Religion

Nitram

(27,363 posts)

7. I'm not generally a defender of religion.

Reply to Warren Stupidity (Original post)

Wed May 27, 2015, 08:20 AM

May 2015

But I think there is a confusion here between the institutions that grow up around the "business" of religion, and the philosophical framework of the religion itself. Religious institutions often become corrupt over time, losing sight of the beliefs upon which they were founded, and end up believing that the institution or church itself is more important than the people it was originally designed to serve in a spiritual capacity. Blaming all religions for the corruption of some is the equivalent of condemning all Muslims because of the acts of some of them. I don't consider myself a Christian or a Buddhist, but I personally have been strongly influenced for the good by many of the insights I've garnered from both religions.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

148 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why religion is fading in the West [View all] Warren Stupidity May 2015 OP

The quicker the better amuse bouche May 2015 #1

The current crop of "religious" leadership is not in becomeing with "religions'" proposed purpose randr May 2015 #2

Morality my ass! SCVDem May 2015 #3

My short take: Religion doesn't pass the smell test rurallib May 2015 #4

All religion becomes corrupt as soon as the founder dies. zeemike May 2015 #5

Atheism has no theories. phil89 May 2015 #17

Well of course it does. zeemike May 2015 #21

Oh for heaven's sake, are we STILL talking about this? Act_of_Reparation May 2015 #25

"That's materialism, not atheism." zeemike May 2015 #32

"That is hair spliting...the fact is that atheism basic principle is materialism." Warren Stupidity May 2015 #34

As could be an atheist and a materialist. zeemike May 2015 #39

Jesus Christ. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #45

Well materialism can be compatible with anything. zeemike May 2015 #51

No materialism is incompatible with beliefs in Warren Stupidity May 2015 #54

Well said content-wise, Warren Starboard Tack May 2015 #139

lead by example. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #140

Absolutely! Starboard Tack May 2015 #141

Not. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #143

Well, that is your choice, of course. Starboard Tack May 2015 #147

belief that matter is all there is is the basis of the belief that god could not exist AlbertCat May 2015 #94

This thread should come with an aversive side-effects warning... Act_of_Reparation May 2015 #35

So then is atheism a subset of materialism or the other way around? zeemike May 2015 #38

Why believe in something you have no proof of? Yorktown May 2015 #40

Don't say why, say why not. zeemike May 2015 #41

Scientific books evolve, sacred books don't Yorktown May 2015 #42

So what? zeemike May 2015 #43

Books full of errors and violence do not qualify as moral guides Yorktown May 2015 #44

That is because you think they should have written for a 20th century audience. zeemike May 2015 #56

"bible contains violence and injustice...but so does history books" Yorktown May 2015 #57

What does qualify as a morality guide? LTX May 2015 #60

Spinoza answered that question Yorktown May 2015 #61

An interesting combination of pith and vacuity. LTX May 2015 #78

So morality is defined by someone or something other than humans. Act_of_Reparation May 2015 #87

The point of my post was the remarkably pithy yet vacuous summary of Spinoza's philosophic writings. LTX May 2015 #91

True, the Bible itself cannot be a moral reference point. Yorktown May 2015 #97

You say: "(A)n external observer with morality must do the job of distinquishing LTX May 2015 #122

Like most things human, morality is a complex mix Yorktown May 2015 #123

I find this a curious response. You seem unwilling to commit yourself to any vehicle for LTX May 2015 #145

If you say so Yorktown May 2015 #93

But the Fundies say it does zeemike May 2015 #101

Lukewarm believers have no doctrinal leg to stand on. Yorktown May 2015 #104

So you accept the logical fallacy of false dichotomy? zeemike May 2015 #106

It is a very real dichotomy, by definition. Yorktown May 2015 #109

So the answer is yes then. zeemike May 2015 #111

That's a cop out Yorktown May 2015 #112

So science is honest about it. That's what. gcomeau May 2015 #67

Yes those are the ideals of science...and should be. zeemike May 2015 #73

Saying people are stupid for not believing theories... gcomeau May 2015 #74

What people are you talking about? zeemike May 2015 #79

Ugh... gcomeau May 2015 #81

Well there is plenty to see. zeemike May 2015 #83

Classic dodge of the pseudosciences. gcomeau May 2015 #85

A dodge or not it is true. zeemike May 2015 #88

The thing about real life data? gcomeau May 2015 #89

It's not hidden. zeemike May 2015 #90

Sigh... youtube. Really? gcomeau May 2015 #95

Well i kind of figured I was wasting my time. zeemike May 2015 #98

Oh, one of us got their time wasted all right... gcomeau May 2015 #137

^^THAT^^ was absolutely brilliant! beam me up scottie May 2015 #144

Look, if you're *this* lost, I don't think I can help you. Act_of_Reparation May 2015 #52

I did not ask for help. zeemike May 2015 #59

That's good, because I'm not offering. Act_of_Reparation May 2015 #62

And I sure need introductory philosophy zeemike May 2015 #63

well at least you recognize your weaknesses. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #64

Obviously not. Act_of_Reparation May 2015 #66

These kind of discussions always end in this condescending manner. zeemike May 2015 #99

You mean like calling scientific theories "magic" and part of our atheist "belief system"? beam me up scottie May 2015 #102

Oh what a terrible thing for me to say. zeemike May 2015 #103

It wasn't terrible. beam me up scottie May 2015 #107

But not so ignorant that I don't have an answer. zeemike May 2015 #110

It's not condescension. It's the truth. Act_of_Reparation May 2015 #115

Condescension is always the truth to the condescender. zeemike May 2015 #116

If you say so. Act_of_Reparation May 2015 #142

Does lack of belief in Bigfoot phil89 May 2015 #55

Yes it does. zeemike May 2015 #58

You really need to learn the difference... gcomeau May 2015 #68

Lack of belief and belief are opposite sides of the same coin. zeemike May 2015 #71

Well, I'm trying to decipher what the hell you were attempting to say... gcomeau May 2015 #72

Well it is not that complicated. zeemike May 2015 #76

Apparently it is, since you still can't undertand it. gcomeau May 2015 #77

And if a theist says "I believe god exists" what does that mean? zeemike May 2015 #80

It means they believe God exists. gcomeau May 2015 #82

So it was a trick question. zeemike May 2015 #100

How the hell is it a trick question?????? gcomeau May 2015 #105

No I answered that I don't know...and it was a trick question. zeemike May 2015 #108

No you did not. gcomeau May 2015 #113

Round and round in circles you go and I am supose to chace you. zeemike May 2015 #114

We are not going in circles. gcomeau May 2015 #117

Yes we are. zeemike May 2015 #118

Holy shit. gcomeau May 2015 #119

Holy shit indeed. zeemike May 2015 #124

The author seems to think FarrenH May 2015 #6

but because they're sexist AlbertCat May 2015 #96

Dawkins has said some horribly sexist things FarrenH May 2015 #120

About your take on Harris on Islam Yorktown May 2015 #121

How does that obviate the fact FarrenH May 2015 #125

You tend to confuse the holy texts and their interpretation. Yorktown May 2015 #126

I still think you're missing the point FarrenH May 2015 #148

Dawkins has said some horribly sexist things AlbertCat May 2015 #130

Perhaps the hyperbole FarrenH May 2015 #132

yes, he has said some sexist things. AlbertCat May 2015 #134

I'm not generally a defender of religion. Nitram May 2015 #7

A point that is too often lost in the fray. LTX May 2015 #33

But 'the philosophical framework of the religion' are themselves wrong Yorktown May 2015 #36

Viiolent jihad is not the philosophical framework of Islam. Nitram May 2015 #48

Fail: theologians distinguish 4 forms of jihad Yorktown May 2015 #50

Fail? Aren't you a tough guy. Nitram May 2015 #69

There is no cure for voluntary blindness Yorktown May 2015 #92

I'm blind because I corrrect your errors? You have an odd way of advancing a conversation. Nitram May 2015 #127

Again, you are (un?)voluntarily blind. Yorktown May 2015 #128

On the contrary, it was dishonest of you... Nitram May 2015 #129

You are a liar Yorktown May 2015 #131

Wasn't your point that violent jihad is part of the famework of the beliefs of all Muslims? Nitram May 2015 #133

Post removed Post removed May 2015 #135

Sorry, I confused you with an adult person. Nitram May 2015 #136

It's simple: Power corrupts. jomin41 May 2015 #8

Please give it a rest Roy Rolling May 2015 #9

This forum is for discussion of belief and non-belief. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #10

Posting an article is how atheists "proselytize"? trotsky May 2015 #14

Light and sound are both waves, so it's stupid easy to convert one to the other AtheistCrusader May 2015 #15

There's nothing speculative phil89 May 2015 #18

Was George Washington real? erlewyne May 2015 #11

The claim that the historicity of somebody resembling the jesus of the gospels Warren Stupidity May 2015 #12

What are you talking about? erlewyne May 2015 #16

It is one of the oldest. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #20

Why is religion fading in the west? erlewyne May 2015 #23

The teachings phil89 May 2015 #19

Admiring someone who is executed by an occupying army... Nitram May 2015 #22

a basic, fundamental tenant of christianity is that the man-god was sacrificed Warren Stupidity May 2015 #24

Warren, that's the view of the Catholic Church. Nitram May 2015 #46

The vast majority of Christians hold Warren Stupidity May 2015 #53

Your understanding of Christianity is rather limited if you think... Nitram May 2015 #70

My understanding of christianity is based on the historic origins of christianity Warren Stupidity May 2015 #84

Christianity's hiostoric origins were with numerous competing sects... Nitram May 2015 #86

I was just gonna say, there's a Gnostic church down the road from my house. Act_of_Reparation May 2015 #146

Oh, you have original, in his own hand writings of Jesus? AtheistCrusader May 2015 #26

George Washington must have been real erlewyne May 2015 #28

No, no scribes wrote for Jesus. Most of the material that makes up AtheistCrusader May 2015 #31

Ugh... gcomeau May 2015 #27

Jesus had a Virgin mother. erlewyne May 2015 #29

And Harry had wizard parents. -eom gcomeau May 2015 #30

Here's Sean Illing's article. rug May 2015 #13

Sean Illing's comments are weird Yorktown May 2015 #37

I understand Illing's statement to implicitly include... NeoGreen May 2015 #47

I regret to say that.. Yorktown May 2015 #49

Some?... NeoGreen May 2015 #65

Absolute drivel. Sounds like a Faitheist to me. mr blur May 2015 #75

The answer is given by the title of this thread: muriel_volestrangler May 2015 #138