Once upon a time religion perhaps had its place, but we really could largely do without and be better for it--if, of course, religious people still feel the need to be compassionate to others without rules from on high telling them they have to be...or else *shakes fist*

And the fact that most religions (damn near every one, I think) claim to be representative of the one, true God doesn't really further any kind of "we're all in this together" sentiments on a base level. If you believe only yours is The One, then you will always think lesser of the misbegotten others.

All the good things inspired by religion (helping others, trying to leave things better than you found them, every other good deed, etc) could easily be achieved by just appreciating life in all its forms and accepting that people are different without being lesser. Also, y'know, from a rational point of view you'd think simply being considerate of others is more conducive to the well-being and continued existence of our species.

But, for whatever biological/mental reason, we humans largely seem to need to be told by some otherworldly force "these are the rules" (which are then altered to fit needs and viewpoints, anyway).

I type a five-letter word partly in jest, and Magnus writes more than he has since a crap paper on Of Mice and Men in the eleventh grade.

Probably the only worthwhile post in this thread.

It's total BULLSHIT, though. Even if they guard it close to their chest, everyone believes the way they view the world, society, and the condition of living is slightly truer than those held by the man on the other side of the table. This is even true of dear and dandy Mister Ecks as he rolls in here to prove how enlightened, how above slinging a bit o' mud, he is.

Except laws (in theory) are intended to be applied to everybody equally because people do not simply appreciate life in all its forms and the other hippie stuff I said. And with laws, you can criticize and argue and amend and do everything possible to update antiquated notions without being murdered for it--in civilized places, anyway.

Religion absolutely does have cultural value to people who are not nutsos that think anything anti-their God deserves some form of punishment but enjoy the community aspect that enriches lives. Unfortunately, though, of the religions with most cultural impact Islam in particular seems stuck in stasis. Yes, by and large most every single Muslim person one might meet would not kill non-believers for X reason, but as a whole "they" aren't really booting those nutsos off the reservation.

Why aren't all these rational, sane Muslims in Islam majority countries putting their collective foots down on the pure insanity going on? I know there are a number of them, but they seem to have to flee their own countries or be murdered which isn't really a ringing endorsement of the masses.

I mean, Christians murdered untold numbers of people throughout history in the name of their own brand of nonsense, but that largely seems to be in the past. Now they try more to get their views into law that affects everyone (since they know best thanks to their imaginary friend who told them so ), which is disgusting and repulsive, but a very different kind of disgusting and repulsive from murdering schools full of children for trying to *gasp* learn things or cutting out people's hearts to eat.

That's some fucked up shit that Islam, in particular, seems to be having trouble letting go of.

And, just for clarity's sake, I'm not one who thinks religion should be abolished or any such thing. That's ridiculous and just a different side of the same coin. What they should be is allowed to go about their business (with no tax breaks!) as long as said business doesn't interfere with the lives of different viewpoints on a governmental level.

If one wants to worship a magic sky man every Sunday/daily/whatever interval and base your life on what you take away from that go right ahead, but don't drown everyone around you in your garbage.

How is, what you say, different, from what he said there? Of course it is true for Mister Ecks and it is true for what you write and it is true for whatI write etc. It is in the nature of us to think that we are right. It'd probably be difficult to cope if we were second-guessing ourselves every single step. But it is still a sad thing that it works like this.

Believe me, I'm not enlightened. I'm not perfect. The original end to my post? "That goes both ways... like a bisexual".

True story.

I can't speak for Mister Ecks, but:

There is a very big difference between being a tunnel-visioned fanatic who clings to his opinions no matter how little they stand logical scrutiny.

As opposed to being a more or less open-minded person, who is willing to look at things from different sides, and is even willing to change his positions when it becomes obvious that this opinion doesn't withstand logical analysis.

These two approaches are polar opposites of each other.

I've been many times in a situation where the man on the other side of the table was more knowledgeable than I was, and I had to change my position, even if sometimes begrudgingly. Since you state that *everyone* believes their worldview to be more true valid than the other person's opinion, it in fact tells more about yourself than it tells about anyone else.

Most people are capable of self-criticism, to a degree or another. A lot of people even willingly admit that their character is flawed, and think that many other people live a more virtuous life.

Based on my own anecdotal experiences, I've found that most people I've met have been able and even willing to change their opinions even about very important subjects, when given more information. You can probably find a lot of statistics about this, if you google for them.

But even without Google, using a bit of common sense, it's extremely rare to find a person who has kept the exact same set of opinions and values throughout his life. Our opinions change over the course of the 70-80 years we live.

The people who tend to cling on to their opinions no matter what, are a relatively small minority. Often a very loud minority, but a minority regardless.

Well, yeah, basically.

I enjoy how Tuukka separates his every pearl of a self-righteous thought into its own bite-sized paragraph. Easier reading for us lug-heads.

I have tried to have a bit of fun with this thread for my own amusement, but you assholes just won't allow it, lol.

Can...can I give Magnus a sticker for awesomeness?

Also, I too am not religious, but when people ask what religion I am I say Catholic.

Ever fondled a choirboy?

No, but I come from a large family, we have tons of family reunions with lots of drinking. In fact there's lots of drinking everyday and no one accuses anyone of being an alcoholic. We go to church, but many of us are not religious, I grew up with cousins, together we were neighborhood hooligans, when someone close in our family had cancer we did a shit ton of rosary sessions, despite not all of us being religious, I participate in Lent and Mardi Gras, No meat on Fridays when I remember...

I'm sure there's other things that make me culturally Catholic beyond crude stereotypes.

I am not sure I would say the specter pedophilia is a "stereotype" in relation to the Catholic Church. This is not to say every Catholic condones it. Of course, most surely do not. But it is not a fairytale, either. It is not a prejudice conjured out of thin air. It is a real problem, the legacy of abuse and secrecy, with a deep connection to the highest seats of power at the Vatican.

Sure, but people aren't the church. There's a difference, and you cannot connect the two unless you are talking about the clergy.

Be a man. Own up to your sins. The almighty will forgive you.

I'm not religious dude, but I'll write him a letter next Saturday.

Religion is idiotic. The people? Most need to be judged on a case to case basis.

Yup

Even religious teachings need to be judged on a case by case basis.

Is faith in the scientific method (or science in general) a religion?

Is faith in the humanity a religion?

One would argue some religious beliefs are more plausible than others in order to preserve peace and advance other humanitarian ideas.

They're still stupid.

The sliding scale of plausibility does nothing to excuse the core of what religion really is, which is acceptance of dogmas passed down by authoritarians without question or demand of evidence.

Religion has never been in the business of the preservation of peace, as a core concept. Quite the opposite. Peace is established and maintained in spite of religion.

Religion has never been at the vanguard of humanitarianism either. Secularism has always paved the way for less violence and more charity over time.

We tend to hate our neighbors less and want to help them more when we think they probably don't want us to burn in everlasting hell for not believing the same thing they believe about the nature of the universe, and of course (tautologically) when we don't feel that way about them. This is a condition more and more likely to be true the less religious we are.