Lydia Nickerson wrote: > At 12:04 AM -0600 11/29/02, Gametech wrote: >> Lydia Nickerson wrote: >>> At 12:33 AM -0600 11/28/02, Gametech wrote: >>>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> however you lose the benefit of them believing >>>> other good things as a side affect of that belief >>> >>> This is religion's Big Lie. People can be moral and kind and >>> decent without the least bit of help from any supernatural source >>> or belief. I get this constantly. "How do you decide what's right >>> and wrong, if you don't believe in God?" Well, actually, roughly >>> the way everybody else does, if they were paying attention to the >>> way they really live their lives rather than how they think they >>> live their lives. I operate on the "if it hurts, I'm probably >>> doing this wrong" principal. Empathy is not a virtue instilled by >>> religious practice; it is something that is part of the normal >>> experience of being human. Wanting to prevent pain is one of the >>> pillars of moral behavior. Recognizing that one's behavior has >>> consequences is another. Neither one of these needs the least >>> reference to the Invisible world. >>> >> >> What I was saying about losing the benefit of... was an argument why >> religion isn't all bad and does help some people towards positive >> things. I was in NO way saying people aren't capable of it without >> religion, not in the least. I was just stating that as a side affect >> of people believing in their religion they often practice positive >> values in their daily lives. > > You are also assuming that if those people didn't have religion, they > wouldn't be behaving that way. If they would behave in the same > fashion without religion, then religion is irrelevant. I think that > religion actually does harm by taking credit for the natural good in > normal human beings. It diminishes our self esteem, which in turn > diminishes our competence. > Religion isn't taking credit for anything near as I can tell, religion functions like a school does in many ways. >> >> >>>> >>>> What is so Awfully wrong about religion that counter's in it's >>>> entirety the good aspects of it? >>> >>> What does religion have to offer that I wasn't born with, already? >> >> I hesitate in answering that question because I don't really care if >> you believe in *a* religion, but I've been trying to keep the point >> that religion itself is not entirely or even mostly a bad thing >> based on the good it does. It's like anything else you can take it >> or leave it. > > Well, no, not really. Children get raised in religions, and that > profoundly affects them all their lives. It informs societal norms > and customs, it infects our laws. Religion is not an individual > thing, it is a community thing. It affects the way people interact > with each other. Which means that I _can't_ take it or leave it. It > gets shoved in my face constantly. It affects what I can buy on what > days of the week. It is a huge factor in whether or not I have the > right to make choices about medical procedures for myself. > I stated before I was born into a religion, and don't feel this way, it is a personal choice you *can take it or leave it* you feel that you can't but you very well have the ability to make that choice don't you? > You are arguing that not everything that was done in the name of > religion was evil, and that not everyone who has ever been religious > is bad or stupid. That's shifting ground, trying to turn this into > an always/never argument. I'm not talking about a binary religious > state, on/off, yes/no, always/never. What I'm saying is that > religion does not offer any unique advantages. Religion cannot offer > humans anything they don't already have in their bones, but it can > alienate them from the ownership of those same virtues, as well as > teach people to believe in things that they cannot prove, indeed > cannot see, to :"reason" using arbitrary givens without reference to > the real world. That is such a huge disadvantage that it would > overcome many advantages, but religion doesn't even offer any > advantages. It's just basically a bad idea. > Because religion originates from humans it is a human thing it is something we don't have in our bones that we created because we didn't > Just to confuse people, and myself, I'll also say that I have several > RC friends and I understand their attachment to the Church, and I > understand their faith. I can see the beauty and value of liturgy, > religious practice, prayer, and faith. I see it more, though, like > someone who has taken up a very serious artform. They are practicing > something beautiful and important that goes all the way to their > center. That view of religion doesn't require a belief in God, > actually; it merely requires an appreciation of the artform of > religion. That, I have. Inb the same sense that I think that > beautiful music is of general benefit, so I think that beautiful > religion is of general benefit. I just wish people didn't believe it > quite so...literally. > > >> >> Maybe Purpose? Something to dedicate their life to? > > *shrug* Live and love? Such a short time to be here and such a long > time to be gone? Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted? > Peace and justice? There are purposes a-plenty. Pick one. right and one of them is religion for some people > >> There are people whom >> just aren't creative thinking, who need to follow others and who >> need to have "don't kill, be nice to strangers, take care of your >> body, etc." told to them, > > I do not believe that. I think that people probably need to be > taught about abstracts like property rights, at least in societies > that have them, and some of the other social norms, like wearing > clothes outside the house, but the serious basics are there, unless > a) there's actual brain damage, in which case that person is fucked, > or b) that child is damaged while being raised, in which case it > depends on how bad the damage is whether or not that person is > irrevocably fucked. And this is precisely what I mean about religion > taking away our ownership of our own virtues. These are not things > that need to be taught. How those virtues play out in the complex > lattice of the society in which a person lives does need to be taught. > Though you may not acknowledge it there are in fact many people whom creative thinking isn't a skill of theirs, and do benifit from the rest of whom are. Why doesn't eveyone write? Produce art? Explore Philosophy? >> I think religion may symbolize hope to many people, you were born >> with the ability to hope but with no particular purpose. Also people >> subscribe to a certain religion because its core beliefs are similar >> to their own so it is a way of associating with people whom have >> some similar views. > > They could join their equivalent of fandom. Trainspotters do much > the same for each other. Humans are gregarious creatures, we have to > live in communities. The key is to gather together and work for a > common cause. There's no particular value to having that goal be > spiritual or magical, and the spiritual/magical has extra problems > that organizing around, say, food aid for Nicauragua does not. > > I agree! It doesn't matter what it is really imagine this argument from the flip and insert any of those options instead of religion and ask me to defend it and I will in the same manner! >> >> Religion is a very social thing I don't really see how it can >> correctly be compared to what it has that you didn't when you were >> born, it doesn't possess anything (avoid the obvious witty comment) >> it's more like a tool that is useful for as long as the wielder >> needs to learn the positive things and practice them for the rest of >> his/her life. > > I am arguing that it is a redundant tool. People can find value, > meaning, virtue, joy, purpose, hope, pride, and community without > religion, and religion doesn't add anything to the mix of extra > value, though it does extract a price. > It isn't redundant because it has it's own unique qualities as does other similar ideas. >> >> Religion isn't responsible for anything People >> are. > > You must not have been raised in a seriously religious family. Trust > me. Religion can, indeed, be a profound part of who people are, > whether they want to or not. i was raised in a Calvinist church, and > I have a very Calvinist outlook on life, fight it though I do. You > are taking too narrow a view of what people are and how they interact > with the world, in my opinion. Who you are is, in part, who you've > been and what you've experienced. > The level of influece you need to fight is the 'dumb shit' aspect I don't find that hard to do at all, and your horrid assumption about the level of religious ness of my family is founded on the fact you want to make a better point and not in reality, to my family the religion was Very forefront, I hope you take my word on that. > Lydy Nickerson lydy at demesne.com lydy at lydy.com > Dulciculi Aliquorum