Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Religion is weird

So it's your theory, @Bobby-the-kid , that Noflaps, the guy who DOESN'T champion anarchy, is attempting to be the outcast and the underdog?

Fascinating. You must have an interesting life. So those you feel to be in the majority -- the non-underdogs -- the non-outcasts -- are sympathetic to anarchy?

Heavens to Woodstock, Batman! My university days are long past! I'm sorry to hear things have changed so much!

So it's your theory, @Bobby-the-kid , that Noflaps, the guy who DOESN'T champion anarchy, is attempting to be the outcast and the underdog? Fascinating. You must have an interesting life. So those you feel to be in the majority -- the non-underdogs -- the non-outcasts -- are sympathetic to anarchy? Heavens to Woodstock, Batman! My university days are long past! I'm sorry to hear things have changed so much!

Your logic is... interesting, to say the least.

Your logic is... interesting, to say the least.

I'm glad you think so, Bobby. You're a good person, I can sense it.

I'm glad you think so, Bobby. You're a good person, I can sense it.

@Noflaps said in #59:

No, @Bobby-the-kid, if I were still a kid, my opinions would be much more fashionable and less based upon long experience and reflection.

Nearly anything can be used for evil. A wrench can be used to murder. But the wrench does not hurl itself toward a skull. An evil person picks it up and so hurls it. It is the evil person that is dangerous, not the wrench per se.

I have known genuinely kind and noble Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus. I would not have accumulated that much instructive experience in a few short years. And those kind people could reassure you that their hearts and minds were shaped in part by their religions, for the good. Don't judge their faiths by evil people who profess to follow the same faiths while acting in ways that are actually inconsistent with the noble teachings of those faiths.

The fact that you met amazing people doesn't erase the deep problems in religion. It feels very good to say things like 'people are good','religion is not bad; if a man is evil, he will use his religion, etc., but the facts are that there are fundamental problems with religion. I do believe religion is flexible and changing over time, so not every problem in religion is impossible to solve, even if people still want to believe in a nice fella

It's crazy how people these days (especially in the USA) can't acknowledge problems due to fear of sounding rude or insulting marginalized groups.

@Noflaps said in #59: > No, @Bobby-the-kid, if I were still a kid, my opinions would be much more fashionable and less based upon long experience and reflection. > > Nearly anything can be used for evil. A wrench can be used to murder. But the wrench does not hurl itself toward a skull. An evil person picks it up and so hurls it. It is the evil person that is dangerous, not the wrench per se. > > I have known genuinely kind and noble Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus. I would not have accumulated that much instructive experience in a few short years. And those kind people could reassure you that their hearts and minds were shaped in part by their religions, for the good. Don't judge their faiths by evil people who profess to follow the same faiths while acting in ways that are actually inconsistent with the noble teachings of those faiths. The fact that you met amazing people doesn't erase the deep problems in religion. It feels very good to say things like 'people are good','religion is not bad; if a man is evil, he will use his religion, etc., but the facts are that there are fundamental problems with religion. I do believe religion is flexible and changing over time, so not every problem in religion is impossible to solve, even if people still want to believe in a nice fella It's crazy how people these days (especially in the USA) can't acknowledge problems due to fear of sounding rude or insulting marginalized groups.

@rubin8232 apparently thinks that I (or, at any rate, people like me, especially in the USA) can't "acknowledge problems" because I "fear" sounding rude or insulting marginalized groups.

Well, I certainly have no wish to sound rude or insult anybody, true enough. But that hardly explains or really even addresses my earlier post. Do I refuse to blame wrenches for murder because I'm trying not to be rude to wrenches? Or to avoid insulting plumbers?

Rubin sees "deep problems" in religion that are "fundamental." Well, he is certainly entitled to his opinion. But all of us should hesitate to feel entitled to dismissive certainty.

There are certainly many real problems in the world, just as there are certainly many people who act apparently without developed conscience and in a fashion that seems genuinely evil (including some who are outspoken atheists, oddly enough)!

But if feels to me like @rubin8232 is implying that because I am unwilling to ascribe some of those problems fundamentally to religion itself, or at any rate to all religions (since I might consider viewing, say, Satanism differently), that I am merely being shallow and trying to "feel very good" by saying nice things! And he seems to me to equate faith in God to some mere belief in a "nice fella" (something some eager-to-please shallow Pangloss like me might fail to see past, I guess)!

Nevertheless, I will continue not to blame Christianity itself for the unfortunate acts of some asserted Christians, and I will continue not to blame Islam itself for the unfortunate acts of some asserted Muslims.

But, in compensation, I will not ascribe to Christianity the brilliant work of fervent Christians like Isaac Newton or Euler. Nor will I give Hinduism credit for the brilliant work of Ramanujan (whom I assume was Hindu merely because "Ramanujan" means, I believe, "younger brother of Rama").

I confess, though, that I MIGHT have to give Christianity some credit for inspiring various compositions of Bach! Forgive me if I'm being shallow in that regard.

@rubin8232 apparently thinks that I (or, at any rate, people like me, especially in the USA) can't "acknowledge problems" because I "fear" sounding rude or insulting marginalized groups. Well, I certainly have no wish to sound rude or insult anybody, true enough. But that hardly explains or really even addresses my earlier post. Do I refuse to blame wrenches for murder because I'm trying not to be rude to wrenches? Or to avoid insulting plumbers? Rubin sees "deep problems" in religion that are "fundamental." Well, he is certainly entitled to his opinion. But all of us should hesitate to feel entitled to dismissive certainty. There are certainly many real problems in the world, just as there are certainly many people who act apparently without developed conscience and in a fashion that seems genuinely evil (including some who are outspoken atheists, oddly enough)! But if feels to me like @rubin8232 is implying that because I am unwilling to ascribe some of those problems fundamentally to religion itself, or at any rate to all religions (since I might consider viewing, say, Satanism differently), that I am merely being shallow and trying to "feel very good" by saying nice things! And he seems to me to equate faith in God to some mere belief in a "nice fella" (something some eager-to-please shallow Pangloss like me might fail to see past, I guess)! Nevertheless, I will continue not to blame Christianity itself for the unfortunate acts of some asserted Christians, and I will continue not to blame Islam itself for the unfortunate acts of some asserted Muslims. But, in compensation, I will not ascribe to Christianity the brilliant work of fervent Christians like Isaac Newton or Euler. Nor will I give Hinduism credit for the brilliant work of Ramanujan (whom I assume was Hindu merely because "Ramanujan" means, I believe, "younger brother of Rama"). I confess, though, that I MIGHT have to give Christianity some credit for inspiring various compositions of Bach! Forgive me if I'm being shallow in that regard.

@Noflaps said in #65:

@rubin8232 apparently thinks that I (or, at any rate, people like me, especially in the USA) can't "acknowledge problems" because I "fear" sounding rude or insulting marginalized groups.

Well, I certainly have no wish to sound rude or insult anybody, true enough. But that hardly explains or really even addresses my earlier post. Do I refuse to blame wrenches for murder because I'm trying not to be rude to wrenches? Or to avoid insulting plumbers?

Rubin sees "deep problems" in religion that are "fundamental." Well, he is certainly entitled to his opinion. But all of us should hesitate to feel entitled to dismissive certainty.

There are certainly many real problems in the world, just as there are certainly many people who act apparently without developed conscience and in a fashion that seems genuinely evil (including some who are outspoken atheists, oddly enough)!

But if feels to me like @rubin8232 is implying that because I am unwilling to ascribe some of those problems fundamentally to religion itself, or at any rate to all religions (since I might consider viewing, say, Satanism differently), that I am merely being shallow and trying to "feel very good" by saying nice things! And he seems to me to equate faith in God to some mere belief in a "nice fella" (something some eager-to-please shallow Pangloss like me might fail to see past, I guess)!

Nevertheless, I will continue not to blame Christianity itself for the unfortunate acts of some asserted Christians, and I will continue not to blame Islam itself for the unfortunate acts of some asserted Muslims.

But, in compensation, I will not ascribe to Christianity the brilliant work of fervent Christians like Isaac Newton or Euler. Nor will I give Hinduism credit for the brilliant work of Ramanujan (whom I assume was Hindu merely because "Ramanujan" means, I believe, "younger brother of Rama").

I confess, though, that I MIGHT have to give Christianity some credit for inspiring various compositions of Bach! Forgive me if I'm being shallow in that regard.

again. I'm not talking about individuals. It is meaningless from a macro perspective. I'm saying that in history and now, the religion is interpreted in ways that are dangerous to its people or other people.

how can i not blame the Catholic Church (a religion) as the reason for the suffering the Inquisition inflicted on people?
How can I not blame religion for the problems of Sharia law? execute apostates, killing women for showing hair, denying high education, ect..
You can say that maybe those who interpreted the religion were people who were evil with or without religion. I beg to differ.
it Could be that those who started the misinterpretation are individuals who were evil anyway,
The problem is that the structure of religion allows evil to spread to others under the cover of God's will.
So that even people who could have been good (of course, good and bad is also a very vague and subjective concept, so good in my case would be translated to 'not dangerous to its surroundings in the way they interpret danger') will behave in a destructive way because they were taught it is good.

PS: It just seemed to me (it still does) that you don't see anything wrong with religion, and I disagree with you. So I wanted to give a counterpoint to your perspective. I am very sorry if I made you feel attacked.

@Noflaps said in #65: > @rubin8232 apparently thinks that I (or, at any rate, people like me, especially in the USA) can't "acknowledge problems" because I "fear" sounding rude or insulting marginalized groups. > > Well, I certainly have no wish to sound rude or insult anybody, true enough. But that hardly explains or really even addresses my earlier post. Do I refuse to blame wrenches for murder because I'm trying not to be rude to wrenches? Or to avoid insulting plumbers? > > Rubin sees "deep problems" in religion that are "fundamental." Well, he is certainly entitled to his opinion. But all of us should hesitate to feel entitled to dismissive certainty. > > There are certainly many real problems in the world, just as there are certainly many people who act apparently without developed conscience and in a fashion that seems genuinely evil (including some who are outspoken atheists, oddly enough)! > > But if feels to me like @rubin8232 is implying that because I am unwilling to ascribe some of those problems fundamentally to religion itself, or at any rate to all religions (since I might consider viewing, say, Satanism differently), that I am merely being shallow and trying to "feel very good" by saying nice things! And he seems to me to equate faith in God to some mere belief in a "nice fella" (something some eager-to-please shallow Pangloss like me might fail to see past, I guess)! > > Nevertheless, I will continue not to blame Christianity itself for the unfortunate acts of some asserted Christians, and I will continue not to blame Islam itself for the unfortunate acts of some asserted Muslims. > > But, in compensation, I will not ascribe to Christianity the brilliant work of fervent Christians like Isaac Newton or Euler. Nor will I give Hinduism credit for the brilliant work of Ramanujan (whom I assume was Hindu merely because "Ramanujan" means, I believe, "younger brother of Rama"). > > I confess, though, that I MIGHT have to give Christianity some credit for inspiring various compositions of Bach! Forgive me if I'm being shallow in that regard. again. I'm not talking about individuals. It is meaningless from a macro perspective. I'm saying that in history and now, the religion is interpreted in ways that are dangerous to its people or other people. how can i not blame the Catholic Church (a religion) as the reason for the suffering the Inquisition inflicted on people? How can I not blame religion for the problems of Sharia law? execute apostates, killing women for showing hair, denying high education, ect.. You can say that maybe those who interpreted the religion were people who were evil with or without religion. I beg to differ. it Could be that those who started the misinterpretation are individuals who were evil anyway, The problem is that the structure of religion allows evil to spread to others under the cover of God's will. So that even people who could have been good (of course, good and bad is also a very vague and subjective concept, so good in my case would be translated to 'not dangerous to its surroundings in the way they interpret danger') will behave in a destructive way because they were taught it is good. PS: It just seemed to me (it still does) that you don't see anything wrong with religion, and I disagree with you. So I wanted to give a counterpoint to your perspective. I am very sorry if I made you feel attacked.

@rubin8232, I appreciate your apology but please know that I have no animosity toward you. I believe you are writing in good faith, and expressing what you feel to be true.

I answered you because of the generality of your original post. You wrote: " ... there are fundamental problems with religion." Religion, singular. Likewise, you responded to my post by writing "The fact that you [apparently meaning Noflaps] met amazing people doesn't erase the deep problems in religion" Again: "religion," singular. Likewise, your reference to people who "still want to believe in a nice fella" led me to believe, perhaps mistakenly, that you do not hold a flattering view of religious people generally.

If you now wish to narrow, or perhaps clarify, your contention to claim merely that, at times, some persons temporarily acting, or purporting to act, for some particular church or another have made bad decisions, I will certainly agree with you! Indeed, even if you wish to criticize some established doctrine taught by some particular church or another, I might well agree with you again!

But of course, "religion" itself is far broader than the historical and temporal actions of some people, or even some given doctrine of some particular church or another. As I'm sure you know, even "Christianity" is not remotely confined to the Catholic Church, just as Islam is not confined to the Shia or to the Sunni, I believe.

I do not view "religion" or "faith in God" to be troublesome or harmful, merely because at times, historically or currently, some who actually or purportedly act for, or even lead, some church or another make mistakes or decide wrongly.

And, to beat a dead horse (with a wrench?), I do not view tools to be troublesome or harmful merely because some misguided soul can sometimes use them as a weapon.

Some companies have, at times, made decisions that I do not like, or made mistakes that I view, with reason, to be harmful or foolish. But those same companies have also done enormous good, for which I and many others are thankful.

But even more to the point, I do not condemn "companies generally" or "the corporation" or "the limited liability company" or even "capitalism" or "business" for the mistaken actions or decisions of a particular company. I do not dislike or look down upon "capitalists" or "managers" or "shareholders" each time some company does something of which I do not approve.

Consider that the Catholic Church -- which you now mention and which is but one fraction of all Christians (and an even smaller fraction of all God-fearing people) -- arguably has done far more good than harm. So far as I know, the Inquisition is now long over, and the Catholic Church continues to evaluate and reevaluate its own actions and strives to provide help and comfort worldwide. However, I must leave a more detailed defense of that Church to somebody who, unlike Noflaps, is actually a Catholic.

I rose (metaphorically) to defend religion in general, and faith in God in particular.

If pressed to be more precise now, I would admit to finding only good in Jesus (born into a wonderful Jewish family), and to finding much that is worthy in many other faiths, as well. The world would lose much if deprived of the wisdom and best parts of the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu faiths. But if someone wishes to remain an atheist, I will not look down upon them, either, and will remain open to their friendship. And as they age, if they begin to wonder "what's the point?" or "is there anything at the foundation of reality?" I earnestly hope they find an answer that comforts.

@rubin8232, I appreciate your apology but please know that I have no animosity toward you. I believe you are writing in good faith, and expressing what you feel to be true. I answered you because of the generality of your original post. You wrote: " ... there are fundamental problems with religion." Religion, singular. Likewise, you responded to my post by writing "The fact that you [apparently meaning Noflaps] met amazing people doesn't erase the deep problems in religion" Again: "religion," singular. Likewise, your reference to people who "still want to believe in a nice fella" led me to believe, perhaps mistakenly, that you do not hold a flattering view of religious people generally. If you now wish to narrow, or perhaps clarify, your contention to claim merely that, at times, some persons temporarily acting, or purporting to act, for some particular church or another have made bad decisions, I will certainly agree with you! Indeed, even if you wish to criticize some established doctrine taught by some particular church or another, I might well agree with you again! But of course, "religion" itself is far broader than the historical and temporal actions of some people, or even some given doctrine of some particular church or another. As I'm sure you know, even "Christianity" is not remotely confined to the Catholic Church, just as Islam is not confined to the Shia or to the Sunni, I believe. I do not view "religion" or "faith in God" to be troublesome or harmful, merely because at times, historically or currently, some who actually or purportedly act for, or even lead, some church or another make mistakes or decide wrongly. And, to beat a dead horse (with a wrench?), I do not view tools to be troublesome or harmful merely because some misguided soul can sometimes use them as a weapon. Some companies have, at times, made decisions that I do not like, or made mistakes that I view, with reason, to be harmful or foolish. But those same companies have also done enormous good, for which I and many others are thankful. But even more to the point, I do not condemn "companies generally" or "the corporation" or "the limited liability company" or even "capitalism" or "business" for the mistaken actions or decisions of a particular company. I do not dislike or look down upon "capitalists" or "managers" or "shareholders" each time some company does something of which I do not approve. Consider that the Catholic Church -- which you now mention and which is but one fraction of all Christians (and an even smaller fraction of all God-fearing people) -- arguably has done far more good than harm. So far as I know, the Inquisition is now long over, and the Catholic Church continues to evaluate and reevaluate its own actions and strives to provide help and comfort worldwide. However, I must leave a more detailed defense of that Church to somebody who, unlike Noflaps, is actually a Catholic. I rose (metaphorically) to defend religion in general, and faith in God in particular. If pressed to be more precise now, I would admit to finding only good in Jesus (born into a wonderful Jewish family), and to finding much that is worthy in many other faiths, as well. The world would lose much if deprived of the wisdom and best parts of the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu faiths. But if someone wishes to remain an atheist, I will not look down upon them, either, and will remain open to their friendship. And as they age, if they begin to wonder "what's the point?" or "is there anything at the foundation of reality?" I earnestly hope they find an answer that comforts.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.