Exercise in Restraint: What Religion Do You Believe In?

[Haffner]

This thread hopefully won't go on too much longer like this. "Restraint" was part of the topic title.

[paulb]

This thread hopefully won't go on too much longer like this. "Restraint" was part of the topic title.

I'm through. As is mohamedism. what a  supreme scoundrel. but then maybe they get what they deserve.
The OT tells us this. God would know.

[Hector]

The Great Satan is actually some dude living in Louisiana. Whodathunkit?

Thank God for that!

[karlhenning]

Well, why do you think they've got gators down there? 

[Harry]

The Great Satan is actually some dude living in Louisiana. Whodathunkit?

I thought as much, well that a long way away....

[paulb]

in what way is islam a  religion

[drogulus]

in what way is islam a  religion

     All religions have one thing in common. They are sets of values posing as facts. In order to be facts instead of just good ideas like the Golden Rule, for example, they acquire a guarantee of their truth status, most commonly of a supernatural provenance. I find it unsatisfactory because such a provenance is no more factual than what is to be guaranteed.

     It's frequently suggested that without this support for values they will lose their power to guide behavior, but I reject this. First, religion is a failure at instantiating the values it espouses. They are in fact given living expression more faithfully by many without religion. All such failures to improve moral performance are chalked up to individual weakness, leaving one to question how it is possible to regard religion as good for sinners, except in the sense that it give license for their continued depravity. Whatever the result in terms of the long and dreary history of religious failure to prevent the crimes it in fact encourages, one is never supposed to blame the program. It's always user error. We aren't religious enough, the Muslims say, as they double down on the worst bet in history.

     Second, if you examine the option of choosing right action because it is right, and not because a Bronze Age tyrant will torture you forever if you transgress, you'll find it works rather well. We are an ethical species, creating values is what we do, and it's helpful to engage our rational faculties in the process. I'm heartened to see that this is becoming a more widely shared view. I think we will do better if given a chance. We could hardly do worse.

[karlhenning]

     All religions have one thing in common. They are sets of values posing as facts.

Well, that has the look of an opinion posing as fact, BTW.

[Haffner]

Well, that has the look of an opinion posing as fact, BTW.

Touche.

[paulb]

Well, that has the look of an opinion posing as fact, BTW.

Yes, whether one espouses to a  religion or takes the un-religious, atni-religious, atheist view point, sets of values are what makes  a person who and what they are.
Everyone has values. Quite often the atheists and theists share simular values. Though obviously the highest values are at opposites.
I would say the theists fail , more often, to honor and respect due to the nature of the challenge to reach those values. Whereas the atheists seem to prosper quite well at achieving their objectives, values.
Though not to be envied by the true faithful theist.

[Ephemerid]

Yes, whether one espouses to a  religion or takes the un-religious, atni-religious, atheist view point, sets of values are what makes  a person who and what they are.

I could be reading you wrong here, Paul, but I do hope you aren't equating atheism with "anti-theism."  I certainly have nothing against theists per se.  I'm just sayin'. 

[paulb]

I could be reading you wrong here, Paul, but I do hope you aren't equating atheism with "anti-theism."  I certainly have nothing against theists per se.  I'm just sayin'. 

Would you be frank and honest enough to admit there are those in your rank and file who do have issues with the theist camp?

But gee, if truth be told I probably have more conflicts with the current state of christianity than do the atheists. maybe this has more to do with my perspectives which clash with mainstream christianity.
I'm pro choice/might as well say pro abortion, I'm for the death penalty, not against romance pre marriage. etc etc. You name it, they and i differ. No, i don't get along very well on christian forums.
In fact other than St Paul , one of the greatest saints I know of is St Friedrich. Heck, that alone is enough to have blasphmies the size of small boulders comming my way
makes me happy to know my middle name is the Frederick. I wish my german mother had spelled it as friedrich. But as this is america, she chose the americanized version.

[Ephemerid]

Would you be frank and honest enough to admit there are those in your rank and file who do have issues with the theist camp?

I'm not sure there is any "rank and file" among atheists. 

Some atheists are more on their soapbox than others, certainly, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to equate the majority of atheists with "anti-theism" (picking Madelyn Murray O'Hair or Richard Dawkins as generally representative of most atheists is the same kind of mistake as saying Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell are representative of Christianity).

Unless its fundamentalists itching to make trouble, I don't much think in terms of people in boxes-- its not very helpful.  I'd rather focus on humanistic values that some religious people and some non-religious people have in common (I still read Thomas Merton & MLK on occasion, even if I am unable accept certain metaphysical assumptions).

[paulb]

I'm not sure there is any "rank and file" among atheists. 

Some atheists are more on their soapbox than others, certainly, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to equate the majority of atheists with "anti-theism" (picking Madelyn Murray O'Hair or Richard Dawkins as generally representative of most atheists is the same kind of mistake as saying Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell are representative of Christianity).

Unless its fundamentalists itching to make trouble, I don't much think in terms of people in boxes-- its not very helpful.  I'd rather focus on humanistic values that some religious people and some non-religious people have in common (I still read Thomas Merton & MLK on occasion, even if I am unable accept certain metaphysical assumptions).

very good, you're a  moderate and may i say reasonable. i don;t know the writings of Dawkins or O'Hare. i know  a  tad of Falwell and some of Robertson's views. Both too extreme and I'd say typical mindset evangelical christianity.
Merton I would never care much for.
I prefer Eckhart and Nietzsche for my education. Eckhart was condemned late in his life, but post mortem re-instated into the church.  I'm not sure how protestant seminary students in the US deal with Niezsche. Catholic seminarians may be more open, also european religious students.
Sure its not wise to sterotype  groups, but its fair to say there are generalities that can be drawn about atheists and theists.

I think a  good example of the better side of christianity would be a  guy in texas, Joel Osteen. Though I could never make a   committment to  his church, its just not me.  But there are quite a   few who do like his message.
Christianity is going through a  rough time right now with all the TV guys under fire by that midwest senator. And then of course the catholic scandal.  Some say its an interesting time we live in

[Michel]

What religion do I believe in?

I am becoming increasing interested in Buddhist thought, particularly Soto Zen.

[The new erato]

I didn't think one believed in a religion. I think one had some beliefs and if that beliefs were shared by others you BELONGED to that religion. Am I wrong?

[drogulus]

Well, that has the look of an opinion posing as fact, BTW.

     True. Some of mine are, and some of yours no doubt. But are religious opinions facts? In other words, if they were facts would they still be religious in nature? Is there such a thing as religious fact? What character, other than unverifiability, would a religious fact have to distinguish it from an ordinary one? If the Pope says it's raining, we can assume he's not imparting a religious fact even if it is raining. Looking out the window has no known religious component. Until we can nail this down I think we're stuck with unverifiabilty as the mark of the religious, so "posing as fact" would be justified.

      A second piece of evidence for values mistaken for facts as an explanation concerns the arguments against atheism advanced by some believers. You'll note that atheists frequently attack religion as being either false or incoherent (or even false because incoherent), and the counterargument is often a moral one, that the attack on religion is an attack on morality. To an atheist this is a bizarre argument: the existence or nonexistence of entities can't be made contingent on a purely moral view of any kind, even one you strongly approve of. By their own arguments I'm led to the conclusion that believers wish their values to do the work of facts, even if they don't recognize it.
     

[Brian]

I think a  good example of the better side of christianity would be a  guy in texas, Joel Osteen. Though I could never make a   committment to  his church, its just not me.  But there are quite a   few who do like his message.
Christianity is going through a  rough time right now with all the TV guys under fire by that midwest senator. And then of course the catholic scandal.  Some say its an interesting time we live in

True conversation:

ONE OF MY BEST FRIENDS: Once I was going through a hard time, and had a lot of questions on my mind, and was feeling really just depressed and awful, and I turned on the TV and the first thing I saw was Joel Osteen, and he was talking about exactly how I felt, and it was really amazing, and I felt so much better.
UNBELIEVER ME: Cool.
SHE: Yeah, God talked to me through Joel Osteen.
ME: I thought it was Joel Osteen talking to you.
SHE: No, it was God talking to me through him! God talks to me through a lot of people. Even you.
ME (startled): Me?
SHE: Yeah, one time God talked to me and he used you to say it, or something.
ME (amazed): Wow, what did I say?
SHE: I don't remember. It was ... uh, something ...
ME: How do you know it was God talking and not me?
SHE: It was you. But it was also God. But I just felt it, because it just was an answer that I'd really been looking for and asking for.
ME: Well, maybe it was just me and not God.
SHE: Why do you have to take God out? That's so mean.
ME: Why do you have to put God in? I'd feel better if I'd helped you.
SHE: But you did.
ME: Whatever.
SHE: Why don't you respect my religious beliefs?
[etc.]

[longears]

Thank you, Brian--that story is a fine illustration of how ego blinds us to the presence of God.  Most of us are like that famous New Yorker cover, only with our inflated egos in place of Manhattan.

Here it is:

[paulb]

Thank you, Brian--that story is a fine illustration of how ego blinds us to the presence of God.  Most of us are like that famous New Yorker cover, only with our inflated egos in place of Manhattan.

Here it is:

That  pic is so funny.
I will have to order a  copy of that issue.
That image could very easily apply to new or;leans. As many of you already were aware of us being swamp people. Pre K we really were very isolated from culture. Our nearest sis city is Houston, and Baton Rouge. New Orleans and baton Rouge were the 2 most opposite city within one state, only 90 miles apart, and you couldn't find 2 cities more unlike and opposite each other.
Post Katrina the gap widen ever greater. UNREAL how opposite the 2 cities are. The only thing NO and BR have in common is both cities are in the same state.
There are still many areas of the   city with blocks and blocks of gutted/half gutted houses.