Can Religion co-exist with the ideal utopian society?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2014, 04:02 PM
RE: Can Religion co-exist with the ideal utopian society?
(13-02-2014 03:38 PM)alpha male Wrote:  So religion takes people who are immoral and pathetic and inspires them to help other people. This is an obvious benefit to human welfare.

It's pathetic in itself that some people need to be told they will be pampered infinitely and that is the reason they should help people.

This is precisely why we need to teach the morally inadequate members of society why to do good.

When some day, people grow up from the childhood fairy tale that is religion, then hopefully they will be able to perform acts of goodness without expecting a reward. That will make an act of generosity more genuine and sincere, as it is pretty much unconditional.

There are other ways to teach these people to do good, and I am scared if it takes religion for them to help someone. Other ways like teaching them psychology, evolution, etc. Just making them more considerate human beings sometimes can be sufficient for some of these people.

Quote:Sure is. However, you can’t determine the net effect by noting that there are some negatives. To determine the net effect, you need to be able to quantify both the positives and negatives.

The problem with this is that whatever positives a religion can do, non-religion can do as well. Studies show that atheists/agnostics/deists donate the same amount to charity as to religious people.

Why does it take religion to make people do good? That is for the morally inadequate who need to learn true morality. Also, in some religions, they think of acts of discrimination against women, homosexuals or other ethnic races are ''good'', so it is a broad wish-washy term we are throwing around. Every religion has their own definition of good, when some of the times that very definition they have compels them to blow up something or hang a homosexual.

Quote:Can you define equilibrium as you’re using it here and support that technology is necessary for equilibrium?

Sure. The human species is growing in number, and we also have to take care of the environment. Now I suspect you may say that science is the danger to environment, but it is just how we're using it. If it weren't for science, we wouldn't even be communicating right now. Communication helps people get jobs, helps get things done. Also, airplanes and vehicles helps people move around . Otherwise we are still living in the dark ages, where a population as demanding as our current one wouldn't fare long without our reliance on the improvement of science.

Quote:Sorry, but a person who doesn’t understand how to calculate a net effect doesn’t seem particularly clear minded. And you sound just like some religious people who talk about their personal religious experiences.

Someone who doesn't understand what facts or evidence are would assert something like that.

It's funny you say I sound like those religious people, I used to be one of them and be around a lot of them, so I would know.

Quote:No, people can kill, have delusions, and blow up buildings without religion.

Religion definitely exacerbates delusion. Religion can make sane people have delusions, while without it the only ones who have delusions would be deluded people.

Quote:First, as noted, you don’t know if religion is a net good or net evil, so your strong suggestion is simply opinion or bias.

Not necessarily. If you do not know something, that doesn't automatically mean you are just arguing out of opinion or bias. You can make a claim and then back it up with real life examples, things that have happened. Then from that you can extrapolate a conclusion and weigh on whether it is a hindrance or a necessity. Something I'm afraid you are not doing right now. You keep making assertions which have no substance on the integrity of my counters. You can call whatever I say this and that, but until you actually say why or give me some examples, then I can actually hold your claim to some degree of worth.

Quote: Second, what if you get rid of religion and nationalism etc. pick up the bad from religion, but not the good? Now you’re worse off.

When the bad outweighs the good, there is no real point in having whatever is causing this to continue. Unless that is what you desire. As already specified, whatever good religion can bring, non-religion can. Whatever bad religion can bring, non-religion can't, because it's not religion, it is entirely the absence of it.

Everyday is judgement day. Use your judgement, use reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: Can Religion co-exist with the ideal utopian society?
(13-02-2014 03:51 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 03:39 PM)toadaly Wrote:  It's not a belief, it's a value. Do you understand the difference?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/value?s=t

The definition which fits the context is:

5. the moral principles and beliefs or accepted standards of a person or social group:

So, no, I don't understand the difference and think that a value entails a belief.

So you quote the dictionary, and your conclusion doesn't follow from it. You might want to look up "and" and "or". Rolleyes

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 04:48 PM
RE: Can Religion co-exist with the ideal utopian society?
(13-02-2014 04:07 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 03:51 PM)alpha male Wrote:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/value?s=t

The definition which fits the context is:

5. the moral principles and beliefs or accepted standards of a person or social group:

So, no, I don't understand the difference and think that a value entails a belief.

So you quote the dictionary, and your conclusion doesn't follow from it. You might want to look up "and" and "or". Rolleyes
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/or?s=t
1. (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): books or magazines; to be or not to be.
2. (used to connect alternative terms for the same thing): the Hawaiian, or Sandwich, Islands.

"Or" can signify true alternatives (1), or simply alternative terms for the same thing (2). The context of a single definition indicates the second usage, and you're still stuck with a belief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 05:08 PM
RE: Can Religion co-exist with the ideal utopian society?
(13-02-2014 04:48 PM)alpha male Wrote:  "Or" can signify true alternatives (1), or simply alternative terms for the same thing (2). The context of a single definition indicates the second usage, and you're still stuck with a belief.

No, I'm sorry, but I'm not stuck with your attempt to equivocate 'value' with 'belief'. English is my first language, and I read your definition, and your equivocation doesn't follow.

Look, if you want to pretend to be be too stupid to understand words in their obvious context, that's up to you. But you should know, arguments from stupidity are rarely compelling.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 05:17 PM
RE: Can Religion co-exist with the ideal utopian society?
(13-02-2014 05:08 PM)toadaly Wrote:  No, I'm sorry, but I'm not stuck with your attempt to equivocate 'value' with 'belief'. English is my first language, and I read your definition, and your equivocation doesn't follow.
OK, if we can't agree on value, let's note that you originally referred to it as an opinion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion?s=t
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

So, every word you choose has belief somewhere in the definition, but nah, it's not a belief. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 06:06 PM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2014 06:12 PM by Alex_Leonardo.)
RE: Can Religion co-exist with the ideal utopian society?
(13-02-2014 11:43 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 10:56 AM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  You realize that technology is anything that was an idea made to benefit people.
No, I don't realize that. Nuclear bombs and all the other weapons we've developed to kill each other are technology.
Quote:You are technology.
Consider
Quote:If science didn't exist, there wouldn't be religion and humans would have died off a long time ago.
ConsiderConsider

Dude, just search the word "technology" already. Also, eating is a science and technology. They had to test how to eat a certain object. I should eat veggies with my molars, not my canines. Without the science of knowing how to eat things, people would have never created a religion and would have died off thousands of years ago.
Technology is anything that gives you a benefit (or in a lot of cases, solves a problem.) Creating nuclear weapons benefited people, by giving them the power and intimidation over other countries.
Yes, and you are technology. Your parents probably had you for a reason, or benefit. (Because they probably wouldn't conceive you if they didn't see a benefit, or a solution to a problem by making you.
Just one last thing. If science never existed, it could be utopian. It couldn't even be a society, because a society is a science and a technology.
There wouldn't be language. People wouldn't be able to do anything without science and technology.

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
13-02-2014, 06:56 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2014 12:49 AM by toadaly.)
RE: Can Religion co-exist with the ideal utopian society?
(13-02-2014 05:17 PM)alpha male Wrote:  OK, if we can't agree on value, let's note that you originally referred to it as an opinion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion?s=t
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

So, every word you choose has belief somewhere in the definition, but nah, it's not a belief. Hobo

Perhaps that will help you to understand. You may wish to again review the definition of "or".

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 12:11 AM
RE: Can Religion co-exist with the ideal utopian society?
I think you are right freethought that religion is destructive to society because it advocates faith. Faith is the real problem and it is not limited to religion. I would like to see faith loose the moral status that it has in society. It ought to be stigmatized as irrational and a failed epistemology.

I would not however push that button. I don't have the right to impose my preferences on others. Every man has the right to think for himself and act on his own judgement so long as he does not harm others or attempt to force others. I would never be in favor of laws against religion. I think the solution is to be passionate advocates for reason and to not be afraid to state bluntly what faith is and why it is a very bad way to reason.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 07:11 AM
RE: Can Religion co-exist with the ideal utopian society?
(13-02-2014 06:56 PM)toadaly Wrote:  Perhaps that will help you to understand. You may wish to again review the definition of "or".

Are you saying you don't believe that faith is harmful to society?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 09:30 AM
RE: Can Religion co-exist with the ideal utopian society?
(14-02-2014 07:11 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 06:56 PM)toadaly Wrote:  Perhaps that will help you to understand. You may wish to again review the definition of "or".

Are you saying you don't believe that faith is harmful to society?

No, I'm saying you're a dishonest troll. I gave you a chance for serious discussion, and you frittered it on an idiotic attempt to equate 'value' with 'belief'. You are not interested in anything but poo slinging, and I get enough of that from the people who also offer stimulating exchanges.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: