Religion conflicting with Facts - Page 2

obvious Child · 06-06-08, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephus

And rationalists realize that religion is all crap and reject it all as unsupported dogmatic nonsense.

Count me with the rationalists.

I wouldn't go that far. Religions tend to have good moral stories. But I'll agree that literal interpretations of many parts of their holy books is just dogma.

Cephus · 06-07-08, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

I wouldn't go that far. Religions tend to have good moral stories. But I'll agree that literal interpretations of many parts of their holy books is just dogma.

Unfortunately, those "good moral stories" tend to carry a lot of baggage. You can have the same kind of story without the religious nonsense.

obvious Child · 06-07-08, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephus

Unfortunately, those "good moral stories" tend to carry a lot of baggage. You can have the same kind of story without the religious nonsense.

I guess but that doesn't make the moral of the story no longer useful or valid.
If the moral is to treat people nicely, that moral doesn't suddenly become false because the RCC killed a lot of people to get its way.

UtahBill · 06-07-08, 07:47 AM

The way I read history, it seems that religion was only accepted by government when it no longer played the role of competition in the game of ruling the rest of us. When the religious leaders are in cahoots with the political leaders, we peasants don't stand a chance. The kings supported the popes, and the popes claimed that the kings ruled by divine right. Things have changed some since then, but not nearly enough.
Once we have totally removed religion from politics, the remaining things for religion to do is make us better, or nicer, people, and help us to attain salvation in the next life. The former is a good thing whether the religion is "true" or not, the latter is a matter of belief. No facts required as long as it makes you feel better about the great unknown that faces us all.

Cephus · 06-07-08, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

I guess but that doesn't make the moral of the story no longer useful or valid.
If the moral is to treat people nicely, that moral doesn't suddenly become false because the RCC killed a lot of people to get its way.

Unfortunately, you usually have to dig through a whole pile of bad moral stories in order to get to anything resembling a good one. In the Bible, to get to anything that's remotely moral, you have to go past all the demands to kill witches and homosexuals, as well as the command to stone unruly children to death.

obvious Child · 06-07-08, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephus

Unfortunately, you usually have to dig through a whole pile of bad moral stories in order to get to anything resembling a good one. In the Bible, to get to anything that's remotely moral, you have to go past all the demands to kill witches and homosexuals, as well as the command to stone unruly children to death.

Be that as it may, that doesn't render the whole bible "worthless." And why limit discussion to just the Abrahamic Religions? There are plenty of other religions out there.

Cephus · 06-07-08, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Be that as it may, that doesn't render the whole bible "worthless." And why limit discussion to just the Abrahamic Religions? There are plenty of other religions out there.

Fine, apply it to any other religion, I don't think you're going to find any that don't suffer the same problem. Then realize that you can get the same moral stories without the religious baggage.

obvious Child · 06-08-08, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephus

Fine, apply it to any other religion, I don't think you're going to find any that don't suffer the same problem. Then realize that you can get the same moral stories without the religious baggage.

How about Shinto and Buddhism? Is there baggage with them?