of fin de siecle Europe. . . . Nietzsche believed that only by honestly facing the stark truth that there is no truth, no goal, no value or meaning in itself, could one pave the way for a real intellectual liberation and a revaluation of all values. Nietzsche was more a herald and prophet of the crisis of values out of which Nazism emerged, rather than a godfather of the century’s fascist movement per se.

nozzferrahhtoo

Heres Your Future wrote: »

Sorry but I actually think you are mistaken here,you seem to be suggesting that science is value free. I would argue that in reality nothing could be further from the truth. Think about it... would you really expect experiments performed by a homeless person and say a scientist in Yale to show the same results?

It would depend on the experiments in question and the equipment being used of course but in general yes I would. Litimus paper applied to a lemon is going to respond the same way regardless of the religion, race, creed or financial background of the person applying it for example.

Clearly the discourse of science is made up of scientists however and as such there is always going to be some subjectivity and interpretation and ego and more involved. The methodology of science itself however is designed to weed that out as best as possible however.

Heres Your Future wrote: »

You also mention at the beginning of your post that there is nothing good about religion, fair enough thats your view and you are entitled to it but it's just an opinion at the end of the day.

An opinion that is amenable to discourse and reason however and if you have counter claims to make and evidence to back them up then we can of course engage in it. If you feel there is something "good" about religion by all means adumbrate your thinking for us.

Note however what I mean by "Good" in this context. I know I defined it last week but can not remember if it was this thread or another so I will repeat it anyway.

By "good" I mean firstly something that is good enough to be valuable even in the face of the harm and damage religion causes... a "good" that is justifiably paid for in other words.

And secondly the "good" for me should be something that is not just as attainable without religion or at least has something actually to do with religion. Many of the things "good" people assign to religion are, when unpacked, nothing to do with religion at all but things religion has successfully associated itself with in the past and has benefited from that association. A benefit that is alas one directional.

kylith

Sr. Annunciatta, formerly of the John of God convent in Waterford.

The nicest, sweetest, kindest, most thoughtful little old lady the world ever saw, with the softest hands and quietest voice. People think that Mother Theresa wan was a saint (which she wasn't, not by a long shot)? That's only because they never met Nuncy! Even if she did bribe us to say the rosary by giving out jellies afterward...

otto_26

lazygal wrote: »

Just finished watching the Channel 4 news at 7pm. There were two items that stood out. The first was a refugee surge into Mauritania because of Islamists who want to implement Sharia law. Then 4thought had a pastor/preacher saying how it was up to women to dress modestly because men get aroused so easily, there was the usual bible reference to back this up.
And me and himself were saying, is there anything that religion has done that can be classed as good. I know religious people will say those who do things in the name of Islam or Jesus like killing people aren't 'true' believers, but religion is the excuse/justification/reasoning behind so many bad things. Off the top of my head I'm thinking of things like children being taken from unmarried parents and sold to good Catholic families, laws on the stoning of women who are raped, women not being able to refuse to have sex with their husbands, gay people being persecuted and more wars than I can count. It's sometimes said discrimination or hatred is cultural not religious, but a lot of it has its original roots in religion.


I know this post is a bit rambling, and I'm not even sure what I'm trying to get at, apart from reasoning things out to myself. It just strikes me as deeply ironic, and insulting, that people of no faith, like our family, are portrayed sometimes as not having a moral backbone or sense of purpose in life because we don't subscribe to a higher power or believe in the truth of books written hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Firstly Lazygal while you and me sit hear discussing the good and bad of religion there are thousands of religious people all over the world namely catholic priests and nuns that not only have given their lives to do gods work but also have given up their lives to help poor people in the third world who are less fortunate than us.

These people do so much good in the world but nobody wants to talk about them or know about them because speaking about them will not help to darken the church's name, so people only want to discuss the facts of all the horrible people who became priests and nuns.

People who say you have no moral backbone because you are not religious isn't about religion its about ignorant religious and non= religious people.

As stated above as we speak a nun or priest are holding a child that is dying of hunger, children that are dying of hunger just so you and me can have our quality of life.

But people just don't wanna talk about it, they don't wanna know about these wonderful amazing generous people who we can all only ever dream about being like because it doesn't darken the church's name.

So yes Lazygal I for one am grateful that there are religious people like them in the world a world full of (me me me I deserve this I deserve that people) we have religion to thanks for them.

Dades

otto_26 wrote: »

So yes Lazygal I for one am grateful that there are religious people like them in the world a world full of (me me me I deserve this I deserve that people) we have religion to thanks for them.

Do you believe these people wouldn't be good people without religion?

pauldla

otto_26 wrote: »

So yes Lazygal I for one am grateful that there are religious people like them in the world a world full of (me me me I deserve this I deserve that people) we have religion to thanks for them.

Are they the same religious people that deny family planning options to the starving masses because it is against gods law? Better, perhaps, to give people some degree of control over their lives so that they're not caught in a terrible poverty cycle? Which is better, more souls for the glory of god, or smaller families and lower infant mortality rates?

otto_26

Dades wrote: »

Do you believe these people wouldn't be good people without religion?

Yes of course I believe they could be good people without religion.

I just don't think the majority would have given up their lives to god and gone and spent their lives helping the poor people of the third world if it not for the learnings of love and the helping of others they learned from religion.

I'm sure you and I are good people but we wouldn't give up our lives to help poorer people would we?

Dades what is your opinion of the priests and nuns that have spent most of their lives helping the poor in the third world??