Official Religious Debate Thread

[Smegma]

I do hope this is a fake account Poodleinacan.

[soulblade]

Well he is right about buddhism. It is nothing like most religions.

[Smegma]

No, you mean it just isn't like the mainstream Abrahamic religions most like to attack when they attack religion as a whole.

Its very similar to certain Christian sects and Islam, at its core philosophy. Of course, there are dogmatic differences, but there almost always is.

[Veritas]

No, you mean it just isn't like the mainstream Abrahamic religions

Its very similar to ... Islam

what

[Smegma]

Many schools of buddhism share fundamental definitions of truth as with Islamic mysticism.

[Veritas]

Let's try that again with the important bits highlighted

No, you mean it just isn't like the mainstream Abrahamic religions

Its very similar to Islam

[Smegma]

Let's try that again with the important bits highlighted

No, you mean it just isn't like the mainstream Abrahamic religions

Its very similar to Islam

Yes, that is what THEY meant, though I clearly disagree.

[Swarmer]

It's important to make a distinction between religion as a culture and religion as a theology.  I think people too often confuse them as one.

By "religion as a culture", I am referring to the societal implementation of that religion.  By "religion as a theology", I am referring to the unadulterated core philosophies that describe the religion.  Anyone can implement a belief in an immoral way, even if the belief itself is not wrong.  Religious violence is only one example.  There are other examples, like scientific racism.

Saying that religion is meant to oppress is an example of this kind of misunderstanding.  Certain religions only oppress because that's how society implemented them.  Yes, these implementations are immoral, but that does not single-handedly invalidate the religion-as-a-theology behind it.

Let's say that I believe unnecessary stealing is immoral.  Let's say this belief plays a huge role in my life.  I decide to morally protect my children by never letting them enter stores, since I don't want them to steal anything.  I scold them and physically abuse them when I find out they secretly went to the candy store with their friends.  So what went wrong there?  Was it that I believed that unnecessary stealing is immoral?  Or was it my implementation of that belief?

[N. Escalona]

Those are probably the most valuable paragraphs I've read all day.

[Veritas]

Yeah, because it's not like the Bible advocates the murder of your God's enemies or anything.


oh wait

[iDante]

If you have to be told that stealing is immoral by religion, then something is wrong with you.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

If you have to be told that stealing is immoral by religion, then something is wrong with you.

That brings up an interesting concept: The acceptance of a system of morality outside the bounds of religion.  Why do humans have an innate understanding of right and wrong?

Or, to come at it from the other side: Why is stealing wrong? Why should we care if our actions hurt other people? And if we shouldn't care, why do we?

[excruciator]

Why do humans have an innate understanding of right and wrong?

Because of the consequences.
It just so happened that bad cavemen get s**t kicked out of them by other cavemen.

And the nature of the act that get s**t kicked out of ya is "bad"

[Swarmer]

Yeah, because it's not like the Bible advocates the murder of your God's enemies or anything.


oh wait

It doesn't.  There were indeed historical events in the bible that described wars ordained by God.  If you keep it in context, one could debate the justification of these actions, and it would be a good discussion.  But taking those specific activities out of context and claiming that the bible supports all forms of enemy-murder is not a strong argument.

If you have to be told that stealing is immoral by religion, then something is wrong with you.

That wasn't my point at all, and it was never even implied.  People don't have to be told that stealing is wrong.  Just because religions explicitly say stealing is wrong, doesn't mean that people would think it acceptable otherwise.  Your statement is correct, I guess, but no one is really arguing against it.

Why do humans have an innate understanding of right and wrong?

Because of the consequences.

No, (most) people feel bad even if they know they won't get caught.

[VijchtiDoodah]

It's important to make a distinction between religion as a culture and religion as a theology.  I think people too often confuse them as one.

It would be a mistake to assume that in all religions theology and culture may be separated. This is predominantly a Western phenomenon that does not exist in many societies.

[N. Escalona]

Yeah, because it's not like the Bible advocates the murder of your God's enemies or anything.


oh wait

Sigh. Alright, chapter and verse please.
I predict discussion over the definition of murder.

If you have to be told that stealing is immoral by religion, then something is wrong with you.

Why do we need to separate the concepts? It's common enough for atheists to compartmentalize religion into its little box and say, well, there's theology and then there's the rest of the world. I'm trying to come to a point but I'm not sure what it is. Something about how there's nothing wrong with religion. Hell if I remember.

[Swarmer]

It's important to make a distinction between religion as a culture and religion as a theology.  I think people too often confuse them as one.

It would be a mistake to assume that in all religions theology and culture may be separated. This is predominantly a Western phenomenon that does not exist in many societies.

I don't understand; I was just referring to the semantics of the word "religion". Many people talk about religion referring to the culture behind it, and then they use this information to make judgments of the theology of the same name.  The point I was making is that this reasoning is not a strong connection.

For example, if someone read about Scientific Racism, and learned that it was a prominent ideology in the 19th century, that science was used to justify oppressive, violent racism, it would be wrong for the person to conclude: "Science, particularly biology, is immoral, and is a significant cause of social evil."  The correct conclusion would be: "Some people and societies misinterpet facts to fit their prejudices, and take advantage of the reputation of Science to wrongly justify incorrect ideas."  There's a big difference between those conclusions.

[excruciator]

Why do humans have an innate understanding of right and wrong?

Because of the consequences.

No, (most) people feel bad even if they know they won't get caught.

That is a learn behavior. I don't see obnoxious little kid feel bad for other kids.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

No, (most) people feel bad even if they know they won't get caught.

That is a learn behavior. I don't see obnoxious little kid feel bad for other kids.

Most babies don't feel bad about keeping their parents up all night because of their crying.  You know why? It's because their consciousness hasn't developed enough to understand the effect of their actions on other people.  The same is true with little kids; it takes a while for their awareness to expand to the point that yours or mine is at.

[VijchtiDoodah]

It's important to make a distinction between religion as a culture and religion as a theology.  I think people too often confuse them as one.

It would be a mistake to assume that in all religions theology and culture may be separated. This is predominantly a Western phenomenon that does not exist in many societies.

I don't understand; I was just referring to the semantics of the word "religion". Many people talk about religion referring to the culture behind it, and then they use this information to make judgments of the theology of the same name.  The point I was making is that this reasoning is not a strong connection.

For example, if someone read about Scientific Racism, and learned that it was a prominent ideology in the 19th century, that science was used to justify oppressive, violent racism, it would be wrong for the person to conclude: "Science, particularly biology, is immoral, and is a significant cause of social evil."  The correct conclusion would be: "Some people and societies misinterpet facts to fit their prejudices, and take advantage of the reputation of Science to wrongly justify incorrect ideas."  There's a big difference between those conclusions.

I understand, but it is often the case that a culture cannot be unwoven from the religious fabric that sustains it, or vice versa. Thus, criticism of the implementation of religious doctrines within a culture, no matter how aberrant it is from canon, is often criticism of the religion because the two are so closely intertwined.

However, I believe you meant to point out the distinction between canon or accepted doctrine and what the religion became. Thus, the peace advocated by Jesus in the New Testament is canon, but the hatred of many fundamentalist Christians towards homosexuals is not. That hatred is, however, still an important part of the religion, a religion that includes sentiments not expressed in the Bible and that is therefore independent from the canon.

This hatred has become a part of the religion, as opposed to the wider culture, because it is directly derived from and justified by religious texts, regardless of where the actual sentiment originated and regardless of the fact that the canon read accurately cannot be used to justify it. As proof, ask any fundamentalist why they despise gays (or why God hates gays, etc., whatever incarnation of misunderstanding they employ) and they're certain to mention Christianity as a justification. If they didn't honestly believe that Christianity supplied justification for hatred, then homophobia would just be an odd symptom of the wider culture that tends to afflict fundamentalists more frequently, but this is not the case.

Yes, this argument borders on semantics, but if you pay attention you'll see that I'm making a deeper point about religion.